Summary

Gender bias played a significant role in Kamala Harris’s defeat, with many voters—often women—expressing doubts about whether “America is ready for a female president.”

Some said they “couldn’t see her in the chair,” or questioned if a woman could lead, with one even remarking, “you don’t see women building skyscrapers.” Though some voters were open to persuasion, this often became a red line.

Oliver Hall, a Harris campaign volunteer, found that economic concerns, particularly inflation, also drove voters to Donald Trump, despite low unemployment and wage growth touted by Democrats.

Harris was viewed in conflicting ways, seen as both too tough and too lenient on crime, as well as ineffective yet overly tied to Biden’s administration.

Ultimately, Hall believes that Trump’s unique appeal and influence overshadowed Harris’s campaign efforts.

  • spacecadet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Is this low unemployment and wage growth in the room with us?

    Unemployment is “low” because shitty gig economy jobs are counted as employment. And wages might be growing, but are lagging far behind inflation.

    The majority of Americans aren’t sexist and racist, they are living paycheck to paycheck and some unlikable rich black woman from San Francisco isn’t going to be able to relate to a poor white man from Nebraska or even a Hispanic dude from El Paso. And you would think “neither should a rich ass hole from NYC”, but he at least pretends to care about them. Democrats have been demonizing the working class for over a decade and they are starting to reap what they sow.

    I voted for Kamala, but she was a terrible candidate. She made no attempt to empathize with the plight of the majority of the working class voting base and instead was more worried about capturing the vote of rich trust fund babies that are being misgendered.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      And wages might be growing, but are lagging far behind inflation.

      To be very fair real wages grew during Biden’s administration, but probably not enough and definitely not for everyone.

      • raoul@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        I think that the problem is that the metric used for measuring the wages growth is an average:

        In a society where most of the wealth goes to a few, an average is not necessarily a good measure:

        I like this image from this article from the fed

        showing the part of the population having raises above the CPI

        They have the following remark below this graph:

        For example, about 57 percent of the WGT sample had positive real wage gains during 2019, whereas during 2022, only 45 percent of people had positive real wage growth. Put another way, despite higher median nominal wage growth, the share of people with positive real wage growth between 2019 and 2022 due to higher inflation fell by 12 percentage points.

        Edit, from the bottom of the article:

        Your own wage growth experience might not look like that of your neighbors or your colleagues, and it might not resemble that of the person with median wage growth either.

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Wanna bet the places and sectors that are doing worse than median wage growth and inflation are rural and manual labor things? That second one especially I think could explain why some gen z men voted the way they did.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Unemployment is “low” because shitty gig economy jobs are counted as employment. And wages might be growing, but are lagging far behind inflation.

      As soon as Trump takes office, the nuance you’re evaluating these numbers with will be lost. I’ve lived this thing before, Trump may use economic conditions to his benefit rhetorically and may even disagree with the numbers while he’s out of power, but the instant he’s in the same numbers will automatically signal to him and his cult of supporters that everything is great and people should stop complaining.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Correct, there is zero chance of ever getting through to these 75 million people… But there was a very good chance of getting through to the 10 million who stayed home but had voted last time, and at least some chance of getting through to the 50% who regularly don’t vote… But the Dems never go after those people, they continue to insist on wasting everyone’s time by only going after the imbeciles with actual policy changes (they go after the 10 million with bullying and fear mongering, which clearly doesn’t work)

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Maybe and maybe not. Maybe I actually don’t give a fuck because all of this “but they didn’t actually improve main street” online shit also disappears during Republican administrations. I’ve been through multiple cycles of this shit and the people whining about the dnc online are just another level in Dante’s Inferno.

          We get it, you guys love Bernie and think Bernie would’ve won everything. Carry that energy forward for another decade if you don’t wind up in a Trump camp first.

          Bernie and AOC have been advocating for Americans to build a movement to get progressive policies passed by building from the bottom up, but instead everything is the mean old dnc’s fault despite the fact that there is no movement, no community, and so all you’re left with is career politicians trying to form an alliance out of everyone that doesn’t want to vote fascism. There’s a reason Democrats can’t run a coherent campaign, they don’t have a fucking coherent constituency.

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            They absolutely don’t have a coherent constituency, that’s for sure, but they certainly could have a large enough constituency to put Trump and his entire army of ignorance and sleeze to bed once and for all, but they only cater to a very small segment of what could be their constituency, and for many of the people who could be their constituency it often feels like they’re actually catering to the enemy rather than to them.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              That’s exactly my point. To appease one section of their potential voters they have to piss off others. We can second guess them on which decisions would’ve led to a victory, but the fact remains that they come across as incoherent and inauthentic because they have to walk a tightrope to keep together an imaginary coalition between things like American Jews who support Israel and Palestinian immigrants. They fail because they aren’t representing a coherent set of people. They’re representing sometimes conflicting ideas. American atheists and Catholics. Muslims, some of whom believe that women should be subservient, and “childless cat ladies”. People in this country are overall much more regressive socially than online progressives want to admit.

              • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                When it comes to the conflicting ideas they need to pick a side. And the other side has to decide whether to show up or not, we know which side always shows up, maybe they should take a backseat for a bit, they’ll show up anyway.

                Like if you think women should be subservient, you’re not on our side. If you are okay with arming a terrorist nation to carry out genocide you’re not on our side. Easy peasy ones.

                I think we’re actually finally at a truly 50/50ish ratio of regressive to progressive in the US… That’s why things are so tense between the progressive actual left and the regressive “left” DNC. Yeah there’s still misogynistic bigoted people here, but definitely way fewer than 100 years ago. And they should ALL be on the other team.

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            I think for a lot of people the choice ended up being between a quick leap into fascism or the ongoing painfully slow fascism temperature being risen one degree to keep the other guy from blowing it to 100, and I think more people than I’d have hoped decided to let the bandaid be ripped off

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Less people than you think thought that was the choice. Americans are big time ignorant of politics and even on this site we had people asking if this was a normal election.

              According to those who voted, this election was about the economy. 🙄

              Most people probably couldn’t tell you the first thing about fascism or even capitalism.

              • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                I wouldn’t say 5 million people thinking this way would be out of the question though… Would you? And are they polling the people who voted for Biden but didn’t show up this time? Because that data would be wildly valuable

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            I think the movement is there, it’s just kinda in the back of most people’s minds because no one is leading them effectively… Which I get, Bernie and AOC are obviously too busy to also be organizing a movement completely dependent on small donations and somehow figuring out how to use those to get the word out through the torrential downpour of bullshit we experience everywhere, but I wish they would choose leadership for that movement that can lead more effectively