[vjvjvjvjghv]

That's the thing. Trump would be eminently beatable if the democrats bothered running good candidates and had the courage to stand for something. But they are perfectly content collecting tons of money which probably goes to connected "consultants" who then spend 20 million on figuring out how to talk to people.

[raw_anon_1111]

It all started because Biden didn’t announce he wasn’t running again after the midterms and the Democrats tried to hide that he wasn’t losing his mental faculties.

[nozzlegear]

I think Harris was a good candidate who did stand for something, but she didn't get enough time to run her own campaign :)

But I'm not interested in having a "she wasn't pure enough for my brand of politics" debate, I was only pointing out that almost half of those who voted did in fact vote for her – not Trump.

[tstrimple]

It’s actually the opposite. Immediately after Kamala got the nod there was an enormous amount of energy surrounding her nomination that she managed to entirely squander. If Kamala had less time as the main candidate she would have done better. She ran a shit campaign and bled support the entire time. I can’t imagine why anyone wasn’t impressed with her promises to maintain the status quo and her ability to campaign with war criminals from the Bush era.

[nozzlegear]

Opinions are like assholes, I've got mine and you've got yours. Like I said, I think she was a good candidate who didn't get to run a full campaign like her opponent did – and the one she did run was micromanaged by Biden campaign staffers until the last minute – so I guess we'll never know :)

[vjvjvjvjghv]

If Harris had been a good candidate she would have gone on different podcasts without hesitation. That’s where the audience is these days. Her TV interviews were so scripted and inauthentic it wasn’t even funny. Despite all these she almost got half of the votes so imagine how a more likeable and authentic candidate would have done.

[nozzlegear]

I'm personally unconvinced that getting her on Rogan and other manosphere podcasts would've won her the election. It's easy to look back and attribute little misses like skipping an interview with Rogan to her loss, though it lines up with the popular misconception ¹ that young voters voted for Trump over Harris.

Instead all signs point to her loss being something as mundane as the economy:

> Further, nonvoting Democrats were more than twice as likely as voting Democrats to report feeling the economy is worse now than a year ago (46 percent vs. 22 percent) or that their incomes had recently decreased. And, perhaps not surprisingly given their economic precarity, Democratic nonvoters were substantially more likely than voters to support increased state welfare spending (61 percent vs. 52 percent). These class characteristics show nonvoting Democrats’ economic attitudes in a clearer light.

Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-nonvot...

¹ Have young voters really abandoned the Democrats? https://sites.tufts.edu/cooperativeelectionstudy/2025/04/17/...

Edit: I think we both dislike Trump and would have preferred anybody would have won over him, so all of this speculation on what she could have done differently is probably just navel gazing now. If going on podcasts could have won her the election then I'm all for it.

[tomrod]

She was no Obama or Bill Clinton. At best a weak 80s style Democrat.

Dan Carlin says it best. Political parties are built to win, and Democrats sometimes forget that.