118
Democrats Blow Their Chance to Block Trump’s Resurgence
(theintercept.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
118 points (88.8% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1453 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
Harris didn't do anything any good pol wouldn't do. The popular will was not there, as the results displayed.
Huh? Look at her campaign's treatment of the Uncommitted movement, among others, and say that again. Harris was openly antagonizing her voters, relying completely on not being Trump ala Hillary Clinton and courting right wing voters at the cost of her base. And if you don't believe it, well, take it up with Bernie.
Fringe groups always think they have more political power than they do, and always feel picked on.
Liberals will do any amount of mental gymnastics to point the finger at anyone but themselves.
Harris lost Michigan by less people than voted Uncommitted during the primaries. They might be a "fringe group," but Harris sure could've used some of their votes, don't you think?
If Harris would have won all the votes cast for Democratic Senators in each state, she would have won with 270 electoral votes.
Fringe groups will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make everything about them.
Harris tried to run on protecting abortion rights, and saving democracy from Trump and Project 2025. Under other circumstances, that probably would have worked.
Unfortunately, she was the nominee for the incumbent party at a time when the vast majority of voters were unhappy with the economy. That's a hard position to be in, and requires a compelling answer. She had a few token items for the agenda, but nothing that would address the larger issue of people feeling squeezed by inflation. Saying things are better now or going to be better soon doesn't appease the voters who don't feel better.
The horrible truth is, a large portion of the electorate would vote for the literal devil if he was running against an incumbent during a bad economy.
I've seen this put a different way. That she didn't separate herself adequately fromas Biden, in this case the economy. But, that's the problem for a politician as the minute any c she separates on one issue, others will be asked about. Then the story is about perceived failures, rightly or wrongly. Most young voters have never been through an inflation cycle. They don't realize that that they are pretty natural, and also this one was controlled well. You just ride them out. But, I doubt you could point to this issue as a sole cause.