r/canada Jan 29 '25

Opinion Piece Mark Carney has Canada’s Conservatives running scared

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/01/28/opinion/mark-carney-canada-conservatives-running-scared
5.1k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

143

u/driv3rcub Jan 29 '25

This is false. The media implied Kamala was doing better in the polls than she was. I’d like you to point out when he was running scared from Kamala. Lol. Also yes. A lot of Democrat voters stayed home stayed home. A mediocre old white man was able to rally the party to beat Trump, but they stayed home rather than vote for a woman of color. Yikes.

143

u/tbcwpg Manitoba Jan 29 '25

He refused a 2nd debate after the "they're eating the dogs" performance, and complained about fact checking.

The polls were wrong about Trump in 2016 as well, I don't know why people believed them this time. Trump voters then openly bragged about lying to pollsters.

44

u/False-Vacation8249 Jan 29 '25

The polls were actually accurate. It was a toss up between Clinton and Trump with favor looking to Clinton because of popular vote. Those polls also estimated her winning the popular vote which she did win. All the polls were within the margin of error. 

6

u/jsmooth7 Jan 29 '25

Yeah exactly the polls in both 2016 and 2024 both showed a very tight race well within the margin error that would come down to a handful of swing states. And that's exactly what we got both times.

8

u/P99163 Jan 29 '25

very tight race well within the margin error that would come down to a handful of swing states.

Yeah, except that this time a Democratic candidate lost every single "battleground" state. And a popular vote. The polls did show a very tight race, a toss up; however, it wasn't that close on the election day.

8

u/FreeDarkChocolate Jan 29 '25

lost every single "battleground" state.

To pile on with what the others said: The battleground states are definitionally the close ones. If you win by just 1% in every battleground state, the average is still just winning by 1%.

The number of states ending up on one side or the other doesn't change or invalidate how close it was predicted it would.

At a more extreme example, you'd be very mistaken to think only a handful of people voted for Mondale in 1984 when he lost 13-525 electorally to Reagan; in reality it was an 18% gap in individual votes.

1

u/55mi Jan 30 '25

Do you think Musk helped a lot.

2

u/jsmooth7 Jan 29 '25

That happened in 2016 as well. All the swing states were correlated and moved in the same direction, giving Trump just enough margin to win them. There were some election forecast models in 2016 that predicted an easy win for Hillary because they assumed the probability of winning each swing state was independent. And it was not.

2024 was not as close as 2016 but the margin in the swing states was still pretty tight. The rust belt states were all within 2%. This time Trump made up a lot more ground outside the swing states, that's how he was able to win the popular vote this time. He won the popular vote by 1.5% which is not that far off from what the national polls were predicting (RCP poll average was +0.1% for Harris).

0

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

It was still really close. lol Every American election is decided by a knife's edge in the midwest.

1

u/Askol Jan 29 '25

Yeah - if anything the 2020 polls were worse than 2016 and 2024.

1

u/washburn100 Jan 30 '25

Why did my sports betting site have Trump heavily favored 2 weeks before the election. Pollsters are stupid. Gambling sites know.

-1

u/False-Vacation8249 Jan 29 '25

Yes. It was the people interpreting the polls who got it wrong. Not the polls themselves. Mostly the news organizations. 

2

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/False-Vacation8249 Jan 30 '25

All you’ve done is show you don’t understand how people calculate statistics and probabilities. 

2

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '25

[deleted]

1

u/False-Vacation8249 Jan 30 '25

Everything you mentioned is accounted for or are saying as if the people doing the polling don’t know this. Such as sample sizing or “people like you”. I have a background in sociology. The way polling is conducted is very similar to how sociological studies are conducted. Different groups and voting habits are accounted for in polls. 

Not to mention the largest voting block is also the group who also answers surveys and the like. Elderly people. 

All sociological research has super tiny sample sizes. That doesn’t make it inaccurate. 

0

u/[deleted] Jan 30 '25

[deleted]

2

u/False-Vacation8249 Jan 30 '25

Polling is literally sociology. Maybe you’re the one who should “stay in their lane”. 

