Kamala Harris
November 6, 2024 2:42 PM   Subscribe

 
* This is a star.
posted by gatheringwater at 2:57 PM on November 6 [3 favorites]


I can’t watch, what’s it say?
posted by Jon_Evil at 3:05 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]


> I can’t watch, what’s it say?

Nothing new or surprising of note.
posted by alex_skazat at 3:12 PM on November 6 [4 favorites]


there's so much glass around her 😔
posted by phunniemee at 3:12 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]


I can’t watch, what’s it say?

Business, as usual.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 3:15 PM on November 6 [1 favorite]


let us fill the sky with the light of a billion brilliant stars

That's a million times more than Bush's "thousand points of light."
posted by Foosnark at 3:16 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]


I have refrained from crying, until now. The basic decency of that speech. We will never see that in politics again. The other night she was called trash. America deserves what is coming for it.
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 3:16 PM on November 6 [51 favorites]


The trouble with that speech is you can't shame a shameless person.
posted by hfnuala at 3:18 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]


I'm in denial and numb. *
posted by ichomp at 3:20 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]


Gen Z is going to have a rude wake up call over the next 4 years.
posted by alex_skazat at 3:27 PM on November 6 [25 favorites]


I was so hopeful for her when she sneaked thru the Cali AG election in 2010, beating the troglodyte (R) by less than 100,000 votes. (She was not going to defend Prop 8, and he was.)

Then Biden won in 2020, and stepped aside for her this summer. Alas.
posted by torokunai at 3:45 PM on November 6 [2 favorites]


*
posted by ejs at 3:47 PM on November 6


It was a very nice and gracious speech. The problem with it, and with Obama's letter, is that it assumes a world where we can just dust ourselves off, get back to work, and give it another honest try next time. When it's looking more and more like there won't be a next time in any way that matters.

Maybe Dems can hold the House this time (iffy), or maybe they can take it in '26. But with Trumpists in charge of the executive branch and courts, and given the abysmal failure to punish the last coup attempt judicially or politically, there will be nothing stopping it from happening again and again and again.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:56 PM on November 6 [56 favorites]


Sad.
posted by spenser at 4:00 PM on November 6 [1 favorite]


What's to say? A nice speech, with dignity, doesn't matter. Trump won, Project 2025 won. The Democrats could have won but they didn't learn from past mistakes, didn't work hard enough, and they lost - and she was in charge. Game Over!
posted by mdrosen at 4:03 PM on November 6 [8 favorites]


Bummer, dude
posted by jy4m at 4:10 PM on November 6 [1 favorite]


The Democrats could have won but they didn't learn from past mistakes, didn't work hard enough, and they lost - and she was in charge. Game Over!

It's her loss as much as ours.
posted by ichomp at 4:12 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]


A strangely upbeat concession. She’s proud of the campaign? I’d be ashamed and apologetic. The party elites need to do some soul searching, they need contrition, their miscalculations, their arrogance, gave us trump and helped put him back. It boggles the mind. I don’t think I’ll relax again for the rest of my life
posted by dis_integration at 4:18 PM on November 6 [30 favorites]


Being “better” than the other side by accepting the results is cold comfort right now. The Democrats knew that democracy was what was really on the ballot but didn’t campaign like it was. And it cost us everything.
posted by tommasz at 4:20 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]


I am gutted.

I am still in disbelief that so many Americans who survived the first Trump term signed up for a second helping.

America, you are so broken.

Guess this will really accelerate the climate collapse. I am so fucking sorry for all the lovely creatures who will die in waves of extinctions.
posted by Savannah at 4:25 PM on November 6 [40 favorites]


We have just proven ourselves to be an idiocracy. I can only sit with popcorn, an adult beverage and watch. Far too old to man a rampart or give a sh*t...
posted by jim in austin at 4:26 PM on November 6 [11 favorites]


> Gen Z is going to have a rude wake up call over the next 4 years.

I think maybe this is the mirror version of "Eventually all the old fuddy-duddy bigots will croak, and we'll finally gay it up with the space communism."

Olds like us know what they're missing, but all the stuff you actually saw as a kid has been stripped away or privatized, they've never seen it. They won't "awake" to realize what's gone - if we're lucky, they'll figure things out again from first principles, and execute quickly. If we're lucky.
posted by Rat Spatula at 4:30 PM on November 6 [50 favorites]


Did she get the stars bit from the end of True Detective S1?
posted by atoxyl at 4:35 PM on November 6


I've been mulling over election results with dread and sadness, and after I post this comment, I will probably be done with U.S. politics. When I see political news, I will switch to the entertainment section, or sports. I don't even like sports that much, but I will gladly read sports and forget the politics, going forward.

I'm sure I'll snap out of it at some point, but I just can't handle the grimness right now. There's so much to say on this, but to what end? It doesn't help to disengage, but continuing to put so much of myself into things I can't actually change feels bad, man. Can't do it.
posted by zardoz at 4:44 PM on November 6 [15 favorites]


I guess we are going back, after all.
posted by heraplem at 4:50 PM on November 6 [6 favorites]


How to cope with election grief. "Scientific American spoke with Pauline Boss, an emeritus professor at the University of Minnesota, who spent 45 years as a psychotherapist. She coined the term “ambiguous loss” in her work with wives of soldiers missing in action in the 1970s; more recently, she has applied the idea to what people around the world have experienced during the COVID pandemic."
posted by dhruva at 4:51 PM on November 6 [13 favorites]


> I think maybe this is the mirror version of "Eventually all the old fuddy-duddy bigots will croak, and we'll finally gay it up with the space communism."

It certainly deserves its own article as to how the fuck this happened, before Hiii first Fascist State, kinda nervous! sets in, given the winning parties elderly, anti-trans (to point out to obvious detriments) stances.
posted by alex_skazat at 4:59 PM on November 6 [1 favorite]


Blessed be the fruit.
posted by Snowflake at 5:21 PM on November 6 [1 favorite]


I think it was a good speech. She really would have been a good president, I think. We also know that there will be a graceful transition of power in January. There's a moment of calm.

I cancelled Amazon Prime. Starlink will be much harder, but it will go too. My hatred of the phone company still burns bright, but maybe there's cellular data or something. I don't want to be connected anyway. Of course these are silly little things. I can only manage a laughably feeble response, but there's really no response that matters.
posted by netowl at 5:30 PM on November 6 [7 favorites]


Gen Z is going to have a rude wake up call over the next 4 years.

I honestly don't understand this comment and hope someone can explain it for me.

Wake up from what? My Gen Z'er was asleep in their crib when 911 happened. This world of xenophobia, police brutality, school shootings, et al is all they've known and they inherited it through no fault of their own. And they have a pretty good grasp of what it is.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 5:53 PM on November 6 [29 favorites]


Wake up from what? My Gen Z'er was asleep in their crib when 911 happened. This world of xenophobia, police brutality, school shootings, et al is all they've known and they inherited it through no fault of their own. And they have a pretty good grasp of what it is.

Things can always get worse. It's entirely possible that the world you describe will become their version of "before 9/11".
posted by heraplem at 6:00 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]


When it's looking more and more like there won't be a next time in any way that matters.

I mean I feel this way too, but also wallowing passively in that feeling is a luxury nobody really has.

Which sucks, because I was having a hard enough time trying to keep up with life without 'devoting energy to thwarting the destruction of democracy' being tops on the todo list.
posted by trig at 6:05 PM on November 6 [4 favorites]


I’m numb. I can’t focus. I’m so tired of being scared.
posted by omegajuice at 6:31 PM on November 6 [14 favorites]


I'm gutted. I've been crying on and off since last night.
posted by mike3k at 6:33 PM on November 6 [4 favorites]


"I still don’t see how you just hand the keys to the White House over to someone you devoutly believe is a fascist. (unless they were lying all along)."
posted by Pedantzilla at 6:33 PM on November 6 [7 favorites]


I could only stand to hear a little bit, but what I did catch was, frankly, frustrating as hell. Yesterday, we were facing an unprecedented threat to our republic, a violent fascist, a petty dictator who will assault the foundations of American democracy, hollow out our economy, and hurl us even deeper, maybe irrevocably, into the jaws of a climate crisis.

Today it’s “well, this wasn’t the result we were hoping for, I just called the president elect to congratulate him, I’m proud of our campaign”— like it’s any other election.

You almost can’t blame the American public for failing to take the threat seriously. Now they’re watching the people who were warning them pretend everything’s normal.
posted by Method Man at 6:51 PM on November 6 [56 favorites]


You almost can’t blame the American public for failing to take the threat seriously. Now they’re watching the people who were warning them pretend everything’s normal.

I guess I don't know what you wanted her to say? "Storm the capitol on certification day?" "As Vice-president I will not certify the results?"

She did say to keep fighting for the cause(s). She did say her allegiance was to the constitution not the president. But he won. She can't do anything about that. You all (as a country, not you mefites in particular), voted for him. Now you want to put that on her, but she only cast one vote.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:57 PM on November 6 [23 favorites]


I guess I don't know what you wanted her to say? "Storm the capitol on certification day?" "As Vice-president I will not certify the results?"

Fucking YES.

Do you understand that we're hurtling towards a one-party autocracy?
posted by Gadarene at 6:59 PM on November 6 [12 favorites]


Do you understand that we're hurtling towards a one-party autocracy?

Which would be ok, as long as it's your party?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:03 PM on November 6 [25 favorites]


I was so hopeful for her when she sneaked thru the Cali AG election in 2010, beating the troglodyte (R) by less than 100,000 votes. (She was not going to defend Prop 8, and he was.)

I mean, another way to look at that, especially in retrospect, is that she was never a popular or even good candidate, only barely winning the AG race, getting demolished when she tried to toss her hat in the Presidential race, and only ending up the candidate this time through a fluke of fate.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:03 PM on November 6 [9 favorites]


> I honestly don't understand this comment and hope someone can explain it for me.

I feel I've put this thread on a tangent from the speech to this issue and I'm sorry for that. That's why I noted that a deep dive would be interesting to discuss, which I hope will be written.

But by and large, the younger the voter, the more liberal. This election seems to be a stark contrast to that, which is worth investigating as to why, esp. since Gen Z seems very much without filter when it comes to stepping over their boundaries, which this 78 year old Pres-elect has on pretty much every occasion they've opened their mouth.

I could also be living in a liberal bubble (well, I am, just didn't understand the extent).
posted by alex_skazat at 7:05 PM on November 6 [1 favorite]


We will have an election in 2028. The constitution has no provision to delay or deny it. We even had one in the middle of the (first) civil war. Unless there's another constitutional convention, it will happen. I'm not saying "keep the powder dry" until then, because it'd probably get moldy, but I don't think autocracy is what will happen. Just lots and lots of destruction.
posted by netowl at 7:09 PM on November 6 [8 favorites]


You know, maybe what democrats should be doing right now is working on Project 2029. So if a fair election ever happens again and the pendulum swings back the other way they can put things right. And the focus of Project 2029 would not be any particular policy but rather protecting and bulwarking U.S. Democracy. Election Reform, Voting Rights, all the good stuff. Have a Constitutional convention. Create/require non-partisan, arms-length agencies to run elections including creating election districts (no more gerry-mandering), Create a federal individual right to vote. End the electoral college system. That would be a good start.

