• BlameThePeacock
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    1 month ago

    You’re right that she was Hilary 2.0, but for the wrong reason.

    It has very little to do with policy.

    The difference between winning and losing was almost certainly just people who preferred a man over a woman as president. Whether they will say it or not, America is still not ready for a female president.

    “In 2020, men were almost evenly divided between Trump and Biden, unlike in 2016 when Trump won men by 11 points.”

    This election, Trump won men by 10 points again.

    Democrats have got the largest share of women’s votes in every election since 1988.

    Losing 10 points of the male vote isn’t caused by support for Israel, or a lack of progressive policies.

    This is the sad truth.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s the economy. They can scream the economy numbers are great but the people are feeling it differently at the grocery store, gas station, paying rent, etc.

        • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          “It’s broken because of Biden and she should have fixed it during the last four years.” It’s stupid logic but that’s what it came down to for some.

          • BlameThePeacock
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 month ago

            Women didn’t buy that logic, but men did?

            Harris won essentially the same percentage of women as Biden did, but lost entirely on the fact that fewer men voted for her (by a wide margin)

            I’m pretty sure the simple explanation is right here, and it had nothing to do with the economy.

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

              but lost entirely on the fact that fewer men voted for her (by a wide margin)

              it had nothing to do with the economy.

              Thats not true at all-- its just what you wish was true.
              She lost in every single demographic besides white college educated women. She especially lost amongst the poor voters. She lost amongst nonwhite women and not college educated women.

              Gender and race certainly had a part in it, but the facts dont match your conclusions. Lies dont become anyone – even someone dealing with a hard loss.

              We have enough lies to sort through already and your adding to the pile will not help matters. How about we make some effort to get to “the truth” not “your truth”.

              • BlameThePeacock
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’m not talking about who lost vs won each demographic, I’m referring to changes to percentages which you don’t seem to understand.

                Harris lost more male votes than female, far more. It simply doesn’t make sense that she would lose such a massive difference in men if the economy was the primary reason. Men don’t care about the economy significantly more than women do, it’s an issue that both genders put at the top of their priorities.

                It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Harris being female cost her at least some votes, and she didn’t lose by very much. Only 3 people changed sides this election out of every 100 voters(net of course), that’s it. It’s not hard to think that may be due to her gender or race.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’m not going deny that there were certainly sexist people that wouldn’t vote for a woman. But I don’t think I can agree it was the difference between winning and losing.

      I think it’s much, much more likely that the progressive voting bloc that was able to start winning the primaries in 2020 and was railroaded by the party (twice) that’s been completely shunted off to the side in favor of some mythical swing Republican voter is very much the reason.

      They think putting a woman of color up as the candidate would be enough to win that bloc. Which goes to show the root of the problem. It’s the rainbow capitalist issue. “If we slap a pride flag on the person of color we got as our new representative and change our single bathroom signs to say ‘all gender,’ we’ll be in the right! We’ll fool those hippies and socialist dirtbags yet!”

      This has failed them. Over and over. The most thinking people of the entire country (biased opinion, I grant) aren’t easily appeased. Things were so bad in 2020 that bloc mostly held their noses to vote for Biden. And they figured running against trump was the only ammunition they needed to lock down that bloc and they could hold them no problem while also courting the neocons!

      They are funding a genocide. Basically perpetrating it. They were going to have to bend over backwards to get anyone left of Biden to vote for them. And they unquestionably didn’t. They basically told us to go fuck ourselves. Again.

      And they fucked themselves by doing so.

      • BlameThePeacock
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Your reasoning doesn’t explain the male vs female vote difference. Kamala won essentially the same percentage of the female vote as Biden, but lost because she didn’t capture male voters. Why would only male voters abandon her based on the policies you mentioned?