I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy here: Show of hands. How many posters in this thread believes that Kamala not appealing to Muslims and pro-Palestinians is the reason she lost?
Or do we all understand that it's America's concern with the economy that was the big killer for her campaign?
Is there anyone other than M3J that thinks leftists could've saved Kamala?
It's super weird you say not to condescend and dismiss emotions when you (and most other libs/Dems) have been doing that for well over a year and pushed away a lot of voters.
I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy here: Show of hands. How many posters in this thread believes that Kamala not appealing to Muslims and pro-Palestinians is the reason she lost?
I sure do not think that is the reason she lost. I also find it a little optimistic to think 12 Million Americans care enough about Gaza to stay home only due to that. But I also do think that a more daring leftwing policy might have fared her a lot better than what she got. And I have a reason for that:
More than half of voters said inflation had caused them a moderate hardship in the last year, while nearly one in four said it had caused a severe hardship. Those saying it had caused a moderate difficulty leaned somewhat more to Trump, 50% to 47%, but 73% of those calling it a severe hardship voted for the former president.
Edison's exit polling data showed 45% of voters across the country said their family's financial situation was worse today than four years ago, compared with just 20% in 2020. Those voters favored Trump over Harris 80% to 17%.
Democrats focused on saying the economy is good and biden brought down inflation. But they did not have a lot in store for people who are still hit by prices right now and these people, the worse off they were, voted for Trump (or, as we see, did not vote for democrats this time around). It is not like Trump offers a worker friendly policy, but he simply said he is gonna get prices down on essentials and that was enough of a promise to sound better than what democrats offered.
Harris did do some things, like supporting a 15$ minimum wage, that is true. But I do not think it was enough and it was also not communicated well. At least it is a fact that these voters, who face financial hardships, didnt trust democrats in this election. I think that might have been prevented with a bolder leftwing campaign that focuses on taxing the rich and bringing down prices. The statements about price gauging and the minimum wage proposal seemingly was just not enough.
The likes of ninjabot and shinboror spend their lives defending scum zionists. Its weird when you think about it. I mean if they gave me money to do it, I won't have the audacity.
Democrats focused on saying the economy is good and biden brought down inflation. But they did not have a lot in store for people who are still hit by prices right now and these people, the worse off they were, voted for Trump (or, as we see, did not vote for democrats this time around). It is not like Trump offers a worker friendly policy, but he simply said he is gonna get prices down on essentials and that was enough of a promise to sound better than what democrats offered.
Yep. And I think this is what sucks the most. Because once Americans start seeing any positive economic growth they're going to claim it only happened thanks to Trump's efforts, and all of the evil shit Republicans have done will be waved away.
You have bunch of Israelis in Amsterdam chanting death to arabs, burning Palestine flags, Refuse to observe moment of silence for Valencia victims, saying shit like no schools in Gaza because no children left in Gaza. Yet they are trying to be the victims on here after they got their teeth knocked out.
In my life i never imagined seeing such pathetic people get support and sympathy from others.
Yep. And I think this is what sucks the most. Because once Americans start seeing any positive economic growth they're going to claim it only happened thanks to Trump's efforts, and all of the evil shit Republicans have done will be waved away.
Yeah, it is obviously always like that. Tho admittedly, Trump also probably was harmed by the covid crisis (which he did handle badly, but also it would have harmed any government).
To make a bigger point, I think it is a lost cause to argue about strategy and see elections as a game in which you need to persuade as many people as possible. That is the thinking that got us here, trusting focus groups too much.
What democratic (and republican) campaigns do is completely hollow. They style their entire personality around what they deem is electable, and often overpromise or rather do not even see the real issues but only those that seem to trend. That is, longterm, a recipe for disaster and it would be even if Harris had won.
I want to give an example about what I mean, a very extreme one. Newsom in California promised a very ambitious housing first campaign to solve the homelessness problem. He actually funneled quite a lot of money into this. But the programs have failed (for different reasons but one of them being that the money went into lots of private campaigns with little oversight). It was a money sink that did not solve the problem. What did newsom do then, when it started to be insanely unpopular? He did this:
.