I would also end the whole primary system, but that is my own bias and it's not necessary to the project, I suppose.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:18 PM on November 6 [23 favorites]


We will have an election in 2028. The constitution has no provision to delay or deny it.

lol okay
posted by rhymedirective at 7:19 PM on November 6 [23 favorites]


But by and large, the younger the voter, the more liberal. This election seems to be a stark contrast to that, which is worth investigating as to why, esp. since Gen Z seems very much without filter when it comes to stepping over their boundaries

Are you saying you think Gen Z didn't vote for Harris? All the results I've seen have the youngest voters voting D with the highest margins. The most right-leaning group is around ages 50-64. Which is what, Gen X?

That said, none of the age breakdowns reached as much as 60% for Harris (or Trump), which is its own kind of depressing.


We will have an election in 2028

Before 2028, there's 2026. Congress, state government, local elections, school board elections. Plenty of smaller elections in between the 2-year cycle too.

All of those need fighting for.
posted by trig at 7:29 PM on November 6 [21 favorites]


> I guess I don't know what you wanted her to say?

She could meet the gravity of the moment, first by apologizing, then by exhorting her supporters to engage in mutual aid and community service, perhaps even announcing an organization that will make it easier for us to do that. By acknowledging that this loss isn’t just disappointing, it’s devastating, that we are now on the precipice of catastrophe and that we won’t have to wait for the next presidential primary to see the Democratic Party do the same thing it always does (text me endlessly asking for donations)
posted by dis_integration at 7:29 PM on November 6 [24 favorites]


I mean, we'll have elections. Russia has elections. Hungary has elections. It remains to be seen who Trump will allow to run against him or his successor, how badly cowed the mainstream media and major social media will be by then (it looks really bad just based on what I've seen today), and whether opposition will be allowed to make use of mainstream or major social media to get their ideas out. But we will have elections of a kind.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:34 PM on November 6 [20 favorites]




"I still don’t see how you just hand the keys to the White House over to someone you devoutly believe is a fascist. (unless they were lying all along)."

Biden has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever and then claim Presidential immunity.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:49 PM on November 6 [16 favorites]


The extent to which her speech resonated with me: The extent to which I am a liberal, not a radical. For me the liberal/radical dialectic dates back to the 60s. But there it is. This is exactly what we would expect from Harris, and she did it well.
posted by kozad at 7:53 PM on November 6 [2 favorites]


It is definitely one of the concession speeches of all time, as they say.

Feels like a lot of folks here on Metafilter might find AOC's Instagram post from this evening to be more of a match to the emotions of the moment, however.
posted by mstokes650 at 7:54 PM on November 6 [11 favorites]


"You know, maybe what democrats should be doing right now is working on Project 2029."

If they start right now now, they might actually reach consensus by 2029 about whether to use jazz hands or allow clapping in the preliminary meetings to discuss what issues should be considered for inclusion in the Project 2029 platform.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:56 PM on November 6 [13 favorites]


3 million votes less than Biden. That's all that really matters, if you care about holding power. Harris was put in a terrible position, but the Dems in particular let this go to a terrible place. Biden should have been primaried.
posted by metametamind at 8:03 PM on November 6 [7 favorites]


From Politico:

Harris’ gambit for Liz Cheney Republicans fell flat

Harris spent crucial days on the campaign trail courting Republicans, even rallying with former Rep. Liz Cheney in Ripon, Wisconsin, the sentimental birthplace of the GOP. It did not work...

In some Republican strongholds, Harris underperformed Biden’s 2020 margins. In the Republican suburbs of Milwaukee, for example, Harris trailed Biden’s 2020 margins in Washington and Ozaukee counties, but performed two points better in Waukesha County.

In suburban Hamilton County, Indiana, where Nikki Haley won 33.8 percent of voters in a May primary months after dropping out of the presidential primary, Harris trailed Trump by 6 points — only a marginal improvement in a county Trump won by 7 points in 2020.

One other glaring example: Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where a zombie Haley campaign won nearly 19 percent of the vote in April. Watching the movement there, the Harris campaign dropped an additional six-figure ad buy in the upscale collar counties surrounding Philadelphia, including Bucks. But on Tuesday, Trump bagged Bucks by three points — a county Biden had won by four points.

posted by splitpeasoup at 8:23 PM on November 6 [9 favorites]


Which would be ok, as long as it's your party?

I mean, you say this as if it’s some big gotcha:

“Ah ha!! You only believe in democracy when it suits your policy preference of maintaining Democracy!!!”

Um, yes??
posted by flamk at 8:28 PM on November 6 [10 favorites]


>We will have an election in 2028.

Plenty of despots still have elections. We're past the point of voting away the evil.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:29 PM on November 6 [8 favorites]


Biden has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever and then claim Presidential immunity.

Tragically I am pretty sure the spec ops boys voted for Trump.
posted by corb at 8:33 PM on November 6 [4 favorites]


Meanwhile, in her desire to court traditional conservatives (who ended up not voting for her) with standard appeals to militarism, Israel-hawkishness, and Bush-era neocon endorsements, she alienated Gen Z voters (who have already been moving to the right in the last couple of years).

This was an unforced error. I remember a moment right after she took the reins from Biden when young people on Tiktok were actually excited, hoping this would be a change from Biden's policy on Palestine/Israel, as well as a new energy for progressive, pro-working-class, pro-young-people politics. That energy was completely squandered with her doubling down on Biden's Israel policy and her triangulation towards the center-right, who ended up not voting for her anyway. The hectoring of Black males didn't help.

Metafilter and the Democratic establishment need to some day learn that you can't hector or shame people into voting for you. That's not how this works. Election after election. People vote when they like you, not when you scold them into it.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:36 PM on November 6 [40 favorites]


I mean, you say this as if it’s some big gotcha:

“Ah ha!! You only believe in democracy when it suits your policy preference of maintaining Democracy!!!”
'

I don't think refusing to hand over power to the person who won the election is preserving democracy. Taking power for your party when your party did not win the election is not preserving democracy. I mean I understand your point about democracy after January, but you can't say "We don't want Trump destroying democracy once he takes power in January, so let's just destroy it ourselves right now."
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:43 PM on November 6 [19 favorites]


A day spent in disappointment and gloom, but at the end...

'If that's all there is, my friends, then let's keep dancing..."

I'm not ready for that final disappointment. I'm going to make my little corner of the world as happy and tidy as I can, and if we all do that, maybe that'll add up.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:44 PM on November 6 [11 favorites]


How the fuck does the US have 16 million fewer voters than 4ywats ago!?

Trump lost almost two million voters and we're talking about his growth in certain demographics!? That makes zero sense.

Democrats losing 14 million voters just does not compute for me.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:53 PM on November 6 [12 favorites]


I don't think refusing to hand over power to the person who won the election is preserving democracy

Maybe there’s about a million things between acting (suddenly, after months and years of telling us otherwise) as if this a completely normal unremarkable transfer of power and storming the Capitol or whatever? You know, like the millions of things the other side has engaged in since at least the early 90s if not my entire lifetime? It’s like the Dem leaders have no heart, no verve. They deserve to lose because they’re losers.
posted by flamk at 9:02 PM on November 6 [4 favorites]


Olds like us know what they're missing, but all the stuff you actually saw as a kid has been stripped away or privatized, they've never seen it.

This is literally true.

I took a 12-year-old kid to the library to get a library card. He had always thought you had to pay a subscription fee to check out books.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:04 PM on November 6 [23 favorites]


I think the 14 million missing votes is by far more damning than those who voted for the felon. I cant shake the feeling that those were 14 million people who just could not stomach the idea of a woman president.

We aren't going back because we never really went everywhere.
posted by M Edward at 9:08 PM on November 6 [29 favorites]


Which would be ok, as long as it's your party?

There are two people who spoke on this:

“The question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”
-- Martin Luther King Jr

"the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: 'theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron'"
-- dril
posted by AlSweigart at 9:14 PM on November 6 [22 favorites]


Democrats losing 14 million voters just does not compute for me.

Kamala and the modern Democratic party, at almost every turn (this year and for the last several), refused to give people who were absolutely desperate for a change in the status quo anything to vote FOR, other than WE'RE NOT HIM. While that is a powerful argument in certain circles, it's also not enough to build a nationwide coalition out of.

In my small opinion, instead of spending the last month or six weeks trying to convince moderate Republicans to change their minds and vote Democratic, the Democrats should have poured Kamala's billion dollar fundraising effort into giving even half of those 14 million people something positive to vote FOR, not just incessantly telling them what they had to vote AGAINST, or else. Tell people what her economic policies would actually do for their bottom line. Tell people what her social policies would do to protect women's health. Tell people what her labor policies would do to protect unions in this country from corporate shitfuckery. Tell real stories of real people.

Tell them ANYTHING positive, anything to get people actually excited to vote Democratic (not just feel obligated to) but don't just keep telling them what they've heard over and over and over and over and over and over again since 2016. But she didn't, and the Democrats haven't for the last several elections - all they seem to want to run on is WE'RE NOT HIM. And that lack of positive vision is destroying the party's chance to be effective at anything at all.

While that threat-to-our-democracy message is true, it's also become background noise for a whole lot of people who were and are just plain tired of turning on the news or looking at their phone and only ever seeing DEMOCRACY UNDER THREAT or THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN OUR LIFETIME from the only organized opposition to the GOP every. single. time. they. look. It's just too much. People just want to know how their leaders will help them - particularly when one party is blaring out specifics about how they will hurt other people at top volume 24/7.
posted by pdb at 9:16 PM on November 6 [30 favorites]


A dark secret of politics is that politicians tend to want change a lot more than voters do.
posted by kickingtheground at 9:25 PM on November 6 [6 favorites]


A dark secret of politics is that politicians tend to want change a lot more than voters do.

Counterpoint: this is nonsense.
posted by Gadarene at 9:40 PM on November 6 [23 favorites]


depends on the voter. These days, most folks I know just want to know they can safely get together with their loved ones for Thanksgiving (also Christmas) and actually enjoy it, feel nourished afterword as opposed to depleted.

Which would be a change, I guess.
posted by philip-random at 9:44 PM on November 6 [4 favorites]


I did think it was strangely up beat but if she came out crying we would lose all hope.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:14 PM on November 6 [1 favorite]


Phil over on youtube talks about what he thinks Labor (in the UK) is doing right that the Democrats completely messed up: What voters think a good economy is.

Thought it was an interesting take on this whole thing.
posted by maxwelton at 10:17 PM on November 6 [3 favorites]


Tell people what her economic policies would actually do for their bottom line. Tell people what her social policies would do to protect women's health. Tell people what her labor policies would do to protect unions in this country from corporate shitfuckery.

