Dont think thats accurate.
2024 U.S. Elections | Thread Closed
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
There's no high profile Dems who even bothered to mount any sort of attempt at challenging the process, they all got behind her within hours of Biden's endorsement, most notably Newsom, who after the July debate was highly touted to be the replacement should Biden drop out. Whitmer, Pritzker, Shapiro, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Polis, Cooper, Evers etc, all of them got in line super quickly. We are shocked and angry now because we fell for the hope that a win was possible, but at that moment in July after the debate and the assassination attempt, everything pointed to a Trump's landslide.
Kamala lost almost ten million votes. Like I said, Jeb Bush 2.0. "Please clap."
Have a good day.
Have a good day.
Last edited:
There was a similar issue with Clinton (the 'most experienced candidate ever') and even to some extent with Biden. These people have plenty of experience, credentials, etc. but few actual achievements.
Of the last 3 presidents, two were generally inexperienced (Obama, Trump) and the only experienced one was simply Obama's VP.
Thanks for the laugh
I'm not an active follower of American politics, hell I'm not a follower of politics in general. But as an outsider who has 0 interest in America and who has seen some aspects of this election, my 2 cents. Skip if you don't want the opinion of a random nobody.
- The number of people who care about having more money in their pocket (or more purchasing power) vastly outnumber those having their pronouns called correctly or allowing abortions, etc. <-- This is not an argument about whether or not these topics (pronouns, gender identity, abortion) are important or not (regardless of what I think about each point separately), its a straight up comparison between the 2 .
- The number of people who care about having security at home/neighborhood/county vastly outnumber those who care about Israel/Palestine, Russia/Ukraine, world politics, environment etc. <-- Of course regional/global war is bad, but what is even worse is immediate threats (whether real or made up) in your own backyard affecting your everyday "normal" life.
- The number of people who can connect with a person speaking in plain simple English that "he will fix it" vastly outnumber those who can connect with a person who seems of higher intellect but does not speak in a way that people will directly understand (be less eloquent, speak more plainly). <-- Extra points for the 1st guy if he's promising to fix what the 2nd person did wrong in his/her term. Doesn't matter if she was VP she's always gonna be labeled as someone who could have already done everything she is promising to do during campaigning, since she was already in office for 4 years.
Regarding the last point, take the example of a regular work meeting and consider 2 scenarios and tell me which you'd prefer in your work day:
- You have an incredibly smart manager (from a different department) who will go into the most specifics of the details for 30 minutes straight about how the topic being discussed can be fixed
- You have a very good vocal manager (from a different department) who identifies your problem and says he'll fix it with his team but does not go into the finest details, meeting is done within 5 minutes.
Have a candidate correctly identify which of the above points/topics the masses care more about and put more weight on those points, and he/she will get more votes.
No disrespect to anyone (and I believe the following point applies to all elections, not just the US), I believe its wrong (or shortsighted) to assume everyone is on the same level of intellect/education/personal growth and form a campaign on that basis. By placing more weight on topics of lesser importance (in my opinion) such as identity, inclusivity, abortion, etc. compared to a better economy (more cash in pocket/purchasing power) is just asking for a beating by the mass regular majority who want better personal living conditions instead of extra community perks.
Last edited:
Policy positions don't matter that much when the Democratic Party is infamous for not following through on its alleged policies.
I don’t really care if America wants to feck itself over, but this is a disaster for the future of humanity, that’s what’s really shit.
And just in time: https://www.rte.ie/news/environment/2024/1107/1479507-copernicus-report/
And just in time: https://www.rte.ie/news/environment/2024/1107/1479507-copernicus-report/
And what does MAGA even mean to the average person, in the US of course.
Is the US no longer great. And then what does Great even mean.
It means different things to different people obviously.
But it is clearly a good rallying cry.
According to the New York Times, the Trump campaign found "up-for-grab voters were about six times as likely as other battleground state voters to be motivated by their views on the Israel-Gaza war." His campaign actually put effort to get this vote in Dearborn MI, a majority Arab-American city, and ended up winning 42-36. Biden won with 70% in 2020.
Obviously that's an extreme case since it is a majority Arab-American place, but I doubt these are the only people who cared.
Does kamala even has a slogan?