The man who ran on a humane homelessness policy advertized himself by clearing tents of homeless people now. Because now it is popular to get rid of the homeless. There is no backbone. He did not create the program against homelessness out of conviction (he is not a leftist, even tho it is a leftist idea), he did it because it was popular and because his friends int he construction industry very much liked the idea of lots of money coming their way.
When I see a democrat like Harris, Obama, Clinton, Buttigieg, you name them (not so much Biden, admittedly), I see this. And so do voters from all kinds of backround. I know Harris is full of shit when she talks about climate because she boasts how much fracking gas she is gonna use (because she THINKS that is popular). A person who actually has a strong opinion about a topic (because it affects them personally) picks up at some point if someone is lying to them to get on their good side. And after so many generations of democrats doing that, just having the right talking points is not enough. Because democrats promise a better world and you need to be trustworthy for that to ring true.
So what democrats, in my opinion, need to do is to actually fight for what they believe in (and that includes having something the believe in in the first place, which might be hard for many professional politicians), including policies that seem to have no majority backing them. Because longterm, it is far better to fight for a policy you believe in and sit out an election than to win several elections but lose voter trust for a long time. Obama ran on change, he didn't deliver change and democrats were never as strong again.
Trump is going to fuck up his term again, that is clear from the get go. He is going to make it harder for democrats to get elected, but he is not going to be able to deny them a clear victory (if Erdogan can't do it in decades, so can't trump in a much more federal state). In these four years, you will see even more natural disasters, even higher levels of poverty, attacks on immigrants and madness on the worldstage. There will be very strong conditions for someone untainted (like Sanders back then, definitely not some Newsom kind of politician) to run with a comprehensive pro humanist leftwing policy that has a backbone that its willing to fight for. The question is whether democrats will dare to do that or rather do the same thing they did this time and hope for the best.
You have bunch of Israelis in Amsterdam chanting death to arabs, burning Palestine flags, Refuse to observe moment of silence for Valencia victims, saying shit like no schools in Gaza because no children left in Gaza. Yet they are trying to be the victims on here after they got their teeth knocked out.
It is completely unclear at this point who exactly was attacked by whom and why. What is true is that some maccabi fans did attack and mock arabs and palestinians and had a poor conduct. Whether it was these fans that got beaten, or normal people who did nothing but just were fans of the soccer club is something you cannot see in some twitter videos. That is also why championing that kind of violence is a pretty bad idea.
I do not have a big problem with violent soccer fans raising a racist fuss to be beaten up, but lets accept both sides are trying to use this for propaganda purposes and chances are lots of people who didnt deserve it (both israelis and random arabs on street) probably got attacked there.
To add a bit of positivity to this thread, I'm super proud of my Black people. They didn't turn their backs on the Democratic party even through all of the working class fears.
Here, the reasons why different voters did not choose Kamala Harris are listed by their importance. Firstly: Voters across the board think Harris is not too pro Israel (minus 22% say that). Voters also think (to a lesser degree), that she is not too pro Palestine. Mostly, her stance on these issues seem to have boded well with voters across the board (Swing voters even had -30% on the "too pro israel" question). That just wasn't the issue.
The big things that had agreement across the board were:
-Inflation under Biden/Harris was too high
-Too many immigrants illegally crossed the border.
-Harris focused too much on cultural issues.
-debt rose too much
-Harris is too similar to Biden
-Harris would let in too many immigrants.
-Harris should never have been Nominee
-Democrats did a bad job running the country.
Now, I do not necessarily agree with lots of these items, but that was why voters did not choose Harris. And these are not tainted by having too many die hard republicans take part. Even black voters, who overwhelmingly voted democrats, agreed that the inflation, focus on culture and illegal immigrants are the biggest issues why they did not vote for Harris. These issues are real even on the people that democrats could potentially reach (or even did vote for them).
