If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault considering any rational answer to the above question? You may open your book to look up topical issues like peace, climate, genocide, rights, hate, juvenile bullying, criminal bullying, felony conviction, bigotry (don’t miss misogyny relating to to “garbage candidate”, see above), and tariffs.
If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
The guy who told voters what they wanted to hear. “I know you’re upset at the world, and I’m going to make it great again.”
The best Kamala could do was “I won’t do anything differently from the Biden administration.”
The constant liar who told voters what they wanted to hear.
Removed by mod
If voters bear no responsibility, do you really believe in democracy, or are you thinking about this as an issue to be solved by authority?
The self-righteousness of this discussion is a problem. Politics requires some humility, which we seem to be short of.
You are misunderstanding how the system is supposed to work.
We have a responsibility to vote, but no candidate is owed a vote.
The government is meant to execute the will of the people. That’s why we live in a democracy. That means that the government is supposed to work for you. The politicians are supposed to essentially be public workers that are hired via votes of the citizens.
These public workers are supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people. If they don’t match what we want, then they don’t win.
No one is owed our votes. They are supposed to earn it.
You are misunderstanding how the system is supposed to work.
no, I think you have the misunderstanding of how it actually works.
We have a responsibility to vote, but no candidate is owed a vote.
given the choice, you want your genitals mutilated or your head removed? if you choose nothing then you get both. technically you don’t need to chose, but it’s in your best interest to make the choice that allows you to survive.
The government is meant to execute the will of the people. That’s why we live in a democracy. That means that the government is supposed to work for you. The politicians are supposed to essentially be public workers that are hired via votes of the citizens.
a government is not meant to execute the will of the people. a government is meant to control and maintain a society. the people are to control the government through their will to ensure the society supports the will of the people. Unfortunately, some people forgot this and have refused to participate in the will, IE voting, and have weakened our society to the point of fracturing.
politicians are not social workers, they care about maintaining control and exerting their will on the people. the job of the people is to ensure their elected officials reflect what the goals and will of the people are. Unfortunately, some people forgot this and have refused to participate in the will, IE voting, and have weakened our society to the point of fracturing.
your views on governance and politics is so antiquated and skewed you can’t even see what’s going on in front of you because you’re so blinded by the past.
“its not fair, the gubamint should be like dis!”
No one is owed our votes. They are supposed to earn it.
no one is owed freedom, no one is owed liberty. You are supposed to fucking earn it by participating in the election and helping us move this ship away from disaster.
this election was like playing tug of war with the helm and having half of our supporters watch from the side complaining about how, “we didn’t want to go this way so we’re not going to stop the ship from crashing into those rocks.”
at one time I had hope for the future but now I can see I was wrong. We’re doomed, not by the corruption, not by the sadistic megalomania, but from arrogance and apathy that flows from lazy Americans.
Imagine taking that many words to say you like being a slave and don’t believe there will ever be a different world.
None of this really addresses my question.
None of the people clamoring for a better candidate are stepping up, or getting out there to get it done. They just want someone in power to do it, which is counter productive.
While claiming to be anarchists, socialists, progressives, leftists, whatever. I get the sour grapes, I do, but the reality is that you’re going to have to get off your couch and actually organize if you want something better than the corporate handout candidates the DNC is going to give you.
For all of the awful things about Trump, it’s really difficult to deny that he spent much more time and energy building a political movement than any other candidate since Obama.
Perfection is the enemy of progress.
I can tell that many people in these comments have given up on every artistic skill they’ve ever tried to learn because their attempts were never good enough right out of the gate.
Great way to put it. People use the excuse of bad candidates to dodge personal responsibility and duty. Also the people complaining about candidates are very rarely doing anything about it or stepping up, they just sit at home and wait for it to just materialize
I would have fought tooth and nail to vote for Bernie Sanders.
As it stood, we moved during the voting period. The wife and I were registered neither in our home state or our new state and couldn’t vote. Where we moved was deep red and it wouldn’t have mattered, but I would have liked to give a formal middle finger to the dipshit-elect.