Do I think this sort of thing would win elections? Well....it would certainly play well with voters, if they were ever given the chance to hear any of it. AOC in her musings I linked to above highlighted the self-inflicted double-bind situation the mainstream Democratic Party is in; they want to run on these sort of pro-working-class messages but they are (for the most part) every bit as reliant on the oligarchs and corporate overlords to fund them as the Republicans are, which ties their hands in terms of how pro-working-class they can actually be before the big checks stop coming in and the oligarchs start lining up all the news propaganda outlets against them. Can't really be fixed until we break the stranglehold/death grip that money has on our political system. Both parties are bought and paid for by billionaires; it's a structural problem that naturally favors the GOP, whose platform and policies are openly pro-oligarchy. Trump can pal around with Musk all day long, cash all Musk's checks, and never alienate any of his base; mainstream Democrats, on the other hand, constantly have to do the math to try and balance big-donor cash vs. votes from the working class, whether the Ds are currently in power or not.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:19 PM on November 6 [33 favorites]


Also when speaking about committing to a peaceful transfer of power I wish she had said “as I expect [TFG] to do in four years time when his term is over.”
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:24 PM on November 6 [5 favorites]


I did think it was strangely up beat but if she came out crying we would lose all hope

Would lose all hope?
posted by Gadarene at 10:57 PM on November 6 [3 favorites]


As a Harris voter, I desperately want a narrative that helps me understand went wrong, and who is to blame for the loss to TFG.

I'm skeptical of all the hot takes in the immediate aftermath of a loss like this, though. There needs to be introspection and a post mortem to the campaign, but it's something best done *after* we grieve and work through the immediate despair.

Right now (and after every electoral loss) there are a lot of people standing up and saying I Told You So to the people making decisions for the campaign. Some of them are probably right. But we are in the immediate hindsight period right now, and the blazing clarity of the result makes it hard to reason about what the right thing to do was *before* we had the information about how (and how many) people actually voted.
posted by Pemdas at 11:15 PM on November 6 [13 favorites]


"Democrats losing 14 million voters just does not compute for me."

The western vote-by-mail states are still counting. California in particular still has almost half their votes left to count.

You're comparing the final total from 2020 to a preliminary count for 2024. Wait until we have the final total for 2024 before making comparisons.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:24 PM on November 6 [13 favorites]


Like she almost certainly lost votes from 2020, but 14 million is probably off by an order of magnitude.

Wait for the final vote total and compare apples to apples.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:32 PM on November 6 [6 favorites]


Democrats losing 14 million voters just does not compute for me.

Someone on Twitter pointed out, "the dems spent the year arresting their own free volunteers." and I think there's something to that. They alienated every college student I know when they supported the campus crackdowns; they voted for them, but didn't get out and doorknock.
posted by corb at 11:44 PM on November 6 [22 favorites]


AOC in her musings I linked to above highlighted the self-inflicted double-bind situation the mainstream Democratic Party is in; they want to run on these sort of pro-working-class messages but they are (for the most part) every bit as reliant on the oligarchs and corporate overlords to fund them as the Republicans are, which ties their hands in terms of how pro-working-class they can actually be before the big checks stop coming in and the oligarchs start lining up all the news propaganda outlets against them.

This is the inherent contradiction of all reformist and incrementalist politics. (Which is not to argue for the opposite, outright revolution, but that there is no easy answer to this dilemma.)
posted by polymodus at 12:17 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


I don't know if blaming Harris or her campaign is particularly useful. As I see it she staged an intervention for the American people, have them multiple arguments from multiple people for kicking the habit of Trump, and America took it all in and then decided "No, I'd rather keep using." I don't think anyone was beating Trump this year. He's the USA's very own Berlusconi, a sort of embodiment of the collective id that too many people just can't resist. The good news is that he's old and that those following him are much less convincing in that way. The bad news, as Italy shows, is that Fascism had many faces and it may not die with a clown prince's political career.
posted by nangua at 12:48 AM on November 7 [18 favorites]


... the self-inflicted double-bind situation the mainstream Democratic Party is in; they want to run on these sort of pro-working-class messages but they are (for the most part) every bit as reliant on the oligarchs and corporate overlords to fund them as the Republicans are, which ties their hands in terms of how pro-working-class they can actually be before the big checks stop coming in and the oligarchs start lining up all the news propaganda outlets against them.
This is nothing special to the US. It's the same problem everywhere. It's hard to be a successful politician without selling your soul.
posted by dg at 1:50 AM on November 7


I guess I don't know what you wanted her to say?

"This is a dark day for our fine nation", "I apologise for not being able to win this election", and that kind of thing, you know, acknowledge the seriousness of the situation some, rather than all "my heart is full of love today!". Acknowledge the Trump win, but don't congratulate him. Don't suddenly change tack from "the most important election in our lifetimes!" to "ah well, just another loss".
posted by Dysk at 2:30 AM on November 7 [24 favorites]


Global inflation has led to incumbent governments losing power across the world. Mostly to the far right. The centrist UK Labour party won in a historic landslide by not being the incumbent. French incumbents won with a coalition with the far left and returning Mexican incumbents created a massive rise in wages.

That's it. Egg Price High = Kick The Bums out

Harris had no chance without policies that the donor class wouldn't stomach or throwing Biden under the bus and positioning herself as not the incumbent. I guess protecting democracy against fascism as they kept saying was less important than keeping the big donors happy.

Ironically, we'd probably be celebrating a historic Dem landslide now if Trump had won in 2020.
posted by fullerine at 2:37 AM on November 7 [18 favorites]


Those looking for some hope: I have two things to offer.

1. AOC did a livestream on her Instagram yesterday. I watched some of it this morning; I think it says a good number of the things some of you are looking for: she is candid about the challenges ahead of us, she is clear about Where We Are Now, she does acknowledge some of the D mis-steps. But she also addresses the whole notion of trying to parse out "who is to blame for losing this election" and argues that it's counter-productive, and playing into exactly what the far right wants us to do.

2. So, a story: in 2016 I was working for the International Rescue Committee, an NGO that supports refugees worldwide and resettles many here in the US. The day after the election in 2016 was really grim, I tell you what. ....But - something that cheered me up (and which I was able to share with the group at a mass staff meeting later) is that about four or five Mefites reached out to me after the election to ask "hey, I've heard you talk about the IRC and thought of you. How can I donate or help?"

THIS year, I'm working at a womens' health clinic in NYC that does first term abortions. It was also grim there yesterday. But - last night, my boss shared with me that we've gotten an uptick in emails from people asking "hey, I thought of you after the election results. How can I be a volunteer escort?"

Mr. Rogers had it right - if you are scared or sad after a shock like this, look for the helpers, because they are always there. And to that I will add: when you can, become one of the helpers. However you can - it may not necessarily take much, and it doesn't all have to be the same thing. You may choose to focus on being a clinic escort; I may choose to join a letter-writing campaign in support of green energy. It could be as simple as if you're cleaning out your house, you take your stuff to a migrant shelter instead of Goodwill. Or you decide to give up meat a couple days a week.

Look for the helpers, be a helper.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:38 AM on November 7 [35 favorites]


Harris had no chance without policies that the donor class wouldn't stomach or throwing Biden under the bus and positioning herself as not the incumbent.

Given that Biden is effectively retiring now, why not do that?
posted by Dysk at 3:44 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


fullerine: Ironically, we'd probably be celebrating a historic Dem landslide now if Trump had won in 2020.

If we’re talking butterfly effect here, if Mark Burnett’s production company was shuttered by the Survivor lawsuit, they never would have made The Apprentice.
posted by dr_dank at 4:02 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]


Kamala is the embodiment a vision of America. A vision of America that powerfully appeals to us.

Trump has lived on this earth for 78 years, but at his core he is a delinquent teenager eating burgers, taking the piss out of adults, playing games all day, and commiting crimes. He portrays himself as the living embodiment of the fantasy of unrepressed desires with unlimited power. The baddest bad boy. That powerfully activates many men and women. He expresses it in policies that appeal to the majority by declaring simple bold solutions to looming threats, with side effects that harm minorities. Our wails of anguish are just a delicious added bonus. The solutions are false, and the threats are trumped up, but only people like us care about details like that. He earned the popular vote because what he is peddling is popular.

Kamala got more votes than Hillary, Trump's first term, McCain, Romney, and Obama's 2nd term. She fought hard. But you can't beat stupidity.
posted by otherchaz at 4:16 AM on November 7 [13 favorites]


Kamala and the modern Democratic party, at almost every turn (this year and for the last several), refused to give people who were absolutely desperate for a change in the status quo anything to vote FOR, other than WE'RE NOT HIM.

This is such bullshit and I'm sick of hearing it over and over and over on this site. She had tons of policy proposals and spoke about them every damn day. But I have heard that men have trouble hearing women speak so maybe that's part of it?

This revisionist history is annoying. Say it didn't resonate with you but to say she offered nothing except Not Trump? Total bullshit.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:26 AM on November 7 [56 favorites]


Jeez. Hi there confused Democrats. If you’d like to know more of why Kamala Harris didn’t win feel free to check out all the threads leading up to this.
posted by iamck at 4:37 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


Well, it's like this. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe the reason why Harris lost wasn't messaging, wasn't her choice to appeal to republicans rather than anyone in (ostensibly) her own party to the left of Liz Cheney, maybe it wasn't Gaza or siding against anti-genocide protestors; maybe it's because she's a woman and everyone sucks shit and hates women. But hear me out -- suppose it's all that other stuff, tho? Because (a) if it's that Americans will never vote for a woman, which I kind of doubt, but if it is what can we do about that? and (b) isn't it worth a shot to gamble that possibly the issue is really democrats who run on a conservative platform instead of trying to appeal to democratic voters.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:57 AM on November 7 [10 favorites]


isn't it worth a shot to gamble that possibly the issue is really democrats who run on a conservative platform instead of trying to appeal to democratic voters.

One could point out that Biden received exactly the same criticisms as Harris (with the addition of the criticism that he was just too old to run). People didn't 'have trouble hearing' Biden speak. They heard him, and they criticized his platform. They heard him say "nothing will fundamentally change," and were enraged. Then some swing states voted for him because he wasn't the incumbent, and here we are.
posted by mittens at 5:11 AM on November 7 [5 favorites]


You know, maybe what democrats should be doing right now is working on Project 2029.
The Center for American Progress has been the Democrats answer to the Heritage Foundation since 2003 and has been the think tank responsible for producing policy ideas and vetting potential staffers in both the Obama and Biden administrations. They worked with Harris on her Economic Opportunity Plan; which she described in every speech she gave and also pitched in between turns eviscerating Donald Trump on the debate stage.

But you know they don't get talked about because they plan on boring things like increasing housing stock and limiting prescription drug prices and not scary shit like turning the Justice Department into the President's goon squad. Like Heritage does for Republicans, CAP has been fundamental to the ensuring that the last three Democratic Presidential terms have been staffed with smart, passionate, professional personnel and are ready at Day 1 to work for the American people. They are always working on an equivalent of Project 2025 for the Dems.

And the American people don't fucking care.

But, sure, let's keep moving the goalposts and say she never really gave anyone anything to vote for --rather than admit the reality. People don't pay attention. Even people in MeFi come in here with some badly informed Dunning Kruger hot takes.
Project 2025 by itself wasn't enough to keep people from voting for Trump. I also honestly don't think most of the people who did vote for Trump took Project 2025 seriously or knew about it. The Economic Opportunity Plan wasn't something everyone would listen to. You can fill a Project 2029 with a full description of automated gay space communism but people will tune out or nitpick on details and dismiss it as fantasy.

