4 ms·

1. The margin of victory does not matter—If Trump won, the Democratic establishment would have largely accepted the results and if Harris won, the GOP would hav

by km144 2y ago

1. The margin of victory does not matter—If Trump won, the Democratic establishment would have largely accepted the results and if Harris won, the GOP would have fully rejected the results. Everyone knew this was true. There is a fundamental asymmetry in respect for democracy between the parties. 2. Harris actually did just ruin it for women going forward. The Democratic party has now put forward two women against Trump that arguably both failed in spectacular fashion. It's not really clear to me why they did this, but they did it, and I don't know why we'd see a woman secure a major party's nomination for president in the next couple decades as a result.

ifyoubuildit 2y ago
1. Maybe. I am happy to not be testing this hypothesis. 2. I think the problem is inserting women that the voters aren't asking for. They could try asking who to run instead of telling people who to vote for, and they just might get a woman into the office. There are women out there that have their own real following that could probably get there with the machine behind them, but the machine doesn't want any of them. Depending on how things go, Tulsi could be the next best chance, if people stop making up shit about her being a Russian asset. But shes on the red team, so the dems will tear her down if she tries.
- km144 2y ago
  Amy Klobuchar is probably the Democrats best example—she just once again significantly outperformed the other national Democratic candidate (Harris) in Minnesota. Personally I wouldn't trust Tulsi Gabbard to win anything. what the Dems need is someone who is a strong political force that has a track record of winning elections and winning over people who voted for Trump. I don't think gender is necessarily important but I do think that the results of Clinton and Harris against Trump should rightfully scare Dems away from that idea going forward.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Tulsi Gabbard is a Republican now; the Democrats won't put her up for anything.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Regarding (2), I agree, but I don't think the electorate is in for such nuance. Two women failed to win the presidency, and that simple fact is all that matters. I agree with the other commenter that we won't see the dems put another woman up for president for decades, and that's a damn shame. We might even see the GOP successfully get a woman into the White House before the dems do it, which is just embarrassing.
  - jonny_eh 2y ago
    > We might even see the GOP successfully get a woman into the White House before the dems do it, which is just embarrassing. That happened in the UK with Thatcher.
sanderjd 2y ago
This was not at all a spectacular failure. This election was an uphill battle from the start. Mitt Romney did not fail spectacularly when he couldn't beat a popular incumbent. It was impressive that he got as close as he did. The fundamentals here were similarly harsh for Harris, just for different reasons.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  Why was this election an uphill battle from the start? This was the dems election to lose as far as I can see. And isn't Harris the incumbent in this situation?
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    Because of the pandemic, the aftermath of which was awful inflation. This has been the pattern globally for a few years now. And US-specific, because of immigration. Yes, Harris was treated by voters as the incumbent, and the incumbent administration was unpopular. That is usually an uphill battle for the incumbent. It was never the dems election to lose. It's too bad you only saw that narrative! Plenty of people wrote about the possibility that this would be a pretty bog standard "reject the incumbents" election.
    - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      > It was never the dems election to lose. It's too bad you only saw that narrative! I find this baffling. With the dems tying themselves to biden and then Harris, it was absolutely an uphill battle. But that was an unforced error. If they had a robust primary, you have to assume there was someone on the blue team that could beat Trump. If not, then they deserved every bit of this anyway.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        Yes, and that's one of the problems: the DNC defers to tradition and "politeness" rather than what will win elections and keep the party in power. Right up front they should have told Biden he was not going to be the presumed nominee, and that he would have to fight it out in the primary like everyone else.
hajile 2y ago
Hillary Clinton still complains about the election being stolen by Trump (there were riots by Democrats back then too). Democrats still complain about Bush beating Gore in 2020. To say that Democrats would simply accepted the results if Trump won only the electoral college defies past history. Election denialism is found in both parties in large quantities.

by km144 2y ago

ifyoubuildit 2y ago

1. Maybe. I am happy to not be testing this hypothesis. 2. I think the problem is inserting women that the voters aren't asking for. They could try asking who to run instead of telling people who to vote for, and they just might get a woman into the office. There are women out there that have their own real following that could probably get there with the machine behind them, but the machine doesn't want any of them. Depending on how things go, Tulsi could be the next best chance, if people stop making up shit about her being a Russian asset. But shes on the red team, so the dems will tear her down if she tries.

km144 2y ago
Amy Klobuchar is probably the Democrats best example—she just once again significantly outperformed the other national Democratic candidate (Harris) in Minnesota. Personally I wouldn't trust Tulsi Gabbard to win anything. what the Dems need is someone who is a strong political force that has a track record of winning elections and winning over people who voted for Trump. I don't think gender is necessarily important but I do think that the results of Clinton and Harris against Trump should rightfully scare Dems away from that idea going forward.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Tulsi Gabbard is a Republican now; the Democrats won't put her up for anything.
kelnos 2y ago
Regarding (2), I agree, but I don't think the electorate is in for such nuance. Two women failed to win the presidency, and that simple fact is all that matters. I agree with the other commenter that we won't see the dems put another woman up for president for decades, and that's a damn shame. We might even see the GOP successfully get a woman into the White House before the dems do it, which is just embarrassing.
- jonny_eh 2y ago
  > We might even see the GOP successfully get a woman into the White House before the dems do it, which is just embarrassing. That happened in the UK with Thatcher.

sanderjd 2y ago

This was not at all a spectacular failure. This election was an uphill battle from the start. Mitt Romney did not fail spectacularly when he couldn't beat a popular incumbent. It was impressive that he got as close as he did. The fundamentals here were similarly harsh for Harris, just for different reasons.

ifyoubuildit 2y ago
Why was this election an uphill battle from the start? This was the dems election to lose as far as I can see. And isn't Harris the incumbent in this situation?
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Because of the pandemic, the aftermath of which was awful inflation. This has been the pattern globally for a few years now. And US-specific, because of immigration. Yes, Harris was treated by voters as the incumbent, and the incumbent administration was unpopular. That is usually an uphill battle for the incumbent. It was never the dems election to lose. It's too bad you only saw that narrative! Plenty of people wrote about the possibility that this would be a pretty bog standard "reject the incumbents" election.
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    > It was never the dems election to lose. It's too bad you only saw that narrative! I find this baffling. With the dems tying themselves to biden and then Harris, it was absolutely an uphill battle. But that was an unforced error. If they had a robust primary, you have to assume there was someone on the blue team that could beat Trump. If not, then they deserved every bit of this anyway.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      Yes, and that's one of the problems: the DNC defers to tradition and "politeness" rather than what will win elections and keep the party in power. Right up front they should have told Biden he was not going to be the presumed nominee, and that he would have to fight it out in the primary like everyone else.

hajile 2y ago

Hillary Clinton still complains about the election being stolen by Trump (there were riots by Democrats back then too). Democrats still complain about Bush beating Gore in 2020. To say that Democrats would simply accepted the results if Trump won only the electoral college defies past history. Election denialism is found in both parties in large quantities.