814
submitted 1 month 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

You keep blaming the voters for deciding the Democrats aren't representative of them.

Have you thought about blaming the Democrats for not being representative of the voters they want?

[-] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can blame both, honestly. The US has always had the same political game as ever, people should be wise enough to understand how to play it. If you ever want to get to a more stable democracy that no longer has the stupid two party system that prevents any form of real representative democracy where you can actually have a selection of parties that represent you perfectly, the choice should be obvious.

At least with Harris they could try to work with her and convince them to change their views for the future as they ruled. Trump will call you a left wing lunatic and slam the door in your face. Zero influence and no chance for progress (and even regression) vs some influence and some chance to progress.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Are you saying its common sense to vote Kamala because she would help dismantle the two party system?

[-] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Not that optimistically (And realistically, not common sense either apparently), but yes, it's a potential path. And a peaceful one, among a multitude of bloody ones.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I wish I had the same blind faith as you but I need some sign they will go against the corporations that are currently running the working class into the ground for profit.

[-] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Not sure why you think I have blind faith? I've got blind faith in no one. Least of all the american voter lol.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Half the country is white people who aren't going to have a meaningfully different life experience under Trump. Saying "they have to" do anything is vastly over estimating how much they care. They believe both sides are just as bad and if they're political at all they only trust the lowest politicians they can personally interact with.

You are expecting a level of political education and activation that just isn't there.

[-] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not expecting anything, And I never said they had to do anything. Who would be expecting any kind of logical reasoning from US voters after this result. I said "If you want to" = "In order to get a desirable outcome, this is potentially the only way to do so.", not "Everyone must do this because I say so"

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You don't have to use the imperative tone to set up an imperative. You clearly lay out two choices, forgetting there's always a third.

[-] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Stop trying to force your interpretation on my words, it's not what I said, period. I'm not limiting my scope to two choices. The US constitution does that for the matter of what party is in office. There are very obvious other choices, and most of them call for massive human suffering like civil war or political violence, which I'm not going to iterate on for obvious reasons. Nowhere do I deny the existence of those choices, I'm just presenting the obvious conclusion of trying to change the system in a peaceful manner.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Except you do.

people keep saying this, but she got like 65 or 70 million votes?? Seems representative to me.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

not as representative as trump either apparently.

The far left is definitely in no ways representative of the average democratic voter either.

[-] DokPsy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Your suggestion has slightly less weight because Biden was elected with essentially the same platform.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Which is kind of a problem. The platform needs to reflect the current reality, not the reality 4 years ago.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

Biden's win was NOT a confirmation of his campaign's correctness. That should have been an easy election but he barely won.

[-] DokPsy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I didn't say it was. I'm just saying that the main difference between Bidens campaign vs Clinton and Harris is that his bits are on the outside.

Sexism. The point being made was sexism.

The Democratic party's policies have not severely changed between Clinton running and Harris running that would account for the lower voter turnout.

The courting of the less Trumpian Republicans and Harris not being an old white dude are the two biggest things that affected voter turnout.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

The main difference is that Trump was president at the time. Before people didn't think it could be that bad, and four years after people had forgotten the chaos (2020 election was in the middle of COVID). It was a change election, and Harris was unwilling to try to be a change candidate because it would involve saying Biden did something wrong.

People point to sexism because it's an easy out. "The people are bad, so all we need to do is nominate a man" means it's a simple matter of internalizing their misogyny and then we win, when the throughline of three bad elections (Biden's was bad) is uninspiring politics about slow and steady government being all you need. In one instance we had an immediate example of what a government by an amateur outsider could do so a plea for normalcy produced some benefit, but it still didn't knock it out of the park when everything should have been in its favor.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago

Biden at least attempted to appear progressive. Harris went further right than him. Even to the point of saying she wouldn't raise taxes on the rich as high as Biden said he would

this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
814 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2782 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS