Why is Kamala Harris being held at such a higher standard than Trump this election?
Why is Kamala Harris being held at such a higher standard than Trump this election?
It feels like Harris has to run a damn near flawless campaign just to BARELY beat this guy. Yeah you can bring up the current state of the country, but Trump mishandled COVID, there were over 200k deaths, BLM protest and was 2x impeached. And yet, Joe Biden BARELY beat him.
Trump is a convicted felon, liable sexual predator, caused an insurrection on the Capitol Hill, tried to steal the 2020 election (find me 11,000 votes), constantly kisses Russia’s ass, has more pending court cases and gets sentenced next month and overall has been the main driving factor in America’s division.
Yet, this race is STILL either 50/50 or a slight tilt (Harris leads the polling aggregate right now). Harris gets destroyed by the corporate media for almost anything, yet Trump is still lying and saying the most outlandish shit and nobody cares.
Why does it feel standards are much higher for Harris than Trump?
Because too many people treat politics like a sporting event. You root for your team no matter what, and against the other team. You have to do it this way, because if the other side wins that means your side loses.
So there are too many people who view Trump as "Their Guy", and are "rooting" for him. Anything they hear that might portray Trump in a negative light (like a criminal trial, for instance) must be the Other Side trying to cheat to win unfairly.
I remind people that Roger Ailes was Nixon's media consultant, and the lesson he learned from Watergate was that Nixon could have gotten away with it if the media was more sympathetic. He then went on to be the CEO of Fox News. That's no accident. There is a direct line from Nixon to Trump, and Roger Ailes drew it.
The problem isn't that Harris is being held to a higher standard. The problem is that Americans think of elections the same way they think of a sporting match. It's "my team is going to win!" not "I'm going to vote for the candidate that is best aligned with my beliefs." A huge number of the people who are voting Republican are doing so because the Republican party is their "team," and damn it, their team is going to win even if it kills them.
Many years ago, I was discussing politics with a coworker (always a bad idea, but whatever). It went something like this:
"So, you don't think the less-fortunate should be able to afford medical care?" "No, of course not, everyone should be able to see a doctor."
"You don't think gay people should be allowed to marry?" "I'm not gay, but they can do whatever makes them happy."
"You support the war in Iraq, then?" "I support our troops, but the war is kind of a waste."
"We definitely should legalize weed, right?" "Um, I'd smoke it if I didn't get drug tested."
"So why are you voting Republican, then?" "My family is Republican; we always do."
Can't believe you are asking this now. In the 70s, I don't believe any of these yokels would have been elected. Lauren Beaubert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump, they've all done things and said things that are so far over the line, it isn't even funny. Nixon? Please, he would be small potatoes today.
Why? Gerrymandering. Social Media. Lack of critical thinking skills. A sense of hopelessness. Apathy. Billionaire brainwashing. The list goes on. The strange thing is, conservatives want to go back to the way things were. For them that means when women had to go to back alleys to get abortions, when gays were stoned, when blacks weren't allowed to vote. For me it means when people didn't justify these ridiculous notions, but instead just said, "No!"
You must be young. Because Republicans will vote for a criminal before they vote for "communism". Because the Republicans attempt to destroy the educational system to keep people dumb enough to vote for them has worked. Because dispite the corporate media pandering and acting like they want Harris Because that's what their viewers want, their billionaire owners don't. They want the republican led centrist enabled tax breaks on their money. Harris has also brought in the progressives which have zero tolerance for the centrist mindset. She is in a situation where she has to dance a dance of trying to reel in the progressives even though they are going to throw a fit when she panders to the centrists and the corporate overlords.
The system is made and controlled by the billionaires. No hard progressive that doesn't play the game a little is going to get elected... right now. They will destroy anyone that threatens their billions. Everytime she goes a little too hard left they throw a fit.
Welcome to end stage capitalism.
Because the media are largely in the hands of the oligarchy that will stop at nothing to get another tax cut.
Trump is an outrage machine, and we have a media that deals in an economy of outrage.
Trump gets outrage. Outrage gets clicks. Clicks get money. It's a pretty simple chain to follow.
We need to wake up and realize that a profit-driven instantaneous news system that leverages strong emotions is not good for anybody. Truth is subjective nowadays, (always has been, really, but it's especially evident in the current media climate) and all that matters is getting information and narratives (not necessarily facts) out and people consuming it (and all the ads embedded with it) there, first, and right now.
I feel like a lot of people on Trump's side don't care and all of his issues have been documented in the press. If people cared, he wouldn't be this close.
You also have enough people left of Harris who don't want to hold their collective noses and vote for her. They'll complain about the Overton window shifting right, but won't be a bulwark for keeping it from shifting right. Hell, there are people on Lemmy complaining about political utilitarianism as a reason for voting for Harris and will even complain about Bernie if he says something being done by the Biden administration is good.