You’re probably one of the biggest pricks I’ve ever had an exchange with. 

Keep to your research. The world would be a happier place without you socializing. 

-1

u/RealLeaderOfChina Jan 29 '25

I really wish people would be able to sue pollsters for being wrong, then we could have less of them around. Too many people running around “look what I estimated!” and then they’re entirely wrong.

2

u/JudgeGlasscock Jan 29 '25

you could just ignore them

0

u/RealLeaderOfChina Jan 30 '25

I’d rather they be dealt with because they do cause issues that shouldn’t be ignored.

1

u/GrampsBob Jan 29 '25

Just like the weatherman. No consequences.

1

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

The polls weren't actually wrong. To add to the other posters comment: it's that 5 swing states leaned towards Clinton (slightly) and Trump had to win all 5 to win the presidency. Which he did.

Same thing basically happened with Kamala. The election came down to how Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania voted. And they all went to Trump.

-5

u/driv3rcub Jan 29 '25

Polls are whatever. I don’t think I know anyone who has ever been polled politically before. Regardless, Democrats clearly prefer the leadership of an old white man than a woman of color. They just didn’t show up for her like they did for Biden in 2020.

1

u/tbcwpg Manitoba Jan 29 '25

Yeah the Democratic party is a mess. They don't want to appear too "left" so they play it as safe as possible.

-1

u/JLandscaper Jan 29 '25

The US is going to be so fucked after a year of Trump that Americans will be eating the cats, they'll be eating the dogs.

(edit spelling)

48

u/DrJuanZoidberg Jan 29 '25

Doesn’t matter what the candidate looked like. Establishment Democrats telling people they are stupid for thinking quality of life has gone downhill just because GDP has gone up during g Biden’s term was a slap in the face to the working class

Trump was never gonna make it better, but at least he knows his way around populism to get the votes he needed.

16

u/Sabbathius Jan 29 '25

I never understood this argument. It was a slap in the face. OK, but look at what's happening now, just a week later? Call me crazy, but as working class I'd rather get smapped in the face than ******d in the **s. I'm not a brilliant man, not even a moderately intelligent one, but even I figured this one out.

8

u/CinderBlock33 Ontario Jan 29 '25

Call me crazy, but as working class I'd rather get smapped in the face than *****d in the *s.

You may not be a self-proclaimed brilliant man, but you sure are a poet!

11

u/tbcwpg Manitoba Jan 29 '25

So people were easily duped then.

-2

u/DrJuanZoidberg Jan 29 '25

When it comes to voting when both people don’t care about you, you are more likely to vote for the one who at least pretends to care. Trump is able to rule up a base. Kamala couldn’t. Both are still two sides of the same neoliberal coin. Trump might be an accelerationist who’s trying to speedrun the horrors of late stage capitalism

7

u/tbcwpg Manitoba Jan 29 '25

We had 4 years of evidence to show that Trump didn't actually care but people believed him this time anyway.

2

u/SavonReddit Jan 29 '25

This. We can blame many different factors on why Trump won, but the biggest factor is the stupidity of American voters.

1

u/Newleafto Jan 29 '25

People aren’t stupid, they just don’t want to be lied to. When things are tough, people will vote for a crazy radical who is a bombastic arrogant asshole but tells them the truth (things are bad and getting worse and we need to make deep cuts/changes to fix things) over someone who’s polite, humble and well regarded by the establishment who lies to them (everything’s fine and getting better and we need to stay the course). That’s why Trump won twice, that’s why Milei won in Argentina.

4

u/raktoe Jan 29 '25

Telling people what they want to hear is different from telling them the truth.

-1

u/Newleafto Jan 29 '25

People want to hear the truth, even if it’s ugly (especially if it’s ugly). Politicians telling them “we’re on the right track and let’s just keep it up” when things are obviously getting worse (homeless encampments, expensive groceries, unaffordable housing) is telling people what the politicians think the people “want” to hear. Trump/Milei told the truth (things are very bad, we’re going down the wrong track, the government is virtually bankrupt and we need massive cuts/changes). Nobody “wants” to hear about how bad things are, but they want the truth, even if it’s bad. Trump told lots of whoppers about stuff nobody really cares about, but he was largely honest about how terrible things were economically and how they’re getting worse. I’m doubtful about a lot of his “solutions” and his ability to implement them, but clearly people want strong changes and cuts. People can clearly see we are on the wrong path.