Great post.
"Fix it? Fix what?"
It’s now probably “feel free to feck yourselves, Murica”
As I’ve gotten older I’ve realised that people don’t actually give a toss about some of these moral issues invest our minds in. Things like ethics, integrity, compassion, standing up to racism, sexism, fascism, bigotry, homophobia etc are usually just displayed when it’s convenient. In the grand scheme, the massses don’t see it as important.
If you play on the emotions and deep rooted prejudices of the majority, they’ll happily see everyone else trampled over to feel some psychological or cultural win. It’s happened in my country for over a decade and you can see it in the US.
I don’t mean to absolve the Democratic Party of their failings - if they’ve disappointed in solving the economic condition of people, they will lose votes - but a vile shitbag like Trump leading the US for 8 years is clear evidence that these things aren’t that important for the population as a whole.
Doesnt the party conduct a primary for selecting the nominee?
Pretty sure, had Biden announced earlier in the year that he is not planning on contesting for a second term, there would have been more candidates who would thrown their hat in the race. Given the late juncture at which Biden backed off and access to the money raised till then being only available to Harris, there was no other obvious choice.
Will be interesting to see how the Dems adapt to this election outcome. Some resentment among Dem-leaning pundits about the working class having abandoned the Dems instead of vice versa. The argument is that the Biden administration's economic policies were pro-labor/working class and they got no appreciation in return.
Hell, the Teamsters head didn't even want to endorse Harris even though some Teamsters pension fund was saved by Biden?
Saw someone saying "you're not gonna like the new version of the Democratic Party that comes out of this". I don't expect it to be that gloomy but they might re-assess to what extent voters actually reward you for your policies. And perhaps they dump the progressive lefty rhetoric.
Hell, the Teamsters head didn't even want to endorse Harris even though some Teamsters pension fund was saved by Biden?
Saw someone saying "you're not gonna like the new version of the Democratic Party that comes out of this". I don't expect it to be that gloomy but they might re-assess to what extent voters actually reward you for your policies. And perhaps they dump the progressive lefty rhetoric.
Which is my point all along?
Harris was the only choice precisely because of the lack of choices. Nobody with presidential ambition was ready to torch their career when Biden dropped out beside her, and she took that shot.
Dems next term need to go back to strong borders, tough on crime, protecting abortion rights for women and jobs un 'murica.
Pretty sure if there would have been more candidates ready to fight out a primary if there was more time. A month before the convention, Dems had to choose the least worst option. Wonder if Biden would have done any worse than this.
I’m talking
Almost certainly.
What they need is to formulate an actual vision rather than policies. Something that says "this is what we want America to be in 30 years." But they are too chicken shit for that.
Trump, weirdly, actually has that.
The way things might shake out, they probably will just run on 'put fluoride back into water' and win in a landslide.
I'm seeing a lot of resignation from libs online, this time they will just hunker down and wait for 26/28. Trump will get a free hand to let Stephen Miller, Musk and RFK Jr. run rogue and a lot of his newly converted fans wont like it.
Yes, but there wasn't. Pelosi and Obama wanted an open convention, they didn't want a coronation, and they probably sounded out people behind the scene, but nobody took the shot. They all decided to get behind Harris because the prospect looked extremely bleak back then. They were game enough to push Biden out because it was plain he was heading towards a historic defeat, and dragged down a bunch of downballot races, but they weren't ready to come forward and put their political career at stake.
And Biden certainly would have done worse than this, there were polls of him leading by like 1 point in VA and NH. As it stands, the only (mildly) unexpected casualty is Bob Casey in PA, and House Dems still have a slim chance of taking the majority. At worst they will lose like 6 seats, that's a much easier hole to crawl out of in 26.
Odd reaction considering this was supposedly the last election if Trump won.
You think Harris’ campaign used a lot of lefty rhetoric?
I think it’s legitimate to vote for the other party in a protest vote to a cost of living crisis, on the basis of giving it no thought whatsoever. I just think it’s absurd to try and present it as some kind of rational analysis that “Trump did better”, as per @choiboyx012. If you start to give it any thought, that line of thinking becomes completely invalid.
