Summary
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, has suggested he may run for president in 2028.
Reflecting on the Democrats’ loss to Donald Trump and JD Vance, he admitted: “A large number of people did not believe we were fighting for them in the last election – and that’s the big disconnect.”
Walz said his life experience, rather than ambition, would guide his decision.
Though his VP campaign was marred by gaffes, he remains open to running if he feels prepared.
I’m not convinced there will be an election in 2028…
There won’t at the current trajectory. There won’t even be midterms.
I remember Republicans checking out on elections back in 2018 because they bought hard into the Trump “elections are rigged” propaganda. The GOP lost seven Senate seats that year as conservative turnout plunged.
I wonder if Democrats will make the same mistake in 2026.
No, I don’t think Democrats are ready to make new mistakes yet. They still won’t abandon their devotion to the old mistakes.
Not sure about rigged, but honestly, depending on how the next few years go, it may be straight up dangerous for non-republican Americans to vote. While that’s by no means a certainty, people should keep an eye on any electoral changes made in their state.
If Republicans experience a route like they suffered in 2018, it will likely be due to the mushy indie republican-when-its-convenient voters breaking ranks in droves, just like they did in prior Dem wave years. That’s what Harris was banking on in 2024 when she paraded around her pet RINOs Liz Cheney and Jeff Flake. She just failed to understand that these wishy-washy voters are chasing less war and less disruption and more protectionist economics, something Trump was able to dangle over their heads (twice!) to win the GOP primary / national election.
Republicans don’t really seem to get it, either. Which is why they think the midterm after a wave year is the perfect time to put Grade A psychos all over the down-ballots and end up losing statewide in Alabama of all places as a result.
The “we won’t be having any more elections” crowd is heavily invested in a theory that Republicans can get their own base to sit down, shut up, and follow orders. But the last eight years of Trump should be an indication of the exact opposite. The party is being lead by the base, which means the prior generation’s power brokers like the Bushs and Cheneys and Bloombergs no longer have a place in it.
This line of thinking has preserved whatever is left of my optimism. Let us hope my fellow Americans continue to function predictably.
That’s completely wishful and fantastical thinking. By midterms the base will be so propagandized again to just forget about the regime robbing them blind left and right. I want to believe it, but recent history has taught me otherwise.
By midterms the base will be so propagandized again to just forget about the regime robbing them blind left and right.
DOGE is currently lining up a big chunk of the Social Security Administration. There’s some speculation as to whether they’ll even be able to keep delivering checks in another few months. Onboarding new recipients will be functionally impossible.
Then you’ve got the seemingly routine instance of airplane collisions and accidents. Big historically conservative-friendly districts are losing whole swaths of their workforce. NASA is downsizing in Huntsville, Alabama and Galveston, Texas and Cape Canaveral, Florida. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
All the friendly Republican press didn’t save Congress in 2006 or 2018, and for good reason. You have a very different perspective on politics when you land on the unemployment line.
That said, if Dems fumble as hard as they did in 2002, its very possible they could hand the GOP a historic victory by disenchanting the entire liberal electorate with their cowardice and inaction.
Again, I want to believe, but recent history doesn’t provide that angle. During COVID there were people saying it was a government hoax as they were dying in the hospital. If they can be brainwashed to not believe their own fucking death, then nothing will change them.
I’m not talking about some of the moderates who don’t really mind Trump but don’t stay informed, by the way. I think some small percentage of these folks will be able to see the reality, just not in time.
Time to start over on Lemmy and use a VPN, sounds like…(?) been worrying about this kind of thing
They made it in 2024. The results of abstaining or protest voting were obvious, and these idiots did it anyway. And here we are.
The results of abstaining or protest voting were obvious
Absolutely. The current Dem leadership is now wildly unpopular and vulnerable to primary. Just like after 2016, the seeds have been planted for a big anti-incumbent wave.
I wonder if Democrats will make the same mistake in 2026.
i really, really fucking hope this doesnt happen, i’m going to fucking lose my shit if it does. Because unless things change, it’s not looking great for the trump midterms right now.
That makes no sense at all. 2018 was two years after Trump won in 2016, and he rarely claimed elections were rigged in 2016, because he won.
