this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
142 points (93.8% liked)

politics

26356 readers
2825 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
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago (1 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.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Not for nothing, but trump wasn't exactly out there either outside of the incel podcasts. She was a poor candidate and the funding bullshit meant she had to be the candidate. Fuck her, but fuck every protest non voter way more.

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Bill Maher did a bit, just before taking a break in his show where he discussed future news that would happen while on break. He said Biden would drop out, and then he looked at the top contenders. He really crushed Harris, saying she would never be president.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 9 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours 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 2 points 7 hours ago

People are missing your /s unfortunately lol

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 33 points 13 hours ago

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.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 81 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

We didn't need a memoir to tell us what a fuck up she was

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 44 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Harris adviser says VP ran 'flawless' campaign

“I would posit she ran a pretty flawless campaign, and she did all the steps that [were] required to be successful,” she added. “And I think -- obviously, we did not win, but I do think we hit all the marks.”

...

Nix, Harris’ campaign manager, also attributed Trump’s decision not to participate in any debate following the ABC News presidential debate on Sept. 10 as detrimental to the Harris campaign’s strategy of presenting the choice between Trump and Harris clearly to voters several times.

“I think that was hard for us to then get the attention that we would have liked to,” Nix said.

Well, there you have it. Perfect campaign. No notes. Just wish Trump had been willing to debate, because we all know the problem Harris had was getting her face out there.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 25 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] winkly@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This right here is when she lost me for sure.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 11 minutes ago

So this is why you supported Trump (by not voting against him)? Wouldn't it still be so much better than what you have now?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 13 hours ago

If only our opponent hadn't made a choice detrimental to us!

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 12 points 13 hours 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.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 14 points 16 hours 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 85 points 15 hours ago (6 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 38 points 13 hours 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 24 points 13 hours ago

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.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago

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

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Well, she wasn't going to be able to throw the election if she made herself popular.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago

had ran

had run

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 31 points 15 hours ago (2 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 12 points 14 hours ago

tabula rosa

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

[–] dontsayaword@piefed.social 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I think the short timeframe was ultimately a detriment, despite this. How many people Googled "who is Kamala Harris?" and "Did Joe Biden drop out?" on election day?

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Yeah. The short time frame and trump not having years of insults ready were her only hope. But it was still a doomed endeavor because biden insisted on running until well past the last minute.

Turning a weakness into a strength is a good idea... but it doesn't stop it from being a weakness.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 16 points 14 hours 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 ›