237
Kamala Harris won politicaly engaged voters, but lost voters who don't follow politics.
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
237 points (95.1% liked)
politics
19102 readers
4178 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Shifting blame by... checks notes... analyzing the demographics of voters.
Ah so you ARE a Trump supporter. Got it.
It's an ML that doesn't understand how elections work...or they are the CCP ops....one of the two.
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
Now you have every decision that Trump makes on your conscious.
Oh, fuck off with that. The fault ultimately lies with a party that thrust a candidate on us that primary voters flatly rejected in the 2020 primary, then ran a Republican lite campaign strategy when voters have been demanding change for decades.
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.
LMAO Just more projection from a MAGA Trump supporter
"Corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures"
"They're literally the same thing!!"
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 pawns 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!
So, we should elect Donald Fucking Trump instead? Is that your conclusion?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Because she wouldn't have been shit. Your argument is invalid.
That doesn't matter. She was the only other option we had
How is reporting what PEOPLE filled out in exit polls, shifting blame? These are just facts.
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.
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
...
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.
"following politics" is not the same as "voter engagement".
Someone that never pays attention but votes R every two years like clockwork for example.
They'd be "do not follow closely" on that, but if they 60 years old and voted R every election since they're were 18...
How exactly are they "politically disengaged"?
They're still voting, just not paying attention.
Like, there are loads of over things we're going to have to clear up for you to understand, but getting that difference is step 1.
If you understand this mistake, we can probably move forward and cover other stuff. But if you don't get this comment, nothing past it is going to be productive.
A lot of this is coming from the horrible headline that co flates the two, and is outright false.
So far trump has the most votes, he literally won with the politically engaged, because those are the people who voted.