People vote based on vibes, and while there were a lot of great vibes for Kamala there were a lot more "oh I don't know, she just doesn't seem the presidential type" vibes and the "I don't like paying $15 for lunch at McDonalds" vibes and the "I think he's a crook but I hate how smug these Democrats are" vibes; that's just dressed up as the most passive aggressive way to say no: I don't know enough about them.
posted by bl1nk at 5:13 AM on November 7 [26 favorites]


I think we have a lot of work to do in a short two months to prevent the worst outcomes from the Project 2025 agenda, and that we’ll have plenty of time to assign blame for the election results after that.

What I’d like to see from the Biden administration and Congress in that time, to the extent possible (some stuff requires the House, which of course won’t be on board with any of the following):
* Abolish the 60% rule in the Senate so that things can actually get done in the next two months.
* Increase the size of the Supreme Court and appoint folks who aren’t obvious partisan hacks.
* Set up as many voting protections as possible.
* Disburse money to important initiatives in ways that can’t be taken back by the next administration.

* One of the goals of Project 2025 is to dismantle the civil service. Acknowledging that this is going to happen, do it in a useful way: set up independent parallel organizations and transfer equipment, resources, and personnel so that the important work of eg. climate research, basic weather prediction, public health, non-partisan funding of research, consumer protection, etc. can still continue to some extent.
* Archive data, and information about processes and organizational knowledge.
* Seriously: Canada went through this with Harper. Libraries literally thrown in dumpsters, and expensive equipment trashed. It’s expensive to rebuild from that, and even harder when knowledge and data has been irrevocably lost.
* Transfer federal parks, preserves, and other lands to an independent conservation trust. Trump (or whoever ends up actually running the show, given his obvious cognitive decline) can’t permit Arctic drilling or sell off all our national parks if he no longer has control over them. Side note: Indigenous groups have usually been good partners in environmental stewardship, and this would help protect them by giving them more resources, so more power and influence. It’s not a direct or explicit goal of Project 2025 to finish the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the US, but the incoming administration would certainly see that as a happy bonus side effect of the rest of their policies.

* Another goal of Project 2025 is to weaponize what bits of the Executive Branch agencies remain. Put guardrails against this in place. For example, donate a bunch of military supplies to Ukraine that could keep them going for a while, despite Trump’s support for allowing Putin to annex half at country. Place other military assets in long-term loan to NATO, under joint control between other NATO officials and the US. Yeah, I know, I’m not a fan of NATO in general either and it is indeed a Cold War relic, but it’s also the only multilateral group controlled by other democracies that Biden is likely to actually trust with such a measure, and would be better than leaving Trump in sole control of the US military’s vast nuclear and other arsenal. We’re going for harm reduction here. Staging more military personnel abroad in roles that would expose them to less misinformation and more other cultures and viewpoints (working with other countries, not just stuck on a US base or submarine or aircraft carrier) might be helpful too?

That’s a starting list; I’m sure folks with better knowledge of the workings of the federal government could improve on it.

For the rest of us: we’ll need to build networks and communities and preemptively learn about (if needed) or get involved with mutual aid work. And unions: labor unions have been a key organizational tool to resist fascism and authoritarianism in the past. And tenant unions. Build and support worker co-ops, and other structures that help prevent the transfer of wealth upwards.And be prepared for laws to change so that doing the right and kind thing becomes illegal, then do it anyway (carefully). That’s going to require some deliberate preparation, however: discuss and be confident in your personal and community values. Share stories of people who did the right thing despite harmful laws or repression in other authoritarian and repressive regimes. What personal and communal guardrails would be helpful for you and your community to help you avoid a gradual values shift? Learn about jail and court support and plan for who can be on the front lines and who can be the second tier support - we’ll need people in both roles, in all of our communities.
posted by eviemath at 5:14 AM on November 7 [28 favorites]


Policy proposals? Nobody wants policy proposals. They want an enemy and a hero. You have to be the knight that slays the dragon. This isn’t pure demagoguery: we have enemies! The billionaire class and the corporations that make it possible. And people fucking HATE them. So you tell a story about how you will make laws that defeat them and help the people. But you see, the Democratic Party really loves them, and so does the GOP, so here we are. Policy proposals… imagine thinking that would make a difference after all these years
posted by dis_integration at 5:15 AM on November 7 [14 favorites]


They worked with Harris on her Economic Opportunity Plan

The shocking thing about that plan is how little meat is on the bone. Flip over to the healthcare section. There's not much there that is even incremental improvement. If you start from the idea that candidates should overpromise, since they'll have to make concessions to get Congress on board, then those pages could literally be blank (well, blanker than they are...the whole chapter has a "my teacher said the paper had to be five pages, so i'm blowing it up to fit five pieces of paper" energy to it).

This isn't a case of a candidate being too wonky and burying all the fun details in massive documents full of policies. This is "we had to come up with something quick, and hadn't spent any time at all thinking about it beforehand."
posted by mittens at 5:23 AM on November 7 [12 favorites]


This is nothing special to the US. It's the same problem everywhere. It's hard to be a successful politician without selling your soul.

Politicians who cozy up to the rich and powerful is definitely a broad problem, but the issue of needing to keep the massive checks coming in is absolutely not. Many other countries have election spending limits and/or political donation limits. For instance, on the federal level in Canada, only individuals can donate, not corporations or other organizations, and they can only donate $3450 per year (a little more if there is also an internal party leadership contest in the same year). There is also an election spending limit of about $30M per party, though that only applies in the short election period and not the lead-up to that, if there is one.

Personally, I think that's still too much and the attached political donation tax credit is regressive and anti-democratic, but it's certainly better than the literal billions of dollars that get spend in the US and the huge amounts of dark money, etc. So this is absolutely a case where the US is exceptional (for reasons we all understand).
posted by ssg at 5:27 AM on November 7 [8 favorites]


A strangely upbeat concession. She’s proud of the campaign? I’d be ashamed and apologetic.


The technical parts of it seemed fine.

But what did you expect her to say? You volunteers all sucked as you could not get me over the finish line?

The numbers went from however bad they were to have Joe step down to almost making it.

With that lens - there are things to be proud of.

The party elites need to do some soul searching, they need contrition, their miscalculations, their arrogance, gave us trump and helped put him back.

There is no widespread mea culpa over the pied piper strategy. The court filings over what happened in 2016 of 'bite me, we are a private club with private rules so we can screw around anyway we want' is gonna never get walked back because how do you walk it back?

And as long as an effective 2 party duopoly exists there is no reason for the top brass to change. Where else ya'll gonna donate to?

"I still don’t see how you just hand the keys to the White House over to someone you devoutly believe is a fascist."

Because if you believe the definition of fascist has as an element of the blending of government and corporate power as was laid out by that guy Mussolini considered his mentor - the keys are already in the hands of fascists. As the black men in Milwaukee said in the NYT post 2016 Trump winning 'what was the point ... they keep saying about they are gonna improve things but it stays the same'.

When your money making message is 'give me money so I can save you' you never want to be in power where you have to deliver.

only ending up the candidate this time through a fluke of fate.

Huh? Old man in dotage was in dotage. Part of the branding for her VP pick was about old man was a transition to her as POTUS.

Joe and Co delivered on a promise in the end. But he wasn't gonna and the message from the party was 'keep Joe as he's uniquely qualified to defeat Trump'. Note here the argument wasn't his policy and management is better just Joe, as a man, is better.

Kamala's billion dollar fundraising effort into giving even half of those 14 million people something positive to vote FOR, not just incessantly telling them what they had to vote AGAINST, or else.

Don't forget the attempting shaming. 'as a black man ....' 'not voting for Harris means you are a ...'

Voting FOR West, Stein, Oliver, and whomever else was a vote FOR whatever they were saying. Want those voters to have a chance at a vote for future Harris get RCV/iRV implemented. The voter can 'send their message' of what platforms are their 1st choice as those just did. And then future Harris/other can get the 2nd or 3rd choice.

then by exhorting her supporters to engage in mutual aid and community service, perhaps even announcing an organization that will make it easier for us to do that.

Government wants to be seen as the way to help as it gives a justification to the money it takes and spends. How did that non governmental mutual aid work out per postings here on the blue about, say, food not bombs? Or in the late middle 1900's with the black panthers?

I don't think anyone was beating Trump this year.

And who's fault is it there is an effective 2 party system due to a lack of IRV/RCV along with the Democratic party not having a primary debate process to see if Joe was still up to the task?
Peter Zeihan speaks about how populist candidates are being selected, over on TYT they want progressives, and plenty of people have strong positions on what Powell did with his time on SOCTUS/money in politics.

A reminder about Harris - she was chasing votes in 2020 and said she supported Medicare for All. Then, as the tales are told, the monied interests showed up and had a talk and she changed her position.

Remember when the Joementum was shifting away from Biden? Obama/Pelosi were reported to support someone who was not Harris? Eventually that name or names will come out.

Someone could have beaten Trump - but that someone needed to not be backed by the Democratic party as it exists.

The Democratic party worked to make Trump the selection to run against in 2016. Then decided to not have a primary process in 2024 thinking the turtle idea that worked in 2020 was good thinking. The party created the monster and will benefit by having their hand out all while saying how evil the monster is and just by handing them money they alone will defeat the monster.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:28 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


maybe it's because she's a woman and everyone sucks shit and hates women.

Except that Rashida Tlaib won re election, in Michigan, which went for Trump. And Ruwa Romman is a state rep for Georgia, which went for Trump. And Ilhan Omar won in Minnesota about twenty points ahead of Harris.
posted by corb at 5:32 AM on November 7 [19 favorites]


Well, it's like this. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe the reason why Harris lost wasn't messaging, wasn't her choice to appeal to republicans rather than anyone in (ostensibly) her own party to the left of Liz Cheney, maybe it wasn't Gaza or siding against anti-genocide protestors; maybe it's because she's a woman and everyone sucks shit and hates women.

The reason Harris lost wasn't any of that. The reason Harris lost is that the economy that people feel is still terrible for many people, especially the ones too young to remember the heavy inflation of the late 70s / early 80s. People have not been shy about saying that they see the economy as awful. Just voting for the other team in that circumstance is indeed not very sophisticated but voters are like that.

This was a Republican year. This was a year that should have been an easy R victory approaching the scale of 1996 or 2008. Any *normal* Republican would have already had AZ and NV called for them, and would have won VA and MN and maybe NJ. Any normal Republican would have had enough coattails to defeat Baldwin and Slotkin, and to have already had NV and PA called for the Republican candidates, and if they'd nominated a normal human there would have won AZ. Any normal Republican would have ushered in a real, working House majority instead of maybe losing the House and maybe having another tiny majority.

"How did Trump win?" is the wrong, bad, and dumb-from-the-press question we're going to see over and over again. The real question is "How Trump almost blew an easy win."
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:39 AM on November 7 [19 favorites]


Well as long as the Democrats find someone/something to blame and have zero accountability and introspection /s
posted by iamck at 5:49 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


For the love of God and little green pickles can we not start pointing fingers at each other in an attempt to figure out the One Weird Trick That Lost Us Everything?

