Kamala Harris won politicaly engaged voters, but lost voters who don't follow politics.
Kamala Harris won politicaly engaged voters, but lost voters who don't follow politics.
The final NBC News poll showed Vice President Kamala Harris losing voters who don’t follow politics closely by double digits.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
How are they analyzing the demographics of non voters at exit polls when non voters wouldn't be exiting the polls to be questioned?
Which non voters are you talking about? The article is about politically engaged voters and voters who don't follow politics, both of which are voters.
yes. thats there point.. the voters are not why harris lost.
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
Why was she the only other option? Is there something wrong with how we count our votes that artificially restricts the number of viable political parties?
Yes, our electoral system guarantees only 2 parties are viable. Whether that's good or not is irrelevant, because it's the system that was in place for this election.
She was forced as the only choice on voters and liberals find that acceptable
Fucking child. Grow up.
It doesn't matter. She was the choice we had.
Harris was going to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations. Why the fuck would you NOT vote for that?
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
party ran a piece of shit right-wing blue fascist
LMAO Just more projection from a MAGA Trump supporter
classic blue maga behavior - any structural critique must be met with tribal-style ad hom: "yeah well you probably just support kang instead of kodos."
blue maga
So cringe
Critique was due in any other election year without an actual literal fascist on the Republican ticket.
bLuEMaGA screechers=Projections from Trump supporters
This attitude perpetuates the Democratic ticket running terrible candidates who can't inspire either voters or potential voters. You can settle for a poop sandwich on rye rather than a poop sandwich on John Deerst but some would prefer something actually nourishing.
Like I said, binary thinking
Hate to break it to you, but the US elections ARE binary for as long as FPTP is the voting system nationwide. You want real change? advocate for things like RCV. I wouldn't even vote for the DNC IF RCV was nationwide and third-parties actually stood a chance, I'm just being realistic.
As things stand now, you're just demanding a fantasy. A pursuit that will now have blood on its hands because now instead of a "not really a fascist, just not as left as id like" president we have a full throat legit fascist.
Now you have every decision that Trump makes on your conscious.
My conscience is clear, I voted for no evil.
My conscience is clear, I voted for no evil.
Neither did I vote for Donald Trainwreck. I voted D for democracy.
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 party did not "thrust a candidate on you". The elected delegates chosen by the voters chose a nominee. As for Harris, she was chosen by the delegates because she was the VP. And she was the VP because she came in 2nd place behind Biden in the 2020 primary. The 2020 voters "demanded" Biden first, and "demanded" Harris 2nd. Unfortunately Bernie was not first or 2nd.
Elected delegates from a primary that most voters were never even aware of? Even Democrats who were aware knew full well that it was a pointless exercise. Can you even name another candidate than Biden?
You better go check your facts on the 2020 primary. She was only competitive for about one day after the debate where she went after Biden's racism. She dropped out after reports that her staff imploded because of internal conflicts. This was almost two months before voting started! Oh, and Bernie actually did come in second.
Harris was chosen as VP because she was the establishment choice for President from the start. The establishment through a myriad of backroom deals (mostly brokered by Obama) got every establishment candidate to drop out the day before super Tuesday and endorse Biden who had been in last place of all the candidates still in the race. Biden payed for the help by putting Harris on the ticket. Bernie split the progressive votes with Warren (who quit campaigning but inexplicably refused to drop out) so Biden won.
Does any of that sound like democracy to you?
Elected delegates from a primary that most voters were never even aware of?
How can anybody not know there is a primary held every 4 years?
This was almost two months before voting started! Oh, and Bernie actually did come in second.
Wow I checked and you are right. Bernie did come in 2nd in delegates! Harris was apparently 2nd in the polls but she did drop out before any of the primaries.
Still, the fact that Harris was the Vice President made her the obvious choice of the 2024 delegates after Biden dropped out.
Bernie split the progressive votes with Warren (who quit campaigning but inexplicably refused to drop out) so Biden won.
Warren not dropping out ticked me off too. But it wasn't necessarily the reason Biden won. I think he got more than Sanders and Warren combined.
Does any of that sound like democracy to you?
After Biden dropped out, having the elected delegates chose the nominee sounded like the most democratic option and the only option in line with the DNC charter. You had a better option?
How can anybody not know there is a primary held every 4 years?
