Objection

Sorry, you are saying that folks joined the GOP and voted for orange voldemort because … he was to the left of Dems?

Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump. Trump just successfully turned out the same base of supporters that he had before, while Harris didn't. But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving. It's just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.

I disagree. She was on places like “Call Me Daddy” and SNL - the outreach was there.

I cannot possibly emphasize enough how much I do not mean "going on SNL" when I talk about mobilizing and energizing the base.

Well, it worked in 2020, but not in 2024. Meanwhile, Clinton did not purse this in 2016 - instead calling the worst of these folks “deplorables” - and still lost.

So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?

Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans "weird." So I guess we can't count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time. And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.

Then Hitler somehow convinced the center right President to grant him powers

Class interests are how. Hitler came to power by promising big business interests that he would crush labor unions and socialists and promote the interests of capitalists, which he largely did. The term "privatization" was first used to describe the Nazi economy. Many of these rich Nazi collaborators survived and thrived under the Nazis (so long as they weren't part of a minority), and also survived its fall. The company that manufactured Zyklon B, for example, eventually became part of the company now known as Bayer. The rich accepted fascism as a calculated risk because the country was in crisis and there was a risk of communists coming to power and redistributing their wealth.

Cool, so what's your plan for addressing bias in the media?

To me, this seems to justify the Dems rightward swing - they are following the voters. No wonder Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney at her side.

What a ridiculous takeaway. They moved right and lost, but somehow this shows that moving right was the correct decision? That's nonsense, it shows the exact opposite.

The Cheneys do not represent any substantial constituency. Virtually nobody likes them, right or left. Kamala went chasing after the mythical "moderate republican swing voter," and they told her go fuck yourself the way they always do, and in the meantime she neglected her actual base which meant less enthusiasm and mobilization.

The democrats have tried this shit over and over. The people who like right-wing politics already have a party catering to them that they're happy with. How many times does this strategy have to result in abject failure before you start to question it?

If you couldn’t find one single thing on your ballot to vote for in this election, then you’re never going to vote, for any reason.

This is why elections famously always have the same amount of turnout.

And I really dislike the implication that voters should be expected to change to meet the campaigns that politicians want to run as opposed to politicians changing their campaigns based around what the voters want.

The blame should always go upwards, but instead it's always pointed downward.

Yeah, they're just passing the buck to the people responsible for winning votes who made every decision about how to run the campaign that lost.

That's sarcasm, by the way. I know how thick you people can be, so I thought I’d just point that out.

If I hate the game, and the players are the ones with the power to change the rules of the game and choose not to, where does that leave me?

Right, and I suppose I'm supposed to interpret that number as being completely unaffected by the specific woman who was running for president.

By the way, funny you should mention that it "dropped by 9 points" without mentioning the actual numbers. Only 30% said that they weren't ready for a woman president. The vast majority of that 30% is going to vote Republican even if you run the straightest whitest malest person you can find.

Of course, as always, "The Democratic Party cannot fail, it can only be failed." Never point the finger upwards, only ever downward. Their loss cannot possibly have anything to do with their strategies, the voters are always the ones to blame. This refusal to self-criticize is exactly what caused the Democrats to repeat the same blunders that caused Trump to win in 2016. Get your head out of the sand.

I understand what you're saying, what I'm saying is that it's wrong, makes little sense, and is almost completely baseless.

Right, but this is literally the same election we're talking about, in the same states that she needed to win, that two women got elected. If the majority of voters are willing to vote for a woman for senate, then it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that they're specifically only opposed to a woman being president. There is not a significant voter bloc that is specifically opposed to a woman being president but is fine with women in any other position.

Your speculation is not "fact." Clinton and Harris are a grand total of two data points that you're using to draw this conclusion, and they were both deeply flawed candidates. Blaming their gender is just a deflection from their actual faults and strategic blunders, of which there were many.

That's completely false. Tammy Baldwin won in WI, Elissa Slotkin won in MI. It's completely incoherent to blame the fact that she's a woman.

Harris' message did not resonate with people struggling to pay their bills. She completely attached herself to the policies of the Biden administration and the broader status quo.