It’s kinda crazy to me that a sizable amount of people expect a perfect completely spotless candidate, or they don’t vote and hand over the win to fascism.
In a rational world, Harris would have won without even doing a single rally, because the alternative is Trump and his cronies.
People generally don’t realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections. But with each “punishment”, voters give the democrats, the Republicans’ grip on power gets tighter and tighter, with more cronie judges, more gerrymandering, more voter purges, more ID rules, and more propaganda.
So, are the voters, or rather those who didn’t vote, wrong? Fuck yes, for the reason that because of them, we now have Trump as the US president rather than him going to prison like he deserves. Of course they are wrong. How is that even a question?
People generally don’t realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections.
Absofuckinglutely wrong. The number of Democrats still buying this bullshit is astounding. THIS is why you lose so damn much.
No Democratic candidate has had more support from right leaning voters than Bernie Sanders in the last 30 years. Explain that with your model. It’s not just about some smooth gradient from left to right and capturing the middle. We are in a populist age. The people are totally fed up with the status quo.
It’s disruptors that win, not whomever captures the center of a spectrum that only policy wonks even care about. Anyone who’s chief concern is left vs right is already a decided voter.
Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.
this is why you lose so damn much
“This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”. That is why democrats lose.
Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe? No matter what, should it have mattered if the alternative is Trump? Absolutelyfucking not, but apparently it does.
Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.
And what is it called when there is only “one correct choice” on a ballot? It might have been the lesser evil, but I think the USA needs to get off their high horse and come to terms with the end of their democracy, if the only option is to vote one way.
Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is.
That’s a useless point to make. Of course is shouldn’t matter. The important point is, it did matter. The disconnect between these two points ought to make you question your assumptions about how to win elections. Clinging desperately to a model that has failed over and over and over again is insanity.
“This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”
This is rhetorically a dumb way to argue. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it’s just to easy to point out that not voting for fascism would also have to be considered a vote against fascism. It’s just a dumb way to argue and just further antagonizes the person you are supposedly trying to convince. You don’t get votes by attacking voters.
Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe?
A more populist candidate would have more chances. That does generally mean further left or right, but doesn’t necessarily have to be either. I want a leftist candidate but, honestly, an anti-corruption centrist might have as much of a chance. Big money billionaires buying politicians is extremely unpopular across the spectrum. Good luck getting a Democratic centrist to run on that though.
During Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, he employed a strategy to appeal to moderate and right-leaning voters, which helped him secure support from some traditionally Republican constituencies. Here are key points about Clinton’s approach and support from right-wing voters:
Centrist Positioning
Clinton positioned himself as a “New Democrat,” advocating for centrist policies that appealed to moderate and conservative voters[2]. This included:
- Emphasizing fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget
- Supporting welfare reform
- Taking a tough stance on crime
- Promoting free trade
Targeting Reagan Democrats
Clinton specifically aimed to win back “Reagan Democrats” - working-class white voters who had previously supported Republicans[6]. He focused on economic issues and cultural values that resonated with this group.
“Triangulation” Strategy
Clinton used a strategy of “triangulation,” which involved:
- Distancing himself from traditional liberal Democratic positions
- Adopting some conservative policy stances
- Positioning himself between the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Republicans[7]
Appeal to Suburban Voters
Clinton made significant inroads with suburban voters, including many who had previously voted Republican[2]. His moderate positions on social and economic issues appealed to this demographic.
Breaking the “Republican Lock”
Clinton’s strategy helped him win states that had been part of the Republican “lock” on the Electoral College, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin[6].
While Clinton did not win a majority of right-wing voters, his centrist approach and focus on economic issues allowed him to peel away enough support from traditionally Republican constituencies to win the election. This strategy was controversial within the Democratic Party but proved effective in the general election[2][7].
