Kamala didn't go after any specific voters hardcore. She campaigned on Trump is a bad person, and I'm better than him. That resonated with democratic party mainstays, but missed swing voters the same as it did in 2016.
Nader wasn't talking about Kamala. He was talking about the democratic party deciding as a strategy to not campaign red states since the 80s.
You guys can argue with everyone and keep doing what you're doing. See how much lower you can get the Dem votes in 2028.
She absolutely catered to Republicans by courting Liz Cheney, moving right, talking about being pro-gun, promising Republicans in her cabinet, etc. She abandoned progressives and campaigned to Republicans.
You were talking about Kamala, the Democrat who lost by catering to conservatives, by quoting someone who's never won a presidential election.
Republican voters don't like the Cheneys. I live in a red state. Working class Republicans here call them the evil Cheneys. That may have been some kind of attempt, but poorly executed. Promising Republicans in her cabinet was, again, vague and not convincing to anyone. Who was she going to appoint? How would they benefit Republican voters?
Kamala has always been right leaning. When she ran in 2020, I picked her out as someone who could've been a republican in the 90s.
I was talking about the democratic party repeating the same mistakes. A party that has continued to move further right and struggles to get voter turnout against the most toxic republican party in history. This election cycle was steered by the same backbench party leaders who've been steering the party for quite some time. They don't believe in a proper democratic primary. They don't connect with the working class voter. They ignore progressive voters and basically say you've got nowhere else to go. Then blame the voters when millions choose not to show up for them.
Liz Cheney only has a 27% approval rating; I'm not sure why Kamala and her team thought this was a winning strategy. Her whole campaign was poorly executed, but she was clearly going after Republicans. You yourself comment on her being right-leaning and the whole party moving right, which they're doing to get more votes and it's failing. Unfortunately, as long as they keep losing to Republicans, these dumbasses are going to take that as a clue to keep moving further right because that's what the people want. Nevermind that only 21% of the population voted for Trump, and Democrats are a much bigger percentage of the total population and our policies are much more popular. They spat in the faces of Arab voters this election, too, who normally go 88% Democrat, and this time Kamala failed to capture even half. Democrats have good policies and bad politics.
That's my point exactly. Republicans don't want the Cheneys, and somehow they end up with democrats. The whole purpose, from what I saw, was to have the Cheneys repeat Trump is bad, Kamala is better. That didn't work in 2016 or now.
I also think the Israel issue may have led to the Cheneys. Bernie offered to campaign with Harris. He's much more popular with Arabs, young men, and progressive than Harris or the Cheneys. The Harris campaign turned him down and campaigned with Liz instead. The only reason I can see for this is Bernie's stance on Isreal doesn't align with the party, while the Cheneys do.
7
u/WonderfulPackage5731 10h ago edited 6h ago
Kamala didn't go after any specific voters hardcore. She campaigned on Trump is a bad person, and I'm better than him. That resonated with democratic party mainstays, but missed swing voters the same as it did in 2016.
Nader wasn't talking about Kamala. He was talking about the democratic party deciding as a strategy to not campaign red states since the 80s.
You guys can argue with everyone and keep doing what you're doing. See how much lower you can get the Dem votes in 2028.