I don’t understand this “we need old people out of politics” while demanding Bernie Sanders. It’s hypocrisy to just want YOUR old guy in power. I like his ideas but they need to come from someone younger does he not have a protoge or something? There’s just something about Sanders that will turn off more people than gain I think. And if you can’t gain the support of even the Democratic party you can’t possibly win.
Age was never a factor to me.
Bernie is, for America, VERY left of status quo democrats. I’d like to see that, even for four years.
But that movement can’t even win a nomination let alone the presidency. You guys can’t win without allies and you’ve alienated them all this election. The far left Bernie Bros went full bigot and racist election
This is maddening. It will never stop. The democrats refuse to campaign on progressive policies, which are incredibly popular among the entire electorate (yes, also among republicans, see the recent ballot measures in Missouri on paid sick leave and higher minimum wage, for example), instead opting to position themselves as “republican light”. They completely capitulate to republican messaging on pretty much every issue (border wall, fracking, pro war, etc), and predictably lose to the people who invented this messaging. And then comes the worst part: angry libs start blaming the electorate instead of the people who lost. It’s not the lack of the dems even mentioning universal health care, no it’s the trans people. It’s not the genocide that the current democratic regime is committing, no it’s probably actually latino voters. It’s not the fact that the Harris campaign asks us to pretend everything is hunky spunky with the economy, offering nothing to relieve the 80% of the population who live paycheck to paycheck. Noooo you know what it’s actually white women and muslims faults. You fucking morons.
Can’t wait for the 2026 anti-transgender dem ticket, and the anti gay marriage ticket in 2028. It’s gonna be great.
California couldn’t get minimum wage, rent control, health care, it even slavery, One state moving progressively is not winning the federal election
The point that I’m making is that across the board, progressive policies are popular. And that does win elections, just look at Obamna’s and Sanders’ campaigns. That one state was just one extreme example of this fact.
(yes, also among republicans, see the recent ballot measures in Missouri on paid sick leave and higher minimum wage, for example)
this IS true, but it is not true among left leaning candidates. Just look at florida. People are way too functionally stupid to do anything in line with what they actually want.
I believe there is even some older data to support this, something along the lines of “people like welfare they don’t know they’re paying for, but when they know they’re paying for it, they don’t want to”
It’s not the fact that the Harris campaign asks us to pretend everything is hunky spunky with the economy,
as far as economic measures go, it is. Inflation is still fucking people over, but the popular sentiment sort of lags the economy. But just because inflation is brutal on goods, doesn’t mean that inflation is high, or that the economy is “struggling” it’s just that people don’t feel good about rising tides. Until they start to lower. (which they can’t do)
it’s just a human psych thing.
as far as economic measures go, it is. Inflation is still fucking people over, but the popular sentiment sort of lags the economy. But just because inflation is brutal on goods, doesn’t mean that inflation is high, or that the economy is “struggling” it’s just that people don’t feel good about rising tides.
80% of people live paycheck to paycheck. Don’t bullshit me.
yeah, and nothing changed that, people are still living paycheck to paycheck.
Now if you can find stats of MORE people living paycheck to paycheck (which do exist) that would be more convincing, but even then the underlying truth is still that it’s going to take time for things to improve, as well as inflation can’t be undone. So prices are at a new normal.
So the fact that “more stats abt people living paycheck to paycheck” would convince you strongly, strongly indicates that I’m not explaining myself well enough. I’m not under the impression that if I did communicate effectively you would magically be convinced. And that’s not necessarily my goal, but I would like to be able to have a productive convo with you, so I’m gonna give it another shot.
Here’s two facts that I’m convinced of:
- if a consistent set of policies/campaign promises enjoy massive popular support across the aisle, then making such positions a core part of your campaign and your efforts when elected will give you a much higher chance of getting elected
- progressive policies (i.e., paid sick leave, parental leave, union-strengthening laws, universal health care, antitrust legislation, increasing solvency of social security, and so on (note that I do not mention culture war stuff)) enjoy broad popular support, across the aisle, in all states
If you believe these facts (and you don’t need to), then an unavoidable conclusion is that if Harris would’ve run a progressive campaign, she would’ve had a much higher chance of winning.