Because some Democrats have standards, and Republicans don't.
I don't believe it's possible for anybody to be held to lower standards than Trump.
It's a good thing she's held to higher standards. I don't want anybody held to his standards running anything.
People who would ever consider voting for the Toupee have no standards. No bar, no logic or even thought goes in to who they vote for.
The people who are planning to vote against the Toupee have standards. And the Democratic party has continually failed to meet those standards. And the only time the people have any power to pressure a politician is when they're running for office. Anyone claiming "just vote in the D, then we can focus on getting progress made" is a centrist who is ok being perpetually part of the oppressed class.
Yes, we need to vote against the Toupee, and the GOP in general. We also need a presidential administration who will get progress done. And since the human species has, at best, 30 years left before the majority of the world is uninhabitable, little baby steps won't cut it.
So Harris and the Dems have a high bar. Because the alternative is fascism, or death by climate change.
Because so many trump voters are low-information, rabid and impervious to fact and/or reason. They will vote orange even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue to death, or if there are 32-or-whatever felony indictments/verdicts.
Meanwhile, many potential Democrat voters are also low-information in their own way - impressionable, fickle and with little memory retention, they seem unable to act upon a clear and present danger until it punches them in the goddamned face (and by then of course it's too late), somehow have normalized the orange threat and are easy prey to an algorithm pushing a "both parties are the same" divide-and-conquer propaganda.
The difference between a parasite-laden excrement chip cookie and a raisin oatmeal cookie, "But I wanted chocolate chip! bOtH cOoKiEs ArE tHe SaMe!"
Because Harris's supporters have standards.
One thing particular to Trump is the percentage of his supporters in polling that support him no matter what. Trump has maintained some of the most sustained, consistent support of any modern political candidate. His base polling numbers basically haven't moved in like 10 years.
Trying to have his VP executed, injecting bleach, porn stars, felonies, treason, domestic use of military, anti-veteran sentiment, belittling the disabled, racist comments, sexist comments, sexual assault, etc., etc., etc. None of that meaningfully moved the needle.
You are not going to "get" Trump on anything like that. If you want him to lose support, he needs to be seen as weak, ineffective, and laughable in the eyes of his supporters. None of the above does that, because that isn't what Trump supporters care about. They care about hurting people they don't like or see as lesser-than. If Trump stops doing that effectively, he will lose support. But, frankly, he's really good at it.
USA as a society is mentally ill, where sociopathy is often seen as a virtue. For instance denying poor people health care and food, denying pregnant women with potentially lethal complications the right to abortion. Allowing (white) people to kill (black) people without reason based on stand your ground rules. Refusing stricter gun rules despite countless school shootings. Denying workers a living wage. The list of sociopathy permeating US society goes on and on.
Now I know that despite this, about half the population see the problems. There are also Americans that fight this, and are world class people. But the other half, somehow confuse Trump's sociopathy with strength, and admire him for it. Yes this is how it is in USA, sociopathy is widely not only accepted but admired, people want Trump to hurt people, the poor, emigrants, people of color, LGBT. Many Americans want all these people to suffer, for no other reason than their mere existence. Somehow this is OK to even extend to women in general too! As Trump is clearly a major misogynist.
If you are a normal well functioning person, it's near impossible to grasp that such hate can be this widespread, and Trump is fueling it, and before him Republicans have been fueling it for decades.
This makes all the hateful illegal stuff Trump does nearly irrelevant, people simply don't care, his followers just want to see the people they hate burn. It's not that Trump isn't called out at times, it's just that it doesn't really make a difference.
Theres several reasons
Part of it is good old fashioned bigotry
A big part of it is the systemic advantage the Electoral College gives Republicans
And of course there's the matter that Traitor Trump voters don't have standards while the rest of us do
Because the kind of people who run CNN and other staples of traditional media are the same people who covered for people like Jimmy Savile.
Mark Thompson is Chairman and CEO of CNN. Here's some blurbs from his Wikipedia, the Savile one being the most salacious.
In September 2010, Thompson acknowledged some of the BBC's previous political bias, which he said he had witnessed early in his career. He stated: "In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left". He added: "the organisation did struggle then with impartiality".
Fucking news to me, mate.
Although Thompson departed the BBC before public exposure of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and is not noted in the BBC chronology of the unfolding coverage, Thompson faced questions about his role in the events around Savile's actions and BBC coverage of them. According to a New York Times review, Thompson denied knowing of a BBC Newsnight programme on accusations against Savile before it was dropped soon after Savile's death in October 2011.
Literally everyone around Savile is fucking trash.
