Is it the primary reason? No, I agree.
However it's childish and naive to think both racism and sexism were not significant reasons that America, a deeply racist and sexist country, did not choose a black woman to lead it
A black woman was not the issue
Both parties and their presidental candidates are just puppets like the rest of their parties and do not have the public interests at heart
Kamala held a celebrity filled gala and invited Republicans while the citizens were outside the gathering protesting about inequality, wars, healthcare, wages/employee rights and were not allowed in
Good thing they protested Kamala’s event. Now that Trump is in office we don’t have to worry about inequality, wars, healthcare, wages/employee rights OR voting.
Both sides amiright?
That's not how it works. Using that logic voting for Himmler would be the right thing to do because at least they're one step less awful than Hitler. Fucking demand that Himmler change his ways or a better candidate is allowed to run.
A lot of countries have political theater instead of actual politics, but the US is really deep into it.
That is exactly how it works. Criticizing the better option of the two will reduce turnout for that candidate. That’s the whole purpose of political campaigns.
That’s how Trump got elected. We had a better option but people complained so much that the worse option won.
Your attempt to claim both sides are as similar as Hitler and Himmler is an obvious bad faith argument of “both sides are the same”.
I find this unproductive. People SHOULD ask their elected representatives (and candidates) to improve. I want people to point it out when my preferred candidate does something wrong, because then they're more likely to address it before the election.
That is exactly how it works. Criticizing the better option of the two will reduce turnout for that candidate. That’s the whole purpose of political campaigns.
I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but I don't think a significant number of people changed their mind about voting for her because of the protests.
Option 1: Politically engaged people don't point out a problem -> The candidate doesn't address the problem -> The average voter doesn't vote for the candidate because of the problem
Option 2: Politically engaged people DO point out a problem -> The candidate addresses the problem -> The average voter is more likely to vote for the candidate
Maybe if it wasn’t Trump and fascism on the line.
But in this context you’re referring to the prevention of fascism as “unproductive”.
But in this context you’re referring to the prevention of fascism as “unproductive”.
I'm saying that if the candidate listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up, they may have gotten more votes. Arguably, having MORE protests may have helped them win if it could convince the leadership to make changes.
Outcry from supporters is what convinced Biden to step down, which I think helped the Democrats come closer. Protest is important if it can help a party make the right adjustments in their campaign.
Telling people to stay silent is unproductive.
Not all voters agreed with those protests. Arguably, the candidate would’ve lost by more if they listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up.
What we can’t argue about is the fact that the protests hurt voter turnout and now Trump is the president.
Not all voters agreed with those protests. Arguably, the candidate would’ve lost by more if they listened to the protests and addressed the issues that were brought up.
Even if this was true, silencing any criticism isn't the solution. In most parts of the world anyway
Every candidate will have criticisms.
Every politician will amplify their opponent’s criticism to impact election results.
Validating concern trolls isn’t the solution.
Getting everyone to vote in everyone’s best interest is.
Allowing the GOP to gain more power and end democracy is unproductive.
Was the timing of the protests the problem in your opinion? The way that it was done?
In your opinion, how should supporters of a party express what they want changed with an electoral platform
The timing, the fact that it was only used against democrats is a sign that the GOP will use it to their advantage.
The way it was done is also an issue. In this context, the message of the protest was that democrats needed to give the protestors what they want. Otherwise democrats wouldn’t get votes from the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected.
Democrats have constituents that do not agree with those protestors and so democrats would’ve lost votes by giving into the protestors. Resulting in the protestors helping Trump get elected in this outcome also.
In my opinion, supporters of a party should express what they want changed by engaging with their politicians.
The only time that won’t work with a politician is if their intel indicates they gain more votes by not making those changes.
In that scenario, the supporters need to accept that the majority rules in a democracy and vote for the lesser of two evils because that is in the best interest of those supporters.
Instead what happened was protestors cut off their nose to spite their face and now things are much worse as a result.
What we're talking about is a game between two players: democrats and their potential voters. It is totally a valid strategy in game theory to punish the other player when they're not cooperating. If you're always cooperating even when your opponent (i.e. your preferred political party) isn't, you're just encouraging them to continue to not cooperate.
Try out this interactive page.
In this context, “valid strategy” = everyone is worse off, protestors get the opposite of what they wanted and fascist gain power.
In this context, “punishing the other player” = punishing yourself.
Yes. Doesn't mean it's a bad strategy.
This is not a one-round game. Elections happen repeatedly. If you show someone you will punish them for bad behavior even at cost to yourself, it might teach them to change their ways. On the other hand, always minimizing your losses in the current round (i.e. having no memory or vision) makes you a perfectly predictable and exploitable player.
If Trump and the GOP accomplish their goals there will not be any more “rounds” or elections.
This is the reason it’s a bad strategy
In an election where the margin of victory is 1%, it only takes 1-in-50 racists to throw the election.
Sure, Kamala wasn't hugely popular with internet Democrats. Sure, running as a centrist annoyed all the people looking for change. The whole Israel thing. Voters overlooked all of that with Biden in 2020, when he wasn't hugely popular with internet Democrats & came with a 50 year legacy of supporting some atrocious policies.
The only reason Biden won in 2020 was covid regulations increased turnout with vote by mail.
Without that extra turnout in 2024, Harris lost.
If Biden had had a normal election in 2020, he would have lost as well.
If we had 100% vote by mail everywhere, we would not see another Republican President in our lifetimes.