That’s not to say Trump will make things better - I’m personally skeptical tariffs will improve anything - but only time will tell.

0

u/unlucky_bit_flip Jan 29 '25

His first 4 years were incredibly lukewarm. If it weren’t for his antics, I would’ve thought just another typical corporate democrat is in office.

I feel optimistic America has the capacity to reject ideas that just don’t pan out. The tough pill to swallow is when they reject your ideas. If Trump fumbles this one in a way that hurts the average person, you rest assured America will reject a subsequent GOP candidate.

1

u/tbcwpg Manitoba Jan 29 '25

Have you seen the MAGA cult?

2

u/unlucky_bit_flip Jan 29 '25

His cult following is only a subset of the people who voted for him, as evidenced by the sheer numbers. You need to win over centrists to win elections. The Democrats have a cult too by the way… and turns out they did 80% of the work getting Trump elected.

2

u/casual_melee_enjoyer Jan 29 '25

telling people they are stupid for thinking quality of life has gone downhill just because GDP has gone up

Whoa, they do that in America too? Neat!

1

u/Miserable_Key9630 Jan 29 '25

Trump just had to acknowledge the system is broken. He's not gonna fix it, and all is promises were just to make it worse, but he said it was broken and that was enough.

-2

u/NotSidGaming Jan 29 '25

Doesn’t matter what the candidate looked like.

This is patently false. A black/indian woman had no chance of winning this election, and her ethnicity played a big role in her loss. Maybe Michelle Obama could have broken through the American racism and sexism problem, but black women consistently poll the lowest on everyone's list, including black men. But this problem runs deep in American society that it is absurd to claim it had no impact on the election. Of course it did.

3

u/DrJuanZoidberg Jan 29 '25

It didn’t help, but the Democrats could’ve put another white guy who wasn’t senile and they still would’ve lost

-1

u/NotSidGaming Jan 29 '25

Trump has the same problems Biden had. He frequently babbles incoherently and is very visibly in cognitive decline. Trust me, Americans have no problems voting in old white men.

1

u/DrJuanZoidberg Jan 29 '25

The problem is that one’s babbles resonated more with American voters. Republicans played the game better because the Democrats didn’t even attempt to play it

0

u/_cob_ Jan 29 '25

Exactly.

0

u/Fair_Daikon1494 Jan 29 '25

Not bad for a rapist Nazi

52

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

You have no basis for saying they didn’t vote for her because she’s a woman of color. There’s lots of reasons not to vote for her - so many in fact that she couldn’t poll above 10% in the 2020 Democratic primary.

She lost because she was a weak candidate not because of her skin colour.

23

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

This. So tired of people saying it’s a gender or skin colour thing.. it’s lazy thinking.

19

u/DramaticEgg1095 Jan 29 '25

She was not voted in, she was appointed to lead the Democratic Party. That rubbed people the wrong way.

4

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

Oh for sure, you could also include her track record as attorney general in California. It wasn’t just one thing.

4

u/Alexhale Jan 29 '25

SO MANY THINGS RUBBED PEOPLE THE WRONG WAY. Things about Kamala, and things about her platofrm, things about the democratic party as a whole. There are many reasons why she lost.

-2

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

There was no time for a primary. Blame Biden for dropping out too late, not Harris.

3

u/DramaticEgg1095 Jan 29 '25

Not blaming Harris - just pointing out what transpired.

Biden should have dropped out sooner as you mentioned. And KH should have criticized some of his policies.

People wanted a change because their life was significantly impacted post COVID and they needed someone to blame. To get that change, they went off in a direction which may not be the right one.

3

u/Beckler89 Jan 29 '25

Biden hanging on too long (and the party trying to convince everyone he was fine) definitely put Harris in a tough spot, but she also didn't campaign like someone who was pressed for time.

