• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 month ago

    They saw a woman was running for President and decided they didn’t care. It’s as simple as that. Sexism gave the election to Trump

    • 7toed@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      We can point fingers at demographics, and certainly that may have been a part, but its reductive to say just sexism. If we accept any single reason, there will be no reason to improve our platforms.

      You’ve got Democratic leaning media blaming the dems for being too woke… and more than half the country just didn’t vote. We need a platform that argues in favor of worker and individual rights alike while not capitulating on either, because as soon as you do capitulate to the right, you lose support, plain and simple.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        These people are throwing as much shit at the wall desperately to find anything to blame other then the Democratic Party. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism because the democrats would rather cling to First-past-the-post voting with rigor mortis clenched hands then to have to actually compete for your vote.

        A trump presidency over breaking the two party system.

        Party over country.

        • 7toed@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I understand to the kneejerk reactions to critique of the dems, but ffs this should be easy to win and who else do you critique then? Actually bring some change to the table and people will perk up to it. They’ve just let the repubs define them instead of doing anything to even make a name for themselves. At this rate I don’t think we’ll ever get ranked choice, unfortunately. Won’t stop me from trying.

      • BadmanDan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Latinos shift to Trump won him the election. Harris had the white and black support she needed

        • 7toed@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          We cant split hairs on demographic turnout if overall turnout is way down from 2020, I mean we can make Latinos a scapegoat, but again we’re completely subverting critique that could actually help win an election.

            • 7toed@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              The fact is those margins in the Hispanic community would barely make a dent on overall turnout? Hence, scapegoating.

              • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                If every white and hispanic man who voted for biden also voted for harris then she would have won

                Acknowledging reality is not scapegoating

                • 7toed@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  7,000,000 less votes than Biden has is beyond any single percent margin in minority populations. Even if… what are you going to do? Harp on said demographics foe making the wrong choice for 4 years? Self righteousness ain’t gonna solve the lost vote. Ask why things happen once in a while.

      • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        When the only voters who sat out were white and hispanic men then what would be the logical reason?

        Why didn’t women sit out this election at the same rates? Why not any other groups besides white and hispanic men?

        What other conclusions can you even draw for these specific groups that have masculinity issues than not voting for a woman?

    • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      53% of white women voted for Trump. Your “America won’t vote for a woman” argument doesn’t hold water.

      Americans won’t vote for specific women, sure. Namely Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. The fact that they are women is not why they lost so cataclysmically; they ran platforms that were deeply unengaging to Democrat and Independent voters. Worse, they tried to appeal to Republicans, which only underscored how out-of-touch and unprepared they were to hold the office. Moreover, neither of those specific women, nor the DNC that backed them seems to have learned anything from their continual failures, which, again, only deepens the divide among Democrats’ necessary coalitions.

      Their failures are a function of being bad at post-Obama politics, and bad at running for the highest office in the land. It’s not because they are women.

    • bradd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nah, had Tulsi stayed with Democrats, and ran against Trump I would have voted for Tulsi. Instead, Tulsi joined Trump, and I voted for Trump. If Tulsi runs again, I’ll vote for Tulsi.

      Just watch this (again), there’s Joe, Kamala, and Tulsi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4fjA0K2EeE

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Your fanclub doesn’t represent a significant demographic, nobody cares what Tulcels think. Plus, it’s not like the democrats can control her, she’s an opprotunist who flips whenever she feels like and stands for nothing.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            26 days ago

            Partially true. I didn’t vote for Stein (I voted PSL), but the Green party is ideologically closer to leftists than the major parties. It’s kind of the same on the other side for the Libertarian party, there are more Republicans and non-voters with Libertarian beliefs than there are people who vote Libertarian. Stein herself does seem like something of an opportunist, but she doesn’t rely on the same kind of niche cult of personality that Tulsi has built for herself. Most people just know of Stein through the Green party, which does represent various legitimate beliefs.

            The policies that we on the left advocate for have the potential to reach a wider audience than just people who are already ideologically committed. By running on a platform that would materially benefit people, it’s easier to make the case that people should support the left, regardless of who they are or how they view themselves politically. You’re free to write off people like me, but it’s not as if we’re the only ones who like having healthcare, for instance.

            Tulsi is one of countless odious personalities that carve out one specific sliver of the population and speak to them exclusively, and fixate on tiny bits of information that support a narrative that’s completely out of line with the broader truth. “If you’re anti-war, you should vote Republican. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, calling for ever more exorbitant military spending, saber-rattling with everyone, conducting assassinations and bombing campaigns. And pay no attention to the fact that I myself was on Fox News attacking Obama from the right for not being aggressive enough in the War on Terror, and literally described myself as a hawk regarding it.”

            She is part of a pipeline that takes people with valid, left-leaning criticisms of the Democratic party and convinces them to accept the Republicans as an alternative, despite them being worse in every respect. She’s absolute scum, and she discredits people like me, who actually are anti-war, not just when it means criticizing the Democrats. I will always call out her and her ridiculous little fanclub, who have clearly never read an actual goddamn book in their lives. And the same goes for people like Jimmy Dore and Jackson Hinkle too.

            • JonsJava@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              26 days ago

              Sorry for the confusion. I was referencing this comment:

              Your fanclub doesn’t represent a significant demographic

              Most every group that’s not Republican or Democrat is in that boat. Not enough people to even get recognized. Very seldom do we see others even get a seat at the table.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                26 days ago

                There’s no confusion, I addressed that. The Greens and Libertarians both represent broader, legitimate ideological currents, held by people who mostly either fall in line behind the lesser evil or don’t vote because they see it as futile. Tulsi’s just a grifter.