this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
183 points (87.3% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2724 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

Gender bias played a significant role in Kamala Harris’s defeat, with many voters—often women—expressing doubts about whether “America is ready for a female president.”

Some said they “couldn’t see her in the chair,” or questioned if a woman could lead, with one even remarking, “you don’t see women building skyscrapers.” Though some voters were open to persuasion, this often became a red line.

Oliver Hall, a Harris campaign volunteer, found that economic concerns, particularly inflation, also drove voters to Donald Trump, despite low unemployment and wage growth touted by Democrats.

Harris was viewed in conflicting ways, seen as both too tough and too lenient on crime, as well as ineffective yet overly tied to Biden’s administration.

Ultimately, Hall believes that Trump’s unique appeal and influence overshadowed Harris’s campaign efforts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't see how you could possibly see his attacks on migrants, trans kids, etc. as anything other than punching down.

Also, why are you holding the Democratic party accountable for down voters here or other randos online who say stuff about Trump supporters? They're pretty distinct groups, and the fact is elected Dems bent over backwards to talk as nicely about Trump supporters as they could.

And I actually think that was a big part of what I think their real voter engagement problem was, which is that everything Dems say comes off like inauthentic over polished political bullshit to a lot of voters. I think simultaneously trying to say "Trump is an existential threat to democracy" and "Trump supporters are not garbage" sounds insane (like, if you're supporting an existential threat to democracy you just inarguably are a garbage human being, sorry not sorry).

I don't think we should make it a centerpiece of our message or waste a bunch of time on it, but if we get a direct question about Republican party supporters we have to respect our potential voters enough to say "Yes, they are garbage, roughly 35-40% of this country are bad people who are willing to hurt others to get what they want and that's why it's so important for the rest of us to put aside our difference and work together to stop them."

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's definitely true that white collar, urban liberals sometimes punch down at rural, blue collar white people. It does hurt them politically.

I'm having trouble seeing anything Trump says about anyone other than high-level elected officials as punching up though. Attacks on the sitting president are punching up by definition, but the challenger always does that.

It seems more to me that he's telling people who don't feel good about their position in society that there's someone below them. That was the message of slavery, of apartheid, and of Hitler. I find it hard not to condemn those who were receptive to it.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not many, and those who come to mind weren't receptive to that kind of messaging. Reasoning I've heard includes "Biden ruined the economy", "vote R no matter who", and "RFK and Tulsi Gabbard endorsed him".

The statements I've heard from Trump himself are "illegal immigrants are going to steal your job, the election, and your cat", and "trans people want to fuck your kid", which are about groups of people with very little political power.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not going to cop to strawmanning here, but I will grant that people who are receptive to his messaging on immigration might hear it differently than I do.

Perhaps part of my difficulty understanding how someone could resonate with that messaging without being an irredeemable racist stems from it not being based in reality any time there are actual numbers available from law enforcement. Drug couriers are citizens far more often than they are immigrants. Illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens. Noncitizens attempting to vote is rare and usually results in prosecution. "Open border" means something very different to me, e.g. intra-EU borders than it seems to mean to Trump.

Despite all that, Trump's supporters feel like he's telling them the truth about these issues and everyone who contradicts him is lying. The explanations that come to mind for me are... uncharitable. I'd like to hear alternatives.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the main thing I can take away from this is I'd be terrible at running a political campaign. I already knew that.

While I can understand how more traditional conservative messages resonate with people, Trump's are outside my Overton window. I can see the mechanics of how it works, and I can empathize with people who feel like the current system is failing them, but not with those who feel like Trump is going to fix it.

I'm disappointed your comments are attracting downvotes. They are on-topic and well-reasoned.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

What's funny is I'm not a part of the terminally online left. It would be hard to deny the terminally online part while posting on Lemmy, but I lean more libertarian than left. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. Now some reader here probably thinks I'm a terrible person.

Trump's 2016 election convinced me to compromise a lot and vote for team blue even if I had major differences of opinion of certain policies. His attempt to steal the 2020 election cemented that decision, as that's a long-term threat to the continued existence of democracy in America.

[–] eatthecake@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They voted for a rapist with a pack of white supremacists. They are irredeemable and they were never going to vote the other way. Thinking you can win them over is insane.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)
[–] eatthecake@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Latino has nothing to do with it. They're humans, and a sizeable portion of humanity is just awful. Trump erases morality and makes them proud of their awfulness. You probably believe that all humans are intrinsically good but that's wishful thinking.