Summary

Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the 2024 election leaves no room for ambiguity or an “asterisk” in his legitimacy, as he won both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

This outcome represents a clear mandate from American voters, who knowingly chose Trump’s policies and approach.

The anticipated results include pardons for January 6 participants, attacks on the press, and an administration filled with controversial figures.

By voting for Trump, Americans prioritized divisive rhetoric over democratic values, accepting the resulting turmoil.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    18 days ago

    She ran a magnificent campaign

    The entire point of a campaign is to attract voters…

    Because Democrats stayed home. Roughly about 10% of them overall, nationwide.

    So I don’t see how both statement can be true…

    Her campaign did a shit job at getting people to vote for her, how do you consider it magnificent?

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      18 days ago
      • She absolutely crushed Trump at the debate
      • Her rallies were drawing far more people than Trump’s
      • She had A-list star power (Beyonce, Julia Roberts, Taylor Swift, etc.) actively endorsing her
      • She took over a race where Biden was down by 5%+ and losing ground daily to at least making it competitive
      • She only had 107 days to work with.

      It proved to not be enough. The people who were coming to her rallies were apparently all people who were going to vote for her anyway; the size of the rallies only gave the illusion that her campaign was attracting more voters. And with so many Democrats actively choosing to stay home rather than vote at all, it seems like nothing she did would have mattered anyway. But given the crap she had to work with, she ran a near-flawless campaign. She had no way of knowing that it just didn’t matter.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 days ago

        There’s still a lot of analysis still to be done, but the Pod Save America guys pointed out that the Harris campaign saw less slippage in states where they were actively competing on the ground than in solidly red states where they didn’t fight as hard. This indicates that the campaign did make a positive difference, just not enough to overcome the negatives.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        18 days ago

        You listed things they tried, but didn’t work

        The entire point of a campaign is to attract voters…

        Literally the only metric that matters for how good a campaign was, is how many votes they got.

        And Kamala drastically underperformed.

        So her campaign wasn’t “magnificent” it was a spectacular disaster that couldn’t beat trump with everything you listed and a billion dollars

        • Moneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          18 days ago

          Yup. If she ran a magnificent campaign she would have won.

          I was arguing with my buddy about this last night. He kept saying that she had to pivot right to have any chance of winning the election. Me pointing out that she performed terribly in the election didn’t matter to him. In his eyes shes did everything right and the voters are to blame I guess?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            18 days ago

            He kept saying that she had to pivot right to have any chance of winning the election.

            They can never give any logic behind it, and they’ll never learn it doesn’t work.

            But moderates will repeat that line as often as Charlie Brown will attempt a field goal, with the same results over and over again.

    • djsoren19@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      Yeah but if you start to poke fingers at the Democratic Party, you might start to realize that most of their corporate donors are fine with a Trump presidency. Almost like they were fine with Harris campaigning on keeping the status quo, because they’d win either way. Better to start blaming voters now!

    • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      Considering where Biden’s polling was this summer, the fact that the Dems held onto New York is impressive.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        18 days ago

        This is the danger of lowering our bar to Trump’s level as “good enough”

        Biden could be better than trump.

        Kamala could be better than Biden.

        But if Kamala isn’t good enough, trump would win.

        Because as multiple people have been shouting for 8 years:

        Being better than trump isn’t good enough to get enough votes to beat trump

        All of this could be avoided by running decent candidates who won a fair primary. But the DNC won’t give that as an option because they want to use the threat of trump to push thru as “moderate” of a Dem as they can to maximize corporate donations.

        Beating trump wasn’t the DNC’s goal, it was raising as much money as possible

        • Fester@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          18 days ago

          I agree with you, but you should know that the media is already blaming “the small sliver of the Democratic Party who call themselves progressives.”

          Pundits are talking about how Democrats need to shift even further to the right next time. So that’s not going to be fixed any time soon unless voters show up to primaries in a way that can’t be ignored.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            18 days ago

            The ones owned by billionaires who bought them to control a narrative?

            They’re always going to say the party has to move right. The entire reasons billions are buying them is to convince people both parties need to move right.

            • Fester@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              18 days ago

              Yes - the ones who tell the majority of the party what to think and do.