It is a party issue. The reason Democrats couldn’t effectively run on the issue of democracy is that they THEMSELVES did not treat Trump as a threat to democracy. Actions speak louder than words. Democrats called Trump a fascist and a threat to democracy. But they didn’t even start an investigation of him til two years into the Biden term. That man should have been arrested day one, hauled in front of a military tribunal, charged with treason, and dealt with accordingly. Any SCOTUS justices that tried to prevent this should have been charged as accessories after the fact and similarly tried as enemies of the republic.

THAT is the rational response to a former president that tried to overthrow the government. Trump should have been six feet under before Biden finished his first 100 days. That is the kind of urgency that is needed when a true existential threat is present. Look what happens when a random citizen tries to walk into the White House carrying a rifle. Do you think they weigh the political calculus of dealing with the person and how to respond to them without angering voters? No, they do what is necessary, then and there. That is what you do in an emergency.

What kind of existential threat do you just ignore for two years and then slow-walk? If China were invading Hawaii, would we move with that kind of sloth? No, an existential threat requires immediate action. By giving so much deference to Trump, Biden made extremely clear that he didn’t believe Trump to be an existential threat to democracy. Entirely because of his actions, any later campaign pleas about the threat of Trump fell of deaf ears. If the president of the United States won’t take something seriously as a threat to democracy, why would anyone expect voters to?

Well, feel free to keep calling for a recount. And I’m free to tell you why there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of it happening.

I don’t know. I voted for Kamala, but I think Trump might actually be better long-term for the Palestinians than Kamala.

Yes, Trump would happily watch as Israel bulldozed and annexed the entirety of Gaza and the West Bank. But Israel’s ability to do that isn’t contingent on US military aid. What really prevents that is broader global public opinion. If Israel tries a full and rapid ethnic cleansing, it will be completely embargoed by every nation in Europe.

There is a reason Israel has been doing a slow-mo “genocide by zoning code” in the West Bank for years. They know they can’t get away with overt genocide, not without facing mass trade embargoes.

The truth is, I really don’t know if things can realistically get bad enough in Palestine for the Kamala/Trump distinction to be any different. Even in the case of an overt genocide, Kamala would simply withdraw some offensive aid. Trump would keep that aid flowing, but in either case, if Israel decided to do a full overt genocide of the Palestinians, neither a Trump nor Harris administration would meaningfully intervene.

The only long-term hope for any improvement for US policy on Israel is if Democrat leaders listen to their base and stop supporting them. Kamala was going to be fully pro-Israel. And with Kamala as an incumbent, no anti-Zionist candidate would have been able to run in 2028. Now with Kamala out of the picture, and with her seeming loss due to her and Biden’s addiction to fellating Israel, there is room politically for anti-genocide voices to actually have a chance at a major party’s nomination.

I would say the chances of an anti-genocide president being in office in 2029 are about 10-20%. With a Harris win, that chance would be 0%.

OTOH, I can see it from the other perspective.

I voted for Kamala, but I also recognize that NOT VOTING for Kamala is probably the fastest way to get any change in US Israel policy.

If Kamala won, nothing was going to change in Gaza. The current slow genocide would continue unabated with full US financial support.

Trump won. There is now a chance that the genocide will accelerate. However, there are strong reasons to believe this will not be the case. Israel has always had to balance its genocidal territorial ambitions with global public opinion. Trump will not stop Netanyahu from bulldozing the West Bank, but the threat of embargo from every nation in Europe might. Israel can only go far without risking its existentially necessary trade links. As nice as US aid is to have, this broader international trade is Israel’s real life-blood.

So while there is a chance of acceleration, the chance is not particularly large. In reality, the ultimate outcome of Trump and Harris administrations is likely identical in terms of Gaza.

On the other hand, a Kamala loss does present the one narrow window for possible change on US Israeli policy. Kamala chose Israel over winning the election. She gave up her presidency for Netanyahu. She betrayed her own base, and she towed the Israeli line, and what did it get her? She was still portrayed as the enemy of Israel and lost anyway.

