gagacasanova Posted November 7 Posted November 7 She was OVER IT. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTF37RErU/ 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted November 7 ATRL Moderator Posted November 7 11 minutes ago, Kylizzle said: So who failed worse between Kamala and Hillary? i'm gonna go with Kamala because she lost the popular vote. Kamala. Hillary ran on more policies (this was partly because she had to run through a primary), she campaigned alongside Bernie Sanders and other popular figures, and she has the benefit of the doubt for assuming the political game was still safe in the Obama era. Kamala saw Trump run for president twice and had the ability to apply hindsight into her campaign against Trump and she lost by making more obvious strategy mistakes. 6
Virgos Groove Posted November 7 Posted November 7 This election was a referendum on Joe Biden. And the people said no.
GhostBox Posted November 7 Posted November 7 (edited) Harris came decently close to winning the EV while having to run a campaign in 100 days. she did as good of a job as she could've considering the plate of **** she was handed. if she would've had a whole year maybe she could've crossed the finish line. it seems her being the candidate did help save some senators and house members though. Which might've been the strategy all along. 💀 Edited November 7 by GhostBox 8 1
Virgos Groove Posted November 7 Posted November 7 Just now, Bloo said: Kamala. Hillary ran on more policies (this was partly because she had to run through a primary), she campaigned alongside Bernie Sanders and other popular figures, and she has the benefit of the doubt for assuming the political game was still safe in the Obama era. Kamala saw Trump run for president twice and had the ability to apply hindsight into her campaign against Trump and she lost by making more obvious strategy mistakes. What, you're telling me sending a geriatric sex offender to Michigan to tell Muslims they should forget about their dead relatives isn't a good campaign strategy? 2
ClashAndBurn Posted November 7 Posted November 7 1 minute ago, GhostBox said: Harris came decently close to winning the EV while having to run a campaign in 100 days. she did as good of a job as she could've considering the plate of **** she was handed. if she would've had a whole year maybe she could've crossed the finish line Still flopped either way. She will always be known as a loser just like Hillary. And she also lost WORSE than Hillary. 1
Kylizzle Posted November 7 Posted November 7 More days of the Kop campaign would not have helped anything unless she magically came up with some policies like bffr 3
ShouldersSideways Posted November 7 Posted November 7 4 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said: This election was a referendum on Joe Biden. And the people said no. Christie said Biden should look in the mirror and take blame for his part in this. From everything we've seen from the Bidens, there's no way he's doing that. I guarantee the whole family is saying if he'd stayed in he would have won. If he'd announced he wasn't running for reelection, I really believe there's a chance Trump wouldn't have won. It would've been close, but he was massive baggage for Harris to overcome. 2
GhostBox Posted November 7 Posted November 7 This is true in a alot of states and I don't see these people creating a cult following around JD Vance in 3 years 💀 1
Communion Posted November 7 Posted November 7 (edited) "The turnout isn't that different from 2020! You can't expect 2020 to be the norm!!" 2016 vs 2020 vs 2024 - Electorate Composition White: 71% -> 67% -> 71% Black: 12% -> 13% -> 11% Less than $50k: 36% -> 35% -> 27% Do people grasp what it actually means for Dems if the share of the electorate made up by black voters shrinks by even just 1 point? Black voters went from 13% to 12% of the electorate from 2012 to 2016. At the state level that meant an 18% collapse in turnout for Black voters in Wisconsin and why Hillary lost. For working class voters to collapse from a third of the electorate to just a fourth? It means Republicans win them as a category for the first time in decades. Voters who made under $50k were over 40% of the electorate in 2012. Edited November 7 by Communion 1
Lil Mistee Posted November 7 Posted November 7 1 minute ago, Chemist said: I completely agree with you!. The issue runs much deeper than simply deciding which policy would be best for the next dem candidate. Dems need to find a way to break Trump's support. The current Democratic coalition is unlikely to win elections again. Neoliberalism and centrism have been thoroughly rejected by voters, so they should not be considered moving forward (knowing how dems brains work, it will most likely be). The idea of a left-leaning outsider could either be a viable solution or a complete disaster, but it's worth exploring! While I agree with both of you I also think that this election was not a complete blowout. We have to realize Kamala had 90 days to put together a presidential campaign while Trump, essentially, had 8 years. If Trump does what he says he's going to do, it'll cause massive inflation and tax payments on the American people, and that will make it swing back to Democrats. We're kind of an a feedback loop where a conservative president gets in, destroys the economy and dems come in to try and fix it (not doing the best job there tbh,) and then the dem gets blamed for the leftover republican economy and the republican gets all the credit for the cleaned up dem economy. This is why I'm mad trump won after Biden like god he's gonna be seen as fixing the economy twice now lol. We need the next candidate, whoever they are, to speak in tangible ways. I will give an example, Dems love to say "we're going to bring inflation down" "we will cut taxes for the poor" but then have no tangible policies that get across to voters. Trump is very direct, "I will use tariffs to make manufacturers come back to America". Will this work? NO it's an awful awful idea but he speaks directly. If we had a candidate who said "listen, there is an oligarchy out there controlling the prices at your local Kroger, cvs, and Walmart that is causing the prices to go up, also known as price gouging. I will take on these powerful influential people and business practices by doing a b c and d. And therefore I will stop these powerful rich people in so much power that control every point in your lives to give you a better standard of living." Or something to that affect. They need to name names, be direct, and explain things clearly. When Kamala says I will take on corporations and stop price gouging she didn't really explain it well. She made it about herself talking about how she's done it before, okay explain what you did. This wide sweeping coalition of dems stopping people from saying things upfront needs to GO. Being direct and forthcoming is how grass roots movements get their power and how people can get into office from a non nepotismed or influential background. Literally we just need someone like Bernie, his messaging is very clear, easy to understand and agreeable. Americans all want access to health care and every single time he does a town hall agrees with everything he says. They sometimes push back with "who is going to pay for it" but he always explains the way it works clearly. He doesn't ***** foot around or not answer the question. I truly think next election cycle swings back to the democrats. Sorry if this post doesn't make sense I'm on my phone at an event but I wanted to explain my reasoning for having hope in the next election.
