this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
135 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19195 readers
2219 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Or course, being moderates, they didn't mean a word of it.

But it does show that even feigned progressive populism brings out the voters that running to the right alienates.

[–] simplejack 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Yeah, but read the article, look at the policies those people campaigned on, and google whether or not Harris also backed those economic policies. She did. She supported and ran on most of those policies.

IMHO, this was probably more of an issue around how effective the candidates, and their opponents, were at getting the policies or “vibes” in voter’s minds.

[–] Keeponstalin 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It's both a policy and messaging issue. On both fronts the campaign did not take either seriously enough

[–] simplejack 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, just saying that the policies mentioned in the article were not what made those people win or made Harris lose. They basically had the same policies.

[–] Keeponstalin 14 points 2 weeks ago

I disagree, from the article those candidates had more anti-corporate policies that addressed the issue of cost of living. The closest thing Harris ran on was to crack down on Price gouging, which was/is one of her most popular positions, yet she also did not campaign enough on that front and contrasted it with housing deregulation

[–] Eatspancakes84 -4 points 2 weeks ago

Of course they were taking it seriously. You can criticise the strategy, but clearly they took it very seriously.

[–] Ensign_Crab 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

She supported and ran on most of those policies.

She ran on "don't do anything different from Biden" and "Look! We got Cheney's endorsement!" and "shut up, the economy's fine!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This was my perception as well - I live in a deeply red state and what local coverage and ads I saw didn't mention any of these policies.

They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with "communism."

If I was an average American (obese, uneducated, easily frightened, provincial, and racist), I would not have been swayed to vote for Harris. Actually, the average American didn't vote at all.

T**** did a better job of giving the impression that he was going to do something to help the everyday American. It's a total lie but one that's hard to see through - if you're an average American.

[–] gAlienLifeform 2 points 2 weeks ago

They kept the good stuff under wraps and tried to play it safe but not spooking anyone with "communism."

This is it exactly, and I feel like this bit of this Salon article (arc'd) perfectly captures why this happened

Tobias described a dynamic where campaign staff and candidates are hesitant to publicly push back on the assertions of billionaire donors like Hoffman, even if the campaign doesn't intend to let them direct policy.

Tobias indicated that the apparent influence of the super-wealthy has a dual effect. It undermines the Democratic Party’s support from its traditional base by steering policy discussions away from economically populist ideas that go against the interest of the wealthy, while simultaneously helping support candidates who are charismatic but don’t come into politics with a consistent ideological framework.

The influence of billionaires was directly early in Harris’ bid for the presidency when moguls like Mark Cuban warned the Harris campaign that a billionaire tax, for example, would be too aggressive, according to the Washington Post. Other business executives, like Tony West, the chief legal officer at Uber and Harris’ brother-in-law, also served as advisors and, according to the Atlantic, helped steer the campaign away from criticism of corporate power.

[–] LotrOrc 2 points 2 weeks ago

She legitimately didn't run on any of those policies. Two weeks before the election she told everyone that she would do nothing different from Biden. She ran on the platform that Biden was a good president and nothing would change when the entire country was screaming for cha.ge

[–] AbidanYre -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Oh for fuck's sake. Attitudes like that are why candidates don't bother going for the left's votes.

[–] DeadWorldWalking 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You can't meet half way between "a fair world where human life has value" and "complete corporate monopolization of everything. "

The Dems made the choice to continue bending the knee to the rich instead of representing the people who elected them

Wanting leftists to support leftist policies instead of the rich is totally reasonable

I voted for Kamala who was the only correct choice but can'tblame othersfor being apathetic.

[–] Ensign_Crab 3 points 2 weeks ago

You will accept any excuse to move to the right and only the right. You already got genocide support and loved every last second of it.