Citations: [1] An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ [2] Controversy: Why Did Clinton Win? - The American Prospect https://prospect.org/power/controversy-clinton-win/ [3] In Their Own Words: Why Voters Support – and Have Concerns About https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-why-voters-support-and-have-concerns-about-clinton-and-trump/ [4] Basket of deplorables - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables [5] Governing in an Age of No Majorities: Bill Clinton’s mission for a … https://www.brookings.edu/articles/governing-in-an-age-of-no-majorities-bill-clintons-mission-for-a-second-term/ [6] Here’s how Democrats have changed since the Bill Clinton era https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/democratic-party-dnc-bill-clinton-era-changes-rcna166669 [7] Bill Clinton: Campaigns and Elections | Miller Center https://millercenter.org/president/clinton/campaigns-and-elections [8] Don’t understand Trump supporters? Remembering Bill Clinton … https://kansasreflector.com/2024/08/03/dont-understand-trump-supporters-remembering-bill-clinton-might-help-you/
That’s an impressive writeup. Here is the problem. This is 2024, not 1992. Clinton’s strategy has not aged well.
2008 - Hillary and McCain both ran a centrist strategy and lost to Obama who ran as a disruptor. Obama gets a mandate.
2010 - Democrats lose Congress and the mandate on a centrist strategy.
2012 - Obama almost loses to Mit Romney with both running centrist strategies.
2016 - Hillary loses on a centrist strategy against Trump who is clearly not a centrist.
2020 - Biden barely moves towards a disruptor position and barely beats Trump who should have been easily beatable.
2024 - Need I say it?
Its a two party system. You will not get anything close to a working progressive government until there are more then two. If the Dems win, they get a bit more corrupt and take money to slide a bit right. If they lose, they slide right to “capture” more votes/money (the money works the votes not so much).
The nasty things that get done (say under 2016 trump) are not undone by the Democrats when next in power. This makes them at best an enabler of crap policy and at worst (also most likely) guilty of using the bad actions of the Republicans to stay in power.
I don’t know how at this point you doods can fix it, but you don’t have a democracy at the moment. Its just authoritarianism under threat of worse authoritarianism.
It’s almost like you can’t fix everything in 4 years, especially with midterms.
If it was so easy to undo things, Obamacare would have been dismantled in the first trump term.
But since things weren’t fixed fast enough, let’s let the people who broke everything back in power again.
Yet the Republicans seem to have no issues undoing things every 4 years.
Obamacare was crippeled last time I looked into it. But maybe it’s different then what I see from up here.
This, but unironically.
Trump was so bad that in a sane world a desiccated cat turd shoukd have beat him
The fact Harris lost doesn’t mean shes a bad candidate, it means we don’t live in a sane world.
Yeah I agree, it’s the voters who are wrong. Can’t wait to see how this strategy pans out next cycle!
Harris had concrete plans to tackle many, though not all, of the issues people actually care about. People voted for the man openly stating he will make those issues worse.
It’s blatantly the fault of the voters. Until you people can get your heads out of your asses and join us in reality nothing will change.
I mean, yes, the over 70 million voters who voted for Trump absolutely are wrong. That they’re mostly too willfully fucking stupid to understand that may speak to a failure in Harris’ messaging, but nevertheless does not absolve them of the guilt of being willfully dumb as fucking rocks.
Honestly, the voters voted in a way that made sense, given the information they had, which was either nothing - complete and utter lethargy, or a hyper-partisan distortion of reality reinforced by a multi-billion dollar propaganda industry backed by, among many others, the literally richest man on the planet in addition to an entire network of propaganda stations blasting disinformation 24/7. The voters being wrong is intentional and has been in the making for decades.
They did vote in a way that makes sense. The Harris campaign offered nothing in the way of economic relief, while committing genocide. That’s an insanely bad proposition. Stop blaming voters and look at your dogshit candidates.
If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault considering any rational answer to the above question? You may open your book to look up topical issues like peace, climate, genocide, rights, hate, juvenile bullying, criminal bullying, felony conviction, bigotry (don’t miss misogyny relating to to “garbage candidate”, see above), and tariffs.