The weakness in my argument is the two facts I mentioned. They require evidence. I’ve given a smidge of evidence for the second fact (the smoking gun of the ballot measures in Missouri). A better way to go about it is to find some policy oriented polls targeting a good cross section of the electorate which show that people (R, D, and I) generally support progressive policies (think paid sick leave, think universal health care).
The first fact is much harder to prove, but I would argue that common sense gets you a long way here. But for a more empirical approach, look at the Sanders and Obamna campaigns and the fairly broad and enthusiastic support they enjoyed.
The reason I think I wasn’t explaining myself well enough is because the stats you’re asking for do almost nothing to support my argument. At best, they’re indirect, weak, evidence of the second fact. It shouldn’t convince you if I find you some stats about the working homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck livers.
EDIT: I feel like I understand a bit better where your response is coming from. You think that I’m arguing in favor of the effectivity of progressive policies, rather than the popularity. I happen to believe both, but we’re talking about why the dems lost, and in a democracy, the popularity of policies is what matters un such discussions, not their effectivity. Again, it’s a bit off topic, but for the effectivity you could look at the rate of homelessness and paycheck-to-paycheck situations in more progressively legislated and often poorer countries in western Europe. You’ll find that aside from popular (which is what matters here), these policies are also crazy effective.
Unpopular opinion: Kamala was a solid candidate.
Biden was headed to a humiliating defeat. Another couple debates, and maybe he loses NY and CA and we have a Dukakis- or Mondale-level annhilation. Kamala stepped in and ran a solid campaign on very short notice. Trump didn’t even have time to come up with a good nickname for her! She kicked his ass in their only debate, and he was literally too scared to do it again.
In the end, she lost by a couple hundred thousand votes in 3 states. She was wrong about Gaza and the economy, but PA, MI, and WI are credibly winnable in future elections. Kamala was not a garbage candidate.
But it’s not the voters fault! America had no choice but to vote for the rapist misogynist xenophobic fraudster traitor con man failed businessman because the woman had a nasally voice!
Honestly, yes. Kamala was the way better choice of the two. Biden kinda fell off for me the moment he did the railroad strike stuff.
But I’m not living in the US, so my point is kinda moot.
Unpopular opinion: Kamala was a solid candidate.
If that is an unpopular opinion then the statement is definitionally false.
This statement implies popularity = good, universally.
In the 1800s, slavery was popular. Hence, should a candidate have run on preserving slavery?
Removed by mod
No it doesn’t. A candidate needs a lot of qualities to be “good”. One of those qualities is the ability to be popular on election day. An unpopular candidate isn’t a good candidate. A popular candidate might be.
why so mad bro?
I’m gonna take a wild take and say the rich and powerful who direct the campaign are at fault for the campaign failing.
You are literally saying “all they had to do was appease these people and they’d win” and somehow it’s the fault of millions of random people rather than the few individuals unwilling to make that concession.
I’ve had comments with you before.
I know what you’re about, and you’re just boring. same old rhetoric over and over again.
no thanks.
Why do American voters dodge personal responsibility better than bullets?
Removed by mod
That’s not how this works. It is not a voters duty to vote for a candidate. The voter does not owe a candidate votes.
Giving someone your vote is like giving them your personal political power. That’s why the popular vote works.
The responsibility is on the party to put forth appropriate candidates that reflect the will of the people. It is up to them to sell themselves to us, not the other way around.
In a democracy, all power is derived from the will of the people. They work for us. Not the other way around.
It is up to the party to deliver appropriate candidates that will accurately reflect the will of the people.
Under normal circumstances with two evenly opposed candidates, I’d 100% agree with you, and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many others that wouldn’t.
But we were just given a desperate eleventh hour opportunity to save our democracy against a man who blatantly admitted he will be a dictator. That he would use America’s military against her citizens. That he wants to help Israel “finish the job.”
…and now, because of smug and arrogant third party/protest voters that cry mind-bogglingly arrogant nonsense such as;
It’s not a voters duty to vote!
we get trump. And with that, many… MANY people will lose their rights. All because your entitlement seems to have no limits and no concern for those that will be hurt in the next decade or two.
So, please. Do me a favor and at least take a bow and collectively own what you all have done. It was a hell of an effort to not act when you were needed.
fucking amazing, it should be stickied to the top of every political community.
