Surely we can learn from this?

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.
- It is utterly wild to me that Biden had to withdraw from the race because he was so unpopular and the Harris team was like, let’s just tie ourselves as snugly to that man as possible. Real brain geniuses on that team. I just read she was relying on a ex uber exec. And it all made sense.
- If that's all it takes, I can do that. Apparently following through doesn't matter. Though TBF, who actually follows through on most of what they say? 🤷
Turns out, lecturing the voters doesn't make them want to vote for you. Everything you said is correct, but those weren't the concerns that resonated. To quote Bill Clinton's strategist in 92, "it's the economy, stupid." Yeah, the economy is doing great right now, but you have to ask, "for who?"
- I agree that right now, our economists have a terrible way of defining a “good economy”. They have praise for a set of numbers such as the stock market rates, which have almost no connection to the well-being of common people.
  We need more medians and fewer averages; not to measure wealth when it’s spread among the extremes.
- It's not the economy, it's a popularity contest when the majority of the electorate stop choosing candidates based on what they do and have done and instead only pay attention to what they say or choose based on uninformed vibes.
If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
47th President of the USA?
Trump won. Sadly this means he was the better candidate. Which damning for the Democrats because he's dog shit.

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.

What was solid about her? She lost to Trump of all people.
- Ask Fox News, they will do their best to give you a fair and balanced assessment of her policies and-
  sorry, couldn't get through that sentence with a straight face.
I hope you realize this but Harris ended up in a humiliating defeat.
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?
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.
- Biden got those striking workers everything they wanted. He just didn't scream about it like Trump would have, which was a huge mistake.
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!

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.

Little bit of A, lotta bit of B.

Trump was the most garbage candidate in every way in the history of our country.

He basically coasted to victory.

Double-standards for days.

If candidate 1 is garbage, and candidate 2 loses to candidate 1, what does that say about candidate 2?
- That the voters are braindead
- That the electorate has been primed to applaud fascistic tendencies as long as they are not called "fascist" by a 24/7 deluge of propaganda networks. The caricature of Harris painted in a phalanx of right-wing disinformation channels looks worse than the picture they painted of Trump. Reality has not had as much impact on this election as one would hope.

It's kinda crazy to me that a sizable amount of people expect a perfect completely spotless candidate, or they don't vote and hand over the win to fascism.

In a rational world, Harris would have won without even doing a single rally, because the alternative is Trump and his cronies.

People generally don't realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections. But with each "punishment", voters give the democrats, the Republicans' grip on power gets tighter and tighter, with more cronie judges, more gerrymandering, more voter purges, more ID rules, and more propaganda.

So, are the voters, or rather those who didn't vote, wrong? Fuck yes, for the reason that because of them, we now have Trump as the US president rather than him going to prison like he deserves. Of course they are wrong. How is that even a question?

