this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
237 points (92.8% liked)

politics

26450 readers
2415 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was never a big fan, but I was passionate about supporting her from the moment Biden stammered through that debate until this moment in her DNC speech: https://youtube.com/shorts/-UQliWnKnqY

This was the moment when she did the heel turn away from all the clever, momentum building moves that assembled a surprisingly left-friendly coalition. Everything after this was punching left and she lost as a result.

[–] khepri@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I still think Biden's refusal to let go of the reins until way way too late is what doomed her primarily. As VP, she had to hold and defend Biden's exact policies and positions, even the unpopular ones, while he was running. By the time he finally quit, she was basically stuck inside the rotting corpse of his campaign, having painted herself into a corner on every issue.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago (23 children)

Article was a great read. This part really resonated with me.

It may seem petty to use this incident, but it does illustrate Harris’s expectation that the world should conform to her needs. Towels on the far side of the room? Someone else must fetch them. A slot as the Democrat presidential candidate that party leaders conveniently made sure would be uncontested by anyone else, a massively well-funded campaign that raked in over a billion dollars and the support of celebrities like Oprah and Beyoncé, a popular vice presidential candidate, a huge boost in the polls as soon as she stepped into the campaign… and, yet, somehow, her loss is still anyone’s fault but her own. Why are my towels on the other side of the room? Who will fetch them for me?

It really did feel that way in hindsight. That we all were just supposed to conform to her and not the other way around.

I remember Hacks on Tap talking about how their contacts were frustrated that Harris wasn’t out doing more national television interviews and that she wasn’t really putting herself out there. This feels like another example of the towel in the bathroom.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago

So... the Dem strategy was... run an insufferable, stuffy, haughty narcissist to counter a more bombastic, less classy, insufferable narcissist...???

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Imagine not being able to beat Hitler in an election

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Imagine not voting for the black lady because she has to prove herself worthy while a criminal senile pedophile can go on insane demented rants for a year and win by default.

There's a lot of cope happening in America, and everyone is pointing fingers, but the fact is 2/3 of the electorate either voted for fascism or didn't bother to vote against it.

But go ahead and blame everyone and everything other than the fact that American culture is fundamentally rotten and most people either want fascism or at least don't care about whether it happens.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

Well that’s a gross over-simplification. It certainly wasn’t her and the DNC’s long history of clearly ignoring the needs of the people who want to vote for them while regularly reaching for “moderate” votes. It definitely wasn’t her disconnection from Walz while hanging out with Liz Cheney for a significant amount of time.

People don’t see her as any form of significant opposition to the far-right but they do see opposing the DNC as something worth doing and I’ve come around to supporting them there. It is not their fault that the Republicans won, anyoderately sane and intelligent people would have laughed him into oblivion but the US threw tens of millions of people at Trump.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What? She was a fantastic candidate! The fact she lost to someone so obviously bad just means she was bad at communicating to dumb voters. This is a widely known and predictable problem with Americans and you can't blame her for that. So you see, she was the best person to not get the job. /s

[–] cashsky@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

People are missing your /s unfortunately lol

[–] Son_of_Macha@lemmy.cafe 25 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Flopped? It was incredibly close and if Elon did what he claimed she probably won overall. It's only MAGAts that think it was a landslide.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

When a team loses a basketball game by 1 point, literally every missed shot or turnover (or blown defensive coverage leading to an easy basket for the other side or foul leading to made free throws) could be pointed to as the "cause" of that loss.

So yeah, if she were an actual better politician she probably would've won with the cards she was dealt. But there were also dozens of other causes that would've made her (or an alternative candidate) win, all else being equal.

And it's hard to see how a better politician would've ended up in that position to begin with. The circumstances of how Harris ended up as VP probably wouldn't have happened if not for the specific way that her 2020 campaign flamed out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It is true that she didn’t have enough time to put together a viable platform, but if Biden had dropped out early enough for her to develop a viable campaign and platform, that would have meant a primary, and it’s doubtful she would have won that primary.

