this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
483 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3885 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
 

Summary

Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the 2024 election leaves no room for ambiguity or an “asterisk” in his legitimacy, as he won both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

This outcome represents a clear mandate from American voters, who knowingly chose Trump’s policies and approach.

The anticipated results include pardons for January 6 participants, attacks on the press, and an administration filled with controversial figures.

By voting for Trump, Americans prioritized divisive rhetoric over democratic values, accepting the resulting turmoil.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

She ran a magnificent campaign

The entire point of a campaign is to attract voters...

Because Democrats stayed home. Roughly about 10% of them overall, nationwide.

So I don't see how both statement can be true...

Her campaign did a shit job at getting people to vote for her, how do you consider it magnificent?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • She absolutely crushed Trump at the debate
  • Her rallies were drawing far more people than Trump's
  • She had A-list star power (Beyonce, Julia Roberts, Taylor Swift, etc.) actively endorsing her
  • She took over a race where Biden was down by 5%+ and losing ground daily to at least making it competitive
  • She only had 107 days to work with.

It proved to not be enough. The people who were coming to her rallies were apparently all people who were going to vote for her anyway; the size of the rallies only gave the illusion that her campaign was attracting more voters. And with so many Democrats actively choosing to stay home rather than vote at all, it seems like nothing she did would have mattered anyway. But given the crap she had to work with, she ran a near-flawless campaign. She had no way of knowing that it just didn't matter.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

There's still a lot of analysis still to be done, but the Pod Save America guys pointed out that the Harris campaign saw less slippage in states where they were actively competing on the ground than in solidly red states where they didn't fight as hard. This indicates that the campaign did make a positive difference, just not enough to overcome the negatives.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You listed things they tried, but didn't work

The entire point of a campaign is to attract voters…

Literally the only metric that matters for how good a campaign was, is how many votes they got.

And Kamala drastically underperformed.

So her campaign wasn't "magnificent" it was a spectacular disaster that couldn't beat trump with everything you listed and a billion dollars

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yup. If she ran a magnificent campaign she would have won.

I was arguing with my buddy about this last night. He kept saying that she had to pivot right to have any chance of winning the election. Me pointing out that she performed terribly in the election didn't matter to him. In his eyes shes did everything right and the voters are to blame I guess?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

He kept saying that she had to pivot right to have any chance of winning the election.

They can never give any logic behind it, and they'll never learn it doesn't work.

But moderates will repeat that line as often as Charlie Brown will attempt a field goal, with the same results over and over again.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 13 points 1 week ago

Yeah but if you start to poke fingers at the Democratic Party, you might start to realize that most of their corporate donors are fine with a Trump presidency. Almost like they were fine with Harris campaigning on keeping the status quo, because they'd win either way. Better to start blaming voters now!

[–] meeeeetch@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Considering where Biden's polling was this summer, the fact that the Dems held onto New York is impressive.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is the danger of lowering our bar to Trump's level as "good enough"

Biden could be better than trump.

Kamala could be better than Biden.

But if Kamala isn't good enough, trump would win.

Because as multiple people have been shouting for 8 years:

Being better than trump isn't good enough to get enough votes to beat trump

All of this could be avoided by running decent candidates who won a fair primary. But the DNC won't give that as an option because they want to use the threat of trump to push thru as "moderate" of a Dem as they can to maximize corporate donations.

Beating trump wasn't the DNC's goal, it was raising as much money as possible

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree with you, but you should know that the media is already blaming “the small sliver of the Democratic Party who call themselves progressives.”

Pundits are talking about how Democrats need to shift even further to the right next time. So that’s not going to be fixed any time soon unless voters show up to primaries in a way that can’t be ignored.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The ones owned by billionaires who bought them to control a narrative?

They're always going to say the party has to move right. The entire reasons billions are buying them is to convince people both parties need to move right.

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Yes - the ones who tell the majority of the party what to think and do.