People generally don't realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections.
Absofuckinglutely wrong. The number of Democrats still buying this bullshit is astounding. THIS is why you lose so damn much.
No Democratic candidate has had more support from right leaning voters than Bernie Sanders in the last 30 years. Explain that with your model. It's not just about some smooth gradient from left to right and capturing the middle. We are in a populist age. The people are totally fed up with the status quo.
It's disruptors that win, not whomever captures the center of a spectrum that only policy wonks even care about. Anyone who's chief concern is left vs right is already a decided voter.
- Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn't matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I'd vote for it over it over fascism.
  this is why you lose so damn much
  "This candidate isn't left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism". That is why democrats lose.
  Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe? No matter what, should it have mattered if the alternative is Trump? Absolutelyfucking not, but apparently it does.
- During Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992, he employed a strategy to appeal to moderate and right-leaning voters, which helped him secure support from some traditionally Republican constituencies. Here are key points about Clinton's approach and support from right-wing voters:
  Centrist Positioning
  Clinton positioned himself as a "New Democrat," advocating for centrist policies that appealed to moderate and conservative voters[2]. This included:
  Emphasizing fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget
  Supporting welfare reform
  Taking a tough stance on crime
  Promoting free trade
  Targeting Reagan Democrats
  Clinton specifically aimed to win back "Reagan Democrats" - working-class white voters who had previously supported Republicans[6]. He focused on economic issues and cultural values that resonated with this group.
  "Triangulation" Strategy
  Clinton used a strategy of "triangulation," which involved:
  Distancing himself from traditional liberal Democratic positions
  Adopting some conservative policy stances
  Positioning himself between the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Republicans[7]
  Appeal to Suburban Voters
  Clinton made significant inroads with suburban voters, including many who had previously voted Republican[2]. His moderate positions on social and economic issues appealed to this demographic.
  Breaking the "Republican Lock"
  Clinton's strategy helped him win states that had been part of the Republican "lock" on the Electoral College, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin[6].
  While Clinton did not win a majority of right-wing voters, his centrist approach and focus on economic issues allowed him to peel away enough support from traditionally Republican constituencies to win the election. This strategy was controversial within the Democratic Party but proved effective in the general election[2][7].
  Citations: [1] An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ [2] Controversy: Why Did Clinton Win? - The American Prospect https://prospect.org/power/controversy-clinton-win/ [3] In Their Own Words: Why Voters Support – and Have Concerns About https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-why-voters-support-and-have-concerns-about-clinton-and-trump/ [4] Basket of deplorables - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables [5] Governing in an Age of No Majorities: Bill Clinton's mission for a ... https://www.brookings.edu/articles/governing-in-an-age-of-no-majorities-bill-clintons-mission-for-a-second-term/ [6] Here's how Democrats have changed since the Bill Clinton era https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/democratic-party-dnc-bill-clinton-era-changes-rcna166669 [7] Bill Clinton: Campaigns and Elections | Miller Center https://millercenter.org/president/clinton/campaigns-and-elections [8] Don't understand Trump supporters? Remembering Bill Clinton ... https://kansasreflector.com/2024/08/03/dont-understand-trump-supporters-remembering-bill-clinton-might-help-you/
Good luck with shaming people into voting for you. It didn't work in 2016 and it didn't work now. Letting the DNC off the hook won't change anything.
Its a two party system. You will not get anything close to a working progressive government until there are more then two. If the Dems win, they get a bit more corrupt and take money to slide a bit right. If they lose, they slide right to "capture" more votes/money (the money works the votes not so much).
The nasty things that get done (say under 2016 trump) are not undone by the Democrats when next in power. This makes them at best an enabler of crap policy and at worst (also most likely) guilty of using the bad actions of the Republicans to stay in power.
I don't know how at this point you doods can fix it, but you don't have a democracy at the moment. Its just authoritarianism under threat of worse authoritarianism.
- It's almost like you can't fix everything in 4 years, especially with midterms.
  If it was so easy to undo things, Obamacare would have been dismantled in the first trump term.
  But since things weren't fixed fast enough, let's let the people who broke everything back in power again.

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.

then comes the worst part: angry libs start blaming the electorate instead of the people who lost
I feel like even calling them "angry libs" gives them some measure of undeserved credibility. Let's call them "fucking crybaby closet fascists" because that's what they are.
Try some lefty moves or keep losing Dems.
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.

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.

This, but unironically.

Trump was so bad that in a sane world a desiccated cat turd shoukd have beat him

The fact Harris lost doesn't mean shes a bad candidate, it means we don't live in a sane world.

Yeah I agree, it's the voters who are wrong. Can't wait to see how this strategy pans out next cycle!
- Honestly, the voters voted in a way that made sense, given the information they had, which was either nothing - complete and utter lethargy, or a hyper-partisan distortion of reality reinforced by a multi-billion dollar propaganda industry backed by, among many others, the literally richest man on the planet in addition to an entire network of propaganda stations blasting disinformation 24/7. The voters being wrong is intentional and has been in the making for decades.
- Being right doesn’t automatically make you popular.
- Harris had concrete plans to tackle many, though not all, of the issues people actually care about. People voted for the man openly stating he will make those issues worse.
  It's blatantly the fault of the voters. Until you people can get your heads out of your asses and join us in reality nothing will change.
- I mean, yes, the over 70 million voters who voted for Trump absolutely are wrong. That they're mostly too willfully fucking stupid to understand that may speak to a failure in Harris' messaging, but nevertheless does not absolve them of the guilt of being willfully dumb as fucking rocks.