It could just be the dejection of the moment, but something does feel off. In 2016 there was a sense of rage and injustice that fueled them, Comey, Russia, popular vote margin etc, this time Trump's victory is so complete that the attitude seems to be 'you vote for this, go nuts'. There's also a sense of betrayal as the institutions they are told to care about and protect have proved toothless against Trump. I don't even see the rage when Jack Smith news broke.
Had the rules regarding access to funds more relaxed there could have been a different candidate. Logically, if Biden's polling numbers are not promising. its safe to assume that some of that would still trickle down to Harris, since she is the VP and part of the administration.
Guess we are saying the same thing but allocating different weight to the myriad of underlying reasons why it was Kamala and not anyone else.
I just met an American fund manager who is extremely bullish on the outlook for US equities and bonds. The mood in their office is quite a contrast to this thread.
Fair enough we won't see eye to eye on her experience, or lack thereof. I'll admit that I'm too jaded to follow politics especially at the national level, so if you believe she's been putting in the work the last several years then fine. Maybe I'm being too harsh and wrongly assuming she's just fecking off in her Brentwood home every other week while her and Biden's administration is seeing its lowest approval ratings for things going on home and abroad.
If you think choosing Kamala specifically because she's a female and black is about bringing value, perspective, and experience, then again, we're not going to see eye-to eye. Especially if you think any critique of that is "White supremacist". This is what my initial post was about. More and more minorities in the US are tired of this identity politics and DEI being forced down their throats. And being told if you're brown, black, female, muslim, asian, immigrant, then you have to vote D or else "You ain't black!" And again, this works for the most left leaning voters, which I assume you align with. But this election was lost with the center-leaning voters. Were there not other (minority) candidates that could bring a different value and perspective for the dems? Was she the best foil to an aging Biden? If she was, then there just wasn't enough substance to her.
I work in law enforcement so I know a little bit about crime. Yes in general economy and crime/safety go hand in hand. But yes there are also many career criminals that just commit crimes for various reasons. "Economically motivated" leads people to believe it's just "poor ol' Jane Doe has 3 babies that are starving so she has to steal in order to feed her kids" which is something AOC would say. I can tell you that that notion is complete bullshit. Just yesterday I arrested a guy that stole over $10,000 worth of perfumes, headphones, electronics from half a dozen stores. Big dude with nice clothes and jewelry. He wasn't starving. He was "economically motivated" to sell that shit on the street or online. It's pure greed. He had a rap sheet so long the paper clip could barely hang on to the pages. Guess what happened to him? If you said "He got a citation and got released within an hour before I could finish the report" then you guessed correctly. That's LA county for you. "Reimagining Justice". He's a career criminal and knew the system. He was free to continue stealing, carjacking, or whatever crime he wants to make an easy buck. He knows that as long as it's a property crime, he'll just get ticket and released. This is just one of many stories like this I could tell you over my decade long career. And less than a handful of times have I experienced a person genuinely down on their luck and was hungry and broke and stole a snack from a store. And I'm not even in a high-crime area. People here and everywhere are tired of this brazen unchecked crime.
She put out her policy document too late don't you think? Sure economic fixes don't bear fruit for years, but this should have been presented after the world started opening up post-covid lockdowns. If she did try to implement something in the first years of office then I'll stand corrected. I honestly don't know.
Trump's rabid followers might accept or endorse bigotry, but a lot of his newer voters that were more centrist or undecided I think are just choosing to ignore and dismiss it as locker-room talk. It's as simple as things were bad and we need a change.
Lots of people are now using the result to justify their own hobby horse. Aside from the economy not feeling great for the average person and people wanting some form of change, I'm not sure what else we can take away from all of this.
It means; Bring back jobs in dead industries. Save us from the opioid crisis that has ravaged rural America. Bring back a time when blue collar could afford a home.
MAGA is a result of negligent policy in the wider USA in the aftermath of the death of coal, automobile and steel industry. A complete lack of regulation from the 70s an onwards on virtually everything triggered one of the largest drug addiction waves in US history, an obesity epidemic and health issues that have destroyed large swaths of the country.
Bernie tapped into it with left wing populism, but Democrats never took advantage of it - Republicans under Trump have grabbed on, but are unlikely to implement any policies that would actually help the root cause.
