this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
623 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3975 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

Historians suggest Democrats might have fared better against Donald Trump by embracing the economic issues championed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who has long pushed for a focus on “bread-and-butter” concerns for working-class voters.

Despite Kamala Harris’s progressive policies, polls showed Trump was favored on economic issues, particularly among working-class and Hispanic voters.

Historian Leah Wright Rigueur argued that Sanders’ messaging on economic struggles could be key for future Democratic strategies.

Sanders himself criticized the party for “abandoning” the working class, which he said has led to a loss of support across racial lines.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 65 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

In hindsight it seems obvious, but to be honest I really thought Kamala would have fared better.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

To me the main takeaway is that I live in a completely separate reality from most voters. I would have voted on a dead dog over Trump. He is mean, narcissistic and never shows any empathy. On top of that he is clearly losing his wits. If a majority of voters prefers a candidate like this, is even enthusiastic to vote for him, what can you do?

I also know that Lemmy skews left, but I think we have to face the fact that most voters have no ability to empathise with those worse off. There is no left wing politics without empathy and solidarity. What most of us here want is dead.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 43 minutes ago

Is the majority enthusiastic to vote for him? His own campaigning rallies were a snorefest, as far as we saw.

For me the main "a-ha" here is that so many people apparently still believe his stupid story that he is a guy who makes deals to fix the economy. Instead of a con-man. I have no idea why democrats were not able to destroy this "economic leader" image that he has built. Or why Harris and Walz did not focus on the issue every poll in the last month did say was the most important one: the economic situation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I think social media has put everyone in their own eco chamber.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

This is true to an extent. Social media made it much easier to spread misinformation that allowed for the total shattering of consensus reality. Which had been under intense duress for the better part of a century anyways

[–] [email protected] 35 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

We all did, you're not wrong.

It's a sad reality we all woke up to on Wednesday. Learning that the majority of Americans are ignorant, racist, misogynistic, selfish assholes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

When you mean "all", I wonder who you group in that conception.

Not all of us believed Kamala would win. A good group of people were calling out Kamala's shit since the DNC, and everything since. With the direction of the campaign, you had a good chance to predict Kamala's underperformance.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

We all did

No, we did not "all" think so, a lot of us have been saying this for quite a while. In fact since at least the 2016 election cycle started in 2015.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Pretty much lmao

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This is what many said in 2016 after Clinton lost but we still did it again in 2020 and yet again in 2024. If I were a betting man I'd say that if there's sill an election worth having in 2028 we'll see another, even further right leaning, centrist Democrat win the nomination.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Yoyo look, this guy's fucking nostradamus up in here, right? It's gonna happen just like this.

I'm thinking newsome is the "perfect" candidate for 28.

Whoever it is, I bet you, just like me can't wait to be told how stupid i am and actually great they are by credulous online political minds who call parroting the pundits talking points word-for-word fucking theory

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

Progressives need to start picking a single nominee to get behind right now. Or we're getting whichever candidate the establishment wing of the party has already selected. Maybe they'll run Liz Cheney.

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

Lol i bet in 4 years we'll be beggin' for a moderate Dem like Cheney

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 hours ago

And Democrats will run her if they think they can get away with it.