In a 4 February 2024 investigation by The Guardian, some CNN staff blamed their channel's newly appointed director Mark Thompson for what they described as biased reporting of the Israel–Hamas war. The staff criticized their network's coverage of the war, charging that it had promoted Israeli propaganda, and gave more attention to Israeli suffering, and the Israeli narrative of the war. One staffer claimed that this bias was systematic and institutionalized, as many journalists' stories were forced to be cleared by channel's Jerusalem bureau before publication. Staffers claimed that statements by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were rarely reported on, while Israeli statements were taken at face value. A CNN spokesperson denied the charges of bias.
That's to say nothing about the pro-Trump head of Discovery (which owns CNN) David Zaslav slobbing this guys knob.
Discovery CEO David Zaslav shared, "I am confident he is exactly the leader we need to take the helm of CNN at this pivotal time."
Thompson was also formerly at the New York Times, another publication that has been swinging to the right. However, if you check out the Lifestyle section of the NYT, you quickly realize why, because it's aimed at rich fucks with a second house in the Hamptons.
It's literally in their short-term-financial-interest to get Trump. They don't give a damn about long-term-interests at all.
It's the same when it comes to any other countries. The right always gets away with corruption because it's expected. Whereas the left has a higher moral standpoint so it is being accused of hypocrisy and things get blown out proportion even if small scale corruption occurs. For example in UK the previous government were giving jobs and contracts to friends and family all the time and nobody cried about it. It became accepted. The new left of centre government comes in and gives a temporary pass to a donor and suddenly it's a huge scandal...
It's the same if you care for the environment and ever took a taxi somewhere, or a vegetarian or vegan and have shoes made out of leather. Sure you are doing better than everyone else to help but you are still the devil and worse than everyone else somehow...
I'll take racism, sexism, propaganda and capitalism for 500 Alex.
They've got pretty firm control of the business sectors through tax cut agenda. They've got pretty firm control of the farmers for the same. Through fear and propaganda they've got pretty strong control of the poor and some of the educated middle class in the rural areas. A lot of the red states are doing everything they can to impede their education systems. If you keep people from becoming educated there's less competition at the top and a lot more red voters.
All you've got to fight them are the poor and the middle class in the cities and suburbs and the occasional upper class that isn't so self-serving that they're willing to stand on everyone else.
Because apparently half of the active voters in this country are either greedy corporate cunts, wealthy sociopaths, MAGA morons, authoritarian Christian ideologue crazies, psuedo-intellectual "centrists"/independents that somehow conflate basic human respect for minorities and outright fascism as "both sides are the same", or some combination thereof. Those type of people are the type that think the ends always justify the means and that the ends they want is a US that looks like a cross between A Handmaid's Tale, Atlas Shrugged, and modern day Russia. It is one of the most disheartening realizations of my adult life to learn that so many of my fellow Americans are fucking vile people.
Do keep in mind, that roughly half of voters is not the same as roughly half of Americans. The highest turnout of voting eligible people in the last century was only 66.6% in 2020. Basically every Trump nut votes. It is there entire reason for being these days, to support and vote for Trump. And in 2020, Trump only got 46.9% of the popular vote, i.e. only 33.03% of the US voting eligible actually cast a vote for Trump. The rest of us are either actively trying to stop Trump or are at least not actively supporting him. The absolute BEST thing we can do as a country is to bump those numbers up. There is no excuse for 1 in 3 people to not vote, leaving another 1 in 3 people to have disproportionate power over everyone else's lives. Complacency and apathy or counting on enough others to do their civic duty so you don't have to is how Trump wins again. Vote and make every single person you know go vote too. Tell them to register. Tell them to vote early if that is more convenient for them. Whatever. Just go vote.
Update: The second best thing you can do is vote for state and federal epresentatives and leaders that will advocate for election reforms like joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) and/or abolishing the electoral college, fighting Gerrymandering, establishing new, more fair and representative voting systems (Ranked Choice, Approval, Proportional, etc.), term limits, etc. The goal is for representative government is to actually represent the popular will of their voters. It absolutely does NOT do that right now. That should be our first and greatest goal for our government.
Every politician in U.S. history has been held to a higher standards than Trump. And thank God.
you're asking why fascists and leftists have different standards and morals?
Because the Billionaire owners of the media— FOX NBC ABC CNN are all conservatives who support project 2025.
They are predominantly white and they want their tax cuts while passing the bill to the plebeians.
Because Democrats want someone who will run the country and Republicans just want someone who will maintain their minority control. We are concerned for the country, they are scared for their very existence and self reflection itself is dangerous for their existence. Basically self reflection is necessary for what Democrats want to do, and it fatal for what Republicans want. So we do it, and Republicans avoid it at all costs. We get a Kamala who we hold to a high standard, they get a Trump who can punch them in the face and they'll still support him because of the party.
because Trump has spent the last 9 years going so low, his cult no longer has standards. anyone would look like a saint compared to him.