Ok…
Weird this hasn’t come up before for you.
But different people have different standards.
For Republican voters, it’s usually just the letter by someone’s name.
Dem voters have always had higher standards than Republican voters.
For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault
Because the entire point of a candidates campaign is to get votes. And Kamala and her campaign couldn’t even beat fucking trump.
For all those reasons you just listed he’s terrible, Kamala still couldn’t beat him.
What metric do you think a candidate and their campaign should be judged by except number of votes?
Bonus points:
Why don’t you think a shit tier opponent wouldnt make it easier? And how can a candidate who can’t beat trump not be considered “garbage”?
People insisting “no, Kamala Harris was the better candidate!” Are exactly the people this meme are calling out.
Clearly she wasn’t. That doesn’t mean she was a worse human being than Trump. That’s a hard standard to beat. But she was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do in order to be the better candidate.
If I had a 95 meter head start on Usain bolt in the 100m, I could probably beat him. That doesn’t make me a better runner.
Since the election I’ve written comments the length of essays attempting to explain what you just put so succinctly. “She was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do” 100% this.
For what it’s worth, I do try to make the distinction between her and her campaign. She might have been the winning candidate had her campaign made different decisions, but at the end of the day, she’s responsible for her campaign. They can’t force her to say anything she doesn’t want to.
I think there’s a lot of people talking past each other because they don’t agree on what the purpose of being a candidate is. We might think it’s getting elected, others might think it’s being the best representation of the party. Obviously, she wasn’t option 1, but some people may think she was better because they are libs who agree with her ideologically and are somehow still under the delusion that Rs represent state rights, “godliness”, and fiscal responsibility. They see Trump and think “how can people say he’s a better representative of Rs than Kamala is of Ds” and the answer is that they have no idea what Rs want and are incapable of recognizing the broad spectrum of people that normally vote D. I hope people can rid themselves of that kind of thinking because it’s obviously not serving them or the party. Either recognize that candidates need to be ELECTED to mean anything, or be prepared to be in this same position for the foreseeable future.
what does that make Trump?
The 47th POTUS.
topical issues like peace, climate, genocide, rights, hate, juvenile bullying, criminal bullying, felony conviction, bigotry
Every single one of those issues was put to measure last week and came up short to “the economy.” Idpol has been the Dem’s running charge since Occupy and has netted them exactly (1) election since Obama’s win as incumbent. It’s just not the winning strategy in national elections.
None of those issues mattered because the US system showed everyone it did not matter.
The system had 4 years to enact any form of consequences and there where none. That MUST mean trump was right and it was all lies and nonsense aimed at discrediting him.
And Trumps campaign ran on idpol this time… is she black? Illegal mexicans in prison getting sex changes, kids getting sex changed… you know, the counter to dem IdPol. They pulled it into the extreme and the Dems took the bait… they did not push back.
With the blatant lies of the magas and their fragile egos… I think the only thing that might have made a difference is call trump fat and stupid, bully him to his face and see if you can make him throw a tantrum or make him cry. Same with Vance… are you wearing eyeliner? Would you not be more comfortable on a couch?
If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
The guy who told voters what they wanted to hear. “I know you’re upset at the world, and I’m going to make it great again.”
The best Kamala could do was “I won’t do anything differently from the Biden administration.”
It is utterly wild to me that Biden had to withdraw from the race because he was so unpopular and the Harris team was like, let’s just tie ourselves as snugly to that man as possible. Real brain geniuses on that team. I just read she was relying on a ex uber exec. And it all made sense.
Definitely a catch-22. Throw Biden under the bus and you’ll come across as two-face and people will wonder why you went along with the administration in the first place. Support Biden and his detractors will see no reason to vote for you either.
