• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    She gained black men

    No, she didn’t. She got 78% of black men compared to 80% going to Biden last election.

    The reason you get downvoted is that accusing voters of bigotry is a way of deflecting from actual strategic failures, things that could’ve been done differently, and more importantly, could be done differently in the future. It’s a way of saving face at the cost of self-reflection and improvement. It’s just an excuse.

    It’s also simply not true. Three swing states that Kamala lost elected female Democratic senators. Given the very limited dataset we have to extrapolate from, it’s hard to imagine a world with more compelling evidence that your narrative is false.

    • SoftTeeth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Oh shit I meant to take out the part about black men, thanks.

      The dems lack policy, but the specifically white and latino men who stayed home didn’t do it because of policies. The dems had no change in policy and they had no issues voting for it the first time. I get it that toxic masculinity makes a lot of men in the US into snowflakes when trying to talk about our bigot problems, but downvotes don’t change observable reality.

      I don’t care what senators were elected, that has nothing to do with the presidential canidate being a woman. And it has nothing to do with who old white people want as president.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        I don’t care what senators were elected,

        Of course not, since that contradicts your narrative. It’s quite a stretch to assume that if a woman loses it must be because of sexism (ignoring the many, many flaws in her campaign), but it’s an even bigger stretch to assume that people who didn’t vote for her, yet voted to put other women into the upper echelons of the US government, merely didn’t vote for her because of sexism.

        Your narrative is impossible to disprove through evidence because it was not derived from evidence, and the purpose of the narrative is not to reflect reality. The purpose of the narrative is to save face and deflect criticism from the party. It is purely a psychological coping mechanism, which personally I have little patience for.

        • SoftTeeth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          The only narrative here is observable reality, you are allowed to look at the same fucking graphs I did.

          Senators aren’t the president. Do you know how many people literally just vote for the president and leave the rest blank? Millions.

          The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.

          Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure. Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.