A nice illustration is Republican media operatives are trying to attack Harris with "we checked with McDonald's corporate and they have no record of her working there!". For one, McD's is franchisees and I doubt corporate tracks every burger flipper. Next, of course they're trying to claim she's dishonest, but what about the greater question: Did fuckin Trump ever come anywhere near McDonald's? No, he inherited about $400 million, has misconstrued it it repeatedly ('a small loan of a million dollars', as if that is relatable either) and has never had any sort of normal job that required discipline or labor, ever.
I keep seeing the same bozos say they're the same
One is literally a criminal rapist who has made tens of thousands of public lies, doesn't pay contractors, and said obvious non sensensical stuff during covid leading to mass deaths and whose own ex staff warns he is an asshole.
The other is a normal person you could probably eat lunch with. She's absolutely normal.
I'm going to offer an answer because the top responses are either bad or just totally miss the mark. The later responses are just thoughtless kneejerk drivel. It's worth asking and addressing this question because it's impact on electoralism are very material, and it's not for no reason that you made your observation; it's also not necessarily a bad thing that some politicians might be held to a higher standard than others.
The question is:
Why is Kamala being held to a higher standard is the question.
But "higher" than what?
Was Joe Biden being held to a "higher" standard? Do Democrats in general get held to "higher" standards? Rotate the question and it's "Why do we hold politicians to standards?" Are Republicans held to any kind of standards?
First, I think we need to focus on on if politicians are being held to standards by their voters. I won't be addressing any kind of cross party criticism in that I want to focus in on the issue of "potential voters" and if those voters hold a candidate that there is some chance they might vote for to some standards ( or litmus, whatever. The first step will be to address if voters hold politicians to standards (not yours or mine necessarily, but the voters own standards).
Second, I'll address the "higher-ness" of these standards. Are they relative or absolute? Are the candidate or party specific? Do they change?
Finally, I'll address the impacts of this and what it has done over the previous several election cycles.
I think we can look at the recent case of Joe Bidens candidacy to address if Harris is unique in being held to a standard. Joe Biden started campaigning in earnest in around October/ November 2023. This came at the same time as the horrible October 7th massacre that galvanized world support for Israel in the face of a terrorist threat. Joe Biden had historically been the most oro-isralli politician of any party, long before his bid for even vice president.
Relatively quickly after the massacre it was clear that Israel was in no way operating in good faith for their purported goal of recovering hostages. It was obvious that they were targeting journalists and iad workers, that there bombing was indiscriminate and focused on population centers and infrastructure for maximum destruction, and that this was in support of the broader colonial mission that Israel has been in since it's inception.
Because of this, during the primary process, a movement of voters set a standard: that they could not vote for Joe Biden in good conscience based on the manner in which the US was relating to and supporting Israels now obvious extermination policy regarding Gaza. Biden failed that standard with regards to the Undecided movement, and it had cost him the election long before his disasterous debate performance. Joe Biden had been floundering in the polls well before that debate. Because of this, Biden lost his position as candidate, explicitly because the voters had a standard to which the candidate did not meet.
Democratic voters are not the only ones who hold standards for their politicians. Consider the case of a post DJT electoral landscape for Republicans. A Republican candidate basically could not get through a primary not towing the MAGA line (even if this hurt their chances later in the election. So even if they are not your or mine standards, Republicans too are held to standards by their voters (if even we find those standards abhorrent). It's important to understand that in fact these voters do have standards, they just aren't your standards, and they do hold their politicians to them.
To conclude section one: all politicians get held to standards. One of the most important politicians of the modern era just had his career ended by not meeting some of them. Both bases of voters have standards which are different and unique to that bae, and both bases hold their candidates to them accordingly.
Now we come to the question of "higher-ness". Do bases hold these officials to standards equally? Or is there some sliding scale or uniqueness into the way things are applied. I plan on withholding discussion if the consequences of this to the final section, but I am not disregarding it's importance.
In 2008, Barack Obama led one of the most historic campaigns of all time, under the twin banners of "Hope" and "Change". The iconography of Obama's 2008 campaign has and will continue to represent a high water mark for political symbolism and its use in electoralism. Barrack ran as a left-wing populist and won his presidency accordingly. However, once in office, Obama struck a decidedly more rightwing/ centrist stance, effectively governing from the center right. His principal legislation was a Heritage Foundation piece of legislation, a lift and shift of what Romney had implemented in Massachusetts, the ACA, effectively ensconcing private control of health care in the US. While voters did give Obama his second term, there was a distinct feeling of a bait and switch from the populist times of 2008 Obama to the 2012 technocratic, neoliberal approach with which he governed.
This set the stage for 2016, where the demand for "hope and change" was now stronger than ever. Obama has failed to deliver in his messaging and this created opportunities for both right wing and lefty wing populist candidates: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The voter recognized that they had not held Obama to a sufficiently high standard, and because of this, they raised the bar (each group according to their own principles). On the left we saw purity tests around no corporate pac money and a wide suite of progressive litmus. On the right we saw "america first" and isolationism. Both the left and the right bases established a higher standard. However, due to reasons behind the scope of this discussion, only the right were able to effectively hold their candidate to that now higher standard (their standards, internally defined). Leaving the era of technocracy and neoliberalism, it was the candidate held to a higher standard that won that election.