If we had 100% vote by mail everywhere, we would not see another Republican President in our lifetimes.
I'm sure voting by mail played a role. Not sure that's all of it, but, boy, the qons were mad as hell about it and I bet they do everything possible to ruin it for parts of the country where we've already had it for years and years (like here in Colorado).
If Trump didn’t have the help of foreign nations, the billionaire class, voter suppression, the GOP, etc. Harris would’ve won in 2024, and Biden would’ve won in 2020 without Covid.
So if Trump wasn't the candidate that trump is, he wouldn't have won? I mean he was Trump tho.
Trump has been trying to become president since 2000 and he has been talking about it since the 80s. It wasn’t until Russia got involved with their propaganda machine that he was able to start his cult.
Without Russian support he wouldn’t be anybody.
But he had Russian backing, he was on the apprentice, all those things are true. So if they weren't true he wouldn't be who he is. It's a bit like saying JK Rowling wouldn't be famous without Harry Potter. Like... duh.
So if Trump wasn't the candidate that trump is, he wouldn't have won? I mean he was Trump tho.
This statement indicates you think Trump won because of who he is.
My statement points out it is not because of who he is but instead because Russia chose to interfere in elections.
In other words, if Trump dies today, Russia would find another person to fill his place and would use the same propaganda tactics to help get them into a position of power.
This is because Trump is a puppet. Your comment was evidence you don’t understand that that is why he won.
Yes, but racism (even subconsciously) was likely a contributing factor to her loss as well, which is what the other person was saying.
Really just the woman part. Corey Booker, the centrist performative clown could have won. I'd say being corporatist and feeling a lot like Hillary hurt her more than skin color. Either way looks like they cheated so it really doesn't matter
The article says it was because Democrats bad for being neocolonialist oppressors.
To my mind, it’s not a super-tight argument against the obvious.
Just a helpful reminder that class relations are real, and that most legacy news outlets have a shared class-interest in de-emphasizing class and income as important electoral issues.
There's a really good reason why democrats will seemingly do just about anything to avoid platforming socialist policies - and it isn't because they aren't popular. They see them as an existential threat to their party, because not only would they lose their primary funding sources if they were to stop protecting donors from wealth re-distributive policies, but they'd also lose their network of private sector allies that enable them to govern at all.
Once you understand the scope of the problem, it's really hard to see the two party system as anything other than good-cop bad-cop neoliberal theater.
If you think of the democratic party as first and foremost a fundraising organization, their actions start to make sense.
Also sexism.
Primarily sexism.
Americans believe that a key requirement to be President is to have a penis, but they are self aware enough to know that they can't say that out loud. So they will cite any other excuse, but the real reason is that they didnt trust her uterus to not bomb random countries once a month.
Racism? No. Sexism? Yes.
This isn't rocket science. Most Americans were (and are) unhappy with the direction of the country and she was the status quo candidate. She literally said she couldn't think of a single policy difference between herself and Biden, an unpopular president. And the tone-deaf joy campaign—give me a break. People were (and are) angry. A populist was always going to win this election, but she didn't campaign as a populist.
Like most Democrats, she also lacked the courage of her convictions, as evidenced by how quickly she backed away from voicing progressive policies from 2020 like Medicare for All. Or maybe her convictions were more moderate and the progressive positions were the ploy? Who even knows? What few meek ideas she did put forward she quickly backed away from after closed-door fundraisers with rich investors.
I voted for her despite all of this. I wrote letters to swing state voters. But it was a pretty grim march to November, because I saw all of these things way before the election and knew with near certainty that she was going to lose.
It didn't help that she was kneecapped by the Biden campaign:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5191087-harris-trump-biden-harris/
I’d go with racism, sexism, not being a cult leader like figure unlike her opponent, and a bunch of people who’ve bought way too far into putting Palestine first over their own nation being convinced it to vote for her.
And, possibly (there’s a lawsuit) an actually rigged election.
I voted for her.
"I have a socialist axe to grind, therefore Trump's victory is a result of his opponent not being a socialist."
Reposting my comment on the usa comm version of this story. In part because I doubt a lot of people will read it, or try anyway.
“Well I tried to read it. It started off inauspiciously with
Within the liberal pundit class, the tendency to attribute Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss principally to racism or misogynoir (hatred of black women) runs deep.
Don’t . . . don’t do that. If you have to define it in the sentence you’re using it in, there needs to be a good reason to use it at all, and per the rest of the article - there isn’t.
Secondly, the author’s thesis is that racism can’t be the reason because the 1996 Crime and Welfare Reform bills disproportionately affected black Americans. (Yeah, like I said, I *tried* to read it) Also, Harris did better among white voters than Clinton in 92 or Obama in 2012.
So far as I can tell that appears to be the core of the argument. The article concludes that while racism is indeed bad, and trump also bad, Harris lost because of the Democratic Party. Particularly things it did almost 30 years ago.
Just as nineteenth- and twentieth-century biologically grounded race theory functioned to harmonize slavery and Jim Crow with liberal capitalism, the insistence that Trump’s victory over Harris, like Trumpism itself, is an expression of eternal white racism provides cover for the failings of both late capitalism and the Democratic Party.
So, I am reminded once again that Jacobin is a link I am reluctant to click.”
One political pundit blathers on about how the other pundits are wrong about an issue that's no longer important.
Bleah.
Unless you have code and specific, defined ways of vote manipulation, just shut this shit down now.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News