this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
132 points (87.5% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2508 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 109 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Anyone who sits here and claims that they were going to vote for Harris, but Liz Cheney showing up with her one time was just a bridge too far to the point where they were willing to let Trump return to power never had an intent of voting for Harris in the first place.

[–] dank 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Did you read the article? And if so, was it before or after constructing your straw man?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Not the OP, but I started reading it, and the first sentence is starting the bullshit already.

Conservatives backed Trump by bigger percentages than in 2020.

There were 1 million more votes for Trump than in 2020, while there were 14 million fewer votes for Harris compared to Biden. So while it's technically true it's ignoring the damned elephant in the room. 13 million people didn't sit out this election or switch sides because of Liz Cheney.

If the very first sentence is already this disingenuous, the rest of the article isn't even worth wasting my time.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The followup is that sitting with Cheney wasted time that could have been spent reaching those 14M instead of wasting it on people who were never going to vote Harris.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

14 million isn't something Harris could do on her own. They left because the Dem establishment gave no reason to show they cared about people. While the Republican were saying "it's hard, we'll fix it" the Dems kept insisting "it's actually not that bad".

Obviously the Reps "fix" will be worse, but the Dems just stuck their head in the sand and ignored everything the average American needs to get by on a daily basis. It's why 14 million voters abandoned them. 1 million went to Trump, the other 13 million gave up.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 1 week ago

They left because the Dem establishment gave no reason to show they cared about people

Maybe not hanging around with Liz Cheney would be a start on that.

[–] TacoSocks@infosec.pub 3 points 1 week ago

Your numbers are a bit off, counting votes is still happening. We are currently at 97%. Trump is up about 1.6 million more votes than 2020 and Harris is down about 8.4 million votes from Biden 2020.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

Claiming Liz Cheney is responsible for 13 million people not voting is the bullshit.

2020 had the highest voter turnout ever because of the pandemic.

Billionaires were doing things like buying votes to avoid being taxed by Kamala.

Republicans convinced many Americans that Biden and his “radical left wing” policies were responsible for inflation.

Enemy nations like China and Russia favored Trump and used their bot farms accordingly.

No one I know that voted irl ever even cared about Liz Cheney.

The idea that Liz Cheney could sway 13 million votes is ridiculous.

load more comments (11 replies)