671
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Wouldn't be sure:

  • Clinton suffered from an overconfident base, that might not have shown up at the voting sites as they assumed it was in the bag. After 2016, some of those voters hopefully learned a lesson
  • Clinton suffered from a lot of bitter Sanders supporters. This time there was no big 'other' candidate people considered to have been cheated out of.
  • I know at least some people not crazy about any 'dynasty', and Clinton was mostly remembered by her relationship to Bill. Sure she was Secretary of State (no one cares) and NY senator (which was seen as weird, out of nowhere she was suddenly a NY political figure despite no particular affiliation with NY before).

Circumstances are different, and I don't think people were specifically excited over Hilary. I think some were excited about "a" woman candidate, but not really Clinton in particular.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Clinton suffered from a lot of bitter Sanders supporters. This time there was no big ‘other’ candidate people ~~considered to have been~~ were cheated out of.

FTFY

[-] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I disagree a little bit. If Biden had dropped out earlier, we would have a proper Democratic primary season and to have some other politicians run and make a case for themselves. It feels like Kamala Harris was appointed to be the successor. Of course she would still need to win the general election, but I still feel uneasy that within the party, there was no democratic process.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

True, but given the timing of when he did drop out, Harris is about as close to approximating a democratic choice as they could manage. She at least was on the ticket in the 2020 election so people did technically vote for her as VP in 2020, with everyone knowing that an 80 year old man becoming incapacitated would mean she would be president. They are at least following the succession as was voted for. Any other person would have absolutely been a "coronation" of sorts on that timescale.

While you may say "but people don't really pay too much attention to the VP", I'd say that Palin tanked McCain's chances by being obviously unfit for office.

[-] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I will note the idea Harris was picked at the 2020 primaries is bunk, people don't vote on a President/VP ticket then(though that would be an interesting system). Harris was picked by Biden, and while she was on the 2020 ticket in the national election it's impossible to say how many people she swayed.

I don't think she's perfect, but unlike Hillary at least Harris was picked by circumstance, even if unfortunate circumstance, not appointed years in advance like Hillary was. (Hillary had been intending to go for it after she gained some political experience and Bill's scandal faded. Al Gore was supposed to carry the democrats, but that didn't work out, and JFK Jr who was being courted for a 2004 run died in a plane crash in 1999, so they had to work with John Kerry which didn't go well. Then Hillary was ready and initially had party favor, but Obama came in like a locomotive without brakes: All the DNC's horses and all the RNCs men couldn't stop Obama in 08, no my friend)

[-] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Also that second to last point isn't 100%, but there's a lot of rumor and evidence to suggest the plan at the end of Clinton's term was to bring in Gore, and then either when he lost or ran out his terms JFK Jr. was to be the next guy in line. Him dying and Al Gore losing put them in a tough spot in 2004.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

It's kinda funny because Harris was kinda seen as a non-starter for a while as the VP, even among leftists, feels like that feeling has changed recently though.

I will say it still wasn't very democratic, they could have done some kinds of snap elections if they really cared, but they don't lol.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

There's no way they could have pulled off any vaguely credible election from scratch with about a months warning.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

You really think that wouldn't be possible in 2024? I think it would have been a huge undertaking for sure, but damn would it have given a lot of potential goodwill 🤷‍♂️

[-] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

My point was the timing. It wasn't good for any other candidates but the incumbent.

Even if we did voted for Harris as VP, that was 4 years ago. Democracy is not just about a one-time voting, but having regular elections every 4 years. I may have voted for Harris as the VP as part of the ticket, but I should be allowed to change my mind 4 years later to vote for someone else.

One of my biggest gripes about our two-party system is the lack of competition within both parties. Every 4 years, we are presented with candidates from each respective party and then we're asked choose the "lesser of the two evils". It sucks.

[-] psivchaz@reddthat.com 8 points 4 months ago

Overconfident is an understatement. I remember people thinking that Trump was the end of the Republican party, some people actually said that the party would be forced to disband after their crushing defeat in 2016.

Even many Democrats didn't like Hillary, but the idea of Trump winning was outright laughable to many. I think that combination of "I don't want to vote for her" and "there's no way she can lose" left a lot of people at home twiddling their thumbs instead of going out to vote.

[-] na_th_an@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I know a lot of people who assumed she would win and later claimed their lack of voting is because of incorrect polls. Very frustrating to hear.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Even putting that aside, the "bad" was also underestimated.

So Trump gets 4 years before we can vote him out, he's bad, but how bad could it be.

Folks didn't think about the number of supreme court justices that would go over.

Folks certainly didn't expect January 6th to go down the way it did and for there to be lingering aftermath of "if we win again, we will overtly rig the system to prevent losing again".

So I hope people view the stakes as higher and the GOP as more dangerous than people would have guessed in 2016.

[-] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Still got the 5th most votes of any presidential candidate ever. (1st is Biden 2020 and 2nd is Trump 2020, 3rd is 08 Obama, 4th is 2012 Obama)

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
671 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2098 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