It probably didn't help, but I think racism and sexism were much, much bigger factors. That, and her team's change in messaging - from calling the Republicans "weird" to ... whatever their...
It probably didn't help, but I think racism and sexism were much, much bigger factors. That, and her team's change in messaging - from calling the Republicans "weird" to ... whatever their advisors told them to do.
I listened to Ta-Nehisi Coates talking about the piece on a podcast, and the first thing he says is that the title of the piece doesn't reflect the thrust of what he's trying to say: From...
Exemplary
I listened to Ta-Nehisi Coates talking about the piece on a podcast, and the first thing he says is that the title of the piece doesn't reflect the thrust of what he's trying to say:
The story I have to tell is the original headline was not the headline as it is now. I can't remember what it was... it was probably something more akin to what the story actually talks about. And, god, this is a horrible sign of our times, but it was not getting read.
So we had to figure out on our side - and I was intimately a part of this - I spent all this time doing this research, doing this reading and everything, so how do we get people into this much more complicated question that we want to have? That I want to have, actually, about American empire, about Palestine, about Gaza, how that fits into American history, and what happens when that has a collision with the Black freedom tradition in this country that, in fact, made Kamala Harris possible in the first place.
And I don't know what it says about our times that we had to boil the headline down to this very "hot" question that finally got people to read it. What I'm trying to say is, not only do I not have an answer, even writing the piece, I was only kind of interested in the question. I was interested in something else.
From listening to him talk, and reading the piece, I think his thesis lines up pretty neatly with your comment, particularly in regards to the change in messaging to 'whatever their advisors told them to do'.
Going from leaning on the historical tradition of liberation and embracing Dick Cheney's endorsement and promising 'the world's most lethal military' during a genocide enabled by her party seemed wildly tone-deaf, viewing the incoherent communications from another country. Using the imagery of liberation to re-emphasize the power of systems of control that keep Americans down is tonally confusing to say the least. To many, I would imagine, it felt like a betrayal.
As Coates' piece concludes:
Harris recalls the walls of her day care center as decorated with posters of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman. They were reared in a social justice Christianity, which called upon them, according to Harris, to “defend the rights of the poor and needy.” This does not strike me as the biography of someone who needs lectures on the nexus between the black freedom struggle and its import to the broader world. To the contrary, it reads like the story of someone steeped in that knowledge.
And that story forces a very basic question: What was the point of all this? Why the invocations of Tubman, the readings of Du Bois, the visits from Hamer? And did the advocates of this collective pedagogy imagine their children rising to heights of power, only to view the darker nations of the world through the same violent lens as their oppressors? And if they did not, if they believed that the “poor and needy” meant those within the empire as well as those without, then what moral mandate does that place upon their children?
And if their children have come only to praise, not check, empire, then why have they come at all?
No probably being a lack luster candidate even when picked as VP (yeah half the country is rioting due to police violence but sure lets grab a prosecutor) and then having half a campaign after a...
No probably being a lack luster candidate even when picked as VP (yeah half the country is rioting due to police violence but sure lets grab a prosecutor) and then having half a campaign after a no primary fuck fest debacle cost her the campaign.
However the Dems have loved the death by a 1000 cuts method to losing so yes you can also throw in racism, sexism, and a million other things.
Was Gaza on the scale? Of course. Did it change the election? I doubt it. The states where dems stayed home because of Kamala's Gaza stance aren't the states she lost.
Edit:
There's a nice chart here about halfway which tells and interesting story, especially with the one following.
Harris lost a TON of voters in CA/NY. These are dem strongholds, and also where I expect the "but what about Gaza" crowd to show up the most. Partly because they've got a large dem base, and party because dems know they're not going republican even if they stay home.
Looking at the second chart, where she lost her battle ground states, the key ones she did worse in were AZ, MI, PA. Maybe i'm wrong, but I kinda doubt that AZ has a strong list of democrats who decided Gaza was the tipping point. Especially because in AZ/MI it looks like some of the under performance might have actually been independents who flipped (guessing completely as you can't tell from this data and it might just be coincidence).
MORE IMPORTANTLY is how well Trump performed in all of those states compared to 2020. It's almost like the economy was also kicking people in the teeth, which motivated voters who stayed home in 2020 but probably would've voted republican anyways.
Now I can't read the article, but to respond to the headline, even discussion of it strikes me as the democrats doing what they do best. Identifying the problem (oh fuck we lost) and blaming every useless side note rather than just fixing the obvious.
I know a lot of people here feel differently, but a progressive wave or a strong stance on a middle east conflict which has basically never affected the average american's lives isn't going to win you AZ, MI, PA, NV, NC, WI, GA.
I kept the original title, but I don't think it's a clear summation of the content in the essay, which examines the Civil Rights movement, the Palestinian cause, and the contradiction of Kamala...