Even if she had won that primary, it’s still doubtful that she would have assembled a viable platform and campaign. The political cliques she was aligned with were diametrically opposed to the kind of policies that would have made a viable platform.

A break from neoliberal politics was necessary. But basically all of the institutional pressure for Biden to drop out came from neoliberal diehards who were pissed at him for deviating from that line slightly, the age thing was mainly just an acceptable cover story for the insiders. Haris got her chance by appealing to those groups and thus she was never going to challenge those interests.

[–] khepri@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Oh she never in 100 years would have won a primary. She was like rank 8 of 10 in the 2020 primaries, people do not like her

[–] quetzaldilla@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I voted for her but don't like her.

Primarily, because of her stance on prison labor which is just slavery with extra steps.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MourningDove@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 week ago (30 children)

The fact of the matter is in an election where [ANYONE] vs FASCIST is the choices..

YOU FUCKING VOTE FOR ANYONE.

I honestly don’t believe this is still a conversation!! My god you people are not just determined to repeat the mistakes of the past- you’re running headlong right towards it!

So fucking embarrassing.

[–] nednobbins@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's hard to blame the voters in the light of recent events.

Voters just handed the Democrats an insane mandate. Ignoring the voters and caving in to the fascists a week later sends a very clear message, "We don't care about your vote."

Actions speak louder than words.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m gonna be devil’s advocate here for a moment. I followed Mamdani’s campaign closely and I think he nailed it on the spot. You had two politicians running whereas one lied that he’ll reduce prices and make America great again and the other.. did nothing for the most part. From the eyes of the average voter Kamala promised nothing but the status quo, and they wanted change. That’s how Dem strongholds flipped red during this election and how a lot of them went back to blue for the mid term elections. If she told her donors to get stuffed and worked for the working class instead of exploiting the working class she would’ve won.

What a mess we live in. Both options will fuck you over, only one of them will do it with lube.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Of course there were many foolish voters out there but it's not good enough for a candidate to be not Donald Trump. The reality is that many people will stay home when they see dirty corporate politicians running for office. And you can blame the people all you want, but that doesn't change reality, and they'll still stay home.

I think what's embarrassing is your approach. You saw 2016 and 2024 and you still haven't learned from either of them. It turns out that people vote or don't vote for a variety of reasons, and a simplistic approach like yours is a failed approach.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

So she threw intentionally for Israel. Checks out.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago

Number of times a candidate has run against or in place of the incumbent and failed miserably before Harris: 3

..And succeeded: 0

Number of times a candidate has run against or in place of the incumbent and failed miserably after Harris: 4

It was a terribly weak position, but she foolishly believed in the American people to pick the best of two bad options.

She was misguided.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well stop being right wing democrat

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Look. I am not going to pretend that Kamala The Cop was some amazing candidate.

But she never stood a chance with, what, a three month campaign where much of the voting populace never even realized she was running? And a LOT of the reporting and commentary around this reeks of "she just isn't charismatic" or "she is unlikeable" and all the dogwhistles involved.

If anything, it speaks poorly of her leadership potential that she was willing to be saddled with that mess of a non-campaign.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 108 points 1 week ago (13 children)

This is a perpetually idiotic take.

All the statistical evidence that we have, is that once Kamala was the candidate, her polling rose meteorically. Until she started to define herself as a candidate, when all we had were her words as former candidate to base her policy positions on, she was heading towards blue-wave-of-epic proportions territory. She named Walz as running mate and people thought they had someone to vote for herself

Then, during the convention, the definition began as a continuance of a corporate, Biden-esque, more-of-the-same, Democrat. They silenced Palestinian voices and shunned the progressive vote, while embracing Republicans and hawkish dem's.

And her polling rapidly stagnated, then began to slide. As she slid further and further right, so did her polling.

Harris' loss was not an inevitability, and to present it as such is to both misunderstand the political moment then, as it happened, and to misrepresent the ongoing political moment.