In 2020, however, he was gloating about how elections were rigged, and republicans did okay in the midterms later in 2022.
he rarely claimed elections were rigged in 2016, because he won.
He was highly outspoken in 2016 straight up until the elections closed, then did a number of interviews after the fact where he insisted he could have won in states like California and New York if the vote hadn’t been rigged against him. There was also a big wave of “RINOs are undermining the party!” discourse, particularly after McCain spiked the Senate vote on repealing Obamacare that lead to a ton of internal GOP drama.
In 2020, however, he was gloating about how elections were rigged, and republicans did okay in the midterms later in 2022.
The J6 riot was the product of four years of Republican discourse, insisting elections were rigged. Once Trump was out of office and banned from Twitter, his ability to amplify conspiracy theories was diminished. The Republican media machine was able to pivot back to a “We’re the majority! We’re going to flood the polls! Red Wave!” exuberance and away from the internalized defeatism post-2016.
Shouldn’t be hard. All they have to say is “Remember the townhalls, and how they mocked you while you paid for them to make your lives worse? We’ll put it back.” They don’t even need to add anything, just try to rebuild. Anything would be a positive change when you’re sliding into the negative side of the scale (and in two years, it’ll be far far far to the left)
Democrats will make the same mistake in 2026.
The only thing the Democrats failed at was fielding a fat old white male felon narcissist serial rapist with ties to a foreign nation-state. If they can just do that they’ll win no matter what.
Sorry if you didn’t get a personal hug from America’s Mom and Dad but you’re kinda expected to make a value judgement between two options and choose the best. As a group, you did not.
Only blame Dems who voted for a kleptocratic felon. The rest did their best to field the best candidate they could and lost to a traitor – and those guys need to start with our apology for being stupid, same as all of Ukraine needs our apology, and next Moldova.
The only thing the Democrats failed at was fielding a fat old white male felon narcissist serial rapist with ties to a foreign nation-state.
Is that why Obama lost in 2008?
Look, guys. I’m rather concerned that the states that haven’t seceded by then won’t even have electricity anymore.
There will, but it won’t be a fair one. They have “elections” in Russia, too.
There will absolutely be an election.
It will be a farce, a Russian election where there’s only one possibility to win.
If we’re not pitchforks in the street before then, I don’t hold much hope
Or maybe a Hungary-style election where the entire media landscape shills for the ruling class and people on social media are bombarded with misinformation and one-sided reporting.
sounds a lot like the last 12 years TBF
Sounds like you described the US process as well. May not be far from it now.
Certainly could never happen here, twice at least. /s
That’s close to what happened in 2024 tbh. Sites like Reddit, Instagram, and YouTube were heavily botted and full of bad faith actors to promote misinformation. Since there are no guardrails like BlueSky has for instance, the bots could show up early to every thread/post/video to set the narrative and then they’d be the last to reply before threads closed to get the final word in.
I believe the future depends on more Federated sites to become mainstream and for Federated sites to adopt the same moderation mechanisms used by BlueSky.
States run the elections, so I’m positive there will be one. But whether or not the results are respected… I’m not so confident in that.
I’m not confident the results in red states will be accurate to begin with.
There will be since elections are held at the state level. Many won’t be free or fair in the red states, but they’ll be good in the blue states.
If red states don’t hold elections, that’s fewer electoral college votes we need to win the presidency and we wouldn’t win in red states anyway.
Please, Texas and Florida. Oh, please, don’t hold elections. 🙏
The way I read it, electoral college votes are the one thing where individual states can somewhat easily cancel elections for President, as long as they do so before the election. States have broad discretion over the appointment of electors. All states currently appoint them based on the results of elections, but the rules around that are all set by State legislation, and can be reset by States as well. The only Federal requirement is that the rules don’t change after any election is held.
Prior Supreme Courts have ruled that things like the Equal Protection clause may be used to challenge any act where the legislature restricts voting rights once they have been granted. But who knows what this clown Court would make of that.
Congressional elections, on the other hand, must be held in order for those seats to be filled. So any state that unilaterally cancels elections across the board will be sending nobody to Congress (and likely any expired Senate terms as well). Some states may go the extra mile and cancel the election for President, but not for Congress. We’ll see how that turns out.
