this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
47 points (98.0% liked)
Politics
10311 readers
208 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a common take and maybe it has merit, but I'm not convinced.
Hillary had decades of propaganda to compete with, a general attitude is "it's my turn" (political dynasties are bad) and made some major gaffes.
Kamala was chosen without any voter input at all, was not popular as a primary candidate in 2020, ran on being "the top cop" in an environment where only the right likes cops, and lurched right to compete for the Republican base, completely betraying the base that voted for Biden. I was personally sick to my stomach listening to her praise Dick Cheney and parade around with Liz Cheney. (I voted for her anyway because what choice did I have). Harris was a weak Democrat candidate to begin with AND the campaign basically did everything wrong.
Anyway, it's possible that the US electorate won't elect a woman for president out of sexism but I personally don't think that's what has happened because I don't think a woman that also happens to be a good candidate that ran a good campaign has gotten past primaries.
I suspect that basically a women has to be a lot better candidate say 10% or something better because she is going to loose a certain number of voters that would otherwise vote the ticket. These are not even all men that will not vote for a woman.
I understand why a certain genre of white male might vote for Trump for example but it mystifies me how a woman or a person of color would.
It's hard for you to understand because you're more knowledgeable. A lot of people see Trump saying he's going to make groceries cheaper and even though he's completely full of shit at least he was acknowledging working class problems where the dems were not
I talked with a Trump voter. They thought inflation was high. I said no, it is under 3% which is normal. They thought it was like 6%. They even looked it up and agreed. Then I asked them if they were better of now then 4 years go. They said yes. After all that I am sure they still voted for Trump.
As far as numeric price, everyone should know that prices are sticky. They rarely drop but inflation can be controlled to the 2 to 3 percent range and they were by the summer of 2024.
I agree with this about hearing people. Dems for some reason are not good at making people feel seen and heard. The other is making a personal and emotional connection which is roughly similar.
There's not a lot of mystery behind the Dems' problems. They're in the oligarchs' pockets just as much as the GOP, just different oligarchs. This is why we're seeing the sort of turnout at Sanders/AOC rallies that dwarfed campaign events in 2024 (and in prior cycles) pointing out where things have gone off the rails.
More than 99% of us know the government doesn't work for us. This has been laid bare, and while some saw it far earlier, it's now in everyone's face. The flaccid response to Trump's authoritarian moves it not winning them any voters, but I suppose the "we're less bad" playbook is the only one their handlers will allow (see: bullshit getting Sanders out of the way in 2016).
I think this is a gross oversimplification of the issues, but that's a big part of the problem. Currently, the problems facing both the DNC and the country are very complex and one very large and diverse side has to present ultimate complex solutions to complex problems to an electorate that collectively can barely tie its shoes, and the other just handwaves over this complexity, others a whole punch of folks, and says they'll "fix" it by pushing the bad mean "others" out.
Government actually DID work for a huge swathe of people in subtle, often taken for granted ways. It had vast room for improvement, but nevertheless was better than the alternative of simply not existing. The VA is a good example of this. But when you try to explain that to folks, they just glaze over. Another example is I've had discussions with multiple people now who were convinced that Harris just "never even had any policy" despite this being objectively untrue and very easily refuted.
This is all to say, no, "people" don't know or see shit. The average voters is wildly uninformed, uninformable, and cannot engage in anything beyond magical thinking. Long term solution is to make politics at the individual level more engaging with their day to day and increase general competence and access to true information. No idea what the short term solution is--as the saying goes, you can't use reason to convince someone out of a stupid fucking opinion.
Of course it's an oversimplification. I'm posting a comment on Beehaw, not penning an essay for Foreign Affairs.
But to paraphrase Carville, "It's the messaging, stupid."
There's been no coherent message that meets voters where they are. The boots-on-the-ground effects of both the BIL and IRA weren't effectively leveraged, especially in red areas seeing jobs and benefits from federal infrastructure grants. This is incompetence.