We're playing into the Trumpers' hands if we do that. They want us to be be sniping and attacking each other all "u suck, it was the economy" "no, U suck, it was Gaza" "no, ALL Y'ALL suck, it was misogyny". We can revisit that when it's time for the next election.

Right now we need to figure out "okay, how can we join forces to make the next couple years suck less".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:54 AM on November 7 [37 favorites]


thank you EC
posted by kokaku at 5:59 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


For the love of God and little green pickles can we not start pointing fingers at each other in an attempt to figure out the One Weird Trick That Lost Us Everything?

I understand--I really do!--but we seem to be stuck in this cyclic process where Democrats (a) run on the most tepid corporate-friendly platform, (b) explain that anyone to the left is out of touch, controlled opposition, useful idiots or outright traitors, (c) lose, (d) exhort themselves to run further right next time. I guess that's not the same as pointing fingers at each other, but if we're not considering why repeated mistakes on the part of the Democrats result in repeated failure, then we're accepting their slide into a sort of political senescence.

It's hard to imagine working together with people who just spent months calling you a traitor b/c you wanted less genocide and more healthcare.
posted by mittens at 6:04 AM on November 7 [22 favorites]


Except that Rashida Tlaib won re election, in Michigan, which went for Trump. And Ruwa Romman is a state rep for Georgia, which went for Trump. And Ilhan Omar won in Minnesota about twenty points ahead of Harris.

No state is uniformly red or blue though. The above-me turned candidates won districts that were very solidly Democratic. Compare the number of voters in their respective districts and the total number of Democratic voters in the state; or if the information is available, whether there were ballots in their districts that voted Trump (or other non-Harris candidate, including none) for president but Tlaib, etc. down-ballot. I expect there were Michigan ballots that didn’t cast a vote for president but did for for Tlaib, for example, but whether this impacted the presidential electors from Michigan would depend on how many. Regardless, I would be surprised if there were any significant number of ballots that voted Trump for president yet any of the above candidates for representative.
posted by eviemath at 6:09 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


maybe it's because she's a woman and everyone sucks shit and hates women.

Except that Rashida Tlaib won re election, in Michigan, which went for Trump. And Ruwa Romman is a state rep for Georgia, which went for Trump. And Ilhan Omar won in Minnesota about twenty points ahead of Harris.
Except except Rashida Tlaib's congressional district also went for Harris. And Gwinett County in Georgia, which includes Ruwa Romman's house district also went for Harris. Omar's the only example where there was a lot of split ticket voting (Hennepin county went for Harris and Anoka county went for Trump).

I like the thesis, but needs more apples-to-apples comparisons.
posted by bl1nk at 6:12 AM on November 7 [7 favorites]


54% of white women voted for Trump.

Her biggest hurdle was always being a black woman. Doesn’t matter what she said or did.
posted by girlmightlive at 6:16 AM on November 7 [11 favorites]


We can revisit that when it's time for the next election.

Which should be now. Trump didn't waste any time in 2021 to start his next campaign, and neither should we. Keeping the next election front and center is the only way we're going to ensure that it happens in four years.

Democrats need to appoint a shadow president. There needs to be a singular someone who will spend the next four years doing all the public-facing things a president does while holding rally after rally. If there's a natural disaster, this person needs to tour the damage and be there when aid is distributed. If there's a school shooting, they need to go to the candlelight vigils. If someone was killed by the police, they need to be reach out to the family.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:16 AM on November 7 [16 favorites]


Except that Rashida Tlaib won re election, in Michigan, which went for Trump. And Ruwa Romman is a state rep for Georgia, which went for Trump. And Ilhan Omar won in Minnesota about twenty points ahead of Harris.

And those cherrypicked names are from district electorates, not state or national ones. In the "lost" column we put Katrina Christiansen, Nella Dominici, Patricia Morgan, Gloria Johnson, and many more. Overall, we are on track to actually lose female representation overall.

Tell me again why it's not misogyny.
posted by Miko at 6:17 AM on November 7 [16 favorites]


> we seem to be stuck in this cyclic process

I guess the flags need moving on that one meme.
posted by lucidium at 6:25 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]


54% of white women voted for Trump.

Her biggest hurdle was always being a black woman. Doesn’t matter what she said or did.

Tell me again why it's not misogyny.


How do we square this with the very obvious reality that Biden would have done way way worse than Harris?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:27 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


For all of her campaign's faults, I actually see a compelling reason for Kamala Harris to just keep on campaigning:

1) It keeps her supporters engaged (She's not giving up, and neither should we)
2) The media loves a revenge story. It's never too early to start building a narrative.
3) Why dismantle the apparatus only to have to rebuild it again in four years?
4) Fuck being a grownup and accepting the outcome. Trump didn't accept the outcome in 2020 and made perpetual campaigning a thing. Why give him a grace period?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:28 AM on November 7 [14 favorites]


How do we square this with the very obvious reality that Biden would have done way way worse than Harris?

That's not at all obvious.
posted by Miko at 6:29 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]


Also: We can still grudgingly do the whole peaceful transfer of power thing because Trump has already set the bar so low that, as long as we allow it to happen by not storming the capital in an armed insurrection, we're already giving it more respect than he ever did.

Fuck being mature. Hold a big rally on inauguration day. Use it to announce which Democrats are running in 2028. See who has the bigger audience.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:36 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


How do we square this with the very obvious reality that Biden would have done way way worse than Harris?

That's not at all obvious


Bidens disapproval rating is almost 60% and is higher than Harris'.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:37 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]


Forget about who has the higher approval rating. It doesn't matter. Trump's approval rating is atrocious and that didn't stop people pulling the lever for him.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:39 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


Trumps not the incumbent. Incumbents can't win when their disapproval rating is very high.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:43 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


As this thread readily proves, people like engaging in debates with counter-factual hypotheticals. Trump's appeal was that he was out there constantly beating the drum of how if he were president, he'd do things differently. It didn't even matter that he never elaborated what he would do differently, all he had to do was constantly remind people he existed as an alternative. Democrats need someone who can do the same thing.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:47 AM on November 7 [5 favorites]


For all of her campaign's faults, I actually see a compelling reason for Kamala Harris to just keep on campaigning:


Maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't we have a primary with Kamala Harris in 2020 where she was wildly unpopular?
posted by iamck at 6:48 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


Maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't we have a primary with Kamala Harris in 2020 where she was wildly unpopular?

Doesn't matter. Trump is unpopular, too.

Right now, we're all united because we voted for Kamala Harris. That's our tribe. That's our identity. It would be stupid to let that fray.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:53 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


Maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't we have a primary with Kamala Harris in 2020 where she was wildly unpopular?

She chose to be popular with the people who had the money VS people.
My memory was the swing towards her when she backed Medicare for all.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:54 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]


"3) Why dismantle the apparatus only to have to rebuild it again in four years?"

This seems to be one of the downsides of the primary system. My local party, like others, has a primary to get candidates to compete with the local GOP incumbent. This means that there appears to be no long-term strategy, just a series of different candidates who show up for a few months every couple of years.
posted by idb at 7:00 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]


I am confused by split ticket voters. Consider AZ president vs senate: here Trump is running ahead of Kari Lake by more than 4 points.

It’s not just “vote the bums out”, because neither Lake, nor her opponent Gallego, is an incumbent. It’s not love of the Trump brand because Lake is the Trumpiest she can be.

It’s not low information voters, because Gallego has more votes than Harris. If it were low info voters alone, it would just be that Lake’s drop off from Trump was higher.

It could be gender. It could be something specific against Harris or for Trump. It could be policy (sigh). It could be some combination.

But in the end, both are statewide elections. So there are c 80k people who voted for Gallego for senate, but either left the top of the ticket blank or voted for Trump.

It’s not new; the senate races have been running more D than President even before Biden dropped out. (It was a reason given as to why he should drop out). But it’s a weird signal.
posted by nat at 7:04 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


Here in Ohio, the Democratic incumbent senator Sherrod Brown lost. Because the Democratic Party knew Harris would lose the state, Brown did everything he could to distance himself from them. Personally I think it got to the point he went too far, not only did he barely campaign in the cities but they didn’t at all reply to the onslaught of anti-trans ads.

I don’t know if Dems need to change their message or just need more messages, they seem unequipped to deal with the barrage of right wing media. AOC said a couple years ago that there is a lot of right wing Spanish radio and Dems do not have anything to counter it.
posted by girlmightlive at 7:14 AM on November 7 [13 favorites]


i presume those words about allegiance to the constitution not the commander in chief were addressed to the army. i hope to god they were listening.
posted by graywyvern at 7:14 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


Meanwhile, in WI, Tammy Baldwin won her senate race by a narrow 30k voters, while Trump took the state with almost the same amount.

Someone explain to me how people voted for the progressive gay woman AND Trump. Please.
posted by Rudy_Wiser at 7:32 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


We certainly did not all vote for Kamala Harris. Of those that I know who did, the overwhelming majority voted for her out of fear and as the “lesser of two evils”.
posted by iamck at 7:34 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


Those are the same reasons people voted for Trump
posted by girlmightlive at 7:42 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


> Someone explain to me how people voted for the progressive gay woman AND Trump. Please.

There were definitely some crossover voters, but also my understanding is that here in Wisconsin there was a fairly large turnout of voters who *just* voted for Trump, and left the rest of the ballot blank
posted by dis_integration at 7:44 AM on November 7


Lots of interesting points above. But IMO there’s no way to beat the combination of 1) white supremacy; 2) virulent misogyny (really Republican white women you’d prefer your daughters to be breed stock for Incels?); and the bone deep need of so many Americans willing to bend the knee to power - if it means some ‘other’ they don’t even know suffers and suffers.

I think nothing compares to those things - although they unbelievably atrocious performance of the corporate media is on the next step. Example #2,459,467: completely buying the Trumpist arguments that they had nothing to do with Project 2025 (the fucking Trumpists wrote it and they’ve pretty much dumped that story immediately, and we’ll well looky here - the SAME DAY Trump won the trumpist are saying they’re going to implement it immediately).

The American people will of course vote in a woman as president, she’ll just be a psycho along the lines of Noem or MTG. And we’ll desperately hope it’ll just be a Haley.
posted by WatTylerJr at 7:46 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


I get why the focus is on why Kamala Harris lost - we think if we can figure that out, the next time would be different. I think the Democratic Party has lost it's way in advocating for working class people. But for me, a more vexing question is why that monster won. There are millions of people in the US who feel that voting for someone like him is ok. He's a convicted felon with dozens of sexual assault charges against him, a narcissist and a bully. I think there is something very very wrong in the US. Given the circumstances of her candidacy, she and her campaign offered a lot while he offered only division and tax cuts for the rich.

I respect everyone's opinion expressed here. Most of us are genuinely struggling with how this could've happened. For me, it is inexplicable how anyone with any decency could vote for him. The next four years are going to be very very difficult for so many of us.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:48 AM on November 7 [11 favorites]


Someone explain to me how people voted for the progressive gay woman AND Trump. Please.

Simple: They didn't. You can also explain that discrepancy by there being more people who voted for just Trump + a blank ballot than people who voted for Harris+Baldwin.