The one thing we have going for us is that Don’s dementia and age are going to increasingly make it difficult for him to hold his party together. And there is the chance one of those things will leave the GOP trying to field a new traitor to try and get the cult to consolidate around.
once he kicks the bucket, assuming they can’t find someone the republican base will support as fervently as trump, the entire party is done for, it will collapse into a blackhole of nothingness.
I’d like to believe that, I really would, but let’s be honest with ourselves. The current republicans (in leadership) aren’t stupid. They’ve gotten pretty decent at running with donald’s bullshit and spinning it. They also know that politics isn’t much different than sports teams for the vast majority of the voting public in america. They’ll not have trouble finding someone who is charismatic enough to spit verbal acid at opponents in a primary AND can be riled up against the demographic target of choice.
The only real challenge for them will be 1.) finding someone with donald’s ‘blessing’ or a connection to him to set it up as ‘taking over’ so the republican voters will find it so amazing, AND 2.) ensuring someone like musk doesn’t try to torpedo everything by using vast amounts of money to try to buy their way into the ring.
maybe, but you’re talking about finding someone who can win the graces of the people who like trump, who see trump as this historic figure. That’s a REALLY tall order. Even if you hemorrhage like 10% of your voter base, that’s enough to lose. If the republicans are smart they’re already working on grooming the next republican figurehead, but i doubt they are. Though they might end up playing their cards right, i’m not really convinced it’s a reliable determination to assume that they will find someone to replace trump, these things are just way too volatile.
Just like the dems. Who will we vote for then, the greens?
no, the dems, because literally who else are you going to vote for lmao. There is always a budding dem/left leaning candidate, we will never have that problem, we don’t play as aggressively on that.
because literally who else are you going to vote for lmao.
Well, I’ll leave the entry blank. And I dont agree that theres always a budding dem candidate. The party is sickly and captured by the donors, particularly aipac. There is no way it magically becomes uncaptured without losing elections. So thats what I’m working on.
protest voting is definitely an option, although i wish it listed actual numbers. Kind of ruins the point if it’s just worthless to do.
Losing elections to the republicans? You mean the party that most lefties accuse the dems of being in bed with? Seems like a bold strategy. Do nothing and, when you do end up doing something, make sure it’s something that doesn’t actually do anything.
Kind of ruins the point if it’s just worthless to do.
My vote and other voters like me made the point to the DNC that if they ignore the will of a large enough segment of their base, they will absolutely lose the election. If everyone thought like you did, the DNC would completely ignore the entirety of their base. They clearly operate from a completely amoral calculation these days. They dont care about much of anything. Not law, not human dignity. Nothing.
Even Russia has elections
Nah, there probably will. Whoever is taking control of the US really don’t care about MAGA’s and 3rd terms. They’ll just put another puppet there, the new way of doing things in post-capitalism still maintains and some people will continue to get increasingly very rich doesn’t matter who the prez is. We finally reached “the future”.
There will definitely be an attempt to eliminate or “postpone” them. I’m certain Trump is looking at Putin in power and other governments in a state of war without elections as inspiration.
The Harris campaign had to cover the governor’s tracks when he tripped up during a California fundraiser by stating that the constitutionally-mandated system used to select the president, otherwise known as the electoral college, “needs to go”.
How the hell is that a gaffe? It’s both the truth and exactly what people want to hear. Any lib who thinks like that needs to kindly keep their mouths shut for the next four years. This country needs radical change, the only choice you get is which one you want.
and exactly what people want to hear
It’s what people who care about democracy want to hear. That certainly isn’t everyone.
Here, let me grab a sharpie and fix that.
The Harris campaign made a cowardly attempt to walk back the governor’s statements when he said during a California fundraiser that the broken election systems used for gerrymandering and enabling the double elections of Donald Trump, “needs to go”.
Just guessing, but it might be a gaffe because it could be skewed to sound like he doesn’t believe in democracy. Of course, this makes no sense because Trump has quite literally said that we might not need another election in four years.
A more careful statement might have been, “the electoral college needs to be replaced with a system where every citizen’s vote has the same magnitude.” If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy, I don’t know what is.