Now examine 2020. Now firmly in the populist era, it was a race on both the left and the right to meet the associated higher standards now established by voters. The Democratic candidates had maybe the most progressive across the board suite of policies ever. And likewise in the right, excepting that they be regressive polocies. Both suites representative of the now higher standards required by their associated blocs. This time however, the more established political players had caught the buzz and responded accordingly. While the DnC was ratfucky as ever, Biden did adopt almost all of those higher standard policy positions to gather those voters into his coalition. His campaign identified the higher standard, held themselves to it, and they won.
Now we have the opportunity to draw some conclusions. There is a "higherness" to standards but they are not necessarily specific to politicians so much as the demographics and voting blocs those politicians draw from. Standards have changed and increased in scrutiny. Standards are also bloc specific, so it doesn't make sense to compare standards across blocs: why a progressive chooses to vote or not vote and why a conservative chooses to vote or not vote are wildly different motivating concerns.
Do standards matter? Objectively yes. Holding candidates to a "higher standard" has represented a winning strategy for voters for the previous 20 years. While those standards are relative depending on which voting block you are courting, the general rule has been that the candidate coming closest to a higher standard wins. This is largely due to a shift away from the kind of technocratic allure of neoliberalism and the general shift towards populism we've seen in the past 20 years: it is distinctly the case that we reside in a new political hedgemony.
Because of the, the prior generation politics of "we know better. just elect the "best" and that should do" has died, and been replaced by stronger willed voters who have specific demands of their politicians. Those politicians who can read and come closest to those demands are the most likely to win: this is an age of populism. Both the MAGA and progressive movement didn't their roots in the technocratic neoliberal approaches emphasizing credentials and expertise over the will of the voter. This was effectively the political hedgemony of the US from about 1967-1978 until 2000-2012. That was the era of technocratic neoliberalism, which has been fully replaced with populism of two distinct variants (which is typical in populist eras).
The idea that voters shouldn't hold their politicians to standards and should just vote for "the one who knows best" is a residual trapping of a previous hedgemony, and extends to almost all aspects of political life and policy.
Holding politicians to higher has also been a demonstrably effective strategy for getting them into office. In the current political hedgemony, the politician held to and able to meet a higher standard typically wins. In this way a "higher standard" benefits both the politician and the electorate. By extending a higher standard for Harris, we're making her a more electable candidate. It doesn't hurt her to be held to a higher standard so long as she strives to meet that standard. It's good for her as a candidate and good for her electorate in that they get closer to accomplishing their political goals.
Because she’s a black woman who has demonstrated herself capable of behaving appropriately. Meanwhile a trump is not only a rich white geriatric man whose political career has kept expectations low, he’s also Donald trump, a reality tv star, which must be compared to Dr. Harris, former DA of San Francisco, a nationally significant city.
So yeah: racism, sexism, and past behavior.
republicans have such a low media standard, while democrats have such a high media standard that they're busy eating themselves over it.
republicans will literally run anybody living and breathing, democrats want the next FDR basically. Thankfully it seems like the dem party is finally moving away from this mostly useless social campaign bullshit, and more into the "broad political problems" shit which actually matters (the federal government is also way more functional from this perspective) if this continues, whether the dems win or lose this cycle, the dems will have a formidable and quite strong campaign machine. Once the media unfucks itself, which is bound to happen with how people are treating it (keep treating it like shit) we should have a pretty strong basis to run on.
It's looking like the dems are building up a strong political base right now, at the expense of the republican party not existing, and as long as we don't kill it, things will continue to get better.
Literally all we have to do, is capture the moderate voter, focus on popular policies rather than left leaning/dem policy shit. And then campaign on energy, rather than policy.
Because the media is heavily conservative and advertising driven.
Giving republicans new things to throw at Kamala is the #1 priority of the news right now because they need a close race to sell ads.
Years of ownership by conservative billionaires and pundits has also saturated the media environment with a broad conservative tilt. This is why you don't see a lot of articles about why like immigration went up under trump etc.
Because racism and sexism is still very prevalent in the US.
She is a minority. And she is a woman.
The news is a shit hole funded by the ultra wealthy who will benefit from Trump's tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. Which explains the coverage.
Many voters are still racist and sexist. Which explains the polls.
Because not only do women have to work 10x as hard to be seen as being on the same level as men, but she has scruples. Trump doesn't care about perception.
Bigotry and idiocy
they're not voting trump they're voting against the democrat party
It's because democrats are unwilling or unable to deliver on real policies for working people. Of course, republicans are the same, but they more or less don't even pretend to, choosing instead to whip up their constituents with culture war nonsense. Nobody has any faith in things improving. Repubs just want to get revenge on their cultural enemies, and democrats (voters) just want to prevent a total slide toward the far right.