If Harris' had ran on her 2020 campaign platform with Walz as vice, she wins. Hands down. The political pressure desperately seeking an outlet on issues like M4A, and so many other leftwing polciies isn't new. Bernie got it started in 2016 and it never stopped growing. All she needed to do was step left and ride the wave. But she chose to make losing decisions. Her loss was not an inevitability and to present it as such is a form of lying.

[–] n4ch1sm0@piefed.social 49 points 1 week ago

Yup, all the momentum and revitalization of the democratic vote slowed to a crawl as soon the biden-esque political strategy got involved, caving on the Palestinian genocide, and by pretty much kicking Walz to the curb when it comes to PR. We could've been riding the "MAGA is just weird" all the way to polls, but neoliberealism had to fuck it all up again.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Her 2020 campaign wasn't actually that good. She started with the same boost of optimism and then fell apart once she started defining specifics and every other statement was walking things back. She flamed out for a reason.

I agree with your statement here though. She had all the momentum and tools to win and flubbed it through actual choices, not some inherent insurmountable challenges.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, but then how does she get all of those bribes, er, money?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

The whole campaign was a scam to make consultants rich by buying TV ad spots for which they get a percent..

[–] tree_frog_and_rain@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Taking campaign advice from her brother in law, the CLO of Uber, who is a big part of the gig economy which destroys workers rights, was also a huge red flag.

I still voted for her, but it was like choosing a shit sandwich over Hitler. I didn't exactly want either one.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (3 children)

But she never stood a chance with, what, a three month campaign

That was half her strength. Trump's entire team was geared around shitting on Joe Biden. And then Joe Biden stops being on the ballot, sending oodles of oppo-research and Hunter Biden smears and god even knows what kind of October Surprise they had cooking down the toilet.

Biden dropping out and throwing up Harris in his place meant she was free to pummel Trump with negative ads while he had to fully reconfigure his campaign to attack someone who'd spent four years as a backbencher. And - early on at least - Harris capitalized on this well. She came in with a moderate Dem - Tim Walz - who defused some of the Zionist image built up around Joe. She spewed negative ads at Trump and Vance, leaning on the "they're just weird" talking point that got plenty of mileage both on and off-line. She was a prodigious fundraiser, unlocking a ton of cash that Biden had left on the sidelines because he was too senile to call the mega-donors and ask for it.

And, as a tabula rosa, she (initially) ditched all of Biden's first term baggage - his failure to secure student loan relief, his endless efforts at compromising with far-right Republicans, his pull-out of Afghanistan and dive into Ukraine, his just being a gross old fart who couldn't talk good.

But then Harris had to take on a bunch of Hillarycrat advisers and tack to the right. She ditched Walz for Liz Cheney and Cindy McCain. She sucked up to the Silicon Valley Techbros as they lined up to knife her in the back. She repeatedly defended Joe Biden's least popular policies. She undid everything that Biden dropping out was intended to accomplish.

If anything, it speaks poorly of her leadership potential that she was willing to be saddled with that mess of a non-campaign.

She never really had a choice. But that's been the hallmark of her entire political career. Harris always just kinda blew where the wind took her. She shouldn't have been VP to begin with, taking the job only because Biden confusedly promised a black woman VP when he was asked about his plans for a next SCOTUS pick.

But then she surrounded herself with some of the most abysmal neocon reject advisors $1.5B could buy. And she tanked her chances at becoming the First Woman President by running the Clinton Playbook that had cost her predecessor so two prior electoral defeats.

[–] Mim@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago

tabula rosa

It's "tabula rasa" (meaning "blank slate")

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 22 points 1 week ago

The campaign came out of the gate punching and dominated the news cycle. Then they took pelosi's advice and tacked right and immediately began to flounder.

Im not convinved the technofascists wouldve allowed a democrat win, but i don't think it's because kamala only had 3 months. Thats how long election campaigns are in civilised countries.

load more comments
view more: next ›