-7 points

The consultants running the campaign measure success in dollars raised. That means they only messaged those politically engaged.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

It’s worse than that.

The current DNC determines who gets leadership positions by who brought the most in

Bring in 10 million from lifelong Dem voters who show up rain or shine and volunteer?

Sorry, someone just got 250 million from a fossil fuel corporation to get Dems to be pro-fracking, so now they’re leading the party.

What’s crazy is so many people defending the DNC on this and insisting we have to keep doing anything the rich ask, even though their money will never get back all the votes being pro-fracking get us.

It’s not just that either, Sam with border wall, funding genocide, and lots of other shit.

Both parties cater to the wealthy, because both parties care more about money than votes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Made this point on another article and the response I got was that they need to keep fellating rich donors because if they stop those rich donors will run attack ads against them and cost them the election. I don’t know if that’s true or not but if so they might as well give up now because those rich donors aren’t winning them elections either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The rich 100% would.

But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.

Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.

An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.

The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.

The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.

And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…

That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-45 points

Sounds like they are trying to shift blame, again. We knew exactly who she was and knew she can’t be trusted with our support.

permalink
report
reply
34 points

Shifting blame by… checks notes… analyzing the demographics of voters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

How are they analyzing the demographics of non voters at exit polls when non voters wouldn’t be exiting the polls to be questioned?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Which non voters are you talking about? The article is about politically engaged voters and voters who don’t follow politics, both of which are voters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
*

We also knew exactly who Trump is. We have a very long history.

I particularly love stuff about him before he was in politics, like the Motley Fool podcast on how he duped public investors for his private company through pumping up real estate values. They went to his office, saw this weird array of gaudy decoration and oddly attractive employees, sat down with him, and saw through his lie. Then made the only short in their firm’s entire history… and it paid off.

There’s no excuse of bias. You can’t blame any politicians. It’s just him. And while not perfect by any means, you have to squint hard to see Kamala in the same light.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Right.

But one thing we should also know is that running a bad candidate who is better than the only other option isn’t enough to decisively beat even the worst possible Republican.

Voters should have all voted for Kamala even though they didn’t want her to be president due to her policies. That would have mitigated the damage.

They didn’t do it in 2016 either, and Biden only squeaked thru because Trump was actively in office and Bernie stayed till the end to pull Biden left. If either of those didn’t happen, the strategy would be 0 out of 3.

It’s clearly not an effective strategy compared to running a candidate who already agrees with Dem voters

So rather than stomp our feet and being mad at the people we need in 2028, maybe spend the next four years bringing them back into the fold and running a candidate that people actually want to win the election?

Like, we’ve tried stomping our feet for 8 years now since Hillary, do you think any of that has helped?

Because to me, it looks like all it accomplishes is increasing donations from people who want Dems to lose, and turning dlteliable Dem voters into non-votets.

Stop worrying about if you’re right.

Start worrying about what can win 2028, and if that will actually translate to fixing shit

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Why is the default argument from liberals always ‘but Trump?’ Harris would have been a shit candidate not worthy of being elected regardless of who her opponent was.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

That doesn’t matter. She was the only other option we had

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Because she wouldn’t have been shit. Your argument is invalid.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

How is reporting what PEOPLE filled out in exit polls, shifting blame? These are just facts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

You have to understand, the people who constantly attacked Harris before the election now have to figure out some way to make her just as bad as Trump, to excuse their own behavior. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is it reprehensible? Yes. Is it absolutely predictable as a means of trying to escape responsibility for the rancid shit hurricane that will be Trump Part 2? Yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Plenty of people voted for kamala and are huge critics of how the campaign was handled. Both can happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Yeah I’ve been seeing the exact same thing, and I think it will be interesting to see them gradually unravel in the coming months.

You can see that all of the astroturfing, bot accounts vanished after Election Day, and all of the useful idiots are left to try to fight the cognitive dissonance they’re feeling after seeing the immediate insanity of Trump since winning.

Unfortunately, if they actually are progressives, they will likely have a much harder time ignoring the cognitive dissonance than conservatives (who seem to excel at that ability). They’re in for some real psychic pain when they witness Trump’s actions in Palestine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

How are you using exit polls to find out about why non-voters didn’t vote?

Did everyone say they were politically engaged as they were leaving a polling location?

Or are you using logic to determine everyone that just voted was politically engaged, and those who didn’t are politically disengaged?

Cuz like, yeah, obviously that’s true…

But what matters is why they’re politically disengaged and how we can get the to engage again.