Harris being too pro Israel was one of the absolute least favourite reasons given among swing voters.
And this shouldn't be something that has to be said. NO ONE votes based on what's happening outside of another country unless they're emotionally attached to issues affecting those people. For example: Israeli/Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans most definitely have a stake in the outcome of what's happening in Gaza.
I'm neither of these things. Most Americans are neither of these things. The Israel/Palestine conflict affects my life just as much as the Uygur genocide does. That is to say: none at all.
I just want to make sure I'm not going crazy here: Show of hands. How many posters in this thread believes that Kamala not appealing to Muslims and pro-Palestinians is the reason she lost?
Or do we all understand that it's America's concern with the economy that was the big killer for her campaign?
Is there anyone other than M3J that thinks leftists could've saved Kamala?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I only condescend to the ones that are lost causes, because nothing is lost from ostracising them. They have no value.
Her not appealing to three groups played a huge part in why she lost. Maybe she would have lost regardless, but when you compare how many votes Clinton had when she had more people wanting her over Trump vs. Harris, not much else makes sense. Especially since Trump lost voters, not gained them.
Did Harris or Biden ever offer any solution? Fact check and let people know that Trump's policies are the root problem, and how and why?
No, you condescend to anyone that you don't agree with. That reply is not helping your case whatsoever.
Yeah, it is obviously always like that. Tho admittedly, Trump also probably was harmed by the covid crisis (which he did handle badly, but also it would have harmed any government).
He wasn't really harmed by the pandemic as much as he was harmed by the bad decisions he made. Had he chose to do things that helped people completely instead of what made him look good, he'd have probably beaten Biden. If people knew how Biden was going to break his promises, he'd have likely lost.
Unfortunately, that $600 a week stimulus has fooled lot of people into thinking Trump will give them money, even though he didn't want to do that, and I believe he did something to income tax that result in us paying more. People do not understand why Trump is economically a bad choice, and why his plans are bad for us.
Supporting him increasing tariffs is ironic when these are the same people complaining prices will go up if we increase wages, since businesses here would be the ones paying higher tariffs, and they pass that cost on to us. As ninjabot said, if people actually understood the consequences of Trump's economic plan, he likely would have gotten way less votes.
Supporting him increasing tariffs is ironic when these are the same people complaining prices will go up if we increase wages, since businesses here would be the ones paying higher tariffs, and they pass that cost on to us. As ninjabot said, if people actually understood the consequences of Trump's economic plan, he likely would have gotten way less votes.
Maybe, but also maybe not. Lots of people in dire conditions would rather get direct aid now, even if it indirectly is pulled from taxes, than to not have direct aid at all. That is why trump's taxcuts were popular even with low income families, because they got a bit and oftentimes voters do not feel like tax money is well spent.
It would probably be different if voters across the board felt that their tax payments are actually benefitting them (which is why republicans do aim to destroy public institutions so voters feel like their money is not well spent). It is just as true, however, that a lot of tax money IS wasted.
Generally, I would say there is a populist appeal with "you get money now" that is just stronger than the more complex consequences, and from the perspective of many voters who DO need "money now", that might not be an irrational choice.
Her not appealing to three groups played a huge part in why she lost. Maybe she would have lost regardless, but when you compare how many votes Clinton had when she had more people wanting her over Trump vs. Harris, not much else makes sense. Especially since Trump lost voters, not gained them.
Did Harris or Biden ever offer any solution? Fact check and let people know that Trump's policies are the root problem, and how and why?
No, you condescend to anyone that you don't agree with. That reply is not helping your case whatsoever.
Yes she did. To the point that people complained that she talks too much about the bad things Trump has done and wants to do, rather than what she's willing to do to make our lives better.
As for what caused her to lose, shionoro took care of that evidence with that handy graph he provided us. Dismiss it if you want, it doesn't matter to me.
