818
submitted 2 weeks ago by Zaktor@sopuli.xyz to c/politics@lemmy.world

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
[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 200 points 2 weeks ago

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

They won’t. But they should.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 56 points 2 weeks ago

Why learn anything, the policies they want will be implemented anyway 🧠

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 119 points 2 weeks ago

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 67 points 2 weeks ago

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

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 24 points 2 weeks ago

I'd even be happy to settle for someone in the middle of the party willing to fight for the party's supposed ideals. Remember when one of her slogans was "when we fight, we win"? Not "when we bipartisan, we win" or "when we coopt conservative issues, we win".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 88 points 2 weeks ago

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 68 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

One of the frustrations I had was her solution to the housing problem was to just build more houses and give out some money. Sure great, but what I wanted to hear, and I think many other also wanted to hear, was her talking about corporate hording of housing and what she would do about that situation. But she just ignored it completely and so did Biden.

I think instead if she came out swinging against corporate greed, even if she actually did nothing about it, would have given her more votes.

My one hope out of this is that the massive swing to the right will be countered with more vocal progressives.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PlantJam@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Exactly. "I'm not trump" barely got Biden in when trump was the incumbent with covid running rampant. It didn't work for Clinton in 2016 and unsurprisingly it didn't work for Harris in 2024. The level of incompetence at the DNC really makes me think the actual goal is to prevent our politics/country from shifting to the left at any cost.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ModestMeme@lemm.ee 84 points 2 weeks ago

So left wing Democrats responded by sitting on their hands instead of voting, knowingly allowing the country to slide into whatever authoritarian hellhole that awaits us? Now that’s the definition of pettiness.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 68 points 2 weeks ago

We kept trying to warn you.

And every time - every last fucking time - anyone told you that moving to the right was going to cause people to stay home, you lot shot the messenger. Every time someone screamed the writing on the wall out loud, centrists who were so happy that the party was finally embracing genocide and Cheney were like "Russian! Tankie! Trumpist!"

I voted for Harris. You'll blame me anyway. Democrats will always shoot the messenger and double down on their simping for fascists.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

The liberal tries to become an arbitrator, but he is incapable of solving the problems.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] b34k@lemmy.world 64 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, my friend was one of them. I was shocked when 2 weeks before election he told me he was planning on not voting.

I asked why and he cited holding the same position Isreal as Biden, and courting republicans like Cheney, saying that was not a good look for the party at all.

I told him it’s not ideal, but we need to vote to keep Trump out…. Sometimes we just have to be pragmatic.

He responded saying it’s the Dem establishment that keeps allowing a boogey man like Trump to rise so they can shove center right corporatists down our throats. He said he was abstaining from voting to send a message to the DNC, and followed it up with, “we survived a first Trump term, I’m sure we can survive a second.”

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 61 points 2 weeks ago

we survived a first Trump term

As long as you weren't one of the million Americans who died of COVID thanks to his misadministration.

Or the Capitol police who died as a result from his attempted insurrection.

[-] b34k@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, he’s an ex-pat who was living in Hong Kong, S Korea, and Vietnam for most of Trumps first term… so I’m sure he didn’t feel it as hard as most of us who were here for it.

[-] Jerkface@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago

"Thousands of my countrymen will perish, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

He responded saying it’s the Dem establishment that keeps allowing a boogey man like Trump to rise so they can shove center right corporatists down our throats. He said he was abstaining from voting to send a message to the DNC, and followed it up with, “we survived a first Trump term, I’m sure we can survive a second.”

I remember when I was 14.

load more comments (41 replies)
[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 52 points 2 weeks ago

Sorry dude, the problem is well beyond "leftists" and sooner or later you'll need to confront that.

[-] M600@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago

I’m not one of them, I voted a month or so in advance by mail.

But I wonder if some people are tired of the lack of change with Democrats in charge and believe that things need to get worse before they can get better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] orclev@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Pretty much, although it's probably an exaggeration to call them Democrats. In reality most of them are likely unaffiliated with any party. But it was literally Harris's job to convince them to come out and vote for her and she failed at it. When a candidate loses an election, barring election interference, it's their fault. Harris fucked us all by running as a diet Republican. Odds are anyone in here reading this did everything we could to hand her the win, but she pissed it all away by trying to steal votes from the Republicans instead of convincing people that they needed to get off their asses and come vote for her.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 80 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago

And instead he was shot at, not for the race stuff, but when he started talking about the class divide in general.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 75 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago

Obama got people excited about healthcare reform. Biden got people excited about student debt relief. Clinton tried to get people excited about a female president and Harris centered her campaign around running against Trump.

Social programs get people excited.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 75 points 2 weeks ago

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?

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 30 points 2 weeks ago

I know every early on she was talking about possibly having a Republican Vice President before she wised up and went with Tim Walz and ran on his progressive ideas for about... three seconds till Nancy and the DNC told her to just do what Hillary did, as that worked for her and Kamela is obviously the second female president right now. /s

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 72 points 2 weeks ago

NO! Harris just needed to go further right. Forced goose-stepping marches at rallies. Pledges to eradicate all minorities. Promise global wars of conquest.

Outflank Trump on the right, and the republicans AND democrats will vote for you.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 57 points 2 weeks ago

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 41 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Its a two party system, why would anyone think being a bit more like the other guy be a good idea?

Why would someone pick knockoff awful when the name brand is right there?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 49 points 2 weeks ago

Ding ding ding! Trump went further right and got more support. DNC should go further left. People want radical change in 2024

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 48 points 2 weeks ago

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?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 23 points 2 weeks ago

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

What was the Great Depression like?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] vordalack@lemm.ee 47 points 2 weeks ago

Bipartisanship is dead.

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

yeah this was a really fucking stupid idea and I think any Dingus on Twitter could have told you the same. The Trump voter base does not move. everyone's been saying this. I don't understand the Democrat strategy at all

I don't know what the actual numbers are on this, but I have to imagine the number of progressive voters who want more progressive policies far exceeds the number of Republicans that will vote Democrat. if anyone has a source to this data, I am interested in it.

[-] echolalia@lemmy.ml 56 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don’t understand the Democrat strategy at all

Someone else summed it up better than I can. The democratic party is doing exactly what it set out to do.

Nitter link.

They have no interest in furthering progressive policies so they don't. That's why the DNC chair is calling Bernie Sander's critique of the party's platform bullshit right now, instead of admitting he's right.

The system is as it does.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Monstrosity@lemm.ee 33 points 2 weeks ago

This. Right. Here.

Stop the triangulation it needs to die already.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] patacon_pisao@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] NutWrench@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

In 2016, Democrats didn't vote for Hillary because she just didn't "do it" for them. We got Trump thanks to their adorable little protest vote.

2024 14 million registered Democrats didn't vote in this election because Harris just didn't "do it" for them. But since they HAD registered, they were prepared to vote.

I'm starting to detect a really stupid, petty pattern, here.

[-] emmy67@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Dems said to the left. "We offer you nothing and you owe us everything".

Why are they surprised their entitled demand failed?

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago

Or, maybe it's the fault of the campaign for doing nothing to appeal to those people. Like, I wish that we could of voted to not have trump today. But we didn't and have shown historically that it won't happen. At that point it's on the campaign. Spent the whole time trying to become the new Republican party and it backfired. Fucking stupid DNC don't learn shit and still bitch at the end.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[-] phillycodehound@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
818 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2536 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