Edit: For you pedantic mathematicians, I’ll add that everyone’s vote should have the same magnitude, and that magnitude should be greater than zero.
If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy,
That is the mathematical ideal of populism.
Democracy is “government by consent of the governed”; There is no good way of democratically electing a singular individual. Which is why the presidency should be little more than a figurehead, with very little actual authority.
deleted by creator
most of the electorate
You just defined “populism”.
deleted by creator
Again: Democracy is government by the consent of the governed. The system you described made no effort to ensure constituent consent. You described a populist system, not a Democratic one.
There are many good ways to popularly elect a singular representative. The one you described is one of the better ones, but it is still two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. It is still populist: the sheep does not consent to a “government” that can put it on a menu.
A democratic system would be one in which the government lacks the power to put the sheep on that ballot: the minority has no cause to protest.
There are no good ways to democratically elect a singular representative. As soon as you allow that representative sufficient power that the minority protest, the appointment of that representative over the minority may be populist, but it is not democratic.
deleted by creator
The pearl-clutching Tone Police in the Democratic Party are nothing if not exhausting, that’s for sure.
The Republicans can and do say just about whatever the fuck they want, and that’s sanewashed, and overlooked, and brushed under the rug, sometimes even celebrated, but the tone police in the “liberal media” and the left, and the Democratic Party itself will be there, wagging-finger at the ready, if some Democrat misses a semicolon .
deleted by creator
i’m not even sure what that text is supposed to be referencing?
I assume it’s not literally the message itself, because that would be kind of broad. I’m guessing he just said it weirdly, and that bothered people, because of course it did.
Him calling the GOP weird was not a gaffe but the campaign made him walk away from that language because it might offend potential turncoats. The fact he is internalizing the criticism worries me.
My only “problem” with the weird-comments were that they were overused. While it is certainly true, and Waltz had every reason to call it out, supporters often kept repeating it in the context of “look how triggered Republicans are by this”. After a while it gave me the same vibe as people shoehorning “let’s go brandon” into every situation.
After a while it gave me the same vibe as people shoehorning “let’s go brandon” into every situation.
Except that…worked?
One of the takeaways from the 2024 election is that if you have something that works, repetition is key for the idiot American electorate.
Yeah, interesting how the Harris campaign had all the momentum after the Waltz nomination, then pivoted back to neoliberal wonkiness and then crashed and burned again.
It was her perpetual problem too. She’d start out with energetic support for progressive policies, get momentum, and then a few days later (presumably after talking with advisors and donors) clarify that actually she didn’t mean it and what she really wanted was strictly limited neoliberalism. It’s why she failed in the 2020 primary and I wish she learned something from that.
Could she have given donors the middle finger and overcome lack of money to win through better policy?
Probably? At least the big ones I’m sure shed have gotten a lot of small ones.
Could she have given donors the middle finger
“Losing” is a middle finger to the donors.
To a donor, the only thing worse than losing is winning without the donor’s support. A donor would rather lose than be proven irrelevant.
context of “look how triggered Republicans are by this”.
If you want to shake the cult’s faith in their cult leader, then yes, you want to trigger them. They’re triggered because they sense the loss of innate, automatic strongman support.
When you’re trying to get a political movement going, there’s no such thing as an overused slogan. The fact that it was getting used so much was evidence it was working, and part of that was because it got at the right in the same way that they try to other minorities
Tim Walz unleashed would have won this.
He was hamstrug by Harris. He’s likely the dem’s best choice for 2028.
So of course they’ll run Newsome or Shapiro or Hillary Clinton again because they’re a bunch of idiots.
Give me AOC or Bernie.
No. Run AOC
Muricans won’t show up to elect a woman as president and y’all need to figure this out.
I love AOC but if she ran as president you’re gonna see exactly what happened the last two times a woman ran.
Gotta be realistic. It’s a shitty reality but it is the reality we live in.
Walz is a good candidate with a history of helping his citizens. AOC is a firecracker for sure, but the public isn’t going to elect a woman of color. They just aren’t.
That’s what they said about black men until one ran as a progressive and won twice by sizable margins. Perhaps it’s not the race / gender that’s the biggest hindrance but the policies.
This we need an actual progression
That was a VERY different time. We didn’t have these little screens programming our social views.
