Summary

Gender bias played a significant role in Kamala Harrisā€™s defeat, with many votersā€”often womenā€”expressing doubts about whether ā€œAmerica is ready for a female president.ā€

Some said they ā€œcouldnā€™t see her in the chair,ā€ or questioned if a woman could lead, with one even remarking, ā€œyou donā€™t see women building skyscrapers.ā€ Though some voters were open to persuasion, this often became a red line.

Oliver Hall, a Harris campaign volunteer, found that economic concerns, particularly inflation, also drove voters to Donald Trump, despite low unemployment and wage growth touted by Democrats.

Harris was viewed in conflicting ways, seen as both too tough and too lenient on crime, as well as ineffective yet overly tied to Bidenā€™s administration.

Ultimately, Hall believes that Trumpā€™s unique appeal and influence overshadowed Harrisā€™s campaign efforts.

  • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    Ā·
    1 month ago

    They absolutely donā€™t have a coherent constituency, thatā€™s for sure, but they certainly could have a large enough constituency to put Trump and his entire army of ignorance and sleeze to bed once and for all, but they only cater to a very small segment of what could be their constituency, and for many of the people who could be their constituency it often feels like theyā€™re actually catering to the enemy rather than to them.

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

      Thatā€™s exactly my point. To appease one section of their potential voters they have to piss off others. We can second guess them on which decisions wouldā€™ve led to a victory, but the fact remains that they come across as incoherent and inauthentic because they have to walk a tightrope to keep together an imaginary coalition between things like American Jews who support Israel and Palestinian immigrants. They fail because they arenā€™t representing a coherent set of people. Theyā€™re representing sometimes conflicting ideas. American atheists and Catholics. Muslims, some of whom believe that women should be subservient, and ā€œchildless cat ladiesā€. People in this country are overall much more regressive socially than online progressives want to admit.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        Ā·
        1 month ago

        When it comes to the conflicting ideas they need to pick a side. And the other side has to decide whether to show up or not, we know which side always shows up, maybe they should take a backseat for a bit, theyā€™ll show up anyway.

        Like if you think women should be subservient, youā€™re not on our side. If you are okay with arming a terrorist nation to carry out genocide youā€™re not on our side. Easy peasy ones.

        I think weā€™re actually finally at a truly 50/50ish ratio of regressive to progressive in the USā€¦ Thatā€™s why things are so tense between the progressive actual left and the regressive ā€œleftā€ DNC. Yeah thereā€™s still misogynistic bigoted people here, but definitely way fewer than 100 years ago. And they should ALL be on the other team.