I kept the original title, but I don't think it's a clear summation of the content in the essay, which examines the Civil Rights movement, the Palestinian cause, and the contradiction of Kamala Harris, a product of the former, distancing herself from the latter during her presidential bid.
I don't know where we're at with archive links these days, but this is behind a paywall. It's available with a free trial, but you know where to go if that's not what you're into. Here's a snippet if you're on the fence:
When you live as black Americans do, in a constant state of emergency, it can be hard to look across an ocean and see what the long arm of your country is doing to people like Dima. What is already blurry is rendered almost imperceptible by the spectacles of American racism. Because when those whom America kills come to this country, the one sure way for them to advance is to become white, and the one sure way to become white is to put as much distance between oneself and black people as possible. Knowing this, the temptation to adopt a more siloed strategy, one that eschews coalitions with allies who have disappointed us, is strong. This is a very bad idea.
If only because we are a minority, we need the numbers that come from alliances. And then there are certain moments, when a particular issue multiplies the power of certain allies. The Arab American vote is relatively tiny and constrained to a few states. But much as the advance of broadcast news made it hard for Southern white supremacists to hide their brutality, the sweep of social media has made it impossible for Israel, and thus the American empire, to hide its own. And just as the image of black people beaten for trying to cross a bridge resonated beyond our community, the image of a Palestinian hooked up to an IV, writhing in agony and burning alive, resonates far beyond theirs.
This resonance was not appreciated in 2024. A party that was deeply identified with destroying apartheid within its borders attempted to win by ignoring apartheid abroad. It did not work. “There was an underestimation of what was really afoot and how much it meant to so many people from many different walks of life,” says Pressley. “And I would say especially the younger generation. And I do believe it is why so many young people just did not participate and stayed home.”
There is another way.
...
Harris recalls the walls of her day care center as decorated with posters of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman. The nursery’s matriarch made pound cake and flaky biscuits, and played Aretha Franklin’s rendition of “To Be Young, Gifted and Black.” She recalls being sent on Sundays to the 23rd Avenue Church of God, where Harris and her sister, Maya, sang in the children’s choir. They were reared in a social justice Christianity, which called upon them, according to Harris, to “defend the rights of the poor and needy.” This does not strike me as the biography of someone who needs lectures on the nexus between the black freedom struggle and its import to the broader world. To the contrary, it reads like the story of someone steeped in that knowledge.
And that story forces a very basic question: What was the point of all this? Why the invocations of Tubman, the readings of Du Bois, the visits from Hamer? And did the advocates of this collective pedagogy imagine their children rising to heights of power, only to view the darker nations of the world through the same violent lens as their oppressors? And if they did not, if they believed that the “poor and needy” meant those within the empire as well as those without, then what moral mandate does that place upon their children?
And if their children have come only to praise, not check, empire, then why have they come at all?
The Democratic Party-endorsed approach is to blame Americans supporting Palestine left and right for the loss, then re-evaluate about a year and a half later and realize it wasn't actually them so...
The Democratic Party-endorsed approach is to blame Americans supporting Palestine left and right for the loss, then re-evaluate about a year and a half later and realize it wasn't actually them so you can continue ignoring them.
…truthfully, I don't think it was ever Gaza. She was just an uninspiring candidate. Most Americans don't vote based on foreign policy. In fact, most Americans straight up don't vote.
The Gaza protesters are a very loud but very small minority. I don't think they matter at all. The problems she had were Biden refused to rescind until too late Trump almost got assassinated Even...
The Gaza protesters are a very loud but very small minority. I don't think they matter at all. The problems she had were
Biden refused to rescind until too late
Trump almost got assassinated
Even after Biden's fumbles, I think she would have easily won without the assassination attempt. The Gaza stuff is a rounding error compared to both of those things.
Gaza was important. Make no mistake. The decision to back the Israeli government's war crimes was a serious own-goal and should have been a very easy thing to avoid, not just for strategic reasons...
Gaza was important. Make no mistake. The decision to back the Israeli government's war crimes was a serious own-goal and should have been a very easy thing to avoid, not just for strategic reasons but for moral ones as well, and those responsible for that blunder should feel nothing but shame for it.
And yet, I disagree with the title. As it stands, I don't think there was a "single cause" at all, and I think trying to find one is foolish. Trying to boil out the nuance like that is absurd to begin with, and especially so when Harris' campaign screwed up in so many different ways. Kamala's campaign failed because it was trying to sell a poor candidate while being run by incompetent buffoons who had no understanding whatsoever of the people she was supposed to represent.
If you want to know what mistakes to avoid in future elections, I recommend "as many as possible."
I think the big reason is that Kamala didn't have very much visibility as VP and then suddenly was thrust into the nominee status without really having built up any real following.