shyboi Posted November 7 Posted November 7 1 hour ago, GraceRandolph said: The time for him was 2016 or 2020. We need someone different, someone with a message the way you were right all along sister, we do not deserve you
Tovitov Posted November 7 Posted November 7 Sherrod Brown should run for Vance's seat in the 2026 special. The environment will certainly be better and he outran Harris by a huge margin. 9
Kylizzle Posted November 7 Posted November 7 2 minutes ago, GhostBox said: This is true in a alot of states and I don't see these people creating a cult following around JD Vance in 3 years 💀 To be fair Sam Brown's only achievement is that his face got blown off in a war. Maybe if he was more qualified they would be in a different boat
GhostBox Posted November 7 Posted November 7 1 minute ago, Tovitov said: Sherrod Brown should run for Vance's seat in the 2026 special. The environment will certainly be better and he outran Harris by a huge margin. I was just thinking this. 👏🏼 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted November 7 ATRL Moderator Posted November 7 8 minutes ago, GhostBox said: Harris came decently close to winning the EV while having to run a campaign in 100 days. 💀 More days of visiting The View to gloat about how you’ll have Republicans in your cabinet and more days of campaigning with Liz Cheney would have likely just hurt her even more. She had nothing to say that needed more than 100 days to get across. Kamala’s biggest issue (aside from her association to Biden) is that she stood for nothing. She’s always been like this though. I was hoping she’d use this to pretend to adopt popular policies like she tried to do in 2019. But she instead decided to just say nothing of substance. If we had a proper primary, we could have dodged this bullet. But Biden’s exit was so late that we basically were stuck with her. She could have rose to the occasion and ran away with the race, but she didn’t. She made informed decisions that many of us knew would cause problems for her. She knew Michigan had a large Arab American population that cared deeply about Gaza and she still yelled “I’m speaking!” to these voters and kicked out Arab Americans out of her campaign events (for no reason). The defensiveness of the Democratic Party in the past few months around Gaza and their decision to back Israel’s genocide has gotten to the point of being Islamophobic. But that’s their choice and Kamala fell on her own sword. 1
Cruel Summer Posted November 7 Posted November 7 After taking some time to think and reflect, I want to be sure I'm getting where we are on the "what happened?" question. The more I read, the more I think the picture becomes a simple, crystal-clear story of what happened. Democrats failed for too long to appeal to young and working class voters on "bread-and-butter" issues, notably allowing far-right ideologies to fill that vacuum in young men in particular; high inflation in recent years being deeply associated with Biden (and by extension, Harris) created powerful headwinds against Democrats that they failed to adequately address; and Biden dropped out of the race too late to allow a true primary, which hampered both the party itself and the nominee who didn't go through the primary process. Am I missing anything ultimately super consequential here? To me, it seems like these are the core problems and that things like Project 2025, reproductive rights, and other hot topics during this election cycle were simply unable to overcome the basic facts that people still feel like they can't keep their heads above water financially and see the Democratic Party increasingly as a party of upper-middle class and upper-class "elites" rather than a party of the working class. I know that liberal media outlets almost certainly won't diagnose the issue this same way, of course. 6
Mr. Blue_Shirt Posted November 7 Posted November 7 27 minutes ago, Thuggin said: We're so ****** So tired of Democrats being so ungrateful and then cater to bigots just because they lost This party wouldn't change a thing in the next 4 years, would they? 3
Mike91 Posted November 7 Posted November 7 4 minutes ago, Tovitov said: Sherrod Brown should run for Vance's seat in the 2026 special. The environment will certainly be better and he outran Harris by a huge margin. I actually agree. He's the only person who would have any kind of shot at winning it. 2 1
Lil Mistee Posted November 7 Posted November 7 1 minute ago, Bloo said: More days of visiting The View to gloat about how you'll have Republicans in your cabinet and more days of campaigning with Liz Cheney would have likely just hurt her even more. She had nothing to say that needed more than 100 days to get across. Kamala's biggest issue (aside from her association to Biden) is that she stood for nothing. She's always been like this though. I was hoping she'd use this to pretend to adopt popular policies like she tried to do in 2019. But she instead decided to just say nothing of substance. If we had a proper primary, we could have dodged this bullet. But Biden's exit was so late that we basically were stuck with her. She could have rose to the occasion and ran away with the race, but she didn't. She made informed decisions that many of us knew would cause problems for her. She knew Michigan had a large Arab American population that cared deeply about Gaza and she still yelled "I'm speaking!" to these voters and kicked out Arab Americans out of her campaign events (for no reason). The defensiveness of the Democratic Party in the past few months around Gaza and their decision to back Israel's genocide has gotten to the point of being Islamophobic. But that's their choice and Kamala fell on her own sword. It's quite clear Kamala thought she could swing the never trump republicans to come vote for her but mawma… we know now, for sure, this doesn't work. Appeal to your damn base and stop trying to be a centrist in a political climate that is NOTHING OF THE SORT