That lesson will be remembered by future Democratic candidates. And that lesson is that cowing to Israel does not guarantee victory. And that is really the only realistic path forward we have right now to any change in US Israeli policy. It’s going to require that Democrats get their heads out of their asses and realize that Israel is not such a winning issue anymore. THAT is what is required for real change. And hopefully, with Kamala’s loss, at least some progress can be made on Democrat’s chronic case of Israel fellatio.

No, big turnout is still synonymous with a progressive candidate win.

Again, you’re living in the past. Back during the era of Obama, it was Democrats who were drawing out the infrequent voters. When turnout was high, Democrats did well. Now, it’s Republicans who are relying on the infrequent voters. The modern Democrats are very dependent on college-educated voters and other groups that turn out more reliably than Trump’s base.

And how Bernie or some other progressive would win is completely irrelevant here. We’re talking about how Kamala, a centrist Democrat, performed in an election. What happened 20 years ago is irrelevant. In the recent Trump elections - 2016, 2020, 2024, it is centrist Democrats like her who were hurt by higher turnout.

However, that being said, there’s literally a laundry list of election interference issues that should trigger a recount. And that includes speech by Trump himself that is suspect. Like he’s literally working with Elon Musk and Putin and you don’t think they may have done some bullshit? Lol. How gullible. You realize Putin has decades of experience rigging elections and using propaganda, and Musk owns Twitter?

Trump made a vague remark about having some plan in the House, a plan that they’ll never need. Do I doubt that Trump would willingly steal an election? No. But the point is that, as everyone has been trying to tell you, there is no reasonable way to pull off what you’re suggesting.

You are naive and clearly trapped in an info bubble. The simple fact is that far more people voted for Trump than did Harris. And this result isn’t in any way surprising. It’s the kind of scenario any Poli Sci 101 text would tell you could easily lose an incumbent an election.

If it were a close race at all, you would have a point. But we don’t do big national recounts just for shits and giggles. We don’t do them because you think someone’s vibe makes them a cheater. We do it when a plot is actually plausible. And the advantage Trump received is completely consistent with national polling, general economic sentiments, and Trump’s own past poll performance. There is simply no reason other than cope to hang onto the idea that Trump cheated his way to this win.

The blame still stops at the leading Democrats.

Consider this. How could so many people vote for someone who is such a clear threat to democracy?

Simple. Because despite everything they said, his opponents never actually treated him as a threat to democracy.

Biden appointed a Republican to run the Department of Justice, and that Republican sat on his hands, refusing to do any investigation of Trump until he was forced to do so by House investigative committees. It took TWO YEARS before an investigation even began. This delay allowed Trump to eventually run out the clock.

Trump should have been in chains on the day Biden took office. He should have faced trial in a military tribunal. Any attempt by SCOTUS to protect him should have been declared “a coup from the bench” and seen those justices charged as accomplices after the fact.

THAT is how you need to handle an actual threat to democracy. Trump should have been put on trial, through whatever means necessary. Hell, ideally he should have received a capital sentence for his crimes against the republic. He betrayed his country. He is guilty of treason. The man should have hanged for his crimes.

But that wasn’t how Biden treated it. Trump was an EPOCHAL THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, but not enough to risk angering conservative white voters in suburban Philadelphia. He was THE NEXT INCARNATION OF HITLER, but not so Hitlerian as to justify any kind of dubious legal maneuvers that a fascist like Trump would have no problem pulling off.

Biden and co have been shouting that Trump is a threat do democracy for the better part of a decade at this point. But they never actually treated him like one. Actions speak louder than words. Democrats said Trump was a threat to democracy, but they never actually treated him like one. The Democrats, through their actions, made it clear that they didn’t think Trump was a real threat to democracy, so the voters acted accordingly.

If Democrats were actually serious about the threat, Trump would have been tried by military tribunal, sentenced, and been locked away or put in the ground two years ago.

