i can’t even guess as to why they went quiet. not one guess at all. we will never know.

edit: well they’re not quiet now once they get called out

  • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Adding in an edit: downvote it all you want, you know it’s true. Hell, in his last election he DID lose the popular vote. Some democracy. More voters, actual people who took the time and effort to go and actually vote, wanted a different president, and got shown their votes don’t matter unless they live in a swing state.

    ------------original comment-----------------------

    Anyways, this is not why Harris lost. It was a landslide and Trump won the popular vote by a huge margin. Americans don’t vote in large numbers on foreign policy - not unless Americans are getting killed. Kamala lost because she kept telling struggling families that the economy is great has a vagina.

    Fixed that for you.

    Also she didn’t lose the pop vote by a huge margin. 3 million people is literally 1 percent of the population.

    If this were a democracy and pop vote mattered, there are probably 10x that number of people who would have actually voted. Then I’d guess she would have won. Look at (greater area) Chicago. 9.5m people. 12 million people total in IL. how many Illinoisans didn’t vote because why does it matter? About 2 million probably.

    Disclaimer: That last paragraph was obviously arbitrary.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 days ago

      Interesting that you seem to assume that Harris would have done better with the people who didn’t vote than with the people who did.

      A Democrats losing the popular vote to a Republican by 1% is a huge margin. What matters isn’t the entire population, it’s the swing voters.

      Democrats straddle the desires of their wealthy patrons and the desires of voters. They always try to give the people just enough to scrape by. The result is that we consistently have elections with tight margins. Democrats are playing a game of high stakes chicken every election.

      • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        You’re assuming that the entire 1% were swing voters. So no. It’s not a huge margin.

        Ok average nearly half the country votes, every year. Yeah - that number should be way up - but 75% of those votes wouldn’t matter. That’s the point/problem.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          If at least 1% over the electorate is swing voters, then that definitionally makes up the critical 1% Trump margin. That’s just what swing voters are.

          The actual margin is more like 4-5% when you consider the extra votes Democrats need to win the electoral college.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      While establishing actual democracy is absolutely a priority, it’s not a guarantee that we would have had a better outcome. Australia has RCV and compulsory voting already, and are trending right anyways.

      • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        No it won’t magically fix everything but at least the voters would have no one to blame but themselves for who they elect to office.