159

I spent hours trying to persuade US voters to choose Harris not Trump. I know why she lost | Oliver Hall (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

105 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Gender bias played a significant role in Kamala Harris’s defeat, with many voters—often women—expressing doubts about whether “America is ready for a female president.”

Some said they “couldn’t see her in the chair,” or questioned if a woman could lead, with one even remarking, “you don’t see women building skyscrapers.” Though some voters were open to persuasion, this often became a red line.

Oliver Hall, a Harris campaign volunteer, found that economic concerns, particularly inflation, also drove voters to Donald Trump, despite low unemployment and wage growth touted by Democrats.

Harris was viewed in conflicting ways, seen as both too tough and too lenient on crime, as well as ineffective yet overly tied to Biden’s administration.

Ultimately, Hall believes that Trump’s unique appeal and influence overshadowed Harris’s campaign efforts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

They absolutely don't have a coherent constituency, that's for sure, but they certainly could have a large enough constituency to put Trump and his entire army of ignorance and sleeze to bed once and for all, but they only cater to a very small segment of what could be their constituency, and for many of the people who could be their constituency it often feels like they're actually catering to the enemy rather than to them.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

That's exactly my point. To appease one section of their potential voters they have to piss off others. We can second guess them on which decisions would've led to a victory, but the fact remains that they come across as incoherent and inauthentic because they have to walk a tightrope to keep together an imaginary coalition between things like American Jews who support Israel and Palestinian immigrants. They fail because they aren't representing a coherent set of people. They're representing sometimes conflicting ideas. American atheists and Catholics. Muslims, some of whom believe that women should be subservient, and "childless cat ladies". People in this country are overall much more regressive socially than online progressives want to admit.

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 1 points 4 days ago

When it comes to the conflicting ideas they need to pick a side. And the other side has to decide whether to show up or not, we know which side always shows up, maybe they should take a backseat for a bit, they'll show up anyway.

Like if you think women should be subservient, you're not on our side. If you are okay with arming a terrorist nation to carry out genocide you're not on our side. Easy peasy ones.

I think we're actually finally at a truly 50/50ish ratio of regressive to progressive in the US... That's why things are so tense between the progressive actual left and the regressive "left" DNC. Yeah there's still misogynistic bigoted people here, but definitely way fewer than 100 years ago. And they should ALL be on the other team.

this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024

159 points (87.0% liked)

politics

19088 readers

1585 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

• 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