Quit jivin' me turkey @alittledropofheaven - Tumblr Blog

I've seen a lot of posts in the last 24 hours about why Kamala lost and I feel like most of them are failing to actually look at reasons voters are giving. Instead, they're putting forward what they personally didn't like about Kamala's campaign. But here's the thing to remember... You didn't like that thing about Kamala's campaign. You still voted for her. There's something else going on.

Because people didn't just vote against Kamala. They voted FOR Trump, and early polling results are showing they did it across the board in almost every demographic.

I've seen the calls for investigations into voter fraud and voter suppression because "this doesn't just happen!" and I agree with one thing. This doesn't "just" happen. There's a reason and democrats aren't listening. Because it's not just a handful of counties that got hacked or had crazy people trying to stop votes or didn't get all of their ballots counted. That's not to say that none of that stuff happened, of course. There may have been serious issues in some counties. But across the board, in nearly every state and every county, even if he didn't outright win, Trump made gains. The only two states where he didn't make gains: Washington State and Utah.

If that's due to voter fraud or hacked elections, it would have to be on a scale unlike anything we have ever seen before and honestly, we don't have any evidence of that right now.

So what happened? What do we know?

We know that since the pandemic and since the record inflation that caused, incumbent leaders all over the world have been losing elections at higher rates than usual. That crosses all political persuasions and again, has been seen across the globe.

Based on polling prior to the election, which remained fairly consistent throughout the election run, 3/4 US voters think the country is on the wrong track and 2/3 are unhappy with the economy.

Biden's approval rating when this election started was 40-41%

This is all a recipe for an incumbent losing, which to be frank, most people still saw Kamala as, even though she was running instead of Biden.

In addition to all of that, let's look at what the exit polls showed.

Kamala's approval rating in the exit polls was 48.5%

Donald Trump's approval ratings in the exit polls was 44.54%

And I know he wasn't running, but just for context Biden's approval ratings were 40%

When asked if Harris's views were too extreme, 46% said yes, 51% said no.

When asked if Trump's views were too extreme, 55% said yes, 43% said no.

So how did he win?

People like him less and think he's more extreme. Why did they vote for him?

Well, let's look at some other polling data.

45% of voters said that their family's personal financial situation was worse off than it was four years ago.

Only 25% said their financial situation was better than it was 4 years ago.

75% of people polled said that in the last year, inflation has caused them either severe or moderate hardship.

When asked who can bring needed change, 73% of voters said Trump and only 25% said Harris.

What that means is that a majority of American's don't like Trump. They don't think he's a good person. They think he's too extreme. And yet they still voted for him because the issue that was most important in this election was the economy.

Will Trump be better for the economy?

No.

But there's a perception that the current administration did not do everything they could have to fix it and people were willing to roll the dice on someone different.

Maybe we could have done more. Kamala only had 110 days to make her case and no matter what she said, the fact remained that she is the sitting VP. Maybe there was no way for her to escape the incumbent/status quo perception.

I hope we can learn something from the behavior of the American electorate this year, and I really hope Trump doesn't fuck things up too bad before we get another chance to step in, because the Republican Party is learning things too. They're learning that they can be as extreme as they want, but if they can make people believe the economy will work better under their leadership, even if it's not true, they'll still get votes.

The DNC "weekend at bernie's'd" Joe Biden's corpse around for his entire presidency then decided to make his obviously unpopular vice-president the presidential candidate. Baffling decision. Liberals were unable to gaslight people into believing she was the stellar candidate they brayed she was. Kamala was insincere, inauthentic, not charismatic, a terrible orator, seemingly incompetent. Debated tepidly. Anyone with two brain hemispheres could see it.

Dems refused to listen to their voter base. Alienated swathes of people. Downplayed voter concerns or ignored them entirely. Refused to acknowledge the literal two main issues many people were concerned with: inflation and immigration. There was no acknowledgement or milquetoast attempt to address it.

People have been struggling to put food on the table, working multiple jobs for years, and tired to the bone. Social issues become less important when people cannot afford the basics to survive.

See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Trump appealed to this.

And y'all refuse to learn. Your emotions blinded you from reaching coalition with others and doing effective voter outreach. You can cry all the phobias and isms you want but people who reside in reality know you must restrain yourselves from expressing your contempt in order to succeed with your political aims. You've got to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's just how it is.

Dems will lose again, and again, and again until they learn this. A Trump win was obvious for months.

