this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
813 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5460 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Harris only received five percent of Republican votes — less than the six percent Joe Biden won in 2020 when he beat Trump, as well as the seven percent won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she lost to him. While Harris won independents and moderates, she did so by smaller margins than Biden did in 2020.

Meanwhile, Harris lost households earning under $100,000, while Democratic turnout collapsed. Votes are still being counted, but Harris is on pace to underperform Biden’s 2020 totals by millions of votes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

To be honest Harris wasted time and effort sucking up to the infinitesimally small number of non-MAGA GOPers. Time that would have been better spent emphasizing her pro worker policies.

[–] phillycodehound@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yea courting Republicans was a bad move IMHO. But she's a establishment dem. So go figure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] vordalack@lemm.ee 46 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Bipartisanship is dead.

No one wants to work with people that they view as inherently evil, corrupt, and a threat to democracy.

[–] mahomz@lemm.ee 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The way political cooperation, negotiation and compromise are viewed as acts of unforgivable weakness in the US sets up a climate where functional democracy appears impossible. The US seems destined to lurch from one impulse to another with half the country thinking each is a colossal mistake and an affront to their way of life.

No, I do not mean this as any kind of "both sides" argument. The fact there are only sides to determining how a society governs itself, the winners and the losers, is the point.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

We have a two party system which is inherently hyper polarizing as it paints everything as being black and white. It is an unbelievably stupid and undemocratic system, and unfortunately, nothing will ever improve until we replace our broken two party system with a modern multiparty democracy

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

The best way to do that is with some sort of ranked preference voting system. The sooner first past the post is replaced with a ranked choice system, the better.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 14 points 3 days ago

Dang, how did that work out? Oh? Alot like 2016 you say?

[–] patacon_pisao@lemmy.world 33 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This is similar to how someone will slowly abandon their old friends to be relevant with the “cool” kids who will never see you as part of their group no matter what, and your old friends end up making new friends leaving you alone. If this doesn’t work in real life, I don’t get how this could work in politics.

The Democratic party has to stop treating us like the old friend they visit every so often just to get something out of us while forming closer relationships with others who have no business being their friend.

[–] Timmy_Jizz_Tits@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

This is so true and I'm saying this a white guy who has only felt the economic impact of their failures. I was a radical leftist when I was 15, now I'm 40. The only thing democrats have ever offered is damage control, they can't blame the voters for being apathetic.

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

The new friends in this instance are very rich and they entice the Democrats to leave their old friends with lots of money. But the old friends is where they get their power. The Democrat party loves money.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 197 points 4 days ago (16 children)

If there’s one lesson the DNC should learn it’s this.

They won’t. But they should.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 89 points 4 days ago (2 children)

My take on this is that the DNC has never understood that to win the presidency in the last 20 years you need to be a fire brand.

I think this stared in 2008 with Obama who won I believe because he fired up the base with great speeches about hope and change. It didn't really happen, BUT the man knew how to give a speech. That got people inspired to do something and they voted.

Bernie was another fire brand - told it like it was and it appealed to a large population.

trump won using the same idea, but just the opposite of hope and change yet it worked. It tapped into a visceral and deep frustration that this country has left them behind.

The modern view of the American president to the population is less of a wonky politician and more of a cheerleader for big ideas, even if those ideas are abhorrent and exceedingly horrifying.

Harris just wasn't the person to pull this off, she was too wonky and it felt like the entire campaign was playing the old card of "we are not trump" Instead if they really wanted to win they would have found ( 2 years ago) a feisty out spoken progressive leaning firebrand that would have inspired people to vote for something better.

The only reason that (bland) Biden won was because of how badly trump fucked up the Covid response.

[–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 69 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (8 children)

I think when she was announced as the candidate, she fired up the base just fine. She was different.

Then she spent the rest of the campaign reassuring people that nothing would change, pissing away that enthusiasm.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 75 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Yes. When you abandon the left, they don't vote for you. This is what Clinton did too

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (8 children)

They have clearly internalized the pervasive trope that leftists will vote for them, because they have no other choice, so the only thing that matters to convince is the right. Looks like they calculated wrong.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 61 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I don't get why it's hard to comprehend. By becoming (even) more conservative, more "R", they betrayed (even more of) their base. Why would timid Republicans want to vote for traitors pandering to them?

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 43 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Shit I was saying when Biden was still running and I got crucified for it.

As you shift to the right you leave your base behind, ignoring a growing, left swinging faction within the party is going to lead to outcomes like this. Working class people all have the same problems, and one party says they'll do something about it. They're lying, people who are generally smarter and paying attention know they're lying, but that's not most people.

The other party has had a chance, and failed to do anything to alleviate the concerns of the working class. Regardless of the circumstances, or their actual ability to affect change. And they spent the entire election cycle trying to curry votes from a dedicated base instead of getting voters excited about something.

Swing left, swing hard. Become the unhinged leftist the other side is already accusing you of being.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bquintb@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Are you telling me enthusiastically embracing the support of the Cheney's lowered democratic turnout!?! Whoda thunk?!?! Hopefully that's the end of the neoliberals

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 45 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It was the stupidest of ideas. Republicans were never going to vote for her in any numbers. She was all about gun control, she personally owned the 12 million border crossings, she had all those defund the police sound bites from her earlier years, and she couldn't effectively separate herself from the difficult economy for middle and low earners - while failing to communicate that she even cared about the common man's plight or would try to help it. Even her proposed tax plan raised taxes on lower middle class, at least the charts I saw (including here on Lemmy). And Republicans have seen four years of Trump and think all the Nazi and "all Republicans are racist" talk is literally the stupidest thing on the earth. Abortion was all Dems really had, and although lots of Republicans are pro-choice, Trump had promised to veto a national abortion ban (for whatever that's worth).

I remember when Democrats were for the working people. They need to stop being "We're not the Nazis"and start telling us who they are. But I don't think they want to tell us who they are. They're no longer the party of the working man, they're the party of corporate interest and global governance, and they're also almost as authoritarian as the right. Maybe the collapse of the Democrat party will result in the birth of an actual socialist party in the US. We've seen major party changes in the past. Will it happen again, soon?

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 3 days ago

It was the stupidest of ideas. Republicans were never going to vote for her in any numbers

It is what the donor (capital) class wanted. Liberals are capitalists which means they serve the capital class first and foremost.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"I remember when Democrats were for the working people?"

What was the Great Depression like?

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lmao, for real though, FDR was the last President that prioritized the working class over the capital class. And in turn capitalists tried to overthrow the government or have him killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 119 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If we wanted to be Republicans we'd be Republicans for fucks sake...

We can't have 2 parties fighting to be the most hateful party of the billionaires. I mean I guess we can but only one gets to win.

[–] buttfarts@lemy.lol 69 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The Democrats have been chasing the mythical moderate conservative at the expense of the progressive left forever and have learned nothing. I want a fire and brimstone progressive who is belligerent and aggressive

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 79 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Here's a fun little tip if you're ever able to try this again.

MLK Jr. never appealed to the white man, he never tried to win over whitey nor tone down his message so that he didn't alienate his opressors, and he never tried to get the Klan on his side.

Notice how we don't have segregation anymore? It's because if Dr. King did these things, he'd have been luaghed at.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 102 points 4 days ago (11 children)

The Republicans had their little tea party a few years ago. The Democrats need a Guillotine Party to properly represent us.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 75 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Yeah, the notion that she was going to put a Republican in her cabinet.....did anyone think that was a good idea? I mean, outside the beltway media?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›