A very very easy way, would be to make sure the next candidate agrees with Dem voters more than Republican voters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

And how are they polling these non-voters at exit polls if they did not vote? Odd dog. The story is blame shifting bullshit, what Democrats love doing whenever they can’t manage to run a decent candidate or election

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

knew she can’t be trusted with our support

Ah so you ARE a Trump supporter. Got it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

“Corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures”

Donald Trump

Third party candidates

“They’re literally the same thing!!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Third-party candidates?

Oh, you mean the ones who have never won a presidential election in the entire modern history of the US and has become nothing but pawn for the 2 established parties to harm the other e.g. Jill Stein, Russian asset?

Those third-party candidates?

“A non-vote or vote for a third-party is a vote for Trump”

So congrats MAGAt, your guy won!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Life must be so easy being binary and thinking, critique of one does not imply support of the other. Your party ran a piece of shit right-wing blue fascist who openly welcomed war criminals and you guys thought it was okay. We did not

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

party ran a piece of shit right-wing blue fascist

LMAO Just more projection from a MAGA Trump supporter

permalink
report
parent
reply

The 2024 US presidential election was a binary choice, because that’s how it works with first past the goalposts elections.

If you voted 3rd party, you voted for Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Now you have every decision that Trump makes on your conscious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s an ML that doesn’t understand how elections work…or they are the CCP ops…one of the two.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

So, we should elect Donald Fucking Trump instead? Is that your conclusion?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Who said anything about electing Trump? The only people that say, but Trump are the liberals that think you’ve only got two options. There’s a lot of us that did not vote for top of the ticket and voted downline, top of the ticket was garbage, regardless of which fascist you decided to support

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You’re an idiot if you think that not voting for Harris means you didn’t implicitly vote for Trump.

There were two viable candidates in this election, because that’s how the US election system works. A 3rd party will never win until the entire system changes. Full stop.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

We have a voting system that mathematically devolves into a two party system. If you think voting third party will change anything the way the system is set up right now, you’re naive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

There’s a lot of us that did not vote for top of the ticket and voted downline

No, the republicans won all three branches so that’s a lie.

I hope the democrats move hard right next election to target people who actually vote and don’t just sit it out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I can go ahead and call 2028 for you now.

It’s gonna be the Dem or Rep nominee.

It is binary. If you believe another outcome is likely, let’s bet money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
113 points

lost the ones more easily duped by soundbites of lies.

“I love the poorly educated!” -Trump, 2/2016

permalink
report
reply
2 points

It’s too bad she didn’t offer any soundbites of truth. Her entire campaign was built around being inoffensive to everyone which meant saying nothing that might evoke meaning. Lies thrive in that environment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

She did, you just weren’t listening.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I’m easily the most politically engaged person I know. If I wasn’t listening (though I was) then that’s a really bad sign. We need candidates that drive engagement.

Kamala had a lot going in terms of technocratic improvements that actually would provide some value for voters, but there was nothing transformative, and there was no interesting narrative.

The most interesting thing she did was campaign with Liz Cheney, so that’s what got the attention. She wanted to convince right leaning voters that she understood them, but instead communicated that she is just another neoliberal warmonger. It doesn’t matter that she might have threaded the needle perfectly in her rhetoric because she stepped into a narrative that said otherwise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

No, SHE didn’t.

Corporate News Fucked Up Again.

For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.

permalink
report
reply
36 points

I don’t think it’s fair to just dump all the blame on corporate media. The news media landscape hasn’t meaningfully changed since Trump was first elected, but despite having 8 years to formulate a sound media strategy the DNC is still campaigning like it’s 2015.

Like, sure, the Democrats are running with a handicap in the current media landscape, but that isn’t new, and it’s the responsibility of the DNC to figure out how to overcome that disadvantage — a task that the current leadership has proven itself woefully incompetent at.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Yeah but like, it’s a bit crazy that the right has: Fox News, OAN, NewsMax (or whatever it’s called), Joe Rogan Experience (gateway drug/sanewashing), Benny Shaps network, X, Truth Social, Prager U, Tim’s Pool, right wing radio, and lots of other smaller shops and they all seem to claim corporate media is the worst and they’re all here to tell you the truth.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

What’s crazier is when WB bought CNN and literally said Faux News was the plan for what they wanted to do, and loads of journalists resigned from CNN over the changes…

People still think any media organization owned by billionaires has a chance to be “on the left”.