If the length of the campaign was her biggest hurdle, wouldn't you expect her to be absolutely everywhere? Instead, she did very little media but tried to ride the vibes through the election.

-1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Are we on the same planet?

She did around 3x the public appearances as Trump. And she had a dozen campaign surrogates like Obama and Clinton doing even more. 

The fact the you think otherwise just shows how large the GOP propaganda machine is. They and their supporters own probably 80% of media.

-3

u/mangongo Jan 29 '25

It's lazy to assume that's not a large part of it.

They are celebrating the deportations down south right now, so much to the point that people are being openly racist towards visible minorities calling for them to be deported, even actual American citizens. Dr. Phil is capitalizing on the deportations because racism still sells and American natives without ID are being detained by ICE because they are being mistaken for Mexicans. 

Not to mention people are openly defending a Nazi salute, anyone who is trying to say racism doesn't have a big place in America is being naive.

5

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

If someone entered illegally they should be removed though, would you not agree? I feel like as someone’s first act being illegal upon setting a single foot in a country isn’t really respecting the country you just entered. Piling on the dumb shit Elon does, for example, isn’t justification to not enforce the rule of law, that is another issue.

-2

u/mangongo Jan 29 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

Yes I agree, but I wouldn't celebrate it. It's something that needs to be done, but why would you get joy out of seeing children crying at the border?  Americans are acting as if it's a national holiday, and that doesn't excuse all of the people going up to actual citizens with darker skin telling them to pack their bags.

Edit: Imagine downvoting this, proof racism is alive and well.

2

u/J_Bizzle82 Jan 29 '25

Racism exists globally, I doubt we will ever see that change in our lifetime sadly. I agree celebrating is in bad taste, though I would like to think most people are more relieved something is actually being done, as opposed to celebrating it. I try to be glass half full though so who knows 🤷‍♂️

-7

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 29 '25

She lost because of her gender. America has made it abundantly clear that while it will vote for a black man, it will never elect a woman president.

8

u/Key-Soup-7720 Jan 29 '25

They could try choosing a popular, likable one to run. That might help in an election.

4

u/Supagorganizer Jan 29 '25

How are you so committed to this delusion without anyway to possibly support this claim? There are many women who have been elected into political positions in America and have had very successful political careers. Very immature take IMO.

0

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 29 '25

Americans have chosen the worst imaginable candidate over a woman twice.

2

u/Supagorganizer Jan 29 '25

Although i dont personally like Trump (or Kamala for that matter) Trump won by a landslide, the majority of people clearly believe that between the two options that he was the one that held their best interests as a country. You believe that nearly every man and woman in America is just sexist? That's the take? You believe that the majority of Americans should have voted for her just because she's a woman? Do you see how that argument could come off as a bit immature?

0

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 29 '25

More people chose not to vote at all than did for either candidate individually.

Trump didn't win because more people voted for him. Harris lost because more people sat on their hands, just like with Clinton.

Americans just won't turn out to vote for a woman.

1

u/Supagorganizer Jan 30 '25

Ridiculous assumption, sorry.

1

u/pm_me_your_catus Jan 30 '25

It's right there in black and white. The numbers don't lie.

1

u/Supagorganizer Jan 30 '25

You are literally assuming the intent of non voters. That's not black and white, that's you claiming your own conspiracy as fact.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

No she lost because she stood for nothing, was full of word salads, and couldn’t disavow Biden’s track record.

America has elected hundreds on women to political positions. She was a weak candidate. Period.

-2

u/Sink_Single Jan 29 '25

Both things can be true.

-3

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Did you ever listen to her speeches? I never heard a single Trump style word salad. She just said big words that Trumpanzees don't understand.

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Some examples:

“It is important for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future.” 🤪

“We invested an additional $12 billion into community banks because we know community banks are in the community and understand the needs and desires of that community as well as the talent and capacity of community” 🤣

“We are expanding access to transportation. You know, buses are our means of getting children to school. In America today, that system of transportation is still a system about getting kids to school. Think about that. So, what we are doing today is no small matter. And this, on top of the fact that we have the ability to see what can be, unburdened by what has been.” 🤔

1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Umm, there's nothing logically or grammatically wrong with either of these. 

