Not one word in there about turning to the right, campaigning with Cheneys, ignoring all progressive policies, and generally behaving like R-lite in a bid to court R-votes that never came, with no message other than “look how much worse Trump is”. I’m a little disappointed in Rolling Stone, but not at all surprised that the people they interviewed left those things out.
Ultimately, if this is their analysis, they’ll make the 2016 mistakes for a third time in 2028.
When they started listening to Democrat leadership instead of going with the momentum, I knew it was over. Pelosi and the gang urged the campaign to stop using “weird” and to court centrists with the Cheyne stunt.
If she had publically turned on Pelosi instead of bowing to her, she might have won. Hell, might have even had more luck attracting people on the right who didn’t like Trump that way.
(A Harris source admits the campaign could have made her more available for podcasts if they had more time, saying, “If we had had a six-month runway instead of 107 days … does she do Martha Stewart’s podcast? Does she do something with Ina Garten?… There’s so much, so many things that you can do, but we just didn’t have time.”)
These people will never fucking learn. Martha Stewart and Ina Garten occupy a fraction of the podcast space, which has very quickly come to take up the same platform as late night TV did twenty years ago or radio did before that. Don’t forget that Bill Clinton’s media blitz making him look like a normal, likeable guy is attributed to his presidency.
I don’t like Joe Rogan or listen to JRE but it’s obvious that scorning the largest audience in the world is ridiculous. Bernie did it and the comments on YT are overwhelmingly supportive of him. To just write off that entire audience as a lost cause was campaign suicide, even before the whole “i would put a Republican in my cabinet, thank you Liz Cheney” stuff happened, especially as we keep seeing that this election was determined by poor, economically stunted and socially disaffected young men.
No, no, no, surely you don’t get it: the Harris campaign didn’t target affluent, suburban white women enough. With a 6-month extension, they could’ve surely carved out enough support to counter Trump’s gains in literally every relevant demographic.
If they had 6 months, these examples would have given us way more things to point to on why Harris lost.
Don’t over analyze it, America is not ready for a woman to be president. So many women just want to take down other women that its just not time, which is sad. Adding some racial diversity in there just sealed the deal.
More women voted for Hillary than Kamala by percent. The gender gap was way wider too. You can literally just look at the statistics and disprove your own bullshit. Kamala didn’t lose because she was a woman because even compared to the other recent woman candidate she did poorly with women.
Funny how female Democratic senators won in three of the swing states Kamala lost, almost as if sexism wasn’t the deciding factor… but that could imply that Kamala failed for a reason that’s potentially her own fault, which might require some kind of self-reflection on the part of the Democratic party, and we absolutely can’t have that under any circumstances. The Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed.
