Kamala Harris won politicaly engaged voters, but lost voters who don't follow politics.
Democrats won 'highly engaged' voters and struggled with everyone else in 2024
Once again, they are only looking at the people who DID vote... Those people always vote, and clearly the proportion of blue "always voters" is dwindling compared to red "always voters". Yes ignorant voters lean red, but it doesn't matter. Stop pretending like there's a huge swath of "swing" voters. There's not. Trump got basically the same votes this time. This election came down to the 10 million Biden voters who stayed home for Kamala. That's it. All the rest of this is nonsense bullshit propaganda to obscure the truth. Why didn't they come out for Kamala??
They only "came out" for Biden because of covid and because trump was in power during covid and people were angry about how he handled it and there were a lot of mail in ballots.
Without the covid effect I really doubt Biden woulda won in 2020
God forbid Biden were to have run again, it would've still been a landslide, and he aint a woman. Maybe old as shit, but there is still a lot more common issues people grew to not like so much about Biden, then Kamala said she wouldnt be any different from.
I dump this comment because I personally believe reductive narrative will hurt our ability to effectively work together, and probably the biggest part the dems failed.
To add to that, in 2020 we had almost universal mail voting that had been rolled back in most swing states by 2024. In addition, there were a lot of scary stories floating around about Trump supporters at the polls. Lastly, voter suppression efforts do suppress votes (e.g. removing people from voter rolls, closing polling places in blue districts, making voting worse).
Sorry buddy, you don't get to hand waive away yet another failure. This is on the democratic party.
Time to make that change obama promised a reality. Can they rip their lips off their donors butthole? Doubtful
I'm sorry, but the idea that 10 million people on the left chose not to vote for someone just because she's a woman is ridiculous. People who think like that are Republicans and would never have voted blue no matter what.
I'm pretty sure the DNCs entire strategy was making sure people knew they were better than Trump. But okay, I'll give you that one of their failings was not leaning into all the horrible things Trump did or allowed.
The because she's a woman is major league copium, and if you choose to believe this then you got serious issues.
Everybody who was voting age was old enough to remember the trauma of 2016-2020 without reminders. Yes the dems should leverage everything anyway, but even the non-politically-aware have it in working recent memory. We can take that out of the list of causes.
Because she's a genocidal cop prosecutor. Who could be less inspiring?
The missing 10 million Biden voters is a silly talking point, leads to entitled questions, and reaching infantile and politically impotent conclusions. Are you so dense that you don't know how electoral college works?
I have spoken to two kinds of voters.
First off, was my dad. He never ever voted in his life. This was his first year of voting and he went Harris. Simply because he knew enough of what she was about and liked her character.
Meanwhile, the other party was my formerly adoptive mother. She voted Trump because "I just don't like the other party". That was her only reason. And that was just simply dishonest and uneducated.
So, it is possible that someone is capable of just even doing the tiniest research can give you an idea of who to vote for.
Wait, what do you mean by formerly adoptive mother?
Mom, I'm disowning you. It's not me, it's you. Now pack your shit and think about what you've done.
The artist known as my formerly adoptive mother
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
This is what happens when you sell all of the major news outlets to billionaires - they publish pro billionaire propaganda
I'm doing my part by getting more news than I probably should from Lemmy.
Capitalism
Fucking up implies they didn't get exactly what they wanted.
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
Corporate news is not the guardrails of democracy. Ultimately, the people are responsible.
You want the democrats to be the one and only bulwark against the republican party? To bad. In a democracy, everyone deserves to be at the table.
It wasn't right before the democrats repeated failures, and it sure as hell ain't right now.
Can’t forget when I overheard someone say, “when was Biden is not running for president” as Trumps was announced he was president elect…
Democracy dies in ignorance
"Stupid uninformed people didn't vote."
Oh really?
That and people who couldn't take time off from their three jobs.
I have 3 part time jobs and I was able to vote.
Honestly I thought it was really stupid to hear Trump going after "low propensity voters" as if Kamala wasn't.
