If most people fear big change then why did Harris need to run on a bold vision?

[Hardkill]

Most voters tend to prioritize familiarity and stability over innovative ideas, opting for the comfort of the status quo rather than taking a chance on radical change, unless there's a major crisis, a powerful movement, or supermajorities of one party controlling both chambers of Congress and a president of the same party.

So, why did Kamala Harris need to present a bold vision of change, as many people claimed they wanted?

[Basman]

Because all she had was "not Trump" which isn't motivating to most people. She came of as more of the same in a climate where people where distrusting of the government, in part due to independent media. 

A lot of the people that voted Bernie voted Trump this time because Trump did a good job appealing to people's survival frustrations (inflation, job market, etc.)

I'm not sure she needed to have a "bold vision" perce but the messaging needed to be stronger in a general sense. I'm not even sure what she stood for exactly campaign wise.

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Because all she had was "not Trump" which isn't motivating to most people. She came of as more of the same in a climate where people where distrusting of the government, in part due to independent media. 

A lot of the people that voted Bernie voted Trump this time because Trump did a good job appealing to people's survival frustrations (inflation, job market, etc.)

I'm not sure she needed to have a "bold vision" perce but the messaging needed to be stronger in a general sense. I'm not even sure what she stood for exactly campaign wise.

And what did Trump have to offer that was popular?

Also, why weren't people sick and tired of Trump?

[Basman]

40 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

And what did Trump have to offer that was popular?

Also, why weren't people sick and tired of Trump?

He acknowledged pain and promised he would fix things in generally vague terms while making his opposition look stupid and weak. He's a populist and appeals to American machismo.

A lot of people aren't politically literate, don't care about policy and are too immersed in culture war to appreciate actual politics. Its a team sport exercise about being right (literally this time). Trump waving his fist into the air and yelling "fight" after getting shot is enough to motivate some people to vote for him. Its that unserious.

Edited January 3 by Basman

[Nivsch]

Because for her it isn't "change", for her it is the right way and the right thing to do. 

[Basman]

Voting against someone because you feel talked down to is essentially voting against someone just because they are annoying.

Yes, its terrible messaging. You can't expect everyone to be on the same page as you on every topic then act superior when they inevitably fail to meet those expectations but it does illustrate how unserious voting practice is in America. About 36% of Americans, about one third, didn't bother voting. They don't truly care about politics.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

He acknowledged pain and promised he would fix things in generally vague terms while making his opposition look stupid and weak. He's a populist and appeals to American machismo.

A lot of people aren't politically literate, don't care about policy and are too immersed in culture war to appreciate actual politics. Its a team sport exercise about being right (literally this time). Trump waving his fist into the air and yelling "fight" after getting shot is enough to motivate some people to vote for him. Its that unserious.

53 minutes ago, Basman said:

Voting against someone because you feel talked down to is essentially voting against someone just because they are annoying.

Yes, its terrible messaging. You can't expect everyone to be on the same page as you on every topic then act superior when they inevitably fail to meet those expectations but it does illustrate how unserious voting practice is in America. About 36% of Americans, about one third, didn't bother voting. They don't truly care about politics.

I acknowledge that most people in America are not well-informed about politics, not very bright, and not well-educated.

However, Donald Trump's advanced age and increasingly lethargic demeanor have been noticeable. Most people hate him and his first term as president was truly abysmal, which is why he lost in 2020. In contrast, Kamala Harris presented a starkly different image when she entered the political scene. As a relatively new figure, she brought a sense of fresh youthful energy, appeal, and vibrancy.

Harris's appeal was further enhanced when she chose Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz is a well-respected politician known for his authenticity and relatability to everyday working-class Americans. His working-class background and commitment to progressive policies have earned him a reputation as a champion of the people.

She ran on our country moving on from the same old tired shitshow of Trumpism and representing a future where our country would have greater justice, greater housing affordability, and greater healthcare access and affordability.

Moreover, Harris didn't come off as patronizing or out of touch like Hillary Clinton did.

Trump gives off the impression of being too weak, too lazy, and too demented to govern. 

 

Edited January 3 by Hardkill

[Basman]

@Hardkill Its over man. Just let it go.

Save your strength for the next election.

[Hardkill]

20 minutes ago, Basman said:

@Hardkill Its over man. Just let it go.

Save your strength for the next election.

We may not have another free and fair election ever again.

Also, I am so far not optimistic about the Democratic party and the Left being able to effectively combat both the right-wing propaganda and extreme anti-mainstream propaganda machines before either the 2026 or 2028 elections.

Otherwise, we’ll just keep losing the messaging war in this abominable media environment and if that continues to be the case then it won’t matter how strong any of the Democratic candidates will be in either the 2026 or 2028 elections. They’ll just keep losing more and more big elections.

Edited January 4 by Hardkill

[Basman]

8 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

We may not have another free and fair election ever again and 

Also, I am so far not optimistic about the Democratic party and the Left being able to effectively combat both the right-wing propaganda and extreme anti-mainstream propaganda machines before either the 2026 or 2028 elections.

I understand your concerns but you're fear mongering and you need to relax. These are projections, not claims of particular substance unless you can provide evidence.

I think you should focus more on what you can actually act on. Like voting proper or sharing your political views in a diplomatic way with others. You could write to congress with your concerns if your really serious about it. But ultimately, its not really something you can control if the political debauchery takes place. So let it go a little. You can't live your life being bummed out constantly that Trump won.

[Buck Edwards]

Kamala Harris's loss in the 2024 election can be attributed to several factors, including her inability to distinguish herself from President Biden, voter disillusionment, and challenges inherited from Biden's unpopularity. Additionally, issues related to race and gender played a significant role in shaping voter perceptions.  Harris's campaign was only 107 days long, following President Biden's abrupt exit from the race, which created a sense of urgency but also instability.

She retained Biden's campaign staff, which led to a disconnect between her vision and the existing campaign strategy. I mean this was confusing to begin with. The merger of her team with Biden's campaign staff resulted in internal conflicts and a lack of unified direction, which hampered momentum after the Democratic National Convention. Harris struggled to engage key demographics, particularly Black voters and young voters, leading to disappointing turnout. I mean I didn't see her engaging a lot with specific demograph. Her campaign was all over the place. 

Harris's initial remarks praised Biden's leadership, and she struggled to articulate a distinct vision that separated her from his administration, which was facing criticism on various fronts. This is the single biggest reason why she lost. 

While she was quick to draw contrasts with Trump, Harris hesitated to critique Biden's policies, which left voters questioning her stance on key issues.

Harris's candidacy was historic as the first woman president nominee, but the weight of expectations and the chaotic nature of the campaign may have overshadowed her message and appeal. It was a bit messy to say the least. 

[Hardkill]

I get what all of you are saying, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that most people again tend to be centrist and prefer more of the status quo or incremental change?

I don't think there was a strong mandate for major change, considering that there was no real major crisis that occurred under the watch of Biden/Harris and the Democrats, no dominant right-wing movement throughout the entire country, and the Republicans did not win substantial majorities in either chamber of Congress. Although the Republicans regained control of the Senate and gained four seats, their majority in that chamber is still not that sizable. Notably, the Democrats even managed a net gain of one seat from the Republicans which led to the Republicans maintaining an extremely slim majority of 220 seats in the House, the narrowest majority for either party since 1930.