I think the big reason is that Kamala didn't have very much visibility as VP and then suddenly was thrust into the nominee status without really having built up any real following.
It probably didn't help, but I think racism and sexism were much, much bigger factors. That, and her team's change in messaging - from calling the Republicans "weird" to ... whatever their advisors told them to do.
But mostly the racism and sexism.
I listened to Ta-Nehisi Coates talking about the piece on a podcast, and the first thing he says is that the title of the piece doesn't reflect the thrust of what he's trying to say:
From listening to him talk, and reading the piece, I think his thesis lines up pretty neatly with your comment, particularly in regards to the change in messaging to 'whatever their advisors told them to do'.
Going from leaning on the historical tradition of liberation and embracing Dick Cheney's endorsement and promising 'the world's most lethal military' during a genocide enabled by her party seemed wildly tone-deaf, viewing the incoherent communications from another country. Using the imagery of liberation to re-emphasize the power of systems of control that keep Americans down is tonally confusing to say the least. To many, I would imagine, it felt like a betrayal.
As Coates' piece concludes:
No probably being a lack luster candidate even when picked as VP (yeah half the country is rioting due to police violence but sure lets grab a prosecutor) and then having half a campaign after a no primary fuck fest debacle cost her the campaign.
However the Dems have loved the death by a 1000 cuts method to losing so yes you can also throw in racism, sexism, and a million other things.
Was Gaza on the scale? Of course. Did it change the election? I doubt it. The states where dems stayed home because of Kamala's Gaza stance aren't the states she lost.
Edit:
There's a nice chart here about halfway which tells and interesting story, especially with the one following.
Harris lost a TON of voters in CA/NY. These are dem strongholds, and also where I expect the "but what about Gaza" crowd to show up the most. Partly because they've got a large dem base, and party because dems know they're not going republican even if they stay home.
Looking at the second chart, where she lost her battle ground states, the key ones she did worse in were AZ, MI, PA. Maybe i'm wrong, but I kinda doubt that AZ has a strong list of democrats who decided Gaza was the tipping point. Especially because in AZ/MI it looks like some of the under performance might have actually been independents who flipped (guessing completely as you can't tell from this data and it might just be coincidence).
MORE IMPORTANTLY is how well Trump performed in all of those states compared to 2020. It's almost like the economy was also kicking people in the teeth, which motivated voters who stayed home in 2020 but probably would've voted republican anyways.
Now I can't read the article, but to respond to the headline, even discussion of it strikes me as the democrats doing what they do best. Identifying the problem (oh fuck we lost) and blaming every useless side note rather than just fixing the obvious.
I know a lot of people here feel differently, but a progressive wave or a strong stance on a middle east conflict which has basically never affected the average american's lives isn't going to win you AZ, MI, PA, NV, NC, WI, GA.
I kept the original title, but I don't think it's a clear summation of the content in the essay, which examines the Civil Rights movement, the Palestinian cause, and the contradiction of Kamala Harris, a product of the former, distancing herself from the latter during her presidential bid.
I don't know where we're at with archive links these days, but this is behind a paywall. It's available with a free trial, but you know where to go if that's not what you're into. Here's a snippet if you're on the fence:
...
VanityFair seems to be one of the chumps whose wall you can bypass with reader mode!
The Democratic Party-endorsed approach is to blame Americans supporting Palestine left and right for the loss, then re-evaluate about a year and a half later and realize it wasn't actually them so you can continue ignoring them.
…truthfully, I don't think it was ever Gaza. She was just an uninspiring candidate. Most Americans don't vote based on foreign policy. In fact, most Americans straight up don't vote.
The Gaza protesters are a very loud but very small minority. I don't think they matter at all. The problems she had were
Biden refused to rescind until too late
Trump almost got assassinated
Even after Biden's fumbles, I think she would have easily won without the assassination attempt. The Gaza stuff is a rounding error compared to both of those things.
Gaza was important. Make no mistake. The decision to back the Israeli government's war crimes was a serious own-goal and should have been a very easy thing to avoid, not just for strategic reasons but for moral ones as well, and those responsible for that blunder should feel nothing but shame for it.
And yet, I disagree with the title. As it stands, I don't think there was a "single cause" at all, and I think trying to find one is foolish. Trying to boil out the nuance like that is absurd to begin with, and especially so when Harris' campaign screwed up in so many different ways. Kamala's campaign failed because it was trying to sell a poor candidate while being run by incompetent buffoons who had no understanding whatsoever of the people she was supposed to represent.
If you want to know what mistakes to avoid in future elections, I recommend "as many as possible."
I think the big reason is that Kamala didn't have very much visibility as VP and then suddenly was thrust into the nominee status without really having built up any real following.