I’ve said it in other replies that I hope I’m wrong, but we’ve been backsliding for some time, now.
Kinda like how we saw a lot of white civil rights supporters in the 60s go flying to the right.
We’ve been here before.
I don’t want to hear any of this nonsense until a progressive loses a general election. Until then, all you’re doing is repeating the talking points neoliberals need people to believe in order to keep trying the same bullshit over and over.
Sure thing.
Clinton was old guard. Harris was more or less trying to be a continuance of the same damn thing. I’d like AOC to at least be on the primary ballot.
I would too. I like her. A lot.
I just don’t think she would have as good a chance as we all wish she could.
Make no mistake, I would LOVE to be wrong here, I would love to think the Murican people have evolved enough to realize that a woman in charge would probably be in our best interest, I just don’t see it happening. At least not in 2028
I give exactly zero fucks that she’s a woman. I don’t think a woman in charge would be in our best interest. I don’t think a man in charge would be in our best interest.
We need a leader who has the actual ability to evaluate the system, figure out what’s broken with EVIDENCE, and can articulate it.
That’s you. You are not everyone
I don’t have a problem with it, either.
We are not the general public
Then primary her.
I’m down.
I don’t think it will happen because
A) she’s a woman and they’ve tried that twice already
And more importantly B) she has said many times she doesn’t agree with a lot of the democratic party’s policies. She has beliefs that would undoubtedly vibe with a ton of voters but there’s been a very obvious pattern of both parties only primary-ing “fly right” candidates.
I think Bernie scared the crap out of them and they don’t want a repeat of that. Heaven forbid we get a candidate actually for the people!
Called this. “Harris lost because she’s a woman of color” was always a preemptive excuse for shutting out AOC.
The party is holding back women in order to hamstring one person, and it’s gross.
It wasn’t the singular reason she lost.
There were many.
But it IS a factor, an ugly one but one people seriously need to come to terms with.
But apparently I hate AOC for pointing this out
It’s not about the gender at all. Dems don’t seem to care about that. They care about having a reason to get off the couch. The only time Republicans win is when Dems can’t be bothered to get their asses moving.
What matters is having someone exciting enough to get the Dems to show up to the booth. Neither Hillary nor Kamala brought fresh energy or anything exciting except a continuation of the status quo establishment.
Please, no Tim Waltz either. I love the guy but my god, we need something fresh besides another sweet grandpa on the ballot.
Please, democrats. No. We have to do better. Biden barely slid by in 2020. Ffs. No more sweet grandpa’s scuffling around the debate stage.
That’s my first choice, personally, and if she wins the primaries, that’d be awesome.
Otherwise, I could still get pretty hyped about a Walz/AOC ticket, which would pave a more conventional path to a 2032 AOC presidential run.
We don’t “run” candidates. If you want someone else to run you need to speak with them.
Sorry if this seems pedantic but I’m getting tired of the language that suggests there’s some sort of cabal deciding who does or does not run.
The reason a lot of people think that way, is that any truly progressive candidate isn’t backed by the DNC.
Also, very recently, AOC was denied a seat at the table for a dying, cancer ridden old white guy. Granted, it wasn’t a spot in an election, but her own party looked the other way for a leadership role.
What does committee seats have to do with running for office?
It speaks to who party leadership wants wielding power.
Yeah, but committee seats are where the establishment has explicit power. It’s easy to connect establishment whims with that very same establishment electing their choice. It’s a huge stretch to extend that to them dictating the votes of millions of people.
Or it speaks to the “norms” that Democrats slavishly adhere to.
AOC is relatively a junior member of Congress. I disagree with the “norms” nonsense in this day and age but the point is that not every action has a deeper meaning and those who keep parroting this belief have clearly never worked with a large number of people before.
It’s a litmus test for bigger things.
you’re right, we didin’t want hillary, the cabal wanted her, we wanted bernie, the cabal wanted harris, we wanted dean, the cabal said his whoop was too much…don’t be this naive dan
We also didn’t want Hilary and got Obama. The cabal isn’t all powerful.
They weren’t all powerful. I’d highly recommend reading up on how the Clintons captured the DNC after Obama. They very clearly did not want him, and made sure that something like him couldn’t happen again.
