[Alupis]

Frankly, the Democratic party epically and massively failed their constituency by first running a mummy and then attempting to run perhaps the most unlikable, unrelatable, disconnected candidate of my lifetime - that literally zero people voted for.

It's not the people's fault, it's the party's... the party thought everyone would just jump when told to do so.

Democrats deserve better.

[jfengel]

Seventy million people voted for her.

[Alupis]

In the primary? No... 70 million people were forced to vote for her in the general. That's why Democrats lost this election.

It's comments like yours that make it really seem like the Democrat Party hasn't learned a damn thing from this ordeal.

[rockemsockem]

I voted for her, but I didn't do it because I *wanted* her.

[vjvjvjvjghv]

I don’t think it was “for” her. Most votes against Trump.

[apical_dendrite]

How was Kamala Harris more disconnected than, say, Mitt Romney, a billionaire who said that half of voters believed they were victims and were mooching off the government?

Or for that matter, how is she less disconnected than Donald Trump, who bragged about being able to get away with sexually assaulting people because he's famous?

[vjvjvjvjghv]

They are all disconnected. The problem with Harris was that she was nothing. No message, no charisma.

[mindslight]

No message should have still won out against a message of hating everything about America, but here we are.

I agree that the Democrats are feckless, but still let's not forget which direction is up. (personally I think they're just coasting along and assuming they'll still be elites in whatever "new order" arises as long as they don't stick their heads up)