As for condescending to everyone I don't agree with? I dunno, me and kckk have never gotten condescending to each other despite our differences on trans issues. Me and shionoro haven't condescended each other even though we hard disagree on what's considered part of the left.
I said earlier I only condescend to lost causes, but that's not entirely true. I also condescend to people that make assertions about my character that are dishonest.
Maybe, but also maybe not. Lots of people in dire conditions would rather get direct aid now, even if it indirectly is pulled from taxes, than to not have direct aid at all. That is why trump's taxcuts were popular even with low income families, because they got a bit and oftentimes voters do not feel like tax money is well spent.
It would probably be different if voters across the board felt that their tax payments are actually benefitting them (which is why republicans do aim to destroy public institutions so voters feel like their money is not well spent). It is just as true, however, that a lot of tax money IS wasted.
Generally, I would say there is a populist appeal with "you get money now" that is just stronger than the more complex consequences, and from the perspective of many voters who DO need "money now", that might not be an irrational choice.
But the tax cuts are affecting us now, even in Biden's term, and it's annoying that people don't realize that. The stimulus was good and all, but there were strings attached to it, and they weren't worth voting for him again when he's far more likely to give tax cuts to businesses and let them do whatever they want with the money.
Not just payments, but Trump's economic plans in general. It just fucks over average citizens, and people are shooting themselves in the feet because they're not doing proper research.
Yes she did. To the point that people complained that she talks too much about the bad things Trump has done and wants to do, rather than what she's willing to do to make our lives better.
As for what caused her to lose, shionoro took care of that evidence with that handy graph he provided us. Dismiss it if you want, it doesn't matter to me.
As for condescending to everyone I don't agree with? I dunno, me and kckk have never gotten condescending to each other despite our differences on trans issues. Me and shionoro haven't condescended each other even though we hard disagree on what's considered part of the left.
I said earlier I only condescend to lost causes, but that's not entirely true. I also condescend to people that make assertions about my character that are dishonest.
But what in the actual result implies Harris was strongly hurt by Gaza? We just didn't see significant gains for the green party. In Michigan, they rose from 0.25% to 0.8%. That might be neat for a really small party, but it is pretty inconsequential. In comparison, 2016 they got 1%, even higher than now.
There is no evidence that Gaza swayed a lot of voters and there is some evidence to the contrary. Because the picture i linked, or rather the study that it comes from, at least actually measured what voters think are bad issues for Harris, it is not just some wishful thinking put into the results.
By that logic, I might just aswell claim Harris lost due to the fracking ban or due to ukraine, without evidence, you can just make things up.
Here, the reasons why different voters did not choose Kamala Harris are listed by their importance. Firstly: Voters across the board think Harris is not too pro Israel (minus 22% say that). Voters also think (to a lesser degree), that she is not too pro Palestine. Mostly, her stance on these issues seem to have boded well with voters across the board (Swing voters even had -30% on the "too pro israel" question). That just wasn't the issue.
The big things that had agreement across the board were:
-Inflation under Biden/Harris was too high
-Too many immigrants illegally crossed the border.
-Harris focused too much on cultural issues.
-debt rose too much
-Harris is too similar to Biden
-Harris would let in too many immigrants.
-Harris should never have been Nominee
-Democrats did a bad job running the country.
Now, I do not necessarily agree with lots of these items, but that was why voters did not choose Harris. And these are not tainted by having too many die hard republicans take part. Even black voters, who overwhelmingly voted democrats, agreed that the inflation, focus on culture and illegal immigrants are the biggest issues why they did not vote for Harris. These issues are real even on the people that democrats could potentially reach (or even did vote for them).
Harris being too pro Israel was one of the absolute least favourite reasons given among swing voters.
If this study is reliable it points to a broader issue concerning the democrat party.... The culture stuff actively hurt the party (which I can see but I am surprised by how much tbh).. Clearly there's a policy issue but looking at that to me it's not obvious what policy folk want.