If the DNC was that powerful Bernie wouldn’t have won any states. And it’s not like we’re seeing polling (even progressively aligned polling) with 65% for Bernie and then somehow getting Biden. He was in the 30-40% range the whole time and then got 30-40% of the vote.
The DNC will tilt the scales in favor of the centrist establishment, but they don’t dictate the result and saying they do is just a recipe for progressives to give up and check out rather than stay in the fight.
if the DNC was the powerful Bernie wouldn’t have won any states.
Exactly. If you go back to my original comment, all I said is that AOC needs to run if she wants to run. There’s no one picking the people who are on the ballot. If that were the case, the DNC would have blocked Bernie and Williamson. But they didn’t.
People run for office, at all levels. No one is deciding to “run candidates” like we’re choosing race horses to field for the day.
they don’t dictate the result and saying they do is just a recipe for progressives to give up and check out rather than stay in the fight.
Something keeps telling me that this is the goal of all the DNC Boogeyman talk.
17 years is a long time.
Which makes it less of a cabal and more of a group of people who have different opinions than some of us.
I wanted Bernie, but the primary shows that, no, the US populace didn’t want him.
The primary was decided long before most voters get a chance to vote. Our bullshit staggered primaries disenfranchise most of the country.
While I understand your frustration, you could always try to get your state to primary as soon as Iowa. By canvassing and working within the local election system.
Oh, and fight for ranked choice voting, too.
There was a primary. Bernie didn’t win the primary. The numbers were not there in any supportable way. Bernie had a nice lead in the beginning with early states like, I dunno, Vermont, but he didn’t pull in the votes.
Stop spreading disinformation.
Bold of him to assume there will be elections in 2028.
Fuckin should have been the nominee in the first place - him or Sanders.
Not sure of moderates are ok with Sanders. The center and right will keep calling Sanders a socialist and communist.
Who fucking cares? The moderates who were supposed to swoop in and save Kamala pointedly didn’t. Catering towards a fictional segment of the electorate is (demonstrably) a recipe for failure.
You’re right, we should stop try appealing to moderates like Kamala did and just do what’s best for the working class.
That’s the vast majority of what I’m saying.
Well, your supposedly existing leftists didn’t achieve even that. I don’t remember where I heard it, but the saying gows something like “Catering towards a fictional segment of the electorate is (demonstrably) a recipe for failure.”
Probably because Harris and Biden succeeded in alienating a group that SHOULD have been a slam dunk for them: Arab-Americans.
And also, they listened to their consultants instead of, you know, normal people. They were too busy jacking themselves off about how “great” the economy was to notice that MOST people in the country are straight up not having a good time.
The Arab-American vote was crucial in Michigan, and they threw that away. And frankly, I’d argue that they alienated a lot more moderate voters by INSISTING the economy was better (failing to realize economy != people’s actual lives) and staunchly defending the status quo on that front.
Ah yes, Arab-Americans, known for their tolerance and feminist ideals, did not turn out for the woman preaching tolerance for all and love for Israel.
To capture a more left leaning audience you are going to have to abandon this notion notoriously conservative and backwards cultures will suddenly be progressive and accepting.
Don’t do that
It’s true, why should we try to support a group that fundamentally disagrees and hates a large part of the base? There’s no salvaging such disagreements.
The moderates who were supposed to swoop in and save Kamala pointedly didn’t.
kamala had 75 million votes, to the 77 million that trump got.
If anybody fucked up the election it was the hardline commies or super aggressive left leaning people that refused to vote for kamala because of whatever silly reason they had.
IDK why people on the internet are willingly this fucking stupid. Evidently looking at the biden results, there were about 7-8 million more votes than kamala received, which is considerably more inline with what you would expect had younger voters actually, well, voted.
You would literally need to be on fucking crack to take anything else away from the results of these recent elections. IF ANYTHING, the obvious answer is that the younger voting block NEEDS to go and vote, because historically, they don’t.
TL;DR if you didn’t already pick this up from basic civics knowledge, the vast majority of the voterbase is going to vote for “whoever is on the ticket this time” that’s why trump even gets traction at all, maybe 10-20% of his voter base actually cares about him in any substantive manner. It’s the same for the dems, 75% of the base is people who will vote for WHOEVER gets put on the primary ticket, some of those are going to be more moderate though, and if you run someone like bernie, they will pull out or switch support, which is one of the risks you take when running a more hardline candidate.
