this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
117 points (92.7% liked)
Asklemmy
44428 readers
1903 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They weren’t beaten badly, it was barely a 1.5% margin. Electoral votes….different story. But even then, this illustrates that a few more votes in key states would have had a drastically different outcome.
I think they mean "beaten badly" as in "lost control of all three branches of government" not so much "Trump landslide vote."
The person you responded to even said "Dems got beaten pretty bad" not "Harris got beaten pretty bad."
By the metric of losing the house, losing the senate, losing the judiciary, and losing the presidency is a pretty deep blow.
I didn’t think “Dems got beaten pretty bad in the election” was open to mean all elections.
There was only one, there are more seats than just the president up for vote on election day.
Ok, you're right in this sense. However, I meant beaten badly in the sense of expectations vs. reality. If you followed any media, it was supposed to be a slight edge for Kamala, or at least a good chance for an upset. In the end the R's got president, senate and congress. And the outcome was clear after the first few hours, unlike something like Gore vs. Bush.
I agree. I certainly felt the outcome was going to be much different.
Thats still beaten badly. The election is entirely about winning electoral votes, and the dems failed that. They didn't win votes in the right places and lost votes compared to the last election.
The entire presidential election campaign is always about winning electoral votes and that means winning votes in swing states.
I find this line of thinking so defeatist. Yes, we all know the electoral college is the system, but all also know it's a sham and almost every honest person hates it because it undermines the idea of democracy. Imo the day people stop thinking the popular vote is what should count is the day we all collectively gave up on democracy.
It's truth, though. I don't like it either, but we know the popular vote is currently meaningless. I'll champion any cause that wants to change that, but there's zero chance of that happening while the GOP controls the house, the senate, the courts, and the presidency.
Your line of thinking however prefers to dismiss talks about the popular vote as though what people are thinking in the country broadly is off topic or irrelevant. How the hell do we change this if no one is ever allowed to mention the topic without a naysayer reminding us the popular vote is meaningless?
Maybe next time they'll lose by even less! That's about the best progress I can hope for in this country in my lifetime.
Definitely. This is what beaten badly looks like: