this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
117 points (82.7% liked)

politics

24429 readers
2129 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Many Democrats continue to believe that the racism of average Americans — many of whom voted for Barack Obama twice — explains why Donald Trump won. This moralism suits party elites who would rather demonize the public than address growing inequality.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 116 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Is it the primary reason? No, I agree.

However it's childish and naive to think both racism and sexism were not significant reasons that America, a deeply racist and sexist country, did not choose a black woman to lead it

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

A black woman was not the issue

Both parties and their presidental candidates are just puppets like the rest of their parties and do not have the public interests at heart

Kamala held a celebrity filled gala and invited Republicans while the citizens were outside the gathering protesting about inequality, wars, healthcare, wages/employee rights and were not allowed in

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In an election where the margin of victory is 1%, it only takes 1-in-50 racists to throw the election.

Sure, Kamala wasn't hugely popular with internet Democrats. Sure, running as a centrist annoyed all the people looking for change. The whole Israel thing. Voters overlooked all of that with Biden in 2020, when he wasn't hugely popular with internet Democrats & came with a 50 year legacy of supporting some atrocious policies.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The only reason Biden won in 2020 was covid regulations increased turnout with vote by mail.

Without that extra turnout in 2024, Harris lost.

If Biden had had a normal election in 2020, he would have lost as well.

If we had 100% vote by mail everywhere, we would not see another Republican President in our lifetimes.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

If we had 100% vote by mail everywhere, we would not see another Republican President in our lifetimes.

I'm sure voting by mail played a role. Not sure that's all of it, but, boy, the qons were mad as hell about it and I bet they do everything possible to ruin it for parts of the country where we've already had it for years and years (like here in Colorado).

[–] UsernameHere@lemy.lol -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If Trump didn’t have the help of foreign nations, the billionaire class, voter suppression, the GOP, etc. Harris would’ve won in 2024, and Biden would’ve won in 2020 without Covid.

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So if Trump wasn't the candidate that trump is, he wouldn't have won? I mean he was Trump tho.

[–] UsernameHere@lemy.lol -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Trump has been trying to become president since 2000 and he has been talking about it since the 80s. It wasn’t until Russia got involved with their propaganda machine that he was able to start his cult.

Without Russian support he wouldn’t be anybody.

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But he had Russian backing, he was on the apprentice, all those things are true. So if they weren't true he wouldn't be who he is. It's a bit like saying JK Rowling wouldn't be famous without Harry Potter. Like... duh.

[–] UsernameHere@lemy.lol -2 points 1 week ago

So if Trump wasn't the candidate that trump is, he wouldn't have won? I mean he was Trump tho.

This statement indicates you think Trump won because of who he is.

My statement points out it is not because of who he is but instead because Russia chose to interfere in elections.

In other words, if Trump dies today, Russia would find another person to fill his place and would use the same propaganda tactics to help get them into a position of power.

This is because Trump is a puppet. Your comment was evidence you don’t understand that that is why he won.

[–] UsernameHere@lemy.lol 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good thing they protested Kamala’s event. Now that Trump is in office we don’t have to worry about inequality, wars, healthcare, wages/employee rights OR voting.

Both sides amiright?

[–] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (13 children)

That's not how it works. Using that logic voting for Himmler would be the right thing to do because at least they're one step less awful than Hitler. Fucking demand that Himmler change his ways or a better candidate is allowed to run.

A lot of countries have political theater instead of actual politics, but the US is really deep into it.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Yes, but racism (even subconsciously) was likely a contributing factor to her loss as well, which is what the other person was saying.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

The article says it was because Democrats bad for being neocolonialist oppressors.

To my mind, it’s not a super-tight argument against the obvious.

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 week ago

Really just the woman part. Corey Booker, the centrist performative clown could have won. I'd say being corporatist and feeling a lot like Hillary hurt her more than skin color. Either way looks like they cheated so it really doesn't matter

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 week ago

Just a helpful reminder that class relations are real, and that most legacy news outlets have a shared class-interest in de-emphasizing class and income as important electoral issues.

There's a really good reason why democrats will seemingly do just about anything to avoid platforming socialist policies - and it isn't because they aren't popular. They see them as an existential threat to their party, because not only would they lose their primary funding sources if they were to stop protecting donors from wealth re-distributive policies, but they'd also lose their network of private sector allies that enable them to govern at all.

Once you understand the scope of the problem, it's really hard to see the two party system as anything other than good-cop bad-cop neoliberal theater.

[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This isn't rocket science. Most Americans were (and are) unhappy with the direction of the country and she was the status quo candidate. She literally said she couldn't think of a single policy difference between herself and Biden, an unpopular president. And the tone-deaf joy campaign—give me a break. People were (and are) angry. A populist was always going to win this election, but she didn't campaign as a populist.

Like most Democrats, she also lacked the courage of her convictions, as evidenced by how quickly she backed away from voicing progressive policies from 2020 like Medicare for All. Or maybe her convictions were more moderate and the progressive positions were the ploy? Who even knows? What few meek ideas she did put forward she quickly backed away from after closed-door fundraisers with rich investors.

I voted for her despite all of this. I wrote letters to swing state voters. But it was a pretty grim march to November, because I saw all of these things way before the election and knew with near certainty that she was going to lose.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

It didn't help that she was kneecapped by the Biden campaign:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5191087-harris-trump-biden-harris/

[–] j0ester@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah and a lot of it was on the part of women. Why do we assume putting up a female candidate will make women inspired? A lot of them believe the role belongs to a man - enough to fuck a party over. So will we keep virtue signaling by putting women candidates in front of the same electorate?

[–] Guidy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I’d go with racism, sexism, not being a cult leader like figure unlike her opponent, and a bunch of people who’ve bought way too far into putting Palestine first over their own nation being convinced it to vote for her.

And, possibly (there’s a lawsuit) an actually rigged election.

I voted for her.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Reposting my comment on the usa comm version of this story. In part because I doubt a lot of people will read it, or try anyway.

“Well I tried to read it. It started off inauspiciously with

Within the liberal pundit class, the tendency to attribute Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss principally to racism or misogynoir (hatred of black women) runs deep.

Don’t . . . don’t do that. If you have to define it in the sentence you’re using it in, there needs to be a good reason to use it at all, and per the rest of the article - there isn’t.

Secondly, the author’s thesis is that racism can’t be the reason because the 1996 Crime and Welfare Reform bills disproportionately affected black Americans. (Yeah, like I said, I *tried* to read it) Also, Harris did better among white voters than Clinton in 92 or Obama in 2012.

So far as I can tell that appears to be the core of the argument. The article concludes that while racism is indeed bad, and trump also bad, Harris lost because of the Democratic Party. Particularly things it did almost 30 years ago.

Just as nineteenth- and twentieth-century biologically grounded race theory functioned to harmonize slavery and Jim Crow with liberal capitalism, the insistence that Trump’s victory over Harris, like Trumpism itself, is an expression of eternal white racism provides cover for the failings of both late capitalism and the Democratic Party.

So, I am reminded once again that Jacobin is a link I am reluctant to click.”

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

One political pundit blathers on about how the other pundits are wrong about an issue that's no longer important.

Bleah.

Unless you have code and specific, defined ways of vote manipulation, just shut this shit down now.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"I have a socialist axe to grind, therefore Trump's victory is a result of his opponent not being a socialist."

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

"I have a sexism axe to grind, therefore Trump's victory is a result of his opponent not being a man."

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just gonna put this out there. More Americans are sexist than socialist.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

More Americans like baseball than soccer too, that doesn't make either a primary factor in the discussion at hand.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Agreed. That's why no one's making that argument. Despite people acting like people are.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Sure seems like someone is to me but if that's not the case then great

load more comments
view more: next ›