Didn’t she lose ground on nearly every demographic? This is such trash analysis, just datamining and then applying stereotypes to avoid admitting any fault on the part of the campaign’s strategy.
She gained gained women in every group besides white women where she lost a small margin.
But the biggest thing was she lost a shit ton of white voters, not to the Republicans tho, basically the old wealthy white people who would vote for an old white man dem but not a woman dem stayed home.
Both the dems and Republicans had fewer votes in 2024 compared to 2020, but there were a lot more dem voters from 2020 that stayed home this time.
The part I don’t understand is why everyone always downvotes me for pointing out the obvious.
Older white men/women and latino men are too racist/sexist to bring themselves to vote for a colored woman. Shouldn’t be that hard to understand considering how bigoted our country is.
The reason you get downvoted is that accusing voters of bigotry is a way of deflecting from actual strategic failures, things that could’ve been done differently, and more importantly, could be done differently in the future. It’s a way of saving face at the cost of self-reflection and improvement. It’s just an excuse.
It’s also simply not true. Three swing states that Kamala lost elected female Democratic senators. Given the very limited dataset we have to extrapolate from, it’s hard to imagine a world with more compelling evidence that your narrative is false.
Oh shit I meant to take out the part about black men, thanks.
The dems lack policy, but the specifically white and latino men who stayed home didn’t do it because of policies. The dems had no change in policy and they had no issues voting for it the first time. I get it that toxic masculinity makes a lot of men in the US into snowflakes when trying to talk about our bigot problems, but downvotes don’t change observable reality.
I don’t care what senators were elected, that has nothing to do with the presidential canidate being a woman. And it has nothing to do with who old white people want as president.
Of course not, since that contradicts your narrative. It’s quite a stretch to assume that if a woman loses it must be because of sexism (ignoring the many, many flaws in her campaign), but it’s an even bigger stretch to assume that people who didn’t vote for her, yet voted to put other women into the upper echelons of the US government, merely didn’t vote for her because of sexism.
Your narrative is impossible to disprove through evidence because it was not derived from evidence, and the purpose of the narrative is not to reflect reality. The purpose of the narrative is to save face and deflect criticism from the party. It is purely a psychological coping mechanism, which personally I have little patience for.
The only narrative here is observable reality, you are allowed to look at the same fucking graphs I did.
Senators aren’t the president. Do you know how many people literally just vote for the president and leave the rest blank? Millions.
The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.
Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure. Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.
yeah i’d like to hear from Dem voters that didn’t vote for Harris
Like for realsies, or just to shout at them? Because this being lemmy and all…
The people you are looking for are white men and hispanic men.
Those were the biggest voter group shifts that voted for Biden but didn’t vote for Harris.
So the simple answer is that Machismo culture makes too many big strong American men literallt too insecure to vote for a woman
Didn’t she lose ground on nearly every demographic? This is such trash analysis, just datamining and then applying stereotypes to avoid admitting any fault on the part of the campaign’s strategy.
By claiming that she lost because she’s a woman of color, the party has an excuse to prevent AOC from running in '28.
She gained gained women in every group besides white women where she lost a small margin.
But the biggest thing was she lost a shit ton of white voters, not to the Republicans tho, basically the old wealthy white people who would vote for an old white man dem but not a woman dem stayed home.
Both the dems and Republicans had fewer votes in 2024 compared to 2020, but there were a lot more dem voters from 2020 that stayed home this time.
The part I don’t understand is why everyone always downvotes me for pointing out the obvious.
Older white men/women and latino men are too racist/sexist to bring themselves to vote for a colored woman. Shouldn’t be that hard to understand considering how bigoted our country is.
No, she didn’t. She got 78% of black men compared to 80% going to Biden last election.
The reason you get downvoted is that accusing voters of bigotry is a way of deflecting from actual strategic failures, things that could’ve been done differently, and more importantly, could be done differently in the future. It’s a way of saving face at the cost of self-reflection and improvement. It’s just an excuse.
It’s also simply not true. Three swing states that Kamala lost elected female Democratic senators. Given the very limited dataset we have to extrapolate from, it’s hard to imagine a world with more compelling evidence that your narrative is false.
Oh shit I meant to take out the part about black men, thanks.
The dems lack policy, but the specifically white and latino men who stayed home didn’t do it because of policies. The dems had no change in policy and they had no issues voting for it the first time. I get it that toxic masculinity makes a lot of men in the US into snowflakes when trying to talk about our bigot problems, but downvotes don’t change observable reality.
I don’t care what senators were elected, that has nothing to do with the presidential canidate being a woman. And it has nothing to do with who old white people want as president.
Of course not, since that contradicts your narrative. It’s quite a stretch to assume that if a woman loses it must be because of sexism (ignoring the many, many flaws in her campaign), but it’s an even bigger stretch to assume that people who didn’t vote for her, yet voted to put other women into the upper echelons of the US government, merely didn’t vote for her because of sexism.
Your narrative is impossible to disprove through evidence because it was not derived from evidence, and the purpose of the narrative is not to reflect reality. The purpose of the narrative is to save face and deflect criticism from the party. It is purely a psychological coping mechanism, which personally I have little patience for.
The only narrative here is observable reality, you are allowed to look at the same fucking graphs I did.
Senators aren’t the president. Do you know how many people literally just vote for the president and leave the rest blank? Millions.
The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.
Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure. Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.
pinky swear for reals