I don't have any numbers to back this up right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's a huge population of voters in all of these places who voted for president and didn't vote for any other office. And that group broke heavily for Trump.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:03 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


The reality is a lot of those people believe they are decent. My boyfriend’s grandma was racist but she liked me (a black woman) personally and that was good enough for her.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:07 AM on November 7 [8 favorites]


How do we square this with the very obvious reality that Biden would have done way way worse than Harris?

That's not at all obvious.


He really couldn't have done much worse. The Republicans got the President, the Senate, and the House is still up for grabs (I guess, but within potential Republican control).
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:21 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


> Democrats losing 14 million voters just does not compute for me.

I think there are two parts to this - as people said above, California is currently down ~5.4M votes for Harris as opposed to Biden, but largely that's due to a lot of votes not having been tallied yet. I think that's a bad system, but it's going to cause the popular vote at the end of the day to be much closer than it looks right now.

But also, MA is down 300k or so, NY 1.8M, NJ 512k, and that all adds up. But those states are states where Harris was virtually guaranteed to win, and she did. Knowing the candidate you prefer will win your state does not drive turnout. All told several million of those "missing" votes are in states she didn't even need to campaign in to win, and she still got their electoral votes.

But it still doesn't look good. Especially with her coming out with a huge smile and being absolutely enthusiastic for the concession speech. She actually seems *happy* about it.
posted by atbash at 8:33 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


Brown did everything he could to distance himself from them

I was travelling in northwestern Minnesota in 2018, and saw one of the worst political ads of my life from the Heidi Heitkamp campaign, for Senate from North Dakota.

"I'm so sorry I'm a Democrat. I promise it won't happen again."

Well, of course nobody's going to vote for you with that approach....

Not a direct quote from the ad there, I'm exaggerating a little. But not much.
posted by gimonca at 8:34 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]


This is all worst case scenario, right here. It can't get much worse.

We have to accept that we are in the minority in this country. Not a secret majority, but the minority. And that we've lost for eternity now and we need to change our focus to protecting ourselves while we still can.

Or finding our own Democratic equivalent of Trump, lololololol, I suppose.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:35 AM on November 7


She actually seems *happy* about it.

We all mourn in different ways. Please don't criticize her for not meeting your expectations of how one should react.

Maybe she was happy to see so many friends and supporters in the audience?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:36 AM on November 7 [13 favorites]


I think she felt obligated to put Brave Face On, like every Democratic loser before her.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:41 AM on November 7 [8 favorites]


"I'm so sorry I'm a Democrat. I promise it won't happen again."
posted by gimonca


Cool story: An old long-distance friend living in a red/Bible-belt state told me that several coworkers/neighbors, when confronted by my friend's progressive-yet-Evangelical-adjacent views, expressed unironic astonishment that he literally did not have horns nor an evil manipulative personality. That's how far gone the Religious Right are. Leftists are literal demons from Hell, sent to tempt and seduce the 'righteous'.
posted by zaixfeep at 8:44 AM on November 7 [9 favorites]


We have to accept that we are in the minority in this country. Not a secret majority, but the minority.

What you're seeing isn't "the minority in this country", it is the minority among humanity. What I'm referring to as the majority, though, is self-interest and apathy towards those who are different. It's a struggle that we have been wrestling with since the beginning of the history of the world. Maybe even further. We've always been more inclined to protecting those in "our tribe", caring and sharing is hard. That's why they spend so much time talking about it on Sesame Street.

And that we've lost for eternity now and we need to change our focus to protecting ourselves while we still can.

Here's where I disagree - with the notion that we've "lost for eternity". With the biological conditioning we all have, the fact that anyone overcame it enough to get to even just where we are now is proof that this can be overcome again. I mean, hell, the clinic I work in just went from one or two emails a week from potential volunteers to about 20 emails in one hour.

It's not going to be easy. It's not going to be overnight. But it's also not going to be impossible.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:46 AM on November 7 [11 favorites]


[sting_dune_the_righteous?!.gif]
posted by Gelatin at 8:46 AM on November 7


For Black Women America has revealed to us her true self. NYT.

...it would rather choose a man who was convicted of 34 felonies, has spewed lies and falsehoods, disparaged women and people of color, and pledged to use the powers of the federal government to punish his political opponents than send a woman of color to the White House.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:47 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]


Henry David Thoreau, Walden
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."
That is what they have been doing for at least 2 decades, and surely long time before that.

Suskind, Ron (October 17, 2004). "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush". The New York Times Magazine. ISSN 0028-7822.
The [unnamed] aide [in the George Bush administration] said that guys like me [journalist Ron Suskind] were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' ... 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.
posted by otherchaz at 8:48 AM on November 7 [10 favorites]


I really think the economy trumps (sorry) everything else. There are so many low-information voters that are busy living life and don't consume much if any media about the election until the last possible minute. Instead they are busy living life and struggling to buy groceries or pay rent. So the rationale is:

* Economy felt good during Trump term.
* Economy felt very bad during Biden term.
* QED I voted Trump 2024.

They don't all remember who was president during which part of Covid. They don't know what the Federal Reserve is. They don't know about economic or political theory. They don't think about the delayed effects of packages like Biden's infrastructure bill. They don't remember who controlled House/Senate at which times, or understand that Congress, not the President, is in charge when it comes to passing laws. They don't understand that the oil market is global. They don't understand the negative impact of tariffs on Chinese goods. And so on.

The thing is, they really shouldn't have to in order to live a good life. The world is way too complicated, and so is our government, and so is America.

I'm just starting to be ready to listen to different viewpoints about what happened and why, but most of what I hear out there echoes the economic argument. The PSA guys pointed out that Pew and one other poll/data org will get full voting data in a file in a couple of months and can then really dig into who voted for whom and way, and that everything until then is guessing. They did however bring up some exit poll data which I thought was interesting:

* Harris approval 48 good / 51 bad
* Trump approval 44 good / 54 bad
* Harris too extreme 46 yes / 51 no
* Trump too extreme 55 yes /43 no

If that's valid, it suggests that people voted for Trump despite their dislike of him, probably because of the economy. I think the Dems or a new party need to boil it down even more and give people more vibes (good ones) and less data (unless they come looking). I also think that they need to stop trying to be involved in culture issues so much at the national level beyond just protecting basic rights and watchdogging the states on those. Something like "live and let live" as a policy and that's about it. As much as I support progressive views on gender and other issues, I think extra-governmental groups and movements should take the lead there. Having that come from the government is too ripe for generating outrage from the majority, who are more comfortable with a more static/slowly evolving set of norms. People have the right to local and sectarian cultures, even ones I abhor, and messing with that is like poking them in the eye with a stick.
posted by caviar2d2 at 8:49 AM on November 7 [10 favorites]


All the hand-wringing and analysis is pointless, really.

The USA is a misogynistic, racist country. That's what people voted for. (Well, and stupid. Can't forget the stupid.)

Something like 15-18 million folks chose to sit this one out, for whatever reason, but it's really hard to believe it was because of Kamala Harris' personality, policy or tactics. Americans are not gonna vote for a woman, and certainly not gonna vote for a woman of color, clearly.

The hard part, for people who are stunned by this, will be realizing that, in fact, this IS who we are as Americans...
posted by Chuffy at 8:50 AM on November 7 [13 favorites]


Dems going more neutral on social issues is gonna alienate their most loyal and dedicated voting bloc. Black people don’t want to hear “live and let live.”
posted by girlmightlive at 8:58 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]


needs more apples-to-apples comparisons

I haven't had time to dig into the details, but Angie Craig won in Minnesota-2. Note that she's a ton more centrist than Ilhan is, and has criticized Ilhan before (which rubs me the wrong way, but there you go).

Minnesota-2 has a Cook Partisan Index of somewhere around zero to D+2, there's not much of a Democratic/DFL advantage there. A single poll earlier this year had her winning by 8. She won by 13 this week...in a district that is more and more suburban, but still has a lot of farmland.

Not advocating for "more Angie Craigs" here, just offering this as another data point. I haven't had time to look more closely yet.
posted by gimonca at 9:00 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


* Economy felt good during Trump term.
* Economy felt very bad during Biden term.
* QED I voted Trump 2024.


This is almost universal as well.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:12 AM on November 7


The USA is a misogynistic, racist country. That's what people voted for.

Well yes. And that would have been the case if Kamala had won as well, all the while as she dehumanized Palestinians and Muslims in America. People are tribal. The Republicans and Democrats both draw a circle and some humans are “in” and others are “out”. The Democrat circle is larger, but let’s not pretend it includes all. This was a hawkish Bush era Democrat. Are we going to retcon reality already?
posted by iamck at 9:13 AM on November 7 [10 favorites]


If Kamala Harris had come out strongly pro-Palestine she still would have lost.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:22 AM on November 7 [15 favorites]


What you're seeing isn't "the minority in this country", it is the minority among humanity.

I agree.

Here's where I disagree - with the notion that we've "lost for eternity".

I was thinking more that since everyone in power will be Republicans, the judges will all be, gerrymandering, Project 2025, etc. the system will be engineered that nobody can stop them.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:26 AM on November 7


The fun part is going to be when the new House is finally announced, and the R to D ratio is exactly, to the number, what it was before the election, with no change at all. It's a very real possibility. Media types will hate this, since it runs against the "massive realignment" storyline that's being pushed.
posted by gimonca at 9:31 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


We all mourn in different ways. Please don't criticize her for not meeting your expectations of how one should react.

I would agree if she was at a mutual friend's funeral or something, but she's a national politician, and she and her team knew this would be a widely watched speech. We're allowed to critique it for being completely tone death, for failing to meet the gravity of the moment, and being indicative of the broader problems of the campaign that led to the dismal outcome. I mean, she's likely even going to lose the popular vote. I agree the "blame game" isn't productive per se, but we should try to learn from what happened. Mistakes were made. Trump is a deeply unpopular and problematic candidate - he was beatable.
posted by coffeecat at 9:36 AM on November 7 [5 favorites]


We're allowed to critique it for being completely tone death, for failing to meet the gravity of the moment, and being indicative of the broader problems of the campaign that led to the dismal outcome. I mean, she's likely even going to lose the popular vote.

I have criticisms of the content of her speech as well, but I'm not going to complain that she seemed happy while delivering it. Give her a break. She was probably functioning on less sleep than either you or I combined.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:48 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


Women aren't supposed to be happy. Ever.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:53 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


If Kamala Harris had come out strongly pro-Palestine she still would have lost.

Ok. Now that the administration is no longer trying to win, I guess they can stop killing women and children.
posted by iamck at 9:56 AM on November 7 [8 favorites]


(And I will ALWAYS look askance at anyone criticizing a woman for her emotions and expression of them)
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:56 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


Ok. Now that the administration is no longer trying to win, I guess they can stop killing women and children

I’m only commenting on the implication that Palestine had an impact on the election compared to her race and gender.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:03 AM on November 7


Someone explain to me how people voted for the progressive gay woman AND Trump. Please.

