Since the election I've written comments the length of essays attempting to explain what you just put so succinctly. "She was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do" 100% this.
For what it's worth, I do try to make the distinction between her and her campaign. She might have been the winning candidate had her campaign made different decisions, but at the end of the day, she's responsible for her campaign. They can't force her to say anything she doesn't want to.
I think there's a lot of people talking past each other because they don't agree on what the purpose of being a candidate is. We might think it's getting elected, others might think it's being the best representation of the party. Obviously, she wasn't option 1, but some people may think she was better because they are libs who agree with her ideologically and are somehow still under the delusion that Rs represent state rights, "godliness", and fiscal responsibility. They see Trump and think "how can people say he's a better representative of Rs than Kamala is of Ds" and the answer is that they have no idea what Rs want and are incapable of recognizing the broad spectrum of people that normally vote D. I hope people can rid themselves of that kind of thinking because it's obviously not serving them or the party. Either recognize that candidates need to be ELECTED to mean anything, or be prepared to be in this same position for the foreseeable future.
I can't speak to the misogyny, but to your second point, I try so hard to not mention him because your opinion gets disregarded in dem spaces as soon as you bring him up. He did everything right and dems would rather lose than actually be progressive.
I keep telling myself I won't comment on political posts, and yet here I go again.
If we stop looking at non-voters, and start actually looking at voters, you'll see that Trump gained support among both women and non-white voters. Why is nobody asking about that? I would rather they have stayed home than given Trump the extra vote, but all you hear about now is low turn out in white men. She lost in almost every bloc because she didn't inspire any of the dem base. High turnout skews dem and she was just not an inspiring candidate.
Kamala had no time to campaign, was an unknown to voters despite being the VP, made no strides to distance herself from Biden, and failed to run a cohesive strategy. People just were not excited to vote for her. Do I think a popularity contest is the best way to elect the president, no, but that doesn't change the system that we have.
The race was extremely close, and the fact that Trump GAINED in POC and women blocs probably speaks more to the campaign that was run rather than America's inherent sexism or racism. Just to be clear, America is sexist and racist, and people can be self hating or whatever, but she GAINED points in the white male category and lost in the black male category. Sure, white men should have shown up, but it's very easy to cry "racism/sexism" if you ignore all the other people who didn't show up or the people who DID show up and voted trump. She might've run as well as she could have, but it was a bad campaign.
There was a 5% loss in young voters. I wonder how energized they would have been not just to vote but to donate and volunteer had she run a different campaign. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but Joe ruined the chances of a dem winning this year.
If dems still want to blame racism/sexism, then I don't want to see any dems support POC/women in primaries. Dems should only run white males and if I see a POC/woman being pushed again I will assume they want to sabotage that year. I expect "I'm not voting for a POC/woman candidate" to be a well regarded and widespread dem opinion for practicality sake. Either stop running them ever, or admit they can win with better campaign strategies. You can't have it both ways.
Going off these numbers: https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turnout-election-demographics-trump-harris/3762138/
I get where you're coming from, and I sympathize with what is sometimes referred to as "low information voters" (though I don’t know how I personally feel about that term), but it's important to point out that they are not NO information voters. They have heard at least some of what Trump has to say, and are willing to overlook blatant racism/fascism/misogyny/homophobia for what they think will be lower costs (or another either equally empty promise or overtly harmful promise). I am not by any means well off, but if someone said they could decrease my costs if I assented to rounding up X group, I would not take that deal. They have. They might not know the extent to which he will do others harm, but they are willing to take the deal because they do not think it will harm them directly. Hence the leopard/face jokes. They might be doing "honest work", but that does not make them good people (though "some, I assume, are good people").
I have family that voted for Trump who would be classed as "low info" and they only know he's "gonna put god back in schools". They don't go out of their way to physically injure people different from them, but it's clear that not only do they not care about those people, they want to force them to conform or leave. Imho, that's not indicative of a good person. In fact, it's often indicative of a bad person. Say what you want about "different values" or how dems are more open minded or whatever the studies show, at a certain point, conservatism makes you a bad person.
Sure, we can debate about where that line is, but the further back you want to "conserve" the worse you are in my experience. Wanna go back to the 90s? Probably economically motivated, but willing to throw the lgbt+ community under the bus. 70s? Them and women are not important to you. 50s? Just blatantly racist at this point. Anything before that and they might as well want to bring back ownership of people. At the end of the day what are they trying to conserve? Their own power. They just differ in who they're willing to trample to take it back.
I think in this case the concept is that you are sending a thank you to Kamala Harris? So it's supposed to make you feel like you will be contacting her directly in some roundabout way. So in that case although the text is to you, the thank you they are requesting you sign is to Kamala Harris.
It's not really like that at all. Kinda the opposite.
