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.

▲

vjvjvjvjghv 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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/...

▲

tomrod 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

tstrimple 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.