Because the thing people are looking for is “not a part of a political machine”. Baldwin has worked across party lines on occasion, and doesn’t parrot whatever the DNC is saying. Sometimes she’s further left, sometimes further right - but it gives her a reputation as a straight shooter. Similarly, a lot of the other people who did well even in Trumpy states or areas are people who have records of being critical of Democratic leadership. Voters felt they could trust those people to keep fighting no matter who was in power. They didn’t want people who kept their mouth shut and did what the party said. And Harris, for good or ill, was exactly that. She played the game. She didn’t criticize Biden while a part of his administration. But it…wasn’t a winning strategy for people who were tired of Biden.
posted by corb at 10:18 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]


They didn’t want people who kept their mouth shut and did what the party said.

They have tried this method in Ohio for years and it’s failed every time.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:24 AM on November 7


Trump is a deeply unpopular and problematic candidate - he was beatable.

I think it's time we adjust our priors.

Nothing about Trump mattered. We can either argue about all the ways Kamala Harris could have beaten Trump if only she had said/done something differently, or we can reject all of our prior knowledge about electability and elections.

It seems stupidly obvious in hindsight, but remember how weird it was that after trying to overturn the results of the election in the courts and with an angry mob and musing that he might not leave, Trump just quietly slipped away on inauguration day in 2021?

Yeah.

Someone convinced him that all he had to do was wait four years. Let Biden be stuck with all the hard decisions that had to be made. Let Democrats get all the blame for how shitty the economy would be. Republicans (and even a few traitors like Manchin and Sinema) would always be there to make sure Democrats couldn't do anything that might directly benefit people like student loan forgiveness or the child tax credit.

It's that simple. It was a Xanatos Gambit all along.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:28 AM on November 7 [3 favorites]


They didn’t want people who kept their mouth shut and did what the party said.

For example, Susan Collins (R) of Maine often Expresses Concerns about Republican priorities before just going ahead and voting for them the same as Lindsay Graham or Ted Cruz.
posted by Gelatin at 10:31 AM on November 7 [1 favorite]


There was also a lot of ticket splitting in NC - most of the statewide races were won by Democrats. And only one of the republican candidates called themselves a "Black Nazi" on a porn forum. And it wasn't people leaving the top of the ticket blank - there were numerous Trump voters who also voted for the Democratic candidate for education, the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, and the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State. In the case of the AG, it was classic retail politics - he had lost his Congressional district, but he is very active on Reddit - he's got great name recognition, and he's always out there making it clear to people he cares about what's happening across the state.
posted by coffeecat at 10:31 AM on November 7 [6 favorites]


(And I will ALWAYS look askance at anyone criticizing a woman for her emotions and expression of them)

And this, truly with all respect, is why you will always lose. It can BOTH be true that women are routinely and unfairly maligned for being humans with emotions AND it is true that Harris is/was a powerful national politician who literally was just asking the American people let her run the world and she came across to some/many as inappropriate. Reducing a complex human being and situation to “woman” and “people who hate women” is a valid expression of pain AND it’s also not a path forward to understanding the fuller complex reality necessary for winning next time.

Do you want to win or do you want to be right?
posted by flamk at 10:32 AM on November 7 [8 favorites]


We can either argue about all the ways Kamala Harris could have beaten Trump if only she had said/done something differently, or we can reject all of our prior knowledge about electability and elections.

I mean, I don't disagree that a lot of people's assumptions about electability and elections is wrong, but I disagree with the rest of your point. Does the fact that many Democratic candidates significantly outperformed Harris in this election mean nothing? I'd say it at least means something.
posted by coffeecat at 10:35 AM on November 7 [7 favorites]


But you know, if I think about it more … maybe it’s okay to use this space to grieve …. I’m kind of vacillating between grief and “fuck no, let’s go get these bastards!” myself. So apologies, tiny frying pan and others if that came across too strident.
posted by flamk at 10:43 AM on November 7 [4 favorites]


Does the fact that many Democratic candidates significantly outperformed Harris in this election mean nothing? I'd say it at least means something.

It means nothing. The farther downballot you go, the less interested people are and the more likely they're just going to leave things blank. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a Democrat who ran for dogcatcher and did +15 over Harris. It doesn't mean that hypothetical Democrat is any more electable than Harris, it just means they were able to benefit more from the same number of dedicated D voters because everyone else got bored by the time they got to that part of the ballot.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:07 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]


I also believe that there was nothing wrong with Harris' messaging, tone, policies. It really sucks to say this, but the US - and probably Canada too - is not ready for a leftist female national leader.

The opportunity to punish a woman is something the majority of people (yes, people - women too) will seize whenever it's possible to do it secretly, anonymously, or without scrutiny. And this vote offered a double punishment - 1) punish the woman by not voting for her, and 2) punish all women by voting for policies that will make them suffer and further subordinate them. It was too tantalizing for Trump voters to resist.

I wouldn't say this is the only factor in her loss. But I do think it's the main one.
posted by kitcat at 11:21 AM on November 7 [9 favorites]


Yeah, but that's not what happened - if you look at the vote totals, this isn't merely a matter of people leaving the bottom races blank.
posted by coffeecat at 11:21 AM on November 7 [2 favorites]


The wonderful Maya Rudolph played Harris on SNL, as we all know, but she also played a powerful black woman (well, technically a supernatural being who presented as a black woman) on The Good Place, and there is a scene from that show that is both eerily prescient -- by speaking accurately about the present at the time of the show -- and hits different after the results of this election: Judge Gen goes to Earth to see what it's really like. (TikTok link, couldn't find the relevant clip on YT)

Judge Gen in that clip is absolutely correct: they don't like black ladies down here, though who constitutes "they" shifts from time to time.

Even among liberals, even on this very site, I've seen degrading comments and jokes about black women as a group go unremarked upon. In the past few years, in social settings and online, I've seen cishet white men who step up to speak out against looks-related comments about MTG, Sarah Palin, Melania Trump and several others remain completely silent in response to utterly vile comments Republicans -- Republican politicians, comedians, and dudebros alike -- have made about Michelle Obama. Comments so fucked up that I won't repeat them here or link to them.

I've been at parties in good ol' Super Liberal Austin where I was the only black person there, among white and Latino people that I thought were decent, and had the joy of listening to them telling jokes that demean black women once the drinks started flowing: for example, the Lemonjello joke, with an extra knife twist of not even telling it as a joke but claiming that a friend of a friend of theirs had literally seen it happen in real life.

We black folks often point out that we have to work twice as hard as others to get half the credit, but the ratio is even worse for black women. It's probably something like 4 times as hard to get 1/4 the credit.

So Harris had the deck stacked against her in so many different ways, it's a wonder she performed as well as she did.

As for Harris' performance vs other women winning their races, my take on it is that a lot of those offices were for positions of power but were not seen as "boss" positions the way the office of the President is. Your various senators, representatives, governors and what have you are not in command of the most powerful military in the world, entitled to salutes and deference. And I think a fair number of Americans see the President as, in some sense, the Boss of All Bosses. A lot of people are never going to vote for a woman to wield that power, and especially not a black woman.

And there's another nasty, awful thing that people don't like to think about or or consider that hurt Harris, as evidenced by the fact that Trump and Trump-adjacent people can say terrible things about some Latino groups and still see gains among Latino voters: there are a lot of people of color in this country who do not want to see a black person "go first" when it comes to attaining power...or attaining anything really. "Last Place Aversion" is a fancy name for what is at play in that famous LBJ quote about the pockets of a poor white person, and it is very much a thing. And it's not just in play for poor whites w/r/t black people, it's also at play for other minorities w/r/t black people.

It's fucked up. It is tragic. I wish it wasn't so, but I have observed it many times growing up in South Florida and spending half my life in Texas; I have experienced it personally many times throughout the US and abroad. (And, to be fair, black people do it too: I believe the data shows that black people still tend to be less accepting of equal rights and treatment of LGBTQ+ persons, for example, than we should be. So many people always want there to be at least one group permanently beneath them.)

So, in my book, Harris is an eminently qualified and capable woman who had to face the usual uphill battle against a mediocre male, with some added dollops of racism and misogynoir thrown into the mix. I'm going to grieve for her loss and the nation's loss, but what I'm not finna do is "Well ackshually, lemme tell you about allllllllll the things this woman did wrong" my way through the next few days without acknowledging the extremely uneven playing field she was on. If y'all wanna give Ginger Rogers credit for doing what Fred Astaire did but backwards and in heels, you ought to give credit to Harris (and HRC!) for having to walk the same road as the mediocre white guy but with road hazards only on their side...and in heels.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:40 PM on November 7 [45 favorites]


If Kamala Harris had come out strongly pro-Palestine she still would have lost.

Then she should have done it.
posted by EmGeeJay at 1:01 PM on November 7 [8 favorites]


If Kamala Harris had come out strongly pro-Palestine she still would have lost.

Also, what.

We know people didn't come out to vote. We also know that we've been inundated with images of genocide for the past year. So much that there was bipartisan support to crack down on TikTok and Instagram instigated an automatic "censor" setting.

A candidate coming out strongly in opposition to genocide wouldn't have brought people out to vote?
posted by iamck at 1:43 PM on November 7 [1 favorite]


No it wouldn't have.
posted by girlmightlive at 1:44 PM on November 7 [4 favorites]


We also know that we've been inundated with images of genocide for the past year.

"We" is doing some heavy lifting there. You have encountered them. Not everyone has. Most people's media consumption has very little Gaza content. An awful lot of people don't care because an awful lot of people have not encountered the issue more than purely peripherally.

It's hard to overstate how shockingly ill-informed most people are. This is true about almost all current events, not just the genocide in Gaza.
posted by jackbishop at 1:57 PM on November 7 [16 favorites]


Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win


New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters


More polling.

The Harris Campaign has all these numbers and more. Their response was to double down, to send Bill Clinton out to Michigan to justify the genocide the party enables and enthusiastically defends.

They didn't want to win the election if it meant changing a deeply unpopular (not to mention morally indefensible) position. They sent Ritchie Torres to Michigan. A massive FUCK YOU to potential voters.

I don't think Gaza turned the election, but to dismiss it is, I believe, is a form of trying not to think about what the party actually supports.
posted by cell divide at 2:01 PM on November 7 [12 favorites]


I'm sure the Palestinian people will find solace in the convictions of Americans who just couldn't pull the lever for Kamala Harris, knowing full well that FDT is more than happy to enable Netanyahu to "finish the job."

Gazans Fear Neither Candidate in U.S. Election Will Help Them

What Five Gazans Think About Trump, Harris, and the Election
posted by iamck at 2:17 PM on November 7 [3 favorites]


I'm sure the Palestinian people will find solace in the convictions of Americans who just couldn't pull the lever for Kamala Harris, knowing full well that FDT is more than happy to enable Netanyahu to "finish the job."

What, with all that prime real estate ready for the taking...


Wtf????
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:04 PM on November 7 [5 favorites]


I'm sure the Palestinian people will find solace in the convictions of Americans who just couldn't pull the lever for Kamala Harris, knowing full well that FDT is more than happy to enable Netanyahu to "finish the job."

What, with all that prime real estate ready for the taking...

Wtf????