ClashAndBurn Posted November 7 Posted November 7 45 minutes ago, Devin said: smh. Well, Democrats certainly proved Nick Fuentes right, didn't they? Kamala lost the popular vote AND Electoral College by a worse margin than Kerry lost to Bush. Evidently, Nazis are more in touch with the American electorate, who just broke heavily for the second coming of Adolf Hitler, than the Democrats are in current year. There's zero reason to be hopeful. Most of the country saw the sheer chaos and death and destruction of 2017-2021 and said "Hell yeah, we want that again! **** Joe Biden! **** Kamala Harris!" The abortion strategy flopped. More women voted for Trump than they did in 2020. Losing a fundamental right from the 1970s did NOTHING. And now we are going to have a federal abortion ban applied to New York and California. And it's all Kamala Harris's fault for being a loser. It's also Hillary's fault for being a loser the first time as well.
Redstreak Posted November 7 Posted November 7 38 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said: Okay, interpret the data for me then as you always know everything. We have record turnout in the battle ground states despite the total anomaly of 2020 being the highest turnout in history due to mail-in voting. In several of these states, Harris would've won in 2020 with her vote counts. The premise that she lost because of an apathetic electorate who would only come out for a far left/communist candidate needs evidence that the electorate did not turn out for this. It will have the most votes of any non-pandemic election ever. The battle ground states will match or exceed that inflated turnout. What am I missing, enlightened one? Harris had major major ground game in the rust belt, it turned people out, just not for her because people can't stand liberalism 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted November 7 ATRL Moderator Posted November 7 1 minute ago, Lil Mistee said: It's quite clear Kamala thought she could swing the never trump republicans to come vote for her but mawma… we know now, for sure, this doesn't work. Appeal to your damn base and stop trying to be a centrist in a political climate that is NOTHING OF THE SORT The White Whale of winning the moderate Republican is worse than obsessing over winning Texas. Moderate Republicans are pro-Trump. The undecided moderate Republican bloc largely does not exist. Ana Navarro is a moderate Republican and she would vote for a goldfish if it were the Democratic nominee. She’s not undecided. 1 5
Lil Mistee Posted November 7 Posted November 7 3 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said: After taking some time to think and reflect, I want to be sure I'm getting where we are on the "what happened?" question. The more I read, the more I think the picture becomes a simple, crystal-clear story of what happened. Democrats failed for too long to appeal to young and working class voters on "bread-and-butter" issues, notably allowing far-right ideologies to fill that vacuum in young men in particular; high inflation in recent years being deeply associated with Biden (and by extension, Harris) created powerful headwinds against Democrats that they failed to adequately address; and Biden dropped out of the race too late to allow a true primary, which hampered both the party itself and the nominee who didn't go through the primary process. Am I missing anything ultimately super consequential here? To me, it seems like these are the core problems and that things like Project 2025, reproductive rights, and other hot topics during this election cycle were simply unable to overcome the basic facts that people still feel like they can't keep their heads above water financially and see the Democratic Party increasingly as a party of upper-middle class and upper-class "elites" rather than a party of the working class. I know that liberal media outlets almost certainly won't diagnose the issue this same way, of course. I think the only things I would add are that there is a sweeping movement across first world nations happening because of the global inflation spike post 2020 and every single incumbent is being kicked out. That would be hard for any president, Biden or otherwise, to fight against. I guess you might've been alluding to this in your post though. The other thing I would add is, yes, there is a huge core of America that does not want a woman as president. Simple as.
Recommended Posts