politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm not prepared to just buy the "it was sexism" excuse, that's a convenient one for Democrats to tell themselves - "oh, there was nothing wrong with the campaign we ran, Americans are just sexist". If a man had done exactly the same campaign as Harris did it would have ended the same way. Fundamentally the Democrats went with a "you guys have to vote for us" strategy and figured they just had to win over right leaning voters instead, and they didn't really win them over and lost chunks of the left at the same time. I'm not suggesting sexism played no part at all, but I'm not putting the blame solely or even mostly there.
Yeah, you're right on the "You have to vote for us.." thing.
"Champagne Elitism" has been a thing since before Obama.
I saw it take off in the mid-90's with the pivot to public high schools pushing everyone to college and ignoring vocational education. It's the college-degree, "educated" high-handedness of the neo-liberal, illiberal left, and a terrible blind spot.
Part of wy I have been screaming for decades for the left to stop using the phrase "..voting against their self-interest.." when referring to working poor voters that chose Trump.
They didn't vote against their self-interests, they voted to fuck themselves because they were too angry to think clearly.
The reality is, most working class voters - and yes, I'm one - do not KNOW what they want long term because they're stuck in the day to day survival mode.. (you can't think or plan long term when daily troubles are what you constantly have on your plate. Ask me how I know..)
For the "educated" affluent elite politicians to say what the poor should or should not want smacks of the very kind of high-handed arrogance that loses elections for the Democrats.
You're not wrong at all on it and wrap it up in sexism and it's a win for the orange asshole.. again.
I agree. It wasn't just sexism. Hillary had been positioning for decades. And politically smeared for decades because of it. She was a genuinely out of touch and not very likeable person that made a lot of unforced errors. With decades worth of baggage good and bad. That selfishly put herself above everyone else. Not taking things seriously.
Kamala had her own baggage and well as historically being a supremely uninspiring candidate. Who was thrown to the wolves at the last minute. Flailing incompetently to career death. Even if she doesn't realize it yet.
No, I disagree. It was all about the sexism. Cameron Harris would have won that election, taking all the same positions as Kamala Harris, with the only difference being his ownership of a penis.
The thing with modern misogynists is that they are self-aware enough to know that they can't just come out and say that they are voting based on what organs the candidates possess. So they fool themselves into using other excuses.... "she's a cop", "GeNoCiDe", or my favorite "she reminds me too much of my ex".
We know. Just as we know, there's also no significant evidence of that. While misogyny was involved in the race for sure. If you can look at either Harris or Clinton and say that was the driving force behind their losses. Then you're behaving willfully blind.
Harris was one of the lowest polling Democrats in the 2020 primaries. Who had spent years and years as district attorney. Applying biased injustice to vulnerable groups. There was lots of good reason not to like her beyond her sex. Likewise Hillary Clinton, who spent years in proximity to corruption and power. Where one of the last notably and objectively good things she did. Ended her career as a young Republican in the early 1970s. There was no lack of good things to dislike about her as well.
Don't get me wrong, I think both of them would have been adequate status quo presidents. Who would have continued the slowe decay. But they had a lot of baggage of their own creation that held them back more than any uterus did.