Dem politicians can't whip up excitement because it is impossible to get people excited by neoliberal policies, but that's really all they have. Vague platitudes only work so many election cycles in a row before voters just can't even pretend to be excited anymore.
tl:dr republicans are awful but at least their base believes in them.
1: She's a woman of color so she has to be 75% better than average for anyone to pay attention.
2: Executed moral standards are more important to the left than the right. Declared moral standards are more important to the right.
The Republican Party and it’s base are anti-intellectual, why do you think they care about logical consistency in their politicians?
honestly aside from explicitly right wing outlets, I don't see any particular bias against harris. most outlets will almost alway criticize trump on everything while most of the time they praise harris and sometimes they criticise her on her more progression policies (because most of the media tilts fiscal conservative). it's rather more of a perceptions of the audience thing. trump has done so many outlandish shit that now most of his bullshit gets filtered out as noise.
also i don't wanna be mean but the question "Why does it feel standards are much higher for Harris than Trump?" sounds like it's coming from an agitated"vote blue no matter who" democrat who is baffled about why would people not vote for the obviously better candidate.
there are a lot of reasons as you said "this race is STILL either 50/50 or tilt Trump". maybe it's because she's black or female and there are a lot of racist and misogynists out there, maybe it's because of the electoral college, maybe it's because of the hold the MAGA cult has over its members, or maybe it's because harris is refusing to stop arming and helping a genocide and that is turning people off.
the Harris campaign right now can only change one of these factors. even if you plan on voting, lie on the polls and organise and protest against the genocide because if enough people do this to force the hand of the Harris campaign then it wouldn't be a close race at all.
Because one is a traitor that attempted to overturn a lawful election result.
No matter what you think of Kamala, supporting Trump is a joke.
Because Trump being an asshole has stopped being a novel newsworthy event.
Grabbed 'em by the pussy.. And they liked it!
https://truthout.org/articles/yes-55-percent-of-white-women-voted-for-trump-no-im-not-surprised/
No one hold trump to any standard. Thats what the trash like about him. He is just as shitty as them.
I don’t think it’s that Harris is being held to a higher standard, it’s that trump is being held to virtually no standard.
The people supporting trump have no standard either except for “beat the other team, even if for no other reason than to piss them off.” They don’t care if the world goes up in flames as long as it fucks over a lib.
Kamala Harris is a non-white, non-GOP woman. Period.
2 things:
-
Remember 2016 when the media gave Trump an absurd amount of free publicity by covering every stupid thing he said and did then he won? It wasn’t the only reason, but it clearly didn’t help.
-
People know who Trump is at this point. He’s awful in a way that’s really easy to see and either you’re someone that’s a problem for or you’re someone who loves the awful.
Whoever is the current corporate lackey being put forward by the DNC is the one that needs to claim to be the good one, co-opting the language of progressives while taking corporate money and maintaining the brutal status quo.
So for people who come looking for someone who’s gonna do good, the bad stuff represents inconsistencies with that narrative and despair at a lack of representation in a supposedly democratic system.
-
Because most media companies are owned by rich conservative white men that don't want a black woman into office that might raise their taxes.
It's as simple as that.
It's simply tribalism at this point. Most people who still support Trump are simply supporting their tribe, whereas on the left most people still believe in the virtues and merits of democracy.
I still feel like democracy will win the day. Most of Trump supporters are 50/60+ and his message doesn't seem to resonate as well with younger people.
Feel free to post any political stuff to !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world if you'd like. You're welcome to crosspost this there too if you'd like more discussion on it.
Yes, that is true. Unfortunately, as I see it, this tragedy once again reinforces my belief that many humans can be so stupid and ideologically blinded that they forego any rationality and connection to reality. No rational person could ever want Trump to be their candidate unless they had something to gain from it. Almost no one has anything to gain from a potential second term except some schemers and ultra rich.
This seems to be an inherent flaw in present-day democracies. I am from Germany, and we are experiencing the same thing with an alt-right party that is set to win the most votes in the 2025 election, with an ultra conservative party likely being second (or maybe their positions will be flipped, it does not matter effectively). Germany, just like the U.S., is on the cusp of losing freedom and democracy. And once it's gone, it will be a hard fight to get it back.
Anyway, for future attempts at democracies, I think we need even stronger constitutions that make such stances and policies like the ones from the Republican party illegal, and we need institutions that are willing to enforce such constitutions. Furthermore, rigorous civic education should be implemented so that the populace becomes less susceptible to populism. Finally, in order to qualify for the privilege to vote, would-be voters should pass some kind of (equity-compatible) test every election year that assesses whether they still possess critical and rational thinking capabilities.
