this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
62 points (94.3% liked)

news

169 readers
745 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

  1. Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
  2. Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
  3. Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
  4. Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
  5. No link shorteners
  6. No entire article in the post body

founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
dude@lemmings.world
62
Kamala Harris appears to blame ‘people not voting’ for 2024 loss to Trump as book tour gets off to rocky start (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 14 hours ago by dude@lemmings.world to c/news@lemmings.world
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 39 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago)

So the article--which I'm sure EVERYONE READ--only discusses a knee jerk retort to a heckler which I guess blames non voters but it doesn't read like that.

I don't like Kamala as a candidate, I don't like the DNC (still fuck You DWS for torpedoing Bernie), but multiple things can be true at the same time. D should have candidates that are better, and a left candidate (who wouldn't even really fit in the party) would be nice. This is still a hardcore Murc's law situation: Trump is and was a known quantity and more people than just D had responsibility to avoid term 2 and give any accountability for term 1. By all means teach the DNC a lesson, but the cure is definitely worse than the disease for the presidency. (Maybe people should have left their couches and Lemmy earlier to BE the good candidates instead of complaining no one good enough was served to them?)

Having trump IS a result of no one else getting enough votes, that IS a result of people not voting. Sure we can argue for deontological voting and the duty of each vote and the value of not supporting genocide or the liberal establishment, but teleologically speaking all roads not leading to Harris led to trump. No way that would have been worse than this no matter what lipstick you put on it.

I am gonna be bitter forever that we got 47 because of people who knew what was coming and let it happen anyway, then sniff their own farts about it on the internet. Have the day you voted for in 2025 is a clever meme to post. Have the day you voted for or didn't vote at all for is even more apt. This is the cost you decided we should all pay to stick it to the DNC if you intentionally didn't vote, remember that. I hope it's worth it in 2028.

[–] PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The person who never won a primary is complaining about low voter turnout in a general election. Now THAT’S fucking rich!

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 32 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

I hate to say it, but she's right. Trump was very clear about his plans. Anyone paying attention knew what was going to happen. Any sane person with a pulse would have won the election if the public wasn't so apathetic, ignorant, and/or misinformed.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 24 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

if the public wasn't so apathetic, ignorant, and/or misinformed.

I don't think all of the apathy is inherent. Some of that's on her and the democratic party demoralizing their constituents. Yes, following game theory it is in their best interest to vote for the lesser evil and against the greater evil. I am politically active and I get that, so I voted.

Regardless, it still bothers me that a not insignificant portion of the Democratic party also knows this and takes advantage of this by coasting and doing the bare minimum. They seem more willing to spend their resources countering internal threats from progressives. It's not easy to stay motivated to support a party openly hostile to your own values.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would rather have a fascist opponent. Then voting comes down to, basically, vote for me because the alternative is fascism. How dare you question my policies (or lack thereof) or my soft stance our ally's obvious genocide? I'm your only hope. Vote for me or else.

It only works for so long, then apathy takes over.

[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

But doesn't that just prove the point? These shitty Dems are allowed to exist because people don't vote.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Yes, in part, and also because the party is actively trying to prevent those voters from getting the progressive candidates they want. It's more blatant these days (Bush, Bowman, Mamdani) than it has been in the past, but it was still happening. They don't want pressure from the left. They broke their promise to not support primary opponents (over incumbents) specifically when progressives started gaining ground. Many are openly hesitant to endorse Mamdani now if they aren't openly skeptical or critical. Vote blue no matter who, eh?

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

More specially, people don't vote in primaries or local elections.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Not that we really got a presidential primary in 2024, but yes.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago

Yeah... more thinking back to 2020 on the general. Not that we had that many options by the time they made it to my state.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The average American reads at a 7th grade reading level. You can bitch about it being the electorate's fault when you lose an election, but there have always been uneducated voters and there always will be. If you're a politician, you need to be able to reach all kinds of people; not just those with graduate degrees.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 8 hours ago

Democrats think doing politics is beneath them. They just need to be marginally better than Republicans and if they don't get elected then it's the voter's fault.

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 3 points 10 hours ago

It's neither of those three. People thought they had the moral high ground by not voting for either evil. These people weren't apathetic, ignorant, or misinformed. They were evil, selfish, and shortsighted.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 23 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

I'm so fucking tired of that spin.

It's like a restaurant owner who offered a crappy menu of poorly cooked food that nobody wanted in the first place blaming the restaurant's failure on the people who refused to eat there.

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

... Except the alternative was someone shitting on all of the food in the county.

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works -5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Except the ones that they cook at home, so they just stayed in.

Your analogy would be better in Australia where voting is compulsory.

[–] lastunusedusername2@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The ones that stayed home still get shit in their food

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

You may not pay attention to politics but politics sure will pay attention to you.

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

This is the worst analogy I've ever seen

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 29 points 13 hours ago

Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 31 points 13 hours ago

She's talking up Hillary's mantle, and that woman couldn't put a sock in it for 40 years, while also thinking she was clever for getting Don on the ballot, nevermind worshipping at the altar of Kissenger.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

We should run Mamdani in 2028. Those who know a little bit about presidential eligibility will cry that this can't be done. Those that know more about presidential eligibility will recognize that it's entirely possible for Mamdani to run for and serve as president.

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean, this seems pretty cut and dry:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It's been argued, though notably not in the courts, that this is superceded by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Everyone knows what the current supreme court would make if it.

[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 13 points 12 hours ago

Centrists look at both sides of the mirror and find the middle ground between reality and a black void.

[–] KelvarCherry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

How can she be this tone deaf? No one wants to hear from you, Kamala. Not the time. We're dealing with the fallout of your horrid campaign.

I regret my Kamala vote (moreso my faith in her leading up to the election) more every day, and I am in despair over this administration.

[–] lutehero@piefed.social 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

lol

I love this take. "I regret voting for the person who wasn't a fascist, I wish I had actually voted for the fascist. Real Lemmy Leftists™ like me don't vote for democratic candidates and neither should you, zealous support for Trump is the only real way to bring down those evil Centrists!!!"

[–] KelvarCherry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 hours ago

oooh~ so smart. No, I wasn't going to vote for Trump. Nothing I said supported Trump. I specifically said I dislike this administration; yet Clearly backing Center-Right Biden and Kamala didn't work, because it plunged us Back into fascism. Now, if you'd like to contribute something to how we could have avoided a Trump presidency, you can join me on what I've been spiraling on for the last year. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social -5 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

So I want to point out something interesting in the comments to this post:

There are two different segments of the comments, with wildly differing consensus views revealed in one segment versus the other (if you look at the votes). There's the top three comments (at least as it shows up to me), who think Kamala Harris is a big meanie liberal who deserved what she got and why isn't she helping us with Trump now. Then there's the whole rest, where there's actually a strong consensus along the lines of this:

Sore loser

Politicians aren’t athletes. She didn’t lose. The American people chose Trump. The American people lost.

... where the top comment is mildly downvoted, and the reply is heavily upvoted.

It is weird to me that there are two strata to it. I have a theory for why that is, but I am sometimes out of my mind, so I will simply point it out and that it's weird.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 8 hours ago

Kamala is a lot of things, but she is not a liberal. I can have honest disagreements with a principled liberal, but the Democratic establishment abandoned liberal principals long ago.

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

She's RIGHT! If ONLY people Had SOMEONE to Vote for Trump would have LOST!

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world -1 points 13 hours ago

Why doesn't she fight along people against Trump ruining the country?