Trump just won the popular vote. How well informed do you think the American public is? Why were there no debates?
Harris was apparently 2nd in the poll
In one poll for one day. As I said,she got some attention when she attacked Biden on race, then interest in her plummeted just as quickly.
Still, the fact that Harris was the Vice President made her the obvious choice of the 2024
Which is why a lot of people, including myself, were pissed off that they stuck her in the VP slot after voters rejected her. The obvious choice is someone who wins a primary. It's Biden's fault we didn't get that chance, and it's establishment scheming that put him in that position.
Warren not dropping out ticked me off too. But it wasn't necessarily the reason Biden won. I think he got more than Sanders and Warren combined.
Final vote tallies are pointless in primaries. The press started treating Biden as the winner before half the country had even voted, and Bernie dropped out soon after. For the last two months, Biden was the only candidate in the race. (Though I believe Bernie won at least one state after dropping out.)
After Biden dropped out, having the elected delegates chose the nominee sounded like the most democratic option and the only option in line with the DNC charter.
I never claimed there was another way to choose at that point. However, Pelosi claimed that she expected a primary after getting Biden to drop, but that crashed when Biden immediately endorsed Harris.
The point I made was that Kamala was a choice of the establishment, not voters. Therefore, the fault is theirs. They did force her on us.
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.
Why do you guys pretend to understand the electoral college in one breath and in the other assume every critic of the Democratic party lives in NC, GA, PA, MI, etc.?
My vote would have literally been more wasted voting for Kamala in a deep red state. At least a third party vote could get your party to notice something.
The vast majority of Americans do not live in swing states.
"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 pawn 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
I can go ahead and call 2028 for you now.
It’s gonna be the Dem or Rep nominee.
It is binary. If you believe another outcome is likely, let’s bet money.
Kalama lost bc voters for who voting is a real burden didn't show up to vote. They are poor and likely people of color. Fuck off with blaming people.
Hey I’ll likely be fine. Better off than the people you identified in your comment.
I’m a cis white male who makes ~$250k/yr.
The ones who sat at home are likely going to be much worse off.
At least it’s gonna be very hard to make the brain dead “both sides” argument over the next 4 years.
I’m a cis white male who makes ~$250k/yr.
opinion discarded
It’s just too much to expect lots of you to simply evaluate an idea on its merits.
See you in 2028 when the Dem or Rep wins again.
See you in 2028 when the Dem or Rep wins again.
appeal to futility, false dichotomy 🤓
It's binary because voters keep it that way
It literally doesnt though. Its because of how our votes are tallied, First Past the Post. If a third party ever reached viability, theyd just split the same half of voters with whichever large party theyre closer to
Sure. Agreed.
That doesn’t change the fact.
I made no claim about the mechanics of it. Only the outcome.
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.
You know what makes for a viable candidate, people voting for them. Liberals claim to support a 3rd party but not until they are viable. They essentially want other people to do the work for them so they can hop on someone else's bandwagon and claim this is what they always wanted
Is it really how that works? No way! Ive literally never heard anyone say that! Definitely not over and over in this thread or anything!
Thanks internet stranger for solving the third party problem! Not all hero's wear capes!
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.
If they do, they will lose... Again
I hope the democrats move hard right next election to target people who actually vote and don’t just sit it out.
Pretty much why y'all lost 2016 and 2024 but go off
Dems moved hard right this election and it cost them
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.
Plenty of people voted for kamala and are huge critics of how the campaign was handled. Both can happen.
"Plenty" was not enough. The pre-election criticism looks like it worked exactly as intended.
Yeah I've been seeing the exact same thing, and I think it will be interesting to see them gradually unravel in the coming months.
You can see that all of the astroturfing, bot accounts vanished after Election Day, and all of the useful idiots are left to try to fight the cognitive dissonance they're feeling after seeing the immediate insanity of Trump since winning.
Unfortunately, if they actually are progressives, they will likely have a much harder time ignoring the cognitive dissonance than conservatives (who seem to excel at that ability). They're in for some real psychic pain when they witness Trump's actions in Palestine.
"those leftist rubes not voting for my party, well jokes on them cause I just imagined the other guys doing worse"
I'm not looking forward to Trump, but this is the path the Democrats paved by their own actions. Blaming the voters is not a real strategy for anything other than nursing bruised ego.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.
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.