"We would love you to pick up pizza for dinner"
"I generally don't eat out"
"If you don't pick up pizza, someone will get lasagna delivered"
"That's fine. I don't really care"
"WHY DIDNT YOU GET US PIZZA?! NOW WE ONLY HAVE LASAGNE!!"
If the dems wanted them to go out and pick pizza, they could've worked harder to do that. The people that didn't vote legitimately do not care. The dems needed to give them a reason to care and they didn't. Is it unfortunate that stopping fascism isn't a good enough reason? Yes. Did we know that was going to be the case the whole time? Yes. The dems strategy was bad, and people will suffer because of it. The people who didn't vote will continue to be apathetic.
Lmao at your last line. Yea, in another comment this AM I mentioned that they need to never run this kind of campaign again. If they do, it better be for the most generic white guy to ever exist. I know they will continue to run it because ratchet theory works in their favor regardless of what they say, but it's just so disheartening. When they refused to let people speak at the convention I knew it was over for them. What a terrible joke. I feel insulted that I had to vote and pretend to care just to have them do less than I did. Hope we all make it through ok.
So help me, I'm tired of seeing this take. You can't have it both ways. If you think Americans (dems specifically) are too racist/sexist for a black female president, then running her IS a mistake. Either you think it's ok to run a candidate you know will likely lose but it's worth it to say a black female ran, or you think they had reason to believe she would win. If #1, then that's tacit support of Trump, if #2 you think the best poli sci/stats people in America were too dumb to figure out people are too sexist/racist.
I know dem voters that are racist (seeing a POC=lock your doors). They voted Harris. I know Rs that are racist (too racist to write here). They voted Trump. If the dems ran a better campaign, Kamala would have won. If they knew they were gonna run this campaign and were concerned the tiny minority of dem racists/sexists would be a problem, they should have run a white man. The take that America is racist but Kamala did all she could and the platform was great and we don't regret running her is the problem with democrats. They did something wrong because they lost. If they wanna blame racism/sexism, fine, but then they have to take accountability for having a black woman run as the only choice. If we're saying that's the reason I don't wanna see them run this kind of campaign for another woman or POC. Give us our rights. I don't care what the person who does that looks like.
Sorry for the rant. I'm sure we agree on most issues, I'm just absolutely livid. I'm beyond consolation. My best friend just had a miscarriage and was given medical care that Rs are trying to make illegal. She would have died without it. She's still trying to convince. If this happens again in trumps America, I don't know what her outcome would be. It feels hopeless when people just point at voters. Dems can't change America, but they can change their platform. I hope they learn and do better, but that's been my hope for too long. I'm losing faith.
What a bad take. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. It has very little to do with race or sex. I'm not going to pretend that it has nothing to do with that, but certainly not enough to change the results in even the tightest of races.
The democrats ran a bad race and they crippled themselves by not having a primary. A primary allows voters to hear more from candidates and Joe all but said he would be a one term president. Him holding onto power like he did while having such a low approval rating really kneecapped any chances for another dem to inject excitement into the base.
Like it or not, a politicians job interview isn't based on their policy, it's based on their ability to get votes. Kamala Harris didn't get enough votes, so she did a bad job. She might not have been given the tools to do better (like having a primary in which to get her views out), but ultimately she failed. If you're a sheep herder and you can't herd your sheep where they need to go, you can't blame the sheep. It's your job and you're bad at it. The sheep are what they are. Sure, you can point out that the other shepherd beats his sheep into submission, or slaughters the sheep who misbehave, but ultimately if he manages to get the flock (with or without all the sheep) somewhere, and you can't get them anywhere, then it's your fault. Not only are you a bad herder, but the sheep that remain in your flock are worse off because you're unable to protect them since you're floundering trying to get the lost sheep. They just sit there picked off by wolves (or whatever I'm not a shepherd) watching you be upset at the lost sheep. They would be better served by a better shepherd. They might not have been better served by the other guy, but that doesn't mean anything now because you failed and now the wolves are getting them anyway. Blame the sheep if you want, but that doesn't help you find a better shepherd next time.
The sheep who misbehave MAY be sexist, which statistically is not the reason they stray, but if it was, you should have left them to a different shepherd. It's your job to protect them and if they're sexist and won't follow a woman, it's in everyone's (including hers) best interest to just let a man do it. Though, I can't stress enough how little that probably changed the result of this election.
I'm a woman and I voted Clinton. I voted Harris. If I could choose between never having a female president for the rest of Americas future but having all the presidents align with my issues, or swing between R and D with some women sprinkled in, I'd choose option #1 without question. I don't need a woman in office, I need someone who can win and make policy changes I support. I don't care about anything else. Having a female candidate who wants to protect my bodily autonomy does nothing for me if I can get a president who does. Making this about identity politics is a great way to remove pressure from the dems to do better. Before the election you can't criticize dems. Apparently after the election you can only criticize voters. The dems ran a terrible race and have been failing on both policy and optics for the entirety of her run. I feel bad for her, but I feel worse for us. America is screwed and the dems refuse to take any accountability. (Obviously the Rs are the absolute worst, but telling satan he's evil just makes him smile, so I don't bother. In case you want to know why I never really mentioned Rs).