Despite everyone on Lemmy saying otherwise, people didn't stay home because of the genocide. Most Americans don't give a fuck about what's happening in the next town over, let alone in Gaza. They stayed home because they weren't given a convincing self-serving reason to make the effort to vote.
TBF if we lived in a democracy there would be no protest, because most people want the progressive policies over which they were protesting.

Who here actually votes in more local elections? Have you voted for the mayor or council members of your city? Sheriff? Literally any office lower than governor, senator or president of the entire country?

The top problem (garbage candidates) is literally caused by the bottom one (voters). There is garbage at the top, because nobody cares enough about the bottom.

Then again, it's not like Trump was ever a politician before running for president...

I do vote in my local elections. I think the problem is actually too much money in politics. The oligarchs support and donate an infinite amount of money to campaigns. That leaves genuine candidates with nothing and little exposure.
I think we should severely limit how much they can donate to campaigns as well as having ranked choice voting, which can help people vote for candidates they like without "throwing" their vote away.
However, the democrats didn't put up kamala against others in a primary for us to vote for. She was simply selected. Moreover, the last time Bernie ran, the democratic party basically sabotaged him. There are deep issues that we need to solve.
- There are deep issues that we need to solve.
  None of which will be solved by either party in its current form. Grinding out Democratic Party primary victories is the only shot progressives have in our current system. You can't change the system without supplanting one of the parties. There is no "going around the DNC" option. We have to take that shit by force.
I am deep in MAGA country (Trump won this county with 70%). All of my local elections are single person.
- Before I moved to another city, I seriously thought about running for comptroller in the small town I was in because literally nobody was currently in the position and nobody was running for it. It would have been like a guaranteed win. But then I'd actually have to do the job, and I don't even know what a comptroller does. Though I suppose it's not that important, since we didn't have one. lol

If the only reason you voted for trump as a form of ‘punishment’ towards dems, then yea that is on the voters. You should be voting for what helps you. Not to be a petty idiot.

People vote for single issues all the time. Sometimes its abortions, the economy, etc. But God forbid people seem disgusted at rewarding genocide and voting for harris. People saw no other option other than to either punish them by voting for the other, 3rd party or not voting at all. I dont blame them.
So the action plan is what? Cull the voters? Breed better voters?
The first job of a politician is to reach and convince voters. Harris had a billion dollars and didn't do it. Yes, the voters made bad choices, but blaming the voters is not a way forward. There is no escaping that we have to figure out what Harris could have done better. More precisely, shitlibs need to figure it out because progressives already know and have been screaming it from the rooftops for decades.
- “Jill made bad choices. I blame Bob because he didn’t convince Jill to make a good choice.”
  This is such circular fucking reasoning. Apparently it’s literally impossible for a voter to make a stupid decision, because all blame will circle back to the candidate for “Not being convincing enough”.

Cool, so, we'll see the voters in the primaries going forward, right? Unlike in 2016 and 2020, when they nominated said garbage candidates?

https://youtu.be/QGuVDz_88po
- Being a low-information voter doesn't make your takes correct.
  But sure, you saw an emotionally cut video online, so now you're convinced the DNC stole the primary from the rightful winner.

That doesn't sound like a very democratic process to begin with cause all the power is in the delegates who can just choose whoever they want and not follow the desires of the voters. Which is how pretty much the whole system works to begin with, so its pretty rotten even at the very bottom

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.
Man I can hear the laugh.

makes me happy seeing politically intelligent people in the thread here.

These type of threads always suck for the first few days to a week though lmao.

It can be both.

Centrist Positioning

Targeting Reagan Democrats

"Triangulation" Strategy

Appeal to Suburban Voters

Breaking the "Republican Lock"