Having said that, the answer to “what would you do different?” should have never been “id put a Republican in my cabinet.” I think the last 3 weeks of Harris’s campaign is going to go down as one of the biggest fumbles in political history.
You can complain about that all you want, but the fact that Bitcoin is reaching new record highs tells me that your average person would rather be conned than be told the truth.
Turns out, lecturing the voters doesn’t make them want to vote for you. Everything you said is correct, but those weren’t the concerns that resonated. To quote Bill Clinton’s strategist in 92, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Yeah, the economy is doing great right now, but you have to ask, “for who?”
It’s not the economy, it’s a popularity contest when the majority of the electorate stop choosing candidates based on what they do and have done and instead only pay attention to what they say or choose based on uninformed vibes.
Exit polling overwhelmingly disagrees with you. The number one stated reason was the economy.
I agree that right now, our economists have a terrible way of defining a “good economy”. They have praise for a set of numbers such as the stock market rates, which have almost no connection to the well-being of common people.
We need more medians and fewer averages; not to measure wealth when it’s spread among the extremes.
Unpopular opinion: Kamala was a solid candidate.
Biden was headed to a humiliating defeat. Another couple debates, and maybe he loses NY and CA and we have a Dukakis- or Mondale-level annhilation. Kamala stepped in and ran a solid campaign on very short notice. Trump didn’t even have time to come up with a good nickname for her! She kicked his ass in their only debate, and he was literally too scared to do it again.
In the end, she lost by a couple hundred thousand votes in 3 states. She was wrong about Gaza and the economy, but PA, MI, and WI are credibly winnable in future elections. Kamala was not a garbage candidate.
Honestly, yes. Kamala was the way better choice of the two. Biden kinda fell off for me the moment he did the railroad strike stuff.
But I’m not living in the US, so my point is kinda moot.
Biden got those striking workers everything they wanted. He just didn’t scream about it like Trump would have, which was a huge mistake.
The result was a compromise, in parts due to a blockage of the republicans. It was good, but it would have been so much better if they could have continued to hold the distribution of wares hostage. It could have been really awesome for workers as a reason to do the same.
I get that Biden did that to stump broad civil unrest in the whole US, btw. That would have put a lot of people on the streets demanding change. While destroying untold sums.
I think you are partially right. For starters… this was not short notice by any standard. She ran a “solid” campaign.
I’d argue the campaign was flawed because the whole premise was flawed… moving to the right does not help the democratic party. And the risk the Dems now face is that never trumpers join the democratic party and complete the transition of the US electoral system to a choice between maga (Christo fascism) and republican.
If the democratic party had an inkling that the victory of Trump would be as big as is now being said… running Kamala was a doomed endeavor… she was tainted by the Biden years.
Unpopular opinion: Kamala was a solid candidate.
If that is an unpopular opinion then the statement is definitionally false.
This statement implies popularity = good, universally.
In the 1800s, slavery was popular. Hence, should a candidate have run on preserving slavery?
Um…
the voters kinda did the nominating…
Edit: To clarify what I mean. People who voted in the Democratic primary didn’t exactly vote for Biden, but voted for delegates that pledge to vote to Biden at the convention. Those delegates then can vote for who they think the people who voted for them would want when Biden dropped out. The delegates decided the voters would’ve wanted Harris since shes the VP, and that’s probably what the voter would’ve want.
If you argue that Biden only won the 2024 nomination because of 2020. Well yea voters voted for him in 2020 too. 🤷♂️
People need to vote in primaries.
That doesn’t sound like a very democratic process to begin with cause all the power is in the delegates who can just choose whoever they want and not follow the desires of the voters. Which is how pretty much the whole system works to begin with, so its pretty rotten even at the very bottom
It doesn’t sound democratic because thats is what America is. This system of an intermediate group of people between voters and the electer official is why America is the way is is today. ahem Electoral College ahem
If trump wasn’t elected president in 2016, we would not even have this fascist mess to begin with.