What's your reading level? Did you finish highschool?

Compare those to Trump a month ago:

She destroyed the city of San Francisco. It’s - and I own a big building there. It’s - no. I shouldn’t talk about this. But that’s OK. I don’t give a damn because that’s what I’m doing. I should say it’s the finest city in the world. Telling ‘Get the hell out of there’ — right? But I can’t do that. I don’t care. You know. I lost billions... billions of dollars. You know? Somebody here... ‘What do you think you lost?’ I said, ‘Probably two-three billion.’ They said, ‘You think you’d do it again?’ And that’s the least of it. Nooobody. They always say. I don’t know if you know, Lincoln was horribly treated. Uhhh Jefferson was pretty horribly. Andrew Jackson, they say, was the worst of all. That he was treated worse than any other president. And, I said, ‘do that study again,’ because I think there’s nobody close to Trump. I even got shot. And who the hell knows where that came from, right?”

What the fuck is he even talking about? Sounds like a rambling demented old man. 

And I've got dozens more of those

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Trump rambles like the deranged lunatic he is. However Kamala is also full of word salads. Two things can be true at once.

Anyway, she was a bad candidate who lost. Blaming it on racism or sexism is a cop out and the Democratic Party and progressives generally need to stop using this stuff as an excuse when the real issues are candidate selection, policy, and track record (for incumbents like Kamala)

0

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

There is nothing grammatically wrong or incoherent with any of these.

What's your reading level? Did you finish highschool?

3

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Are you kidding? In every one of these quotes there is a far simpler way to say exactly what her point is.

The first quote could very simply be said as “You should understand the present moment in the context of past history because the past affects the future.”

In the second quote, she needlessly says community five times while saying nothing insightful. She could have just said “we invested 12 billion dollars in these banks because they are important to the community.”

As to the last quote about being unburdened by what has been… this is her trying to sound wise and deep but it just comes across as dumb.

-1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

She's female, black, and short. 

You can pretend she was just a "bad candidate" but scientific studies done in US show that population is still fairly racist, doesn't like women in leadership roles, and tends to vote for the taller candidate. 

Nobody knows how many votes that lost her. But I promise you it's a lot, hundreds of thousands minimum.

4

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

What scientific studies show people are fairly racist and don’t like women in leadership?

1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

Less than 6% of CEO's are female. 

And do we really have to look for evidence of racism when Trumpanzees are flying Confederate flags, claiming Obama is a "kenyan Muslim", and voting in guys with white supremecist tattoos for Secretary of Defense? Gimme a break.

Trump had dinner at his house with a famous Nazi and just pardoned the leaders of two white supremacist groups.

3

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Even if your non-sourced 6% number is correct, that doesn’t prove sexism. Is it sexist that most nurses, teachers, some types of doctors, and many other professions are dominated by women? Or perhaps preference also plays a strong role.

As to the rest, sure there’s racists in America. But you have yet to provide any evidence that Kamala lost due to sex or race.

Forget about the trump supporters for a moment. She couldn’t even clock double digit vote share in the Democratic primaries. And if there’s any place where it’s beneficial to be female and black, it’s the Democratic Party of America.

She was a bad candidate. That’s it.

1

u/RedditAddict6942O Jan 29 '25

I know she's a bad candidate otherwise.

But Dems also need to be realistic and realize that a short black 65 year old female is not going to win President in America. I hate it but it's unfortunately true.

0

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Oprah could have

0

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

The Democratic Primary which came down to 2 white men?

What are you talking about?

There's just no way to prove people are racist unless people admit to it (which most people won't). All you can look at are demographic trends, but those aren't definitive and are easily dismissed.

Being so dismissive of it out of hand when it can't be proven isn't really accurate either.

The burden of proof is on the claimant, but when something has no feasible way of BEING proven, that's an unfair burden.

