this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
472 points (92.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2306 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump’s popular vote share has fallen below 50% to 49.94%, with Kamala Harris at 48.26%, narrowing his margin of victory.

Trump’s share of the popular vote is lower than Biden’s in 2020 (51.3%), Obama’s in 2012 (51.1%) and 2008 (52.9%), George W. Bush’s in 2004 (50.7%), George H.W. Bush’s in 1988 (53.2%), Reagan’s in 1984 (58.8%) and 1980 (50.7%), and Carter’s in 1976 (50.1%).

The 2024 election results highlight Trump’s narrow victory and the need for Democrats to address their mistakes and build a diverse working-class coalition.

The numbers also give Democrats a reason to push back on Trump’s mandate claims, noting most Americans did not vote for him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 193 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It's a lack of majority not a lack of plurality. Harris is still trailing Trump by 3m votes or so (and 1.6%), Trump is just not above 50% after further votes have been counted. So this isn't an electoral college steal

[–] [email protected] 50 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Yeah, but even if Kamala wins the popular vote, this is going to be the closest a republican has gotten in..

Decades?

Maybe longer?

But the DNC is going to latch onto this and try to claim if they had moved just a little more right they'd have won.

Regardless of what happens, the DNC will always say the answer is moving to the right.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 28 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The DNC brain trust is already claiming that they should go further to the right

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They were told they abandoned workers, and somehow heard "What if we betray Transpeople?"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Corporations fund the big name democrats and their campaigns. These same corporations benefit greatly from Republican wins. They are buying intentionally ineffective democrats who are unincentivized to either win races or appeal to worker interests as they are typically directly at odds with these big bankrolling corporations.

I am not saying every democrat is paid for or every democrat is ineffective or democrats as a whole are an entirely bought and paid for organization, but what I am saying is that enough of the prominent enough democrats legitimately are financially disincentivized from helping the people they're supposed to represent so as to effectively gum up the works of the whole machine.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They're already starting to trial run the messaging through lower ranking democrats in safe seats. (Link)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well at least they're getting roasted for it, I mean in this link the aide who said that was fucking fired over it. Yeah it said he resigned, but when you get up enough you aren't "fired" you're "asked to resign"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Oh no, you're reading that wrong. The aide resigned in protest to Rep. Moulton's comments. The article also quotes Rep. Tom Suozzi. Moulton is also in the House Equality Caucus, which is supposed to be protecting LGBTQ rights. I'm not sure how they square that with his comments that fundamentally misunderstand the process for transgender kids though. His comments show a fundamental misunderstanding of scholastic sports, human physiology, and hormone blockers. Which you think 2 of the 3 would be required reading for that caucus...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Ah yes the whole "They're sending what is basically a 27 year old Mr. T in a dress to play Volleyball against a 12 year old girl!" messaging

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well yeah they're strategists are essentially corporate lobbyists.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

"Poor me, my constitutes don't like that I am not representing them in government. Corporate lobbiest, you've done nothing but shower me in money, won't you tell me what Americans really want?"

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Regardless of what happens, the DNC will always say the answer is moving to the right.

This isn't borne out by trending or statements. What kind of crystal ball are you smoking?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago

Two examples: ran on being humane to migrants and continued title 42 three years into the Biden term and proposed a draconian new immigration law.

Ran on reforming the police, flooded them with money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

The kind that's had me watching politics since Clinton... Have you been under a rock?