141
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)
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
141 points (92.7% liked)
news
999 readers
509 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:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
But doesn't that just prove the point? These shitty Dems are allowed to exist because people don't vote.
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?
More specially, people don't vote in primaries or local elections.
Not that we really got a presidential primary in 2024, but yes.
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.
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.
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.
Literacy is less of a problem than the ability to determine a reliable source. There have always been undereducated people and dishonest journalists, but the spreading of misinformation has expanded to an unprecedented degree. A large portion of the population lives in a fictional reality built by propagandists. We can't even agree on objective facts anymore.
"I only lost the election because people didn't vote for me" is so something anyone who lost an election can say and technically be "right".
The only candidate that mattered was Trump. Literally any Democrat would be a better option.
It mattered that Democrats didn't run a campaign that could actually win
What I am saying is the Democrats were irrelevant. It didn't matter who they ran. It didn't matter what their policy was. Not being Trump should have been enough to win by a landslide if people weren't too misinformed or apathetic.
If you care about beating Trump, then whether the Democrats ran a campaign that could win is extremely relevant.
Ok, but it's not.
Agreed. That's the interesting question to me. Why wasn't it simply the decision between democracy and fascism?
Did people not see it in that perspective? Or did they see it that way but still choose fascism? Does that mean people don't believe in democracy anymore? Or are they so convinced by propaganda that fascism is the only way to save us from an imaginary threat?
The reason matters because that determines what is needed to solve the problem.
Incoherent
No, it's perfectly coherent; you're just being a baby because I called your actually incoherent comment incoherent.
Manchild
Cry harder
BrainrotInABox
Cry harder
Brain rot
Cry harder
Get help
I'm laughing harder
Of course you are
And harder, you're so pathetic.
Cry harder
Loser
Cry harder
Boot licker
Cry harder
Whaaa you're stalking me! 😂
Cry harder
Whaa they're out to get me even though I won't hesitate to do the same, whaa
Cry harder
Whaaa, I'm a victim, whaa lmao
Cry harder
Whaa i play stupid when I read things I don't like whaa
Cry harder
Whaa I'm a communist whaa
Cry harder
They're stalking me whaa
Loser
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.
Literally the opposite on all three but go off ig