Trump was just able to viciously mobilize his segment of the population against the republican voter base (who are historically known to behave like this)
We do not have this advantage on the dem side, we literally have to mobilize the youth, that’s the ONE thing that can save us.
Voter turnout in these elections was lower than in the 2020 elections
yeah, primarily because you can’t vote by mail in the 2024 election, where as you could in the 2020 election, enfranchising more people to go out and vote, and historically, it’s not republicans that struggle to vote, it’s the democrats.
I still think it was voters showing their protest against the Israeli Genocide. I mean, I voted for Harris, but ffuuuuuuckk, all she had to do was say she’d at least try to find another way other than selling weapons.
i’m not really convinced it was a significant enough margin to outpace the usual no show voter rolls. Historically we’ve had issues with turnout, and when it gets easier, more people vote, when it gets harder less people vote. I really don’t think something that seems to really explicitly mobilize people under the age of 25 and above the age of 18 would be a very significant voter block to begin with. There’s probably more people in there, but you’re talking about people who are ethnically arab, and i wouldn’t necessarily count those as those are going to be opposed to pretty much anything you do in the middle east regarding israel.
Someone would have to do some actual polling or research to find out whether or not it had a significant effect, but i’m betting it wasn’t. It probably had something to do with it, but literally every campaign has these 1% base issues, it’s literally unavoidable.
If everyone voted mainline Trump still would have won the election. Greens got 860000, while the Libertarians got 650000 and RFK got 750000.
Snarks over “basic civics knowledge” in tl:dr longer than actual post.
Rails about the popular vote in a nation using an electoral collage.
Rails about the popular vote in a nation using an electoral collage.
we use both the popular vote, and the electoral vote in presidential elections. Popular vote doesn’t actually contribute to anything other than demonstration public sentiment, very clearly.
The electoral vote primarily fucks with the house and congress, since it’s on the same level, it does also elect the president, but that’s usually irrelevant, as the popular vote generally tracks with that.
left leaning people that refused to vote for kamala because of whatever silly reason they had
we literally have to mobilize the youth, that’s the ONE thing that can save us.
The youth think centrists are useless traitorous war criminal arseholes. You think you can talk down to progressives but somehow get the youth vote? You’re on crack.
Didn’t ‘the youth’ break for trump in historic proportions compared to previous elections? The males, at the very least.
Harris lost 6% of youth (under 30). Largely because dems ignored the economy and jobs concerns, according to NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/07/g-s1-33331/unpacking-the-2024-youth-vote-heres-what-we-know-so-far
Ah, so it wasn’t that they voted more for trump, just that there was a shift towards him from a solidly democrat lean before… and a huge one in terms of males (41% to 56%, looking at that article), like I said?
sort of, this is like running a trial on whether “murder is bad” and being surprised when somebody answers “no” even though it was an option you gave them.
the youth follows the same trends seen in older demographics, but is still consistently dem/left leaning over all. This is nothing new, and i’m not sure why anybody is really talking about it. If anything, the strongest indicator we have for who you vote for is going to be age group, and then minority/ethnic status.
The youth think centrists are useless traitorous war criminal arseholes. You think you can talk down to progressives but somehow get the youth vote? You’re on crack.
yeah, that’s the meme. That’s the problem. People are pretending like it’s the 65 year old life long dem voters that are fucking us over, but it’s realistically going to be the youth, who mostly don’t vote, and when they do, often not productively.
Moderates can take their own fucking advice for once and vote blue no matter who.
Left Sanders Republican reich (rnc) +-----------------------+---------+--------------+ Republican lite (dnc)Removed by mod
Thinking there is going to be a real election in 2028 is the most optimistic thing I’ve heard in a while.
There’s going to be an election, or we’re going to learn the meaning of “All enemies, foreign and domestic”.
More like a Russian/Chinese election.
Bulgarian.
Come on, we all know it’ll be just like the Russian elections.
A Bulgarian election has only one candidate and gets 100%of the votes. It’s from the way Todor Zhikov won the “elections”.