This is a reference to impending First Son-in-Law (and unelected/unconfirmed by Congress National Security Adviser, with access to the highest level of government secrets and decision making power over any number of things) Jared Kushner saying the quiet part out loud about plans for post-genocide Gaza.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:16 PM on November 7 [5 favorites]


I just feel like the polling has been pretty consistent that Gaza is not a top issue for most Americans. I think lord_wolf's excellent post really tells the whole story.
posted by girlmightlive at 3:16 PM on November 7 [5 favorites]


The polling clearly isn't going to capture people who didn't come out to vote.
posted by iamck at 4:01 PM on November 7 [2 favorites]


"How did Trump win?" is the wrong, bad, and dumb-from-the-press question we're going to see over and over again. The real question is "How Trump almost blew an easy win."
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace


And did blow what should have been an easy win in 2020, if only he had let the health pros do their job.

–––––

54% of white women voted for Trump.

Her biggest hurdle was always being a black woman. Doesn’t matter what she said or did.
posted by girlmightlive


There were other hurdles. But certainly this is one of the main ones.

White America lost its mind over a half black, half white man getting elected. They are not even close to being ready for a black woman.

–––––

I also believe that there was nothing wrong with Harris' messaging, tone, policies. It really sucks to say this, but the US - and probably Canada too - is not ready for a leftist female national leader.
posted by kitcat


Or even a national female leader of any political colour.

Sadly also true for Australia, one of the bastions of female rights, including the vote. What is particularly perplexing about it is that, like the US, we have elected quite a few female leaders in our states and territories, and they have occupied very senior positions of power & responsibility all throughout our society, like Chief Justice on the High Court (our equivalent of the SCOTUS). But giving them the top job nationally still seems taboo.

The flood of vile misogyny directed at our one and only female prime Minister so far (Julia Gillard), including from the ranks of the professional political class and the then opposition leader (Tony Abbott, hardcore conservative Catholic, monarchist, Anglophile, supporter of return to rigid patriarchy, and big fan of 'guided democracy' á la Victor Orban), was on a whole new level. It wasn't that it happened that caught me by surprise, nor even how nasty and vicious it was. That was fully expected. It was how shameless and unrepentant it was – the offenders were proud of it, and wore it as a badge of honour, and still do.

Add in that she was childless, unmarried, and living in sin with her partner, and the unfortunate circumstances (not of her making) in which she came to power, and it was just a vile shit show from day one. There was literally nothing she could possibly do that was right in the eyes of far too many, including more than a few women it is sad to say.

–––––

Also agree that the Dems should not give Trump a single moment of honeymoon or breathing space. Hound that fucker over everything from the first to the last day of his entire presidency as the inevitable disasters and cruelties unfold.
posted by Pouteria at 5:46 PM on November 7 [7 favorites]


Many other countries have election spending limits and/or political donation limits.
I really think this is key to removing the ability to buy an election, which is clearly happening in the US and in other places to a lesser extent. Tight limits on spending and donations, with as few loopholes as is legally possible, much greater transparency over who is donating, removal of any tax incentives for political donations, absolute media blackouts in the days leading up to the election. Provide public funding for election campaigns to help remove the crystal clear conflicts of interest in how things are done now. Things like this could help people make better-informed decisions.

Maybe a step too far, but I think any candidate in any election should have to publish a central set of policies in a standardised format. Published by an independent body with candidates required to reference these in all advertising. It's far too easy for people with no idea of how to govern or any plan to develop one to bullshit their way into positions of power. There's nothing to stop people simply lying through their teeth (clearly!) to gain power and then acting in a completely contrary way when they get power, but transparency about where they stand provides the opportunity to hold them to account.
posted by dg at 6:05 PM on November 7 [4 favorites]


All good liberals and leftists of course understand and believe that sexism and racism exist.

In my experience, however, people, well-meaning though they may be, very often are unfamiliar with and/or disbelieve research quantifying the extent of impact.

Data on how much men versus women talk in group settings, compared with participants’ (of all genders) impressions of proportion of speaking time, is one stark example. From my professional life, I am also somewhat familiar with data on gender bias in student evaluations of university and college instructors. There’s a study that’s slightly over a decade old now, but provided one of the more clear quantifications: two instructors for four online courses, where instructors interacted with students only through text. The courses had all the same structure, assignments, testing; and the two instructors worked to ensure as consistent as possible student assessment and communications. Of the four sections: one was taught by the female instructor and students were told that, one was taught by the female instructor but students were told they were taught by the male instructor, one was taught by the male instructor and students were told that, and the last was taught by the male instructor but students were told they were taught by the female instructor. Student evaluation scores at the end of the course were correlated not with the actual instructor but with students’ belief about whether their instructor was the male of female instructor. The question with the greatest bias was one rating the instructor’s organization. Student ratings were 17% or 18% lower when they believed they were taught by the female instructor, even though course structure and time for return of marked assignments was identical. I’m less directly familiar with specific data on racial bias, except to know that bias against Black instructors is even greater in studies that have been able to quantify it.

Before you argue that many studies find a smaller effect, keep in mind that most such studies don’t or aren’t able to compare as carefully equivalent instructors: instead they are comparing women who have attained some degree of career success despite pervasive gender bias with men who haven’t faced the same obstacles - the phenomenon where women have to be x times as good in order to get 1/y times as far in their careers.

The effect sizes observed absolutely on the scale that could have impacted the presidential election results. Once more detailed data about voted ballots is available, a more accurate analysis of how gender and racial bias among voters rated versus other factors can be done, of course.
posted by eviemath at 8:19 PM on November 7 [11 favorites]


...absolute media blackouts in the days leading up to the election.

Nah, not going to happen. For a start online debate/propaganda cannot be practically shut down by a mere law short of literally pulling the plug on the whole internet, and MAGA and their SCOTUS will never allow the online propaganda machine to be turned off while it benefits them and their goals so effectively.
posted by Pouteria at 11:50 PM on November 7


Well, it's pretty clear it isn't going to happen, but not because it's at all impossible.

New Zealand does it, albeit only on election day. More general rules about election advertising are interesting also, especially the spending limits.

Australia also does it, albeit in a woefully outdated way, banning only TV and radio advertising for the three days prior to election day. Australia also provides funding (by reimbursement) for candidates in federal elections provided they receive at least four percent of the total first preference votes in an election.

None of these things are impossible by their nature, they just require the will. So, yeah, impossible in reality, maybe.
posted by dg at 12:11 AM on November 8 [5 favorites]


Tight limits on spending and donations, with as few loopholes as is legally possible, much greater transparency over who is donating, removal of any tax incentives for political donations, absolute media blackouts in the days leading up to the election.

Absolutely, and I think this (and the two party system) is a massive part of the reason the US is so fucked up.

Unfortunately, we have a SCOTUS that has taken the tortured view that this is "free speech" and that you can't do anything at all. At the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if they just flat out legalize open bribery as free speech before long.
posted by photo guy at 4:30 AM on November 8 [3 favorites]


Are you saying that estimated treatment effect sizes for an abnormal classroom situation can be transported somehow to voter behavior and thus we can estimate the effect that misogyny has on vote outcomes? Color me entirely skeptical.

There’s also a ton of research that gender bias in hiring is concentrate in different industries, nonexistent for some professions, much larger than others, etc. I think it’s a lot more complicated than “there’s a gender bias ergo this many people would have voted differently sans that gender bias”
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:52 AM on November 8


Gallego, Slotkin, and others won, and they have almost identical positions as Harris does on Palestine/Gaza/Israel. The same people that voted for Democratic senators couldn’t vote for the Democratic president on the exact same issue? On the same ballot?
posted by girlmightlive at 5:55 AM on November 8 [3 favorites]


Do we know if split ticket voting in those instances is higher this year for dems than it has been in past years?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:18 AM on November 8 [1 favorite]


Gallego in AZ is not called yet.

He does have more actual votes than Harris (not just a higher percentage).
posted by nat at 7:20 AM on November 8 [1 favorite]


W/R/T the decades-long right-wing attack on the "reality-based community," 404Media reports some people unsubscribing because they feel "nothing matters."
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:45 AM on November 8 [2 favorites]


> W/R/T the decades-long right-wing attack on the "reality-based community," 404Media reports some people unsubscribing because they feel "nothing matters."

Wow, that sucks. With the understanding that some of these canceled subscriptions are probably coming from people who are nervous about the financial implications of 4 more years of Trump and just want to cut spending where they can, the fact is we need more independent media like 404 to push back against the "we welcome our new fascist overlords" approach of the legacy media.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:58 AM on November 8 [1 favorite]


It sucks, but I think 404Media got the message and I applaud them for that statement. People expressed to the publication their dissatisfaction with the current state of reporting, and the publication said "We heard you. We know it sucks in general, but we're going to try extra hard". I hope some of the people who cancelled their subscriptions see that response and change their minds. If only more powerful platforms like the Washington Post or New York Times could be as responsible.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:12 AM on November 8 [2 favorites]


Are you saying that estimated treatment effect sizes for an abnormal classroom situation can be transported somehow to voter behavior and thus we can estimate the effect that misogyny has on vote outcomes?

As I directly wrote/said, I’m saying that people often underestimate or disbelieve the scale of impact that sexism and racism can have, and I gave two examples to illustrate that as a general principle.
posted by eviemath at 8:54 AM on November 8 [2 favorites]


The same people that voted for Democratic senators couldn’t vote for the Democratic president on the exact same issue? On the same ballot?

I've read on online chatter that supposedly there were considerable amounts of Trump voters who voted for president and then left the rest of the ballot blank. If this is true, then it is amazing that these candidates were saved by wide-scale lazy slob behavior.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:50 PM on November 8 [1 favorite]


I have heard speculation about this from Democrats, but I haven’t heard this from either actual people who voted for Trump or analysis of actual votes. And I’d be hesitant to embrace the “the people we don’t like are stupid, the situation isn’t complex at all” solution. I think it’s much more likely we had split ticket voting.
posted by corb at 2:58 PM on November 8 [4 favorites]


Posted some current Muslim and Latino vote breakdowns at the elections thread .

Anyway, I had a very "uhuh" reaction to this. Knives are out? Campaign was apparently not as excellent or flawless? Both?
RS: Dem Insiders Begged Team Harris Not to Campaign With Liz Cheney -
“People don’t want to be in a coalition with the devil,” says a Democratic source who was appalled by Harris’ embrace of Dick Cheney


(I'm mostly scanning for Palestine news so I don't always catch the originating reports that people would then be speaking in reference to, so finally this floated past my timeline. Also apparently some guy called Mark Wade is being used to mark a shift in the narrative about how selfish and miscalculated Biden has been.)
posted by cendawanita at 2:48 AM on November 9 [4 favorites]


One of our local TV stations speculated on the existence of "Klobuchar-Trump voters". In Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar beat the polls to win by 16 points. Harris won Minnesota by 4.

It may be a bit more complicated than that. Klobuchar got about 138k more votes than Harris. But, Trump got 226k more than White (who was, frankly, not a serious candidate).

Harris got about 60k fewer votes than Biden 2020 statewide. Trump only got about 35k more votes than he got in The wide Klobuchar margin might be because a lot of Republicans who turned out to vote for Trump weren't motivated to vote for Royce White. Several variables may have been in play.
posted by gimonca at 4:45 AM on November 11


« Older Running with Nihilism   |   Ives in his own voice Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments