Why is Kamala Harris being held at such a higher standard than Trump this election?

Comments

• dnick@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because Democrats want someone who will run the country and Republicans just want someone who will maintain their minority control. We are concerned for the country, they are scared for their very existence and self reflection itself is dangerous for their existence. Basically self reflection is necessary for what Democrats want to do, and it fatal for what Republicans want. So we do it, and Republicans avoid it at all costs. We get a Kamala who we hold to a high standard, they get a Trump who can punch them in the face and they’ll still support him because of the party.

  source
• linearchaos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’ll take racism, sexism, propaganda and capitalism for 500 Alex.

  They’ve got pretty firm control of the business sectors through tax cut agenda. They’ve got pretty firm control of the farmers for the same. Through fear and propaganda they’ve got pretty strong control of the poor and some of the educated middle class in the rural areas. A lot of the red states are doing everything they can to impede their education systems. If you keep people from becoming educated there’s less competition at the top and a lot more red voters.

  All you’ve got to fight them are the poor and the middle class in the cities and suburbs and the occasional upper class that isn’t so self-serving that they’re willing to stand on everyone else.

  source
• jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Over a million deaths from covid…

  source

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ok…and like 3/4ths of that was under trump. I don’t get what you’re getting at here.

    source

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It was way more than 200K.

      source
    • laverabe@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think they were just correcting the number in the post text block that should have read about 1 million dead under COVID during the Trump administration in the US alone, rather than only 200k.

      source
  • BadmanDan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It was over 200k come the 2020 election

    source
• auzy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I keep seeing the same bozos say they’re the same

  One is literally a criminal rapist who has made tens of thousands of public lies, doesn’t pay contractors, and said obvious non sensensical stuff during covid leading to mass deaths and whose own ex staff warns he is an asshole.

  The other is a normal person you could probably eat lunch with. She’s absolutely normal.

  source

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    And supports Genocide

    source

    • auzy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That doesn’t mean she supports it. There’s evidence that even with Biden there were things potentially happening in the background to try to stop it. www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-03/…/103926614

      Trump literally asked Russia publicly to find dirt on Hillary to win and praises dictators constantly.Kamala isn’t praising dictators.

      If Trump went to court for every crime he committed, he would have no time to campaign. In fact, with lawsuits they likely have to compress them and limit the contents to the worst offenders to facilitate their processing time.

      You haven’t heard even a small number of crimes that Mafia don has committed. But a guy who goes and laughs on social media when one of his followers attacked pelosis husband obviously supports assault.

      So just to clarify, Trump = actual criminal who uses violence to gain power Kamala = normal person

      You’re also assuming that Trump will end the war. He won’t. He’ll do what he normally does and just shout at both parties

      Walz in particular is ex military and I seriously doubt he is pro war either. There might be stuff happening in the background again we don’t know about (Trump will brag in public about every single thing he does, but sometimes you need to let the adults work)

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• finley@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  because Trump has spent the last 9 years going so low, his cult no longer has standards.

  source
• zeppo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  A nice illustration is Republican media operatives are trying to attack Harris with “we checked with McDonald’s corporate and they have no record of her working there!”. For one, McD’s is franchisees and I doubt corporate tracks every burger flipper. Next, of course they’re trying to claim she’s dishonest, but what about the greater question: Did fuckin Trump ever come anywhere near McDonald’s? No, he inherited about $400 million, has misconstrued it it repeatedly (‘a small loan of a million dollars’, as if that is relatable either) and has never had any sort of normal job that required discipline or labor, ever.

  source

  • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think he’s famously at least eaten a lot of McDonalds.

    source

    • Baggins@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Probably $400 million worth.

      source
• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m going to offer an answer because the top responses are either bad or just totally miss the mark. The later responses are just thoughtless kneejerk drivel. It’s worth asking and addressing this question because it’s impact on electoralism are very material, and it’s not for no reason that you made your observation; it’s also not necessarily a bad thing that some politicians might be held to a higher standard than others.

  The question is:

  Why is Kamala being held to a higher standard is the question.

  But “higher” than what?

  Was Joe Biden being held to a “higher” standard? Do Democrats in general get held to “higher” standards? Rotate the question and it’s “Why do we hold politicians to standards?” Are Republicans held to any kind of standards?

  First, I think we need to focus on on if politicians are being held to standards by their voters. I won’t be addressing any kind of cross party criticism in that I want to focus in on the issue of “potential voters” and if those voters hold a candidate that there is some chance they might vote for to some standards ( or litmus, whatever. The first step will be to address if voters hold politicians to standards (not yours or mine necessarily, but the voters own standards).

  Second, I’ll address the “higher-ness” of these standards. Are they relative or absolute? Are the candidate or party specific? Do they change?

  Finally, I’ll address the impacts of this and what it has done over the previous several election cycles.

  I think we can look at the recent case of Joe Bidens candidacy to address if Harris is unique in being held to a standard. Joe Biden started campaigning in earnest in around October/ November 2023. This came at the same time as the horrible October 7th massacre that galvanized world support for Israel in the face of a terrorist threat. Joe Biden had historically been the most oro-isralli politician of any party, long before his bid for even vice president.

  Relatively quickly after the massacre it was clear that Israel was in no way operating in good faith for their purported goal of recovering hostages. It was obvious that they were targeting journalists and iad workers, that there bombing was indiscriminate and focused on population centers and infrastructure for maximum destruction, and that this was in support of the broader colonial mission that Israel has been in since it’s inception.

  Because of this, during the primary process, a movement of voters set a standard: that they could not vote for Joe Biden in good conscience based on the manner in which the US was relating to and supporting Israels now obvious extermination policy regarding Gaza. Biden failed that standard with regards to the Undecided movement, and it had cost him the election long before his disasterous debate performance. Joe Biden had been floundering in the polls well before that debate. Because of this, Biden lost his position as candidate, explicitly because the voters had a standard to which the candidate did not meet.

  Democratic voters are not the only ones who hold standards for their politicians. Consider the case of a post DJT electoral landscape for Republicans. A Republican candidate basically could not get through a primary not towing the MAGA line (even if this hurt their chances later in the election. So even if they are not your or mine standards, Republicans too are held to standards by their voters (if even we find those standards abhorrent). It’s important to understand that in fact these voters do have standards, they just aren’t your standards, and they do hold their politicians to them.

  To conclude section one: all politicians get held to standards. One of the most important politicians of the modern era just had his career ended by not meeting some of them. Both bases of voters have standards which are different and unique to that bae, and both bases hold their candidates to them accordingly.

  Now we come to the question of “higher-ness”. Do bases hold these officials to standards equally? Or is there some sliding scale or uniqueness into the way things are applied. I plan on withholding discussion if the consequences of this to the final section, but I am not disregarding it’s importance.

  In 2008, Barack Obama led one of the most historic campaigns of all time, under the twin banners of “Hope” and “Change”. The iconography of Obama’s 2008 campaign has and will continue to represent a high water mark for political symbolism and its use in electoralism. Barrack ran as a left-wing populist and won his presidency accordingly. However, once in office, Obama struck a decidedly more rightwing/ centrist stance, effectively governing from the center right. His principal legislation was a Heritage Foundation piece of legislation, a lift and shift of what Romney had implemented in Massachusetts, the ACA, effectively ensconcing private control of health care in the US. While voters did give Obama his second term, there was a distinct feeling of a bait and switch from the populist times of 2008 Obama to the 2012 technocratic, neoliberal approach with which he governed.

  This set the stage for 2016, where the demand for “hope and change” was now stronger than ever. Obama has failed to deliver in his messaging and this created opportunities for both right wing and lefty wing populist candidates: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The voter recognized that they had not held Obama to a sufficiently high standard, and because of this, they raised the bar (each group according to their own principles). On the left we saw purity tests around no corporate pac money and a wide suite of progressive litmus. On the right we saw “america first” and isolationism. Both the left and the right bases established a higher standard. However, due to reasons behind the scope of this discussion, only the right were able to effectively hold their candidate to that now higher standard (their standards, internally defined). Leaving the era of technocracy and neoliberalism, it was the candidate held to a higher standard that won that election.

  Now examine 2020. Now firmly in the populist era, it was a race on both the left and the right to meet the associated higher standards now established by voters. The Democratic candidates had maybe the most progressive across the board suite of policies ever. And likewise in the right, excepting that they be regressive polocies. Both suites representative of the now higher standards required by their associated blocs. This time however, the more established political players had caught the buzz and responded accordingly. While the DnC was ratfucky as ever, Biden did adopt almost all of those higher standard policy positions to gather those voters into his coalition. His campaign identified the higher standard, held themselves to it, and they won.

  Now we have the opportunity to draw some conclusions. There is a “higherness” to standards but they are not necessarily specific to politicians so much as the demographics and voting blocs those politicians draw from. Standards have changed and increased in scrutiny. Standards are also bloc specific, so it doesn’t make sense to compare standards across blocs: why a progressive chooses to vote or not vote and why a conservative chooses to vote or not vote are wildly different motivating concerns.

  Do standards matter? Objectively yes. Holding candidates to a “higher standard” has represented a winning strategy for voters for the previous 20 years. While those standards are relative depending on which voting block you are courting, the general rule has been that the candidate coming closest to a higher standard wins. This is largely due to a shift away from the kind of technocratic allure of neoliberalism and the general shift towards populism we’ve seen in the past 20 years: it is distinctly the case that we reside in a new political hedgemony.

  Because of the, the prior generation politics of “we know better. just elect the “best” and that should do” has died, and been replaced by stronger willed voters who have specific demands of their politicians. Those politicians who can read and come closest to those demands are the most likely to win: this is an age of populism. Both the MAGA and progressive movement didn’t their roots in the technocratic neoliberal approaches emphasizing credentials and expertise over the will of the voter. This was effectively the political hedgemony of the US from about 1967-1978 until 2000-2012. That was the era of technocratic neoliberalism, which has been fully replaced with populism of two distinct variants (which is typical in populist eras).

  The idea that voters shouldn’t hold their politicians to standards and should just vote for “the one who knows best” is a residual trapping of a previous hedgemony, and extends to almost all aspects of political life and policy.

  Holding politicians to higher has also been a demonstrably effective strategy for getting them into office. In the current political hedgemony, the politician held to and able to meet a higher standard typically wins. In this way a “higher standard” benefits both the politician and the electorate. By extending a higher standard for Harris, we’re making her a more electable candidate. It doesn’t hurt her to be held to a higher standard so long as she strives to meet that standard. It’s good for her as a candidate and good for her electorate in that they get closer to accomplishing their political goals.

  source
• Etterra@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Okay so here’s dinner context you may be unaware of. I believe it was Newt Gingrich who either came up with or standardized the core modern republican propaganda pillar: Attack attack attack, always attack, never compromise, concede only if you have literally no choice, then attack harder. That’s why the left has slid so far center; they keep trying to compromise and the right will not budge. Now the Democrats look like the Republicans back in the 80s, which is why I call them Republicrats.

  Meanwhile Dems are trying to hold themselves to at least some level of standard. Add to that that Trump and his kind are authoritarian; their psychology allows for no criticism of any kind, seeing them exclusively as attacks against them. So now you have not only GOP and Trump cultists jumping on every single thing they can as hard as they can, and the self-aware Democrats calling out what they perceive as bad. The Republicans won’t do that; they never attack their own side without orders from the top, which indicates to them that the target is out of favor with the leadership.

  Tldr; because the Democrats refuse to accept that the Republicans can’t be beaten by playing nice.

  source

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    and the right will not budge. Now the Democrats look like the Republicans back in the 80s, which is why I call them Republicrats.

    key distinction here, what the left needs to do is not to concede, but demonstrate moral superiority, and political strength. Conceding is the part that fucks us, and it also confuses the republicans when we don’t.

    We just need to treat the republican rhetoric like it is, rather than real words actually being said, it’s mostly bullshit, ruthlessly destroy and deconstruct it, don’t leave them anything to stand on, they put themselves in this situation.

    we should also probably consider focusing more on rhetoric and specifics, rather than individuals, ignoring extremes like trump. Trying not to alienate the moderate conservative is going to be a huge potential boon for the democratic party here. If we can demonstrate that we’re a real party that actually exists and does things for the public good, the republican party has no choice but to disintegrate.

    source

    • BadmanDan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They kind of did that at the DNC.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• electric_nan@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s because democrats are unwilling or unable to deliver on real policies for working people. Of course, republicans are the same, but they more or less don’t even pretend to, choosing instead to whip up their constituents with culture war nonsense. Nobody has any faith in things improving. Repubs just want to get revenge on their cultural enemies, and democrats (voters) just want to prevent a total slide toward the far right.

  Dem politicians can’t whip up excitement because it is impossible to get people excited by neoliberal policies, but that’s really all they have. Vague platitudes only work so many election cycles in a row before voters just can’t even pretend to be excited anymore.

  tl:dr republicans are awful but at least their base believes them.

  source

  • Delusional@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Their base believes in them simply due to decades of propaganda and brainwashing coming from AM radio first and then normalized on fox “news”

    I’m sure if democrats were lied to about nearly everything and were told republicans were immoral enemies that are the cause of all your problems for decades, they’d have more belief in the democrat party.

    source

    • electric_nan@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It doesn’t matter why the republican base believes in their party. Incidentally, you’re not entirely wrong about why, but they’ve had rebellion too: see the TEA party.

      The democrat party strategy is different. Their base isn’t aggrieved axe-grinders. They’re earnest believers in the system. The problem is that the leadership doesn’t actually want to accomplish anything that would threaten corporate profits. Trump is great for them, since all they have to do is not be him! Policies be damned.

      source
• captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because she’s a black woman who has demonstrated herself capable of behaving appropriately. Meanwhile a trump is not only a rich white geriatric man whose political career has kept expectations low, he’s also Donald trump, a reality tv star, which must be compared to Dr. Harris, former DA of San Francisco, a nationally significant city.

  So yeah: racism, sexism, and past behavior.

  source
• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  republicans have such a low media standard, while democrats have such a high media standard that they’re busy eating themselves over it.

  republicans will literally run anybody living and breathing, democrats want the next FDR basically. Thankfully it seems like the dem party is finally moving away from this mostly useless social campaign bullshit, and more into the “broad political problems” shit which actually matters (the federal government is also way more functional from this perspective) if this continues, whether the dems win or lose this cycle, the dems will have a formidable and quite strong campaign machine. Once the media unfucks itself, which is bound to happen with how people are treating it (keep treating it like shit) we should have a pretty strong basis to run on.

  It’s looking like the dems are building up a strong political base right now, at the expense of the republican party not existing, and as long as we don’t kill it, things will continue to get better.

  Literally all we have to do, is capture the moderate voter, focus on popular policies rather than left leaning/dem policy shit. And then campaign on energy, rather than policy.

  source

  • BadmanDan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Agreed, the key to victory this election will be the moderate voter.

    source

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      absolutely, the far progressive sect is so small and will likely vote in line anyway, they don’t really have much options. But the ability to pick up the moderates has vastly increased. Especially across the cities and midwest region, which are the most populous regions of the US.

      source
  • zbyte64@awful.systems ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The media is working as intended, to expect it to “unfuck itself” based on market signals is unserious.

    source

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      the media will do anything that makes it money. This is why fox was sued by a voting machine company and then immediately settled.

      They will literally ONLY run what’s popular, and if blatantly lying is not popular at all, they won’t run it.

      source
• TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Bigotry and idiocy

  source
• Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because the media is heavily conservative and advertising driven.

  source
• Arbiter@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because Trump being an asshole has stopped being a novel newsworthy event.

  source
• BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because racism and sexism is still very prevalent in the US.

  She is a minority. And she is a woman.

  The news is a shit hole funded by the ultra wealthy who will benefit from Trump’s tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. Which explains the coverage.

  Many voters are still racist and sexist. Which explains the polls.

  source
• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because the people who own news corps are hella rich, and hella rich people mostly prefer Trump because he’s gonna give them a HUGE tax break again.

  source

  • riskable@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Rich people believe that no matter how rough the world gets they will be fine as long as they remain rich. History has shown repeatedly that this is a false assumption, demonstrating that the rich in America really are just as dumb as poor conservatives who get suckered into voting against their own interests every election.

    Also many of the absurdly wealthy are sociopaths and narcissists (because our economic system allows people like that to succeed by stepping on everyone else). To them, all that matters is how they look among their “in group.” So if they think they’ll look better by being a few billion richer they do whatever it takes to get there… No matter the long term consequences. Either to them or anyone else.

    source
  • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They either just don’t give a fuck at all about future humans and just want all the profit for themselves now, or they are genuinely stupid and don’t actually understand economic theory at all.

    Either way is a bad look.

    source

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They’re just trying to min/max their personal financial gain:effort ratio.

      source
• nutsack@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  they’re not voting trump they’re voting against the democrat party

  source
• Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It feels like Harris has to run a damn near flawless campaign

  Literally supports Genocide lmfao. Was Adolf Hitler running a flawless campaign too?

  source

  • NikkiDimes@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Proving OPs point, I see

    source

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Kamala Harris is running a flawless campaign for Genocide?

      source
  • OutsizedWalrus@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What about trump? Pretty sure he’s just glass Gaza if he had a chance.

    source

    • Soulg@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah but that doesn’t count because uhhh reasons

      source
    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Trump will do whatever Bibi whispers in his ear when it comes to Israel and its enemies neighbors.

      source
    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Did OP say Trump is running a flawless campaign somewhere too?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Trump also supports genocide. Nobody who doesn’t can possibly win.

    If this is your line then you should probably just never vote ever, because this won’t ever change.

    source

    • zeppo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m pretty doubtful the luminary you replied to lives in or has ever even been to the US.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Stop pretending Harris is running a flawless campaign and ButTrUmP when the stupid lie gets debunked.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • jorp@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s funny that “candidates have to support genocide or they can’t win” is motivating you to punch left instead of rioting in the streets against AIPAC

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Soulg@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Completely missing the point while also proving their point with a bonus side of refusing to allow any topic of conversation that isn’t the one you want. 10/10

    source
  • yarr@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Was Adolf Hitler running a flawless campaign too?

    Not flawless, but his moves to boost the German economy and reduce unemployment had pretty wide support in Germany, especially after the extreme troubles the Germans had economically after the first World War. His rise to power was only made possible by a wide base of support that existed during the 1930s in Germany.

    source
  • Illuminostro@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Fuck Putin. Lol.

    source
  • FlaminGoku@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Клоун

    source

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      10 replies and all of them either deflecting or insulting.

      At least Democrats voters aren’t pretending they aren’t voting for Genocide anymore.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because not only do women have to work 10x as hard to be seen as being on the same level as men, but she has scruples. Trump doesn’t care about perception.

  source
• Yaysuz@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The Republican Party and it’s base are anti-intellectual, why do you think they care about logical consistency in their politicians?

  source
• amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because one is a traitor that attempted to overturn a lawful election result.

  No matter what you think of Kamala, supporting Trump is a joke.

  source
• SSJMarx@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It feels like Harris has to run a damn near flawless campaign just to BARELY beat this guy.

  Welcome to gerrymandering. If America went by the actual majority consensus the Democrats would have controlled the presidency since 2009, and the House and Senate for about 50% of that time.

  source
• daniyeg@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  honestly aside from explicitly right wing outlets, I don’t see any particular bias against harris. most outlets will almost alway criticize trump on everything while most of the time they praise harris and sometimes they criticise her on her more progression policies (because most of the media tilts fiscal conservative). it’s rather more of a perceptions of the audience thing. trump has done so many outlandish shit that now most of his bullshit gets filtered out as noise.

  also i don’t wanna be mean but the question “Why does it feel standards are much higher for Harris than Trump?” sounds like it’s coming from an agitated"vote blue no matter who" democrat who is baffled about why would people not vote for the obviously better candidate.

  there are a lot of reasons as you said “this race is STILL either 50/50 or tilt Trump”. maybe it’s because she’s black or female and there are a lot of sexist and misogynists out there, maybe it’s because of the electoral college, maybe it’s because of the hold the MAGA cult has over its members, or maybe it’s because harris is refusing to stop arming and helping a genocide and that is turning people off.

  the Harris campaign right now can only change one of these factors. even if you plan on voting, lie on the polls and organise and protest against the genocide because if enough people do this to force the hand of the Harris campaign then it wouldn’t be a close race at all.

  source

  • BadmanDan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I disagree on the genocide. I’d love for Biden to stop cucking to Israel, but I don’t think that’s nearly a big enough issue to sway polling fully in Harris’ favor. I’ve yet to see a single focus group video or cross tab where Gaza was a major issue for these voters.

    source

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’ve yet to see a single focus group video or cross tab where Gaza was a major issue for these voters.

      and even if it is a major issue for them, the vast majority of them are going to concede that issue at any cost.

      source
  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    or maybe it’s because harris is refusing to stop arming and helping a genocide and that is turning people off.

    in terms of this argument, i don’t understand why i never see I/P people talking about russia and ukraine. Russia has lost upwards of 300,000 people in the war effort alone, an entire magnitude more than Palestinian deaths. Most of these being random people conscripted out of nowhere.

    Do we not care about the lives or russians or something? Is this covert racism? Are we just politically tuned into only I/P because modern progressives have only the brain space for one single conflict? (and i don’t blame them, i don’t have time for I/P either lmao)

    They literally only talk about I/P and it’s so confusing to me, do they go outside or anything? It seems like thats the only thing they care about?

    source

    • Soulg@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s a bit different because Russia are the ones who are invading another country. While obviously the insane loss of life is still terrible, I think people would view i/p a lot differently if it was Palestine actively invading and trying to annex all of Israel.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• bender223@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Cuz most ppl knows trump dumb, need to grade him on a curve.

  Also, he’s our spesho widdle boy who can do no wrong 👶

  source
• Letsdothis@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You’re asking good questions, but I don’t think you’re actually open to hearing the actual right answers.

  source

  • BadmanDan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m open to your answers.

    source
• darthelmet@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  2 things:

  • Remember 2016 when the media gave Trump an absurd amount of free publicity by covering every stupid thing he said and did then he won? It wasn’t the only reason, but it clearly didn’t help.

  • People know who Trump is at this point. He’s awful in a way that’s really easy to see and either you’re someone that’s a problem for or you’re someone who loves the awful.

  Whoever is the current corporate lackey being put forward by the DNC is the one that needs to claim to be the good one, co-opting the language of progressives while taking corporate money and maintaining the brutal status quo.

  So for people who come looking for someone who’s gonna do good, the bad stuff represents inconsistencies with that narrative and despair at a lack of representation in a supposedly democratic system.

  source

  • Azal@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Remember 2016 when the media gave Trump an absurd amount of free publicity by covering every stupid thing he said and did then he won? It wasn’t the only reason, but it clearly didn’t help.

    2016? Shit the press gave him all the free press when he was doing the birther shit with Obama.

    source
• hanrahan@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Grabbed 'em by the pussy… And they liked it!

  truthout.org/…/yes-55-percent-of-white-women-vote…

  source

  • CrankyOldGrinch@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s the sad truth. Misogyny is not enough of an issue to sway American women as a voting bloc. They get it every day from people close to them and have internalised it to the point where it’s not a dealbreaker. Abortion however, is.

    source
• MehBlah@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  No one hold trump to any standard. Thats what the trash like about him. He is just as shitty as them.

  source
• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t think it’s that Harris is being held to a higher standard, it’s that trump is being held to virtually no standard.

  The people supporting trump have no standard either except for “beat the other team, even if for no other reason than to piss them off.” They don’t care if the world goes up in flames as long as it fucks over a lib.

  source
• Angry_Autist@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because most media companies are owned by rich conservative white men that don’t want a black woman into office that might raise their taxes.

  It’s as simple as that.

  source