It’s not weird if you realize that we’re no longer in the era of big turnout being synonymous with Democratic win. And rallies are a poor indicator of voter sentiment. How many rallies for Kamala did you personally go to? Rallies are a vestigial remnant from another political era, when people primarily heard about candidates from local in-person gatherings. Yes, Kamala was able to get better rally turnout this time around than Trump, but rally-goers are a weird political rounding error. It just turns out that Kamala’s weirdos were a bit more fired up this time around than Trump’s weirdos.

We just came out of an era of inflation that America hasn’t seen in decades. More people are rent-burdened than ever before, and the amount of people accessing foodbanks is higher than it has been in generations. Liberals papered over this harsh reality with wonky discussions of median inflation-adjusted wages, and they shouted down any critique of how limited main inflation figures actually are at measuring economic well-being. Or worse, they pointed at the stock market. Democrats have also held the White House for 12 of the last 16 years.

Globally, centrist neoliberal parties like the Democrats have been eviscerated in nation after nation, election after election. The neoliberal economic model has failed to deliver the widespread prosperity it promised, and the inequality it has enabled has reached crushing levels. People are demanding change, and currently, they can only find that change, any change really, on the part of right-wing populists like Trump. Neoliberals are genetically incapable of standing up to the wealthy and powerful corporate interests.

Finally, while Trump is a fascist, it was incredibly difficult for voters to take that claim seriously. You can point out that he tried to overthrow the government. But then the average voter will just ask you, “well why isn’t he in prison?” Biden put a Republican, Merrick Garland, in charge of his DOJ. And Garland sat on any investigation or indictment of Trump for two years, allowing Trump to run out the clock. Garland made it impossible for Democrats to effectively run on the “Trump is a fascist” line, simply because the Biden administration didn’t treat him as a threat to democracy. He should have been arrested and sent off to face a military tribunal the day Biden was sworn in. But because Biden didn’t treat him as a serious threat, the voters didn’t consider him a serious threat either.

In short, there are plenty of reasons why Trump won and Kamala lost, and they have nothing to do with voter fraud. Kamala offered no real solutions to struggling Americans. Trump has a simple, if monstrous, solution that actually WILL help people with rental costs. He’s promising to deport 20 million people and thus free up housing supply. It’s a monstrous and cruel solution, but it is at least a short-term solution. Yes, Trump absolutely meets any standard textbook definition of a fascist, but Kamala was not able to win on that. If your party is in power, you cannot run arguing your opponent is a threat to democracy. As if they are, the voters will ask why you haven’t put them behind bars already.

You’re getting into conspiracy theory here. Trump did better than expected everywhere. Blue states. Red States. Blue cities. Red cities. Didn’t matter. There was a shift almost everywhere. And this is across a nation that uses radically different voting machines, forms of voting, voting machine providers, etc. It doesn’t make sense that the could all be rigged so perfectly. It’s insanity.

Yes, you can count “just in case,” but that way lies madness.

I voted for Harris. But in the first-past-the-post system, all that matters for a party is victory. That is how you judge the success of party officials. There is a whole class of extremely well-paid Democratic party officials whose ENTIRE JOB is to figure out how to select a candidate and sell them to the American people. That is literally their entire job.

The average voters is low-information, doesn’t pay attention, and assumes both sides frequently lie. (And they’re not wrong about the lying.) You can truthfully call the other side fascist, but the other side will simply say you’re the fascist, and low-information voters can’t tell the difference.

Voters have always been low-information. This isn’t anything new. The entire reason we have primaries is that it forces candidates to actually try their hand at mass appeal and to take the temperature of the electorate. Democratic leaders kept Biden in far too long, til it was too late to hold a proper primary.

You can blame it on those who don’t vote, but the truth is that most people pay attention to politics only tangentially. If you, as a political operator, didn’t find a way to reach these voters, you have failed.

Does the blame ultimately fall on those who didn’t vote for Biden? Sure. But the same is true of those who didn’t vote for Walter Mondale. It doesn’t mean Harris isn’t just as big a failure as Mondale.