But I imagine that the most effective measure would be to treat conservatism and related ideologies the way that fascism / national socialism is treated in Germany. Exclude radical conservative and nazi opinions from the right to freedom of expression and make advocation for them punishable. Furthermore, outlaw all political parties along those ideological lines.
These measures are not pretty, but as it stands today, much of the votership in Western democracies is just not qualified for partaking in national elections.
Because the standards are relative to the voters, and Trump is appealing to a voting base that's very big on misogyny and racism. That's what they want out of their preferred candidate.
But in general, you need to look at redistricting, gerrymandering, voter suppression, all of the standard tactics that Republicans have effectively used to give themselves more weight in the presidential race. Of course the electoral college is part of the problem too. The low population red states are disproportionately represented. This has been going on for a century? Longer? The exact details have changed over time, but the general strategy is to change the rules or ignore the rules and hope you don't get caught or if you do get caught rely on the courts backing you so that your party wins.
The media has to maintain the charade of democracy.
It only depends on which network you watch.
Neither of these two candidates is suitable to lead, but depending on your network of choice, one is a messiah or a crazy person.
They are trying to break through the misinformation being fed to Republicans. And trying to ensure anyone on the fence otherwise doesn't have any excuses.
I don't expect trump to be decent. I expect the democrat to be.
It's because she wasn't a major contestant in the 2016 primary because people voted for better candidates. Also, she seems to be a 1:1 copy paste of Biden, which isn't good because people didn't like Biden half assing his promises in office and giving republicans an easy time making a counter campaign.
On top of that she basically told the uncommitted group to get bent, so that gives Trump more voter leverage similar to how he beat Hillary.
Biden was met with the same voter response because he was voted in explicitly to remove Trump. Otherwise he's known as being Obama's VP, of which even Obama said that he should retire afterwards because he was a centrist.
It's the same deal as 2016, where the DNC thinks campaigning on "lesser evil" is a viable strategy in order to retain their lobby money. If the RNC actually had more than two brain cells, they could easily win this election by having their candidates not act like insane asylum criminals.
Because, on Trump's side, it's a full blown cult.
Trump can literally poop his pants on national tv and eat a mouthful of shit and his acolytes would clap in unison
However, most people not deranged enough to worship a politician could/would be turned off if that politician, Kamala on our scenario, blatantly lies or makes fun of a disable person or rapes someone
Because a huge percentages of white guys are huge stupid pieces of shit and there are a lot of us out there.
To give you an example there was a poll in the swing states that showed that guys preferred Trump 56 to 44 and women the reverse. Nationwide in the last go round white men across the entire nation showed near as big a split again 56 44. vs 51 to 47 in Biden's favor.
It's about bigotry.
Shes a woman, shes not white, and shes a democrat. Take your pick.
Might be her skin color, might be her gender, might be misogyny, or it might be racism.
Because Trump
Part of the issue is the push by many left-wing voters to get actually progressive politics on the table after years of alternating between regressives and complacent centrists* that prefer making small concessions to the right over big steps to the left. They don't want another presidency marked by lukewarm promises kept poorly. They're tallying up all the ways in which Harris still isn't as good as she ough to be.
For Trumpers, he is good enough. He is everything they want: A public role model enabling them to be an absolutely shameless asshat.
The complexity arises when people advocate voting for a third party instead. By and large, no third party has the traction to beat the Republicans. You'd need to get the entire Dem voterbase and then some. If that fails, you've split the non-Rep voterbase and the enabling asshat gets the plurality. On the other hand, there's a risk that leaning too far left in the attempt to keep the progressive voters may lose the centrist* voters, which is a gamble whether that will end up a net positive. Harris has a tough job: walking a political tightrope, particularly if it's consistently being tugged at by people.
And there are good reasons to tug on that rope. You'll find some in these comments: Settling for "Good enough" doesn't help getting actual change. For the ultra-rich, on the other hand, progressive policies are a detriment, so they'll want to tug it the other way. The left doesn't want to cede ground and keeps pulling. The centrists* that don't like Trump but also fear dramatic change pull her to the other side again. The "centrists"** pull just to see her fall.
And that's exciting! That's an actual conflict of ideologies! That's her having to work for her voters' approval! You'll see the complaints flying left and right, see her try to keep an ever-shifting balance, see drama and tension! People love drama and tension. Corporate media loves drama and tension because it gets attention, clicks, revenue, all that. "Assholes still support Asshole" just isn't as interesting as "<prominent person> criticises Kamala for <policy>, calls her <incomplete quote>".
Also, splitting the Dem voterbase serves the corporate executives and shareholders that want the right-wing tax breaks and erosion of worker protections because it makes them even richer. That's probably not a coincidence.
*Centrist as in "I don't want things to radically change", not as in "I think both parties are equally bad, so I'll sow dissent in the Dem voterbase, pretend that I'm not helping Trump with that and get to feel superior to both".