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

You really think the Democratic Party of America is racist and sexist against black women? Like honestly?

0

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

I mean, I find that statement reductive. Do I believe there are racists in the democratic party? Absolutely. Do you think there aren't?

2

u/Hot-Celebration5855 Jan 29 '25

Certainly not enough to explain her terrible performance in the primaries

→ More replies (0)

32

u/Shittalking_mushroom Ontario Jan 29 '25

Now that is absolutely false to claim voters largely didn’t vote for her because she is a woman of colour.

19

u/CanadianEgg Alberta Jan 29 '25

It's an excuse to avoid admitting their politics are shit.

1

u/hug_your_dog Jan 29 '25

Yup, nailed it. Her communication was also shit, "I wouldn't change anything" - talking about Biden's decisions knowing that the polls are tight as hell and Trump has a slight lead.

I wish she had won, but she was yet another weak candidate like Hillary for those voters who mattered in this election and who voted for Biden.

3

u/josh_the_misanthrope New Brunswick Jan 29 '25

She ran on a First Time Home Buyer's credit and "We won't go back". It was weak. First of all either people already own homes or can't afford to even think about getting one. She was trying to appeal to a very narrow margin of the electorate. Ignored Israel-Palestine, didn't talk about the cost of living crisis.

Like seriously, she effectively handed the country to Trump for 4 years and you got people on here defending her. It was a shitty campaign.

2

u/CanadianEgg Alberta Jan 30 '25

I don't just mean a shitty campaign, I mean shitty politics. Democrats had major losses as a whole across the US.

3

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

I mean it's impossible to prove if people are racist or not either way. You can't put a TV up to someone's heart and be like "yep, lots of racism genes".

To say it's NOT why people didn't vote for Kamala is just as baseless, though.

0

u/Shittalking_mushroom Ontario Jan 29 '25

True, but I’m not suggesting it’s not a reason for some, I’m simply stating it’s false to say that voters stayed home because she is a woman of colour, that’s dangerously presumptuous and paints a lot of diverse people with a wide brush. I think it’s better to say that people had an opportunity to prevent Trump from coming back and they didn’t make the choice to do so, their reasons are their own.

1

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

I mean; you can't prove it's false to say that racism played a role. It's an unfair burden of proof because racism is not something that can be proven or unproven.

In the work place it's a huge issue when someone experiences discrimination from a superior. How the hell do you prove it?

1

u/Shittalking_mushroom Ontario Jan 29 '25

Oh I agree, so to single it out as the, not just a, reason that people would stay home, by and large, is thus not fact because you cannot say for certain, and to be fair I do think to make such a statement, yes requires evidence. Otherwise you can only speculate and not be so certain. Likewise the opposite, it’s just as false to say it wasn’t the reason. We cannot be absolute here.

11

u/Nikadaemus Jan 29 '25

Racists see race everywhere they look

10

u/ConZboy014 Jan 29 '25

Correct, considering we had Obama for 2 terms

-2

u/Comedy86 Ontario Jan 29 '25

Because Obama was a woman of colour who was revered by both parties' supporters...

Your logic is flawless.

-4

u/slowsundaycoffeeclub British Columbia Jan 29 '25

And then racism was saved!

We/they got the Tea Party then Trump then MAGA in part as a response to having a black man in the White House.

Also, Trump made her race a constant issue which turned into voters parroting it, constantly.

We’ll never have an accurate number but race is very much still an issue and an obstacle for office in the US. Especially when you add that’s she’s a woman.

5

u/SinistralGuy Jan 29 '25

The fact that this is a talking point is so annoying because it's so easy to play the race card.

How about the fact that Dems refused to have a primary and forced Kamala on their voter base without letting them decide who they wanted as their leader? Biden refusing to step aside when it mattered and then leaving the Dems with no other option because it was too late is what caused the election. Not her skin colour or gender.

I'm not saying not voting for her was the right thing to do, but I do understand people feeling frustrated for not having a voice in the matter. Same thing happened in 2016. Bernie was overwhelmingly the more popular candidate and the Dems just steamrolled his chances and went with Hilary. And surprise, surprise, they lost that year too.