If a billionaire (or group of billionaires) own a media company, it’s only to manipulate people into blaming anyone except billionaires for the current state of affairs.

Like, it’s great you’re realizing it now…

But the merger was two years ago…

https://www.vox.com/2022/8/26/23322761/cnn-john-malone-david-zaslav-chris-licht-brian-stelter-fox-peter-kafka-column

None of this was done in the shadows, they came right out and said it. Publicly and repeatedly.

What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.

The problem is they’re getting it for the same reason: to trick us into voting against our own interests.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Don’t forget Sinclair Broadcasting. They’re the local branch of the right wing propaganda machine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Yes. Add to that that they have no ethics, and will say and do anything.

People on the left tend to actually adhere to their moral and ethical framework, which immediately puts us at a massive disadvantage against the dirty cheaters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The news media landscape hasn’t meaningfully changed since Trump was first elected

I think that’s the heart of the issue. Yes, DNC should have figured out away around all corporate media outlets but that’s an enormous, unbelievable ask.

Yes, the DNC should be mobile, and memeable, and . . . fuck, I dunno - on 3.14chan or whatever, but at the end of the day they still have to rely on the fucking Today Show and NBC Nightly News and the motherfucking New York Times to carry their message without shitting on it - which they absolutely will. never. do.

The right has poured hundreds of billions into this since the mid-90s. The left has no fucking clue. Despite having all the academics and content creators telling them what to do. It’s time to put a fist in the face of corporate news. Sweet talking has gotten us a fascist dictator.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I mean… bernies doing it. Dude is like 80 and is absolutely idolised by the younger generation and regular middle and lower class people because he seems to actually practice what he preaches and is genuinely interested in what’s good for people. Most politicians to me just give the impression of seeking politics to enrich themselves and clasping onto power to avoid losing that even when their senile and completely incapable of fulfilling their role.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Fucking up implies they didn’t get exactly what they wanted.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Fair. “Fucked Us Up Again”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This is the real answer

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There’s no way in hell either Kamala or Biden’s egos left any room for them to want to lose. They tried to win and to please their patrons at the same time and found out the hard way that it’s not always possible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Sure they wanted to win but losing doesnt change Kamala’s or bidens lives at all. They dont have to bear the burden of the trump nonsense like average people might.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.

Wait…

You’re surprised people are blaming the candidate that lost and her campaign team that was paid millions of dollars and spent over a billion and still couldn’t beat trump?

Why?

What is the logic where the people whose literal job was to win the election, aren’t at fault for losing the election?

And I’m scared to even ask, but:

Since you think they’re blameless, does that mean you really want us to do the same shit in four years again and hope this time screaming at people will be effective?

Cuz buddy, it’s never been effective at anything besides letting some shitty republican into the Oval

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Corporate news is not the guardrails of democracy. Ultimately, the people are responsible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ok, what does that actually mean when you apply the sound bite to reality? What are your specific expectations for “the people” as individuals?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Will we be nominating better voters next election, or should we try to nominate a better candidate?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Who’s “we”? Democrats? Leftists? I voted against Biden in both primaries (because this outcome from a shitlib was inevitable) but there were not a lot of good alternatives in 2024.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There will never be another fair and free presidential election in this country if Trump and his clownshow are allowed to take power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Poor soul thinks said corporate media somehow exists completely outside of the scope of the DNC as if the DNC itself isn’t just a convention for corporate donors to show up and throw in their demands in exchange for campaign funds and lobbying money.

I mean I’m sure the headline NYT article about Clinton having a 91% chance of winning was totally some next level corporate funded psyop and not a one of the many thousands of advertisements paid for by the DNC. /s

No, it’s totally the corporate media that’s after her and has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate that dropped the entire uncommitted movement worth of constituents for $100 mil in corporate AIPAC money. /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Is the DNC in the room with us?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

WTF is with people on this site and the DNC?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

This is what happens when you sell all of the major news outlets to billionaires - they publish pro billionaire propaganda

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m doing my part by getting more news than I probably should from Lemmy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Democrats ran another perfect losing campaign. Some people might say that losing makes a campaign definitionally imperfect, but that’s only sane people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

She lost to a carnival barker. Other than that, the campaign was perfect! Great news for the Democrats because they have the perfect formulae. (/s in case you missed it.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

To be fair, inflation is better, but it’s also valid to question how it’s being calculated and if it really reflects how much money people can have at the end of the month.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 463K

    Comments