#libs

kropotkindersurprise

lmao, libs are dealing with it well i see

we are moving rapidly towards the world where residents ration or go without resources because companies can pay other companies or governments more for utilities. thinking of the planned Tesla plant growth in an area of Germany where residents are already rationed water, the government of Kazakhstan selling electricity to cryptocurrency mining companies, Nestle stealing water every damn place.

this is why utilities need to be public and free, prioritizing survival needs then comfort needs and then maybe some amount of product needs.

we in the US keep adding renewable energy sources but the old coal plants never shut down because we keep increasing the demand for electricity with electronic billboards and smart devices that have no need to be smart, not to mention AI and crypto mining and all that shit.

beesandwasps

We’ve already been doing this with bottled water in many parts of the world for decades now.

demonius-darkblade

Harris is now condemning the 'unpatriotic" protests against Netanyahu

demonius-darkblade

Please learn to wait -one full week- before pledging your permanent unwavering allegiance to a politician.

ladygolgotha-deactivated2025012

It's the exact same rhetoric we've been getting from Genocide Joe, she will not be any better. If you expect the self proclaimed "top cop" to be any less fascistic then you are deeply unserious

alittledropofheaven

So which dem bootlicker is gonna write a lengthy treatise on why this is actually a genius kamala strategy on moving zionists left on this post

#lol #like #yall are so gullible

spiribia

we do need to revisit the wording of "you can't have your cake and eat it too" because i don't think it clearly enough conveys that it's more that you can't simultaneously retain a cake and also get to consume it (which would render you cakeless). for years i was like But why not....it's my cake....?

ferrettoy

this fucking problem is how they caught the unabomber

m0thmancore

hey you should uh. elaborate. for my own personal satisfaction

ferrettoy

the unabomber was pedantic about idiomatic phrases like "have your cake and eat it too" and rephrased it to "eat your cake and have it too" (which to be very fair makes sense). fast forward to when he starts writing manifestos. he uses the phrase word for word in his pedantic style and his brother (who has been keeping his eyes on the unabomber shit for obvious reasons) notices the phrase and is like "oh fuck that's my fucking brother no one else fucking says that" and calls in an FBI tip

#😮#holy fucking shit

alittledropofheaven

magicalgirlmindcrank

She/her also personally fought against transwomen in prison seeking gender affirmation surgery...

alex51324

Here’s an article that gives more details on the story, and what Harris said about it. The key points:

It was the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation that refused the surgery to the inmates. When the inmates fought the policy in court, as Attorney General of California, it was Harris’s job to represent the Department. Yes, she did it, but it wasn’t something she decided on her own to do. (Also, not for nothing, the inmates won the case.)

Her characterization of the episode: “On that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved,” Harris said.

A policy now exists for inmates to receive transition-related care in California prisons (although apparently the DoC isn’t doing a great job of holding up its end of the bargain*--quelle surprise).

(*For the record, Harris finished her time as AG and became a Senator shortly after this agreement was reached, so it’s someone else’s job now to enforce it.)

The thing to keep in mind here is that, as Attorney General, Kamala Harris couldn’t wave her hand and have everything in the entire California Department of Justice go exactly as she wanted it--and she won’t be able to as Vice President, either. We currently have a president who thinks that’s how it works, and we’re damned lucky he’s wrong.

She had (and will have to) work with large number of people who hold different views. (Another article I read said that the California Department of Justice, which she ran as AG, employs about 4,800 people--that’s a lot of different views.) If she had refused to back the Department of Corrections in their case, she would have alienated people whose cooperation she needed to be able to rely on. (If she even had the option of not backing them and staying AG--I’m not sure how it works, exactly.) Even people who agreed with her about the specific matter might have disapproved of her hanging her subordinates out to dry. (Another thing our current president does constantly--notice how Harris isn’t saying that the person in her office who actually wrote these briefs is a bad guy that she barely knew.)

So here’s what actually happened when Kamala Harris “fought against transwomen in prison seeking gender affirmation surgery”:

The Department of Corrections had a policy denying gender-affirmation surgery to inmates.

Two inmates fought that policy in court.

Harris defended that policy in court (or, more accurately, was the supervisor of the person who did so--but the legal documents went out under her signature, and she takes responsibility for their content).

Harris also worked to change the policy.

If you’ve had a job, you’ve probably been in the position of having to carry out a policy that you don’t agree with. Your choices are to quit your job in protest or stay and argue that the policy should change. If you pick option B, you still have to follow the policy while you’re working to change it--again, just about the only person in the world who doesn’t know this is Donald J. Trump, because he’s never had a real job where he answered to anybody.

What this incident shows is that Kamala Harris is accustomed to working in a system where she doesn’t always get her own way, and that she knows how to lose the battle to win the war. As VP, she’s going to need those skills--especially if the Republicans keep the Senate, but even if the Democrats sweep everything in November, we’re notoriously bad at all pulling in the same direction. We’ve had about enough of the “I’m taking my ball and going home” style of leadership.

writingruss

Bringing back this from 2020, because I’ve been seeing the rhetoric machine spinning up again.