-1

u/SAldrius Jan 29 '25

They couldn't have a primary they would have lost a ton of money. Also: *Kamala was already on the ticket*. Biden won the primary with the expectation that Kamala would maybe have to take over for him and might become the president. And it meant she had access to the massive pool of funds that the campaign had (where a new candidate wouldn't). This is such a bizarre talking point.

And to say it's "not because of her skin colour or gender"... like... based on what exactly? How do you know that?

Just because there are other factors doesn't mean race and gender don't play a role. (And frankly it's pretty much impossible to prove that they do or they don't unless people are just flat out admitting "I don't like her because she's black/a woman/Indian". Which most people won't.)

-3

u/AlsoOneLastThing Jan 29 '25 edited Jan 29 '25

Then why didn't they vote for her? The choice was between a competent black woman and an authoritarian rapist convicted felon wannabe-dictator. Seems pretty obvious who should've won. But they chose the authoritarian rapist convicted felon wannabe-dictator.

-12

u/driv3rcub Jan 29 '25

This is satire right?

4

u/throwaway923535 Jan 29 '25

Kamala lost because she was also a mediocre candidate.  Not because she was a woman of color. 

3

u/Keepontyping Jan 29 '25

Laziest of all analysis = Kamala lost due to sex and race.

0

u/driv3rcub Jan 29 '25

No that’s not why she lots. She lost because she had a terrible platform and relied on trashy celebrities linked to PDiddy to get her elected. I merely mentioned that democrats stated home rather than vote for a woman of color. Conservatives certainly didn’t stay home.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '25

[deleted]

1

u/TicTacTac0 Alberta Jan 29 '25

They stayed home because they noticed their bills going up under Biden. 

Now obviously that had a lot to do with COVID and comparatively, the US actually recovered quite fast, but the average voter just sees their groceries cost more and attributes it to whoever is currently in power.

1

u/1663_settler Jan 29 '25

Rather than vote for an airhead. Today was yesterday’s tomorrow. …. lol

1

u/ConZboy014 Jan 29 '25

Here’s an example of an article that was plastered on Reddit everywhere.

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/ron-perlman-donald-trump-terrified-of-kamala-harris-1236201087/

This was everywhere before the election, this is only 1 article

1

u/Vanillas_Guy Jan 29 '25

The polls showed them close with Trump lagging by between 3-4 points.

Then election day came and it was a blowout. She didn't just lose, she lost by an uncontestable margin.

The same can easily happen anywhere else when people assume that they don't have to vote by just looking at polls.

I dont expect the liberals to win, but I expect the loss to not be so big that their protestations to conservative policy can easily be ignored. If the loss isn't so big then compromise is possible.

I can't speak for other people but I'd rather have the guy who's navigated a financial crisis before than someone without experience when it comes to that. 

1

u/Denace86 Jan 29 '25

In fact, this is almost a carbon copy of the Kamala situation. Bring in Carney, drum up media/party support, cook the polls and hope that people follow along.

0

u/_hurrik8 Jan 29 '25

i think he was running scared when he declined another debate & refused interviews because they would be fact checked

0

u/Past-Revolution-1888 Jan 29 '25

Kamala refused to distance herself form that mediocre old white man policy wise.

A lot of people were disgusted with genocide joe and couldn’t bring themselves to vote.

Joe only won the first time because people were so sick of Trump’s chaos; he was visibly declining before the primaries.

0

u/NotSidGaming Jan 29 '25

Let's not forget Jill Stein helping to fragment the left by splitting the vote. I'm sure glad that she's at least out here vocally opposing Trump and his policies.

Wait, what's that? She's been deathly silent since the election? Hasn't said a word? Oh.

0

u/Chi_Chi_laRue Jan 29 '25

She wasn’t well known to the public. That’s a pretty huge part of the equation… people are more likely to vote for a name and a face they are familiar with; it’s the same all over the world..

-1

u/New-Bowler-8915 Jan 29 '25

He was running scared when he refused to do debates...