To me, politically engaged people by nature will vote so why the fuck wouldn't you be trying to reach those that don't pay much attention? Like ffs if these people can't be their own advocates how could we expect them to run the damn country... Very very stupid. :(
The problem is that ots much easier to get people enraged than it is to get them to show understanding. The reds only talk about hate, and that's very hard to combat. It's been their strategy my entire adult life, and I'm 51. It's culture war propaganda.
What we need are Podcaster and other influences to rail against billionaires and their crimes.
The ones that get their information from places like Fox, Threads, Facebook, Nextdoor, X, etc.
How can you not include X?
You’re right. I just don’t use it and deleted my account, so it wasn’t in my head. Added.
Just in: Preacher very popular with choir.
No shit.
"Politically engaged" in completely disgusting politics is not a positive thing.
The hegemonic narrative (eg. nbc) will never prevent this viewpoint.
Kamala Harris won if you only count people who were born on Tuesday.
Democrats, get the fuck off your ass and do away with First-past-the-post voting in the states you control and get the fuck out of the way. You had your chances. You blew it. It's over.
The United States of America is more important then the Democratic Party.
The consultants running the campaign measure success in dollars raised. That means they only messaged those politically engaged.
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.
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.
lost voters who don't follow politics.
This could imply that they started following politics and then decided not to vote democrat.
No...no it doesn't imply that at all.
I'm politically engaged. She lost me and loads of others when she said shes a Zionist and supports destroying the environment.
So, she never lost you then?
Did you miss it when she said she loves fracking about a million times?
How old are you? The idea that you're not going to vote unless you agree with a candidate on 100% of issues seems pretty unrealistic.
I have never in my life voted for a candidate that I completely agree with. And the ones I liked most tended not to do very well, because my opinions are not representative of the population at large.
If you're waiting until you can find a candidate who has zero positions you don't like, you'll be waiting until you're dead. Good job participating in democracy!
Who said I wouldn't vote? I'm in my 40s.
In other words she is a black woman...
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.
What does this have to do with the subject of discussion?
They saw a woman was running for President and decided they didn't care. It's as simple as that. Sexism gave the election to Trump
We can point fingers at demographics, and certainly that may have been a part, but its reductive to say just sexism. If we accept any single reason, there will be no reason to improve our platforms.
You've got Democratic leaning media blaming the dems for being too woke.. and more than half the country just didn't vote. We need a platform that argues in favor of worker and individual rights alike while not capitulating on either, because as soon as you do capitulate to the right, you lose support, plain and simple.
These people are throwing as much shit at the wall desperately to find anything to blame other then the Democratic Party. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism because the democrats would rather cling to First-past-the-post voting with rigor mortis clenched hands then to have to actually compete for your vote.
A trump presidency over breaking the two party system.
Party over country.
Latinos shift to Trump won him the election. Harris had the white and black support she needed
When the only voters who sat out were white and hispanic men then what would be the logical reason?
Why didn't women sit out this election at the same rates? Why not any other groups besides white and hispanic men?
What other conclusions can you even draw for these specific groups that have masculinity issues than not voting for a woman?
53% of white women voted for Trump. Your "America won't vote for a woman" argument doesn't hold water.
Americans won't vote for specific women, sure. Namely Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. The fact that they are women is not why they lost so cataclysmically; they ran platforms that were deeply unengaging to Democrat and Independent voters. Worse, they tried to appeal to Republicans, which only underscored how out-of-touch and unprepared they were to hold the office. Moreover, neither of those specific women, nor the DNC that backed them seems to have learned anything from their continual failures, which, again, only deepens the divide among Democrats' necessary coalitions.
Their failures are a function of being bad at post-Obama politics, and bad at running for the highest office in the land. It's not because they are women.
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.
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.
knew she can't be trusted with our support
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
"Corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures"
Donald Trump
Third party candidates
"They're literally the same thing!!"
So, we should elect Donald Fucking Trump instead? Is that your conclusion?
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.
...
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.
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
lost the ones more easily duped by soundbites of lies.
"I love the poorly educated!" -Trump, 2/2016
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.
She did, you just weren't listening.
You can't win without getting the easily duped vote. Dems will always lose if they ignore that.