The law, especially in a democracy, is a slow and frustrating thing. Lawyers are sometimes put in positions where they are presenting arguments for something they may disagree with.

The reason why a lawyer would agree to do this often comes down to the political theory that we must rigorously and honestly test ideas, and that requires cogent emphatic arguments from both sides.

It’s easy to say in this case that the correct result should be obvious, But we can’t just design a system that says “oh but you can skip the full legal process for stuff that is clearly right/wrong”

BECAUSE THEN THE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU TAKE THAT IDEA AND USE IT TO PUT YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS IN JAIL OR EXECUTE YOU.

So yes, we apply this really onerous process to things that seem really obvious because we must apply the same standard to everything.

When you don’t you get shit like the current Supreme Court.

the-library-alcove

And to everyone who says, "Well, she should have just ignored the law, followed our her morals, and done the Right Thing!"

Okay.

Remember Kim Davis, that (now former) county clerk in Kentucky who, in 2015, refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs?

You're basically saying that she was right and legally in the right to do so.

kalessinsdaughter

It's tempting, isn't it, to disregard laws and principles because you feel know that it's the right thing to do?

But ignoring the law, pretending you're not bound by it, yeah, that's what entitled, privileged people do. People who think the law doesn't apply to them.

The idea that there's an in-group whom the law protects, but doesn't bind, and an out-group whom the law binds but doesn't protect, is conservative, not progressive.

changingthingslikeleaves

Advocates for Trans Equality Endorses Vice President Kamala Harris for President | A4TE

toloveviceforitself

Okay so putting aside the question of whether supporting/voting for/spending political resources on Harris is the right tactical decision (I'm genuinely divided on this question, and arguments like this don't move the needle for me one way or the other)... If you've ever said "ACAB", but the reasoning in the posts above makes sense to you, then I need you to examine the contradiction. Because "she didn't necessarily agree with it but it was the LAW and it's her job to ENFORCE THE LAW" is the exact reasoning people use to defend cops participating in and upholding the most violent and dehumanizing end of a violent and dehumanizing system, and it's the exact argument that phrase is meant to condemn. The whole point of the phrase "ALL Cops Are Bastards" is that by choosing a career where it's your job to enforce and defend unjust and indefensible laws, you have taken your personal off-the-clock character out of the question. You are now, at minimum, exactly as much of a bastard as those laws and that system are. As such, no one dealing with you should have to care about or take into account your personal off-the-clock morality: whether you're grinning with sadistic glee or shaking your head solemnly to show you disagree, it feels exactly the same to someone under your boot. You're a bastard regardless. The moral calculus for prosecutors is the same, they are functionally the legalistic arm of the same organization (which is why people refer to prosecutors as cops: same job different department). At the end of the day you share the mantle of the system you choose to enforce. You've put yourself in a position where the options are to participate in and prop up that system to get ahead, or oppose it and be ejected (or worse), and at every step of the way you've chosen the former.

You can decide, if you want, that she's the least-bad bastard up there. In a diffuse way, all politicians at the executive level (and most at the legislative level) are bastards or aspiring bastards, and there are valid tactical arguments for trying to find a bastard that fits your needs. But when you argue that the nature of her job somehow absolves her, makes her NOT a bastard, then you have lost the plot.

alittledropofheaven

I posted this in 2020 I think I can't rmr but literally this comment. All that sanctimonious waffling of justification when you could've just said "she was just doing her job" which is what it boils down to. And all the people in the comments acting like the additions were revalatory and a refutation to mythical "smug leftists standing in the way of actual progressives" you have the critical thinking and reasoning skills of sea sponges and you deserve the dismal, disappointing quality leaders you keep imploring everyone to vote for.

I've dipped out of U.S politics for ages but I see the needle is still stuck on shitlibs doing the this is the most important election of our lifetime so vote for the lesser evil once again schtick 🧐🤔 y'all are really the most pathetic, housebroken population on the planet. Fr

toloveviceforitself

For real, I cannot believe an entire chain of people managed to use thousands of words to say "She was just following orders" and then nod along to each other like it was the most stunningly clever defense they'd ever heard.

alittledropofheaven

😭😂 GORL I was flabbergasted seeing the sheer variations of "THIS" in the tags like am I in a fuckin straitjacket hallucinating this cos I feel clinically gaslit that such milquetoast, recycled and *genuinely* very cliché Dem rebuttals received such certain praise. Good GOD. Like how many election cycles are you gonna let the wool be pulled over your eyes? Fool me once??? Hello????