There’s going to be an election but it won’t mean anything because it will be manipulated from the get-go.
It’s cute that he thinks there will be an election in 2028, or ever again, for that matter.
I’d vote for him, given that we’re still allowed to vote.
I’ll vote for him in the generals, I will beg other people to vote for him and I will spread the word on his policies, but I’d never vote for him in a million years in a primary. He’s just a republican in a blue tie on certain issues like Palestine.
Personally, I’m hoping Zelensky will run for US president after strong Dien in Ukraine. You might be thinking that someone from another country can’t be president. Well… looks at current situation in White House At least this one would be elected.
Walz was great in 2024. He had enthusiasm and actually answered the interviewers’ questions. I would have preferred the symbolic victory of a black woman president, but I like Walz better as an individual person. I think he could have won if he’d been the presidential candidate. Well, Harris won too, but I mean he could have won even with the voter suppression stealing all those democratic votes.
President Walz and Vice President Cortez is the future we need. But probably not the future we’ll get.
deleted by creator
Your black woman president actively help sending bombs to kill brown people in gaza. Not to mention all the brown people she fed to the private prison industry.
As a good liberal, you probably think of brown people as human as long as they’re rich and american
Are we playing the accuse people of having political views they don’t have game? Okay okay! My turn!
You’re a posadist. You want to encourage global nuclear war so society will collapse and communist aliens will save us. And I think your ideology is silly and look down on you for following it!
Removed by mod
*Medicine
It’s spelled ‘medecine’ in Dumbfuckistan.
probably. Stupid brits stole words
It isn’t healthy to wish murder upon those who disagree with you about a military conflict they aren’t involved in.
Removed by mod
How dare you say those things about my mother? I’ll have you know the chemical number for carbon is 6. You’re a fool for believing that vaccines cause autism.
Autism cause vaccine
Why are you bringing up her race when it isn’t a relevant factor here?
Removed by mod
I would have preferred the symbolic victory of a black woman.
This is why DEI is getting bitchslapped the fuck off.
And why are planes falling out the sky after they got rid of DEI?
I would have preferred the symbolic victory of a black woman
Really? Electing president by the color of the skin and/or sex? You totally deserve the current president then. He perfectly symbolizes your values: racism, sexism and degeneratism.
Okay.
I love this response.
Just for shits and giggles, I’ll try giving an actual argument.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton was right. It was her turn. She won the popular vote. I hate everything about that woman. I hate that she’s part of a dynasty, I hate that she rigged the primaries, I hate that her campaign donated money to Trump because they thought radicalising the right would lead to an easy win.
But she was right. The people did want a woman president, and that’s what they voted for. Walz is a really nice, genial guy. I like him. If he were a woman, I think he’d be a different person, or he’d not be a politician. Because to be a woman in the heart of the patriarchy, you need to be strong. You have to have unbreakable armour with no cracks. If the sexist system is challenged, then maybe the next woman president can be a nice person like Walz. But if we keep on having this system where women have to fight to be taken seriously and then aren’t liked for being fighters, then we’re never gonna have equality.
I don’t really care all that much about how good Harris is with a spreadsheet. Her debate and interview performance is important to me in a primary, not in a presidential election. At that point, I’m thinking about the future. About the girls who are going to become women in government. I want them to have more role models. I care way more about that than if Harris is nice, or if her budget plan is perfect.
I think Harris can be what America needs better than Walz can. Personality is only important in an election, symbolism is important in the white house.
I also love this response.
Thank you!
It’s cute that they think there’s gonna be another election.
He’s got some things going for him. Male. Presumably heterosexual. Caucasian. Old (but perhaps not quite old enough). I say go for it.
Dude, just say “not AOC.”
I hate this persistent belief that much of America is still too racist and sexist to accept a black or woman president. I hate it, even if it may be true.
Unfortunately we see the country as better than it really is, or at least, I DID. After the election I saw how many people wanted to kick people out of the country because they believe immigrants are bad. Then they seem to have no problem with a South African immigrant pulling the strings. Immigrants weren’t the problem with them, but the skin color. We did it before we became a country in the 1600s, and we’ll continue doing it, because we love believing that our skin color makes us superior.