** The latter group of the above footnote. It doesn't really matter whether they're intentional agents of disunity or idealists that care more about voting with their heart than the actual outcome. The result is the same: At best, they've achieved nothing. At worst, they've contributed to Trump's victory.
It is the way of Dems vs GOP.
And Fox essentially being a GOP mouthpiece.
"See! She's not perfect, so you cant criticize trump for any of his flaws or you are a hypocrite!"
All politicians are the same! Our quarterback is cooler than your girl! Go Red team!
Firstly Republicans have their guy so they are just going to pick at any weakness.
Second, all news media has consolidated and is owned by right wing rich fuckers. There is a wealth tax proposal and the ftc is super strong right now. So rich people are being cry babies
Third, there is a genocide happening right now with bullets paid for and made with USAs stamp on it. People are super critical against it
Fourth, left wing people always want better so you got to do something to succeed and if you do something we want you to do better since politician rarely go far enough. All the right wing people need to do to succeed is to obstruct and do nothing.
Fifth, Democrats are courting the middle. With the military policy, fracking, border wall, immigration and the tough on crime rhetoric Kamala sounds like a moderate Republican from 8-10 years ago. Leftists have no choice but to vote Harris or we run the chance of having Trump. While some of may vote third party because Harris doesn't go far enough if we do that in battle ground states we will be blamed again and we are strongly discouraging that. So the only voter base Kamala can pick up is republican never Trumpers and people in the middle and independents. Kamala's rhetoric reflects that.
Lastly Kamala is really untested. She has flip flopped and people hate that and hypocrisy. They can't push Trump nor give him more attention so they push Kamala. She lost her last presidential run really badly dropping out before the primaries. She only had one term as senator in a very safe district to get elected in as a democrat. As an Attorney General she ran 2 elections and only served 1.5 terms. Her district attorney stuff has been her best and most notable thing followed by her AG stint. But DA and AG stuff isn’t the same policy stuff as a politician. As senator she only passed one law having lots of words about other stuff though
aside from great comments here, trump is associated with some religious imagery of having wings. even i can't believe that flies.
nothing goes as tunnel vision as blind faith.
Because the media, which supplies political "information" to the masses (a) wants to sensationalize things for viewership/ratings and (b) is generally owned by extremely right/conservative/Republican entities and will not allow it to be a fair representation between the two candidates.
And more than that the MAGA side doesn't campaign on or care about political policy because their base doesn't know or care about policy, they campaign on hate and dirt and smear. So you could explain all the awesome policy of the other side until your throat is sore, they won't care because policy is not their concern.
It's funny to see the latest moanfest from Trump, claiming no-fair because he spent $100m campaigning against Biden and now that's all a waste. That's the thing. He/they aren't campaigning for issues or policy, they are fighting against an individual. It's all they know how to do and all their base really cares about.
Why the fuck do you think? People hate women
Because the media is running the same game they did with Hillary Clinton playing "hardball" when in reality theyre chums.
What I didn't see in the reactions yet is that a lot of Americans do not want any government involvement at all. Save for things that are supposedly written down in the Bible. The Republican party is providing just that, anti-establishment, anti-intellectual and don't forget: anti-minority. Just people being tough and dare to support the party who will turn the clock back to when times were perceived to be better. Same sentiment is present in Europe by the way, like it was a century ago.
People where willing to let trump win because they didn't like biden
People really really want to root for their side. If a comparison can be made in the slightest that your side is also doing something right, or that the other side is also doing something wrong, they can twist their viewpoint to see both sides as equals. You have to be flawless to prevent this. Your worst has to be better than their best.
It’s worth noting that Harris is still pretty new when it comes to being the presidential nominee. Nobody even considered it until the Biden debate.
So partly the media is making up time when it comes to analyzing her and asking and expecting answers.
Trump has been running for president since the day he lost, so we all know everything there is to know about him.
The president isn’t in charge of COVID. States are in charge of COVID. Pandemics are handled by the states with help from the federal government. BLM protest are once again state issues. I’m not sure why so many Americans don’t understand how the government is run. Presidents are not dictators. They are limited by the constitution and laws.
No why is the split so close? Harris isn’t a good candidate. She’s wildly unpopular and has been for years. He policies are horrible and the average American doesn’t want them. They are the opposite of what Americans want.
Biden has always been fairly unpopular. I’ve always thought the guy was an idiot but he isn’t far left. He fairly moderate to Leaning a little right.
We also have a large red/blue divide in this country and presidents are picked by the EC.
Trump is a horrible candidate but things ran well when he was in office. People will remember that.
The short version is we are running two awful candidates and that’s why the elections are close.
It's so harrisover
Because the standards for a regular 60 year old are higher than for a 74 year old pedophile with severe mental illness
I'm pretty sure Trump is Darkseid and MAGA are literally being subjugated by the Anti-Life Equation.
That's all the explanation that is needed.