this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
1095 points (96.0% liked)

politics

23099 readers
3370 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] computerscientistII@lemm.ee 8 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Is this wise? As an outside observer I had the impression that Harris lost in part because of systematic, subtle and overt racism and sexism. All this applies to AOC, too. Do the Democrats want to lose? Don't they have some sort of JFK look-alike, people actually want to vote? It's not as if appearance wasn't way more important in the US than things like the actual political agenda.

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

As another outside observer I'd disagree that was the reason she lost. Yeah there's racism and sexism issues in the US, but in the last US election both AOC and Bernie got a lot of votes to elect them as senators on the senator ballot from people who also voted Trump on the presidential ballot.

AOC and Bernie did some polls on social media asking these people why they voted for both them and Trump. The responses were typically like "you're not part of the political elite" and "you say it how it is" and "you seem like you genuinely care about Americans".

IMO, Kamala is considered too close to the democratic political establishment and that the American public is desperately craving some more (mostly economically) progressive politics which AOC and Bernie have been talking about for years.

If the DNC run Kamala in 2028 then the Trump administration will project it as "Biden, Harris, and the elites want to be president forever, so why not pick me instead".

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Why are you writing Karmala? Her name is Kamala.

[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Whoops, spelling mistake, thanks for pointing that out.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Sexism and racism seems like an obvious answer and one that it's easy to find evidence for the existence of. But if you break it down a bit further, sexists and racists vote Republican anyway.

[–] computerscientistII@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

You have a voter turnout of about 60%. That's nothing. If all of your sexists and rapists were republicans, you'd have significantly less than 30% sexists and racists. But I strongly suspect that only a fraction of your republicans can be called blatant sexists and racists. Hint: The world isn't black and white and sexism and racism are systematic problems that can't be boiled down to left vs right.

[–] HiddenLychee@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I know a few old Dems who voted for trump this year because they didn't think a woman could be president

[–] turnip@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

She was also unlikable as a person. I don't think I even heard much from her until she was foisted into running for president.

[–] ramsgrl909@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

I would also say the people didn't ask for Harris/Biden - the DNC just picked who they wanted

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago

A lot of people said what you're saying. There is some percent of the population that was not going to vote for a woman. But I think more importantly is the problem that she had really weak views. Her positions were and are anti-worker in many obvious ways. She's not taking giant steps to rain in corporate corruption, and she never will.

If you want to try to pick someone is white, male, and not at all offensive in any way, I don't really like your chances at winning, but even if you could it wouldn't be someone worth supporting because they wouldn't actually make our lives better.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 3 days ago

I don't think Kamela lost due to her gender. It is because she had no legitimacy since there was no primary to sort the chaff from the wheat, and she simply didn't have enough time to effectively campaign. Plus, bad advisors who wanted her to play by the standard Geronocrat playbook. Walz was carrying Kamela, until he was muzzled from pointing out how ghastly the Magat menace was.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think a lot had to do with Harris telling e eryone the economy was great, while her potential voters can barely make ends meet, while her opponent was agreeing with the voters that the economy sucked.

[–] Hazor@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

That was one of the things that boggled me the most. I understood why they e.g. wouldn't call out Israel, dumb and evil as it was, but to keep hammering on how "great" the economy was, over and over, despite all evidence that indicated people were struggling? It blows my mind. I can't imagine a better way to get people to vote against you.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 2 points 4 days ago

Kamala lost because she was too close to the administration that is blamed (rightly or wrongly, doesn't really matter) for the cost of living crisis.

It also didn't help that she was thoroughly uninspiring. The best part of her campaign was the actually refreshingly left wing (by american standards) walz.

It marked the third time that the Democrat party has run a soulless career establishment politician against trump. They only won the time before because Trumps fuck ups were immediately apparent and fresh in everyones memories.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

No. Surprisingly it wasn't the overwhelming racism and sexism of USA. Michelle Obama would have destroyed Trump. She probably would win in 2028 too.

Like everyone else said... Kamalacaust lost because she's a genocidal prosecutor walking in the footsteps of another total failure. They're just gross people.

The dems would rather lose than betray their genocidal capitalist masters.

[–] computerscientistII@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

Oh come on, put a sock in it. The US is not responsible for what Israel is doing in the middle east and even what Israel is doing should be open for interpretation. The world is not black and white. And don't try to convince me that the majority in the US cares even a little bit about what is happening in the middle east.

[–] joenforcer@midwest.social 3 points 4 days ago

Stop bringing up "genocide" as the reason, please. It's not. If people cared about genocide, they would've voted against the "finish the job" Republicans.

[–] Bloomcole@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

She lost bcs she was a racist heartless tone-deaf ghoul