this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
391 points (93.3% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4186 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Many Democrats, especially women, expressed disillusionment and frustration online, viewing the result as a reflection of deep-seated misogyny in the U.S.

Harris supporters highlighted anger that a “felony convicted, twice-impeached” Trump prevailed over a female candidate.

Comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss resurfaced, with many attributing Trump’s win to targeted appeals to young men, including appearances with influencers like Joe Rogan.

The election outcome has intensified concerns over growing right-wing radicalization among young men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Anything except blaming her policies because those conservative policies come with a shit ton in donations...

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Yup. Sadly, we can't run some robust experiments, but I'm pretty sure Warren would have outperformed Harris by a mile.

God I hope the DNC's fucking takeaway isn't "must only run neoliberal men".

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago

I looked back over the 2020 primary data and Kamala dropped before she even got to the first vote, Warren continued to pull small groups of delegates after super tuesday. In a very real sense Elizabeth Warren beat the pants off Kamala in terms of the primary. I was really pushing for her early in 2020 because I felt she was a consensus candidate between the further left Bernie types and the centrist Buttigieg types.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

She’s even wonkier than Harris and wouldn’t have connected with voters as well.

Don’t get me wrong, she’s an amazing Senator. But what makes you good at governing isn’t what makes you good in a campaign.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

She was (briefly) leading the race at one point and packing large speaking venues. She had four hour lines of people waiting to get a picture with her. Wonkier doesn't equal "unable to connect with voters".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I'm pretty sure Warren would have outperformed Harris by a mile.

What makes you so sure? The fact that Warren lost in the 2020 primary by giant amounts? 😆

Bernie was right in 2020. America isn't ready to elect a female president.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

More than one thing can be true. And they obviously were in this case.