I dunno. I find the word “decadence” ridiculous. It’s flexible to the point of uselessness. People refer to the “decadence” of the Romans to mean everything from their extreme wealth gap to the decline of citizens soldiers. Hell, half the time people use “decadence” just as a way of disguising that they’re simply blaming the fall of Rome in the existence of gay people.

This study from 2014 really explains this election for me.

For the bottom 90% of the US population, democracy fundamentally does not exist. The actions of legislators reflect the opinions of the wealthiest 10% of the population.

“Democracy,” for 90% of the population, is a complete sham. Since 2016, Democrats SHOULD have been taking a hard left turn towards progressive populism. They should have been pursuing policies that are actually popular among the common people, even if those are unpopular among their wealthy donors. But while they ran on the idea of democracy, Democrats have done NOTHING to make their party actually reflect the needs of regular people. They should have been offering a bold vision to help the American people. But the DNC decided that the whims of donors was more important, and they lost as a result.

Why would you expect people to care for a democracy that means nothing to them?

I voted for Harris, but I also realize that this “They took the pistol out of the person’s hand that was pointed at them and replaced it with a bazooka” is a seriously poor description of Israel and the Gaza conflict in regards to Harris and Trump.

Harris didn’t really offer anything substantially better for Palestine than Trump did. Yes, Trump personally wouldn’t mind it if Israel just completely bulldozed the entire West Bank and Gaza tomorrow and annexed the whole thing. Harris wouldn’t support that. But the real barrier to that kind of full-on ethnic cleansing is not US military support. Even with full US backing, Israel can’t do that kind of full-on ethnic cleansing without becoming subject to complete trade embargoes by every country in Europe.

Israel has been physically capable of completely annexing the West Bank and Gaza for decades. They’ve taken the slow approach to ethnic cleansing - slowly taking territory via zoning building permits - precisely because they need to balance their territorial ambitions with their need for trade with other nations. This is what ultimately restrains them from their worst possible crimes.

Neither Trump nor Kamala would have used US military aid to rein in Israel. Neither would use US military forces to prevent an all-out genocide attempt by Israel. Trump wouldn’t oppose an overt Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. But if Israel gets to that point, then they’re not going to be thinking about US military aid at that point.

As a practical matter, Trump vs Kamala is a wash for the Palestinians.

Spinning is better than not spinning.

Previously, on January 6th, Trump actively prevented troops from being deployed to the Capital grounds. Congress specifically asked for troops to be deployed, but he refused. Despite the advanced warning that violence was expected, the Capital was guarded by just a handful of regular police officers. The forces present are the normal type, the Capital police officers who normally handle things like protesters who chain themselves up outside a Senator’s office. That’s the level of threat they’re used to handling.

The proper way to deal with armed insurrectionists trying to literally overthrow a government is actual troops, real soldiers. And that is what will be used this time. The Capital will be a fortress guarded by thousands of trained service members, with orders to shoot to kill anyone attempting to break in. If MAGA tries anything this time, they’ll be met with automatic weapons fire. In other words, they’ll get the kind of treatment the SHOULD have received on January 6th last time.

Biden being in office and holding command of the military during this time is not something that should be so casually dismissed.

This considers only party registration. Harris seems to be pulling in a substantial number of Republicans - an amount far, far greater than the number of Democrats voting for Trump.

And yet, without such people, these institutions will never change. If you want these institutions to be non-hateful, you have to get non-hateful people into them. We’re not going to get rid of Liberty University any time soon. And I would prefer to see it grow into a non-bigoted institution than to have it remain a bigoted institution indefinitely.

They’ll be granted statehood. But in order to compromise with Republicans, the votes of Senators and House members from Puerto Rico will only count as 3/5ths of a vote on the House or Senate floor.

I was going to say they should send her down to hold get out the vote rallies in Puerto Rico.

Require all philosophy professors at the Athens University philosophy department to be middle-aged gay men with 20-something twink lovers.

We should give a bunch of military aid to Greece. But make it all contingent on them recreating the Sacred Band of Thebes.