this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
466 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2540 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
 

Summary

Many Democrats, especially women, expressed disillusionment and frustration online, viewing the result as a reflection of deep-seated misogyny in the U.S.

Harris supporters highlighted anger that a “felony convicted, twice-impeached” Trump prevailed over a female candidate.

Comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss resurfaced, with many attributing Trump’s win to targeted appeals to young men, including appearances with influencers like Joe Rogan.

The election outcome has intensified concerns over growing right-wing radicalization among young men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Completely agree, but I’ve been seeing so many similar sentiments on Lemmy since the election. Today I saw someone comment, almost word for word, that there was no problem with Kamala’s campaign - the issue was simply that Americans are too stupid. Someone else on a totally different post commented that this election proves the Dems could run Jesus Christ himself and half the country would still reject him. And those are just two examples. This is one of more unhinged meltdowns I’ve ever seen.

[–] Vent@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dems could run Jesus Christ himself and half the country would still reject him

I mean, that is undeniably true, but we've known that for a lot longer than two days.

[–] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I get the anger from dems against those who didn't vote but honestly that's more on the democratic party for not putting forward a candidate that earned those votes than anything else. Neither candidate is "entitled" to votes, just because the other candidate is abhorrent. I do think things will get considerably worse now and that'll hopefully teach those who didn't vote that yes that can happen and they should vote but the decision not to isn't on the electorate, it's the party that felt like they deserved votes they didn't earn.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Dem party has no obligation to court voters that won't show up. Dems should not even bother with that segment ever again. This is why Dems were trying to convert more centrist republicans that do know how to show up and vote.

[–] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

That's stupid. People won't show up tp vote for a party that doesn't represent their values and the dems aren't just entitled to votes because trump is the opponent. You can't win an election on just "the other guy is worse". You need policies that galvanise your voter base and actually makes a difference in their lives so they don't feel voting for either party is a waste of time. Objectively trump is worse but it's on the dems to convince the voters of that and they failed horribly.