this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
19 points (85.2% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5851 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
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 27 minutes ago

Political scientists and historians will spend years analyzing the causes and significance of this election. My focus is more immediate. Although the data are imperfect and incomplete, I will offer preliminary answers...

To his credit, the writer explicitly warns us that this is a hot take and is almost certainly wrong.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Because people were unwilling to vote for a black woman president. It's that simple.

  • There are estimates of as many as 15 million former Biden voters who opted to sit this election out, knowing full well that doing so is a de-facto vote for Trump.
  • Latino men, and men in general, voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
  • Abortion issues fared better than Harris in virtually every state where it was on the ballot.
  • Harris underperformed almost universally across the country, to the point where New York, New Jersey, and California were all much closer than they should have been.

This tells me that it wasn't the policies. People just didn't want Kamala Harris. Maybe because she's black. Or Indian. Or a woman. Or a former prosecutor. Or some combination of the above. But whatever the reason was, people felt so strongly about saying "Not Kamala Harris" that they stayed home knowing full well they were de-facto voting for Trump in the process.

Trump didn't "win" this election, in that he got virtually the same votes he got last time. Kamala Harris lost this election because Democrats sent a very clear message that they are so against Kamala Harris that they were willing to hand the Presidency and the entirety of Congress instead of voting for her. This wasn't just a loss. This was a "Fuck YOU, in particular" sent right at Harris.

I firmly believe it was a combination of her race and male voters' unwillingness to vote for a woman under any circumstances.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 28 minutes ago

Harris went from polling 3.7 points higher than Trump in August to losing by 3.4 points in November. Do you think it took people that long to realize she was a woman of color, or do you think her actions in the interim changed peoples’ perception of her?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Lemme guess. Media illiteracy and propaganda aren’t on the list.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago

If they're not going to account for the thumbs on the scale, what the fuck is the point? I get that there are other issues, but to what extent do these factors influence people's decisions?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 15 minutes ago)

Similarly, by refusing to explain why she had abandoned the progressive positions on crime, immigration, health care, and climate change, she blurred the public’s perception of her and opened the door to the Trump campaign’s charge that she was a closet radical. Thinking back to the successful campaign of Bill Clinton in 1992, some Democrats were hoping Harris would have a “Sister Souljah” moment in which she broke with some party orthodoxy in order to show her independence, but this did not happen.

So Galston recognizes that abandoning progressive positions weakened the public’s perception of her, but he thinks the solution would have been to double down and attack progressives more?