If this study is reliable it points to a broader issue concerning the democrat party.... The culture stuff actively hurt the party (which I can see but I am surprised by how much tbh).. Clearly there's a policy issue but looking at that to me it's not obvious what policy folk want.
To me, it point to voters not seeing a comprehensive democrat policy that focuses on "the real issues", which usually is economic woes. Democrats usually have some of these policies on the foreground ("blablabla small businesses"), but they are just different smaller issues that trend well, oftentimes.
In my opinion, democrats just flip flop too much between things they think are popular and fail with the comprehensive part. If you are gonna get people to "pay their fair share", you need a wealth tax. If you want to change the situation at the border, you cannot do Trump Light stuff there but need to actually solve it in humane way (and have a plan for that). And there ARE quite lots of people hit by prizes going out of control, so why stop at the ideas against prize gouging and not go farther in that direciton to show you understood it cannot keep that way?
Trump and republicans have less of an issue with these things because they tend to point to something concretely (even if stupid). Too many immigrants? I will build a wall. Done. Democrat stance on migration is much harder to present, as they blast trump for being inhumane, then boast about being tough on the border ("Do not come"). Democrats do not have a comprehensive policy on migration that differs a lot from trump. They just want it to look nicer, but are for more border danger just the same (with some niceties for the desirables).
They are like that on many issues, so voters do often not comprehend what they are actually fighting for (and rightfully so).
But what in the actual result implies Harris was strongly hurt by Gaza? We just didn't see significant gains for the green party. In Michigan, they rose from 0.25% to 0.8%. That might be neat for a really small party, but it is pretty inconsequential. In comparison, 2016 they got 1%, even higher than now.
His feelings. Even if Harris had won Michigan by appealing to Leftists, she had less votes than Biden in every single county. She would have still lost the election.
As long as he can convince himself that the genocide in Gaza is an important event in the lives of Americans, he can justify holding out hope that America will step up and try to force their government to end the genocide. And he can't convince himself of that AND accept the numbers at the same time.
But what in the actual result implies Harris was strongly hurt by Gaza? We just didn't see significant gains for the green party. In Michigan, they rose from 0.25% to 0.8%. That might be neat for a really small party, but it is pretty inconsequential. In comparison, 2016 they got 1%, even higher than now.
There is no evidence that Gaza swayed a lot of voters and there is some evidence to the contrary. Because the picture i linked, or rather the study that it comes from, at least actually measured what voters think are bad issues for Harris, it is not just some wishful thinking put into the results.
By that logic, I might just aswell claim Harris lost due to the fracking ban or due to ukraine, without evidence, you can just make things up.
It's a mix of everything that hurt Harris, most of it due to Biden and what he did or failed to protect during his term. Lot of leftists were wondering why Democrats didn't codify Roe v Wade when they had chances to do so and saw that lost under Biden. Biden promised to cancel student loans but didn't do that or tried harder to fight for it (even though Supreme Court is at fault). Then you had RBG, before Biden's term, who refused to step down and as result, when she died it allowed Trump to nominate a conservative judge.
There's evidence that a lot of people were disillusioned with the party, but that was ignored. Again, one of the dumbest things they did was suck up to moderates and republicans. Again, compare the amount of votes that Clinton and Biden got to what Harris got.
Also, Pelosi said that had Biden not fucked up and allowed the primaries to happen, then the Dems could have done better as they weren't intending on Harris being the candidate.
As long as he can convince himself that the genocide in Gaza is an important event in the lives of Americans, he can justify holding out hope that America will step up and try to force their government to end the genocide. And he can't convince himself of that AND accept the numbers at the same time.
Because I don't have a problem with any of those other reasons. I don't dismiss those reasons. I only dismiss the Gaza one, because as shionoro has proven, it's inconsequential to practically everyone that voted.
I don't even know why I'm wasting my time talking about it, it's not like anyone will care 4 years from now unless there's another huge attack timed for an American election cycle.
