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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
This is what happens when you sell all of the major news outlets to billionaires - they publish pro billionaire propaganda
Democrats ran another perfect losing campaign. Some people might say that losing makes a campaign definitionally imperfect, but that’s only sane people.
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
Is the DNC in the room with us?
WTF is with people on this site and the DNC?
Mostly the anger at having to pick a slightly less lethal poison election after election
The DNC went full mask off this year by not holding primaries. By campaining with the cheneys and pushing 10 year old GOP policies/talking points.
All they will learn from this is losing elections still lets you amass a “warchest” of one billion dollars
The last president – Obama – that the DNC really wasn’t at all involved with was still somehow not very progressive.
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.
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.
I mean… bernies doing it. Dude is like 80 and is absolutely idolised by the younger generation and regular middle and lower class people because he seems to actually practice what he preaches and is genuinely interested in what’s good for people. Most politicians to me just give the impression of seeking politics to enrich themselves and clasping onto power to avoid losing that even when their senile and completely incapable of fulfilling their role.
Bernie’s got an app?
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.
Don’t forget Sinclair Broadcasting. They’re the local branch of the right wing propaganda machine.
Fuck Reagan and his deregularion.
What’s crazier is when WB bought CNN and literally said Faux News was the plan for what they wanted to do, and loads of journalists resigned from CNN over the changes…
People still think any media organization owned by billionaires has a chance to be “on the left”.
If a billionaire (or group of billionaires) own a media company, it’s only to manipulate people into blaming anyone except billionaires for the current state of affairs.
Like, it’s great you’re realizing it now…
But the merger was two years ago…
None of this was done in the shadows, they came right out and said it. Publicly and repeatedly.
What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.
The problem is they’re getting it for the same reason: to trick us into voting against our own interests.
What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.
The news could literally just use the same standards for both political parties and treat significant news with the stress it deserves regardless of parties and they would already look like left-wing lunatics.
Corporate news is not the guardrails of democracy. Ultimately, the people are responsible.
Will we be nominating better voters next election, or should we try to nominate a better candidate?
Ok, what does that actually mean when you apply the sound bite to reality? What are your specific expectations for “the people” as individuals?
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
Fucking up implies they didn’t get exactly what they wanted.
There’s no way in hell either Kamala or Biden’s egos left any room for them to want to lose. They tried to win and to please their patrons at the same time and found out the hard way that it’s not always possible.
This is the real answer
Fair. “Fucked Us Up Again”?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
party ran a piece of shit right-wing blue fascist
LMAO Just more projection from a MAGA Trump supporter
“Corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures”
Donald Trump
Third party candidates
“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.
There’s a lot of us that did not vote for top of the ticket and voted downline
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.
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.
The rich 100% would.
But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.
Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.
An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.
The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.
The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.
And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…
That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.
By “I’m not sure if that’s true” I meant the attack ads costing them the election, not that they would get attacked which I’m pretty sure they would. For what it’s worth I do agree that an actually progressive Dem running on a anti-capitalist platform would do quite well. I’m not sure it would be well enough to win, but I don’t think it would be a guaranteed loss either. The biggest counter example I can think of would be Bernie Sanders, but that has the extra complication that the DNC did everything they could to try to bury him. A progressive candidate with the backing of the DNC I suspect would do well enough to offset any possible damage done by attack ads.
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.