Racism is just a convenient outlet for the anger generated by the actual problems MAGA is based on. It also helps with the argument that things were better before. They long for a time where the government actually governed - but they don't know that is what they long for, so it gets confused with racism (civil rigths), anti-woke ideology and EPA regulations. Things that "changed" and "caused" the issues.
Different viewpoints. Investments will do great under Trump, but that has very little to do with how normal people's lives will be affected.
Not herself necessarily. But the party as a whole might draw the conclusion that they need to tone it down a little bit.
Indeed, time to top up the S&P 500 tracker and get some small and mid cap exposure.
Yes.
Dems will never respond to losing elections by moving left. They will bolt to the right, the 28 Dem platform probably will make Clinton 92 looks like hippies manifesto. Biden governed as the most progressive president in generations domestically, and they just got a repeat of 1968.
I wonder how the whole yas queen, brat, celebrity endorsements thing really played to voters. As an incumbent overseeing a cost of living crisis do voters really want that from the continuity candidate?
I'm not even sure people played much attention to that or even understood it.
Someone (still not sure what their actual job is) whose name sounds like a weak password called her a brat and that's... good, I guess?
All these reasons why Trump won like polices or Kamala is black etc. At the end of the day its because 80/90 percent of people havnt a fkn clue about the economy or policies or politics or economics or war or any fking thing. How many people actually delve into the numbers and policies and geopolitics and trends of gas prices and match the policies of each government and their policies to the affect on gas prices and make an informed decision as to the best way forward? No one. They just say hey it seems gas prices are high. I blame the current government. Fk them.
This is how people vote. If you polled all the voters and asked why Trump. They will tell you stupid reasons. Not Kamala is black or I compared the economic polices and Trumps was better. Its because gas prices are high. Its because we need more jobs in the US. Its because we are spending millions in Ukraine which could be used in the US. Its because we keep sending money to Israel. Its because food prices are high. Thats about as deep as they go. They don't understand or even care why or how or the future trend or how Trumps vs Kamalas politics and policies will affect those things. They just care that right now I don't like it so Ill vote for the other person and hope it changes. They dont even care that Trump is a woman abuser or he did x and y. That doesnt affect them. They just want gas prices low. They dont even know what the trend of gas prices are and that they are currently not even high. It just seems high right now.
And Im not saying these people are stupid. Well some of them. But the majority are not. They are just apathetic to politics. Sure they will get the highlights from the news or read some tweets. But thats as far as it goes. Most of it is just noise.
If we dont want the Right Wing to take over. We need to get very simple clear messages across. And that message is much harder to land then the opposite. Like immigrants bad and evil and eat cats and dogs is a much easier message then trying explain the benefits of immigration. Funding Ukraine is a good thing is a much harder sell than look at all our cash going to a war miles away that doesnt even matter. Brexit and fk Europe was a much easier sell then working together. etc
This is how people vote. If you polled all the voters and asked why Trump. They will tell you stupid reasons. Not Kamala is black or I compared the economic polices and Trumps was better. Its because gas prices are high. Its because we need more jobs in the US. Its because we are spending millions in Ukraine which could be used in the US. Its because we keep sending money to Israel. Its because food prices are high. Thats about as deep as they go. They don't understand or even care why or how or the future trend or how Trumps vs Kamalas politics and policies will affect those things. They just care that right now I don't like it so Ill vote for the other person and hope it changes. They dont even care that Trump is a woman abuser or he did x and y. That doesnt affect them. They just want gas prices low. They dont even know what the trend of gas prices are and that they are currently not even high. It just seems high right now.
And Im not saying these people are stupid. Well some of them. But the majority are not. They are just apathetic to politics. Sure they will get the highlights from the news or read some tweets. But thats as far as it goes. Most of it is just noise.
If we dont want the Right Wing to take over. We need to get very simple clear messages across. And that message is much harder to land then the opposite. Like immigrants bad and evil and eat cats and dogs is a much easier message then trying explain the benefits of immigration. Funding Ukraine is a good thing is a much harder sell than look at all our cash going to a war miles away that doesnt even matter. Brexit and fk Europe was a much easier sell then working together. etc
Of course she did. Two weeks ago she was finishing up her campaigning by calling him a fascist. She slipped to his level and lost.
- Status