Just here to add my favorite site. I'm a fan of basically all Japanese type puzzles from: https://www.brainbashers.com/puzzles.asp
I edited my above comment with some links and will just add them here: Edit because apparently people don't believe me. Googling "DNC mailers voter information" and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says "The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists."
Since you seem to want specifics, there are pics in the articles, but "The mailers also contain a statement that the center “will be reviewing these records after the election to determine whether or not you joined your neighbors in voting.”"
That might be the case, but I edited my above comment with some links and will just add them here: Edit because apparently people don't believe me. Googling "DNC mailers voter information" and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says "The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists."
I can't stress enough that it does read the same. I got one from a dem org and though it was formatted differently, the wording was the same. It basically ended with "we will be checking to see if you vote this year". It was gross and felt invasive even though I have no reason to be scared at all, even if my whole ballot was public. I can only imagine how some immigrants or people in abusive households took this.
Edit because apparently people don't believe me. Googling "DNC mailers voter information" and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says "The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists."
I commented elsewhere in this thread, but I'm sad to report that the dem ones are not good either. They're probably not as bad as the Trump ones, but the message is still gross and I received one from a dem org that had me looking up the owners and donors because it looked like a right wing scare tactic to me.
Just because information is public doesn't mean using it is a good strategy. I think this was a bad choice for dems.
Edit because apparently people don't believe me. Googling "DNC mailers voter information" and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says "The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists."
Don't wanna doxx myself because the mailers are all region specific, but I can assure you they are coming from dems too. I'm a dem voter and I got one and googled it. I even looked at the org that's behind it and the CEO was openly a dem and the employees donated to left wing candidates and the org comes up as left wing when I looked into it. I called them to say that this seems like a right wing scare tactic so I was surprised to see it used on a left of center orgs mailers. Obviously there is nothing the rep could do, but hopefully if enough people call in they will change this. I'm still concerned that this left wing org is somehow secretly right wing because the mailer rubbed me the wrong way so much.
Edit because apparently people don't believe me. Googling "DNC mailers voter information" and I was able to pull up plenty of articles, though I do not have the letter I personally received. Please note that I know they are not from the DNC, I was just looking for generic words that google would associate with dems. For transparency, I very slightly edited my original comment for brevity/clarity.
The second article (mentioning that they received a cease and desist for what the state deemed intimidation) says "The groups described themselves as nonpartisan, though their founder, Page Gardner, and CEO, Tom Lopach, are both former Democratic strategists."
Puréed potatoes and they're good actually, so you're just making their point. 🥔
Thank you for compiling this so neatly. It's nice to have this all together.
He literally says "How can you wish a company to fail simply because they do not cater to you or that the product does not please you is beyond me." I'm not saying he never mentioned employees or hate towards them, but his statement definitely comes off as purposefully misleading. Is there hate on the internet? Yes. People are sometimes hateful, but he even mentioned it being a vocal minority. To post something like this while there's active backlash against the company and their games when he admitted to not posting much makes his intentions pretty clear. The majority of the "hate" is towards the company not the employees, but by being a concern troll he gets to lump in valid criticism of the company with a minority of people being hateful to the employees (some of which are directly responsible for the bad decisions of the company btw).
Maybe you disagree, but bad companies deserve to fail, and people responsible for harmful decisions the company makes should be held accountable. I think it's ok for people to say that. I don't want anyone anywhere to be treated poorly, but he seems to care more about the hate hurting their bottom line than actually hurting the people there. His statement would have read very differently otherwise.
"I understand if you are upset with decisions made by companies, including ours, but please do not direct hate towards individuals trying to do their jobs. If you take issue with the behavior of an individual, you should be able to express that while still respecting the person." Or something like that.
Although I was unable to access the full article, the framing from the abstract seems to be: "Which is less human?" Followed be two pictures of cyclists. The question frames dehumanization as a given. I do not specialize in crafting these kinds of surveys, but it seems like "people dehumanize cyclists" is a weird conclusion to draw. I don't know what the pictures were or if they were in color or silhouette, but I can imagine people are not used to seeing cyclists in safety vests and therefore it's rated as least human, because it's the least often seen kind of person riding a bike (at least in my experience). Just a friendly reminder to always look at the source, especially if it's so easily accessed, since the commenter above was kind enough to link directly.
I'm queer and basically a gender abolitionist so I am not disagreeing about the social nature of gender, but I think phrases like that are pretty reductive and depending on the context in which you hear it. You can think of just as many supporting examples as contradicting ones. Though, in my opinion we really don't need to "show" that gender is a social construct, for many reasons, but mostly because so many people don't care, and they think social constructs are good, actually.