2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Sweet Square said:
When people become homeowners their interests are linked to finance capital. They favour increasing the price of their property over keeping workers rights and a welfare state.

This hits even harder when homeowners retire to the suburbs as they become isolated and cut off from working life.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of this hypothesis for multiple reasons. First, it doesn't match anyone I know in real life. Second, statistically I don't think it really bears out as homeowners are usually close to evenly split in Rep and Dem voters with Reps getting a slight edge.

But more important I just think it's flawed to try to cram people living in the 21st century digital economy into two classes from industrial society hundreds of years ago. It's a false dichotomy that there are only two classes. I think voting behavior fits far more into Lakoffs model of cognitive frames and how people identify morally than it does with trying to reduce everything to worker vs capitalist which frankly is a bit outdated as a model.
 
Morty_ said:
She could do that, but then there is just one small problem, she wants to spend a bunch of money on her own projects too, better projects than whatever Trump was doing, sure, but still money out.
Click to expand...
In addition to Biden increasing the public debt even more than Trump did (also printing more money than Trump). So that answer would quickly backfire.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
IMG-20240830-112052.jpg


I hope that at least some level, they realise that every single piece of music they use is by someone who hates them.
Just another example to add to that list.

Really hope Jack White does actually file lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Not quite. They'll always have Lee Greenwood.
 
Revan said:
In addition to Biden increasing the public debt even more than Trump did (also printing more money than Trump). So that answer would quickly backfire.
Click to expand...

She is her own candidate now, but it doesn't help that the senate was 50/50 in the first two years of the admin either, i think she actually broke the record on breaking ties, and certainly some of those ties had to do with spending(IRA etc).

I'm not saying it was wrong of her to do that, but she definitely had a role in that increased spending, more so, than most other VPs, so probably best to avoid the subject, unless Trump brings it up, then she can go on the offense and call him out for his own bad record on the subject.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I'm skeptical of this hypothesis for multiple reasons. First, it doesn't match anyone I know in real life. Second, statistically I don't think it really bears out as homeowners are usually close to evenly split in Rep and Dem voters with Reps getting a slight edge.
Click to expand...
Homeownership is not a partisan issue. Both parties appeal to them. Kamala just announced a big incentive for new homeowners. Mortgage rates are underwritten by the federal government as a bipartisan policy so unquestioned it's barely even acknowledged.

What i'd expect to see is differential interest and turnout in the American political process from owners vs renters, and that is absolutely true. Because this is a government of and for property owners.

In the UK on the other hand, where class politics is (or was) more openly acknowledged, and even as professional classes (what they call C1) move left and independent blue collar workers (C2: plumbers, builders, etc) move right, there is a massive Labour-Tory divide when looking at renters vs owners.
 
berbatrick said:
Homeownership is not a partisan issue. Both parties appeal to them. Kamala just announced a big incentive for new homeowners. Mortgage rates are underwritten by the federal government as a bipartisan policy so unquestioned it's barely even acknowledged.

What i'd expect to see is differential interest and turnout in the American political process from owners vs renters, and that is absolutely true. Because this is a government of and for property owners.

In the UK on the other hand, where class politics is (or was) more openly acknowledged, and even as professional classes (what they call C1) move left and independent blue collar workers (C2: plumbers, builders, etc) move right, there is a massive Labour-Tory divide when looking at renters vs owners.
Click to expand...

You have a bit of a chicken and egg problem then because homeowners turn out to vote in higher numbers and that's historically been so. I don't think it would really matter anyway because this type of forced class division (renting vs homeowner) simply isn't how people think or vote by and large. Its by moral values and cognitive frames, hence why I constantly meet renters that are full blown MAGA Trumpites while some of the most progressive people I know essentially live off of trust funds and never worked a real job.
 
I think Trump coming out and saying he will make IVF available to all is really smart.

So, he won't actually be able to follow through on that for multiple reasons, but it is something that low information voters will consider when the Democrats are bashing him over abortion.

It makes him more appealing to women, despite him playing a large part in abolishing Roe.

Im sure he will be pushing this in recent weeks and it will be hard for Harris to counter.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
You have a bit of a chicken and egg problem then because homeowners turn out to vote in higher numbers and that's historically been so. I don't think it would really matter anyway because this type of forced class division (renting vs homeowner) simply isn't how people think or vote by and large. Its by moral values and cognitive frames, hence why I constantly meet renters that are full blown MAGA Trumpites while some of the most progressive people I know essentially live off of trust funds and never worked a real job.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If one party puts forward a solid plan, it could appeal to those living in the 44 million rented homes in America. Not everyone is ready to go from renting to owning, but it could give some the incentive they need.

I would like to see a tax break for first time buyers, spread across the first years of home ownership, as long as they stay in that home. Spreading the benefit over time, wouldn't mean that sellers would just bump the price up.

And of course, there will always be people that vote against their interest. Pretty much every Republican voter does it today.
 
gaffs said:
I think Trump coming out and saying he will make IVF available to all is really smart.

So, he won't actually be able to follow through on that for multiple reasons, but it is something that low information voters will consider when the Democrats are bashing him over abortion.

It makes him more appealing to women, despite him playing a large part in abolishing Roe.

Im sure he will be pushing this in recent weeks and it will be hard for Harris to counter.
Click to expand...

By his usual standards, this was a good thing for him to say given that he and Harris are fighting over a very tiny sliver of independent voters at this time.
 
gaffs said:
I disagree. If one party puts forward a solid plan, it could appeal to those living in the 44 million rented homes in America. Not everyone is ready to go from renting to owning, but it could give some the incentive they need.

I would like to see a tax break for first time buyers, spread across the first years of home ownership, as long as they stay in that home. Spreading the benefit over time, wouldn't mean that sellers would just bump the price up.

And of course, there will always be people that vote against their interest. Pretty much every Republican voter does it today.
Click to expand...

That's a bit different than what I'm interpreting as Berba and Sweet saying but I agree that your idea would be a great idea. Generally, I support what you're saying to help more people become homeowners and plans like that I think would improve the overall situation. Although as you finish with, I wouldn't expect that proposal to overcome the cultural issue voting of a large chunk of the population.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
You have a bit of a chicken and egg problem then because homeowners turn out to vote in higher numbers and that's historically been so. I don't think it would really matter anyway because this type of forced class division (renting vs homeowner) simply isn't how people think or vote by and large. Its by moral values and cognitive frames, hence why I constantly meet renters that are full blown MAGA Trumpites while some of the most progressive people I know essentially live off of trust funds and never worked a real job.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think there's much class consciousness in general, in the US or anywhere in the world. But the effect of homeownership on politics is quite visible regardless. That's because, while "I own a home" may not be a conscious political identity, associated things absolutely are:
Property values should rise forever, property taxes should fall, a rise in wages is good but might matter less than a rise in home value (and is therefore no longer the primary economic fight). You can align the timeline of the bourgeois' success against the unions, starting in the mid-70s, with the first major post-war surges of home value, culminating in 2008. The primary identity is no longer "worker", it is "owner" or "consumer".
So what you are left with is the absence of class in politics, where all the policies and most of the meaningful voters are owners of some significant capital. Blue vs white collar, cultural affect, education- which seems to determine one's view of basic liberal values, and race.
 
berbatrick said:
Yes, I don't think there's much class consciousness in general, in the US or anywhere in the world. But the effect of homeownership on politics is quite visible regardless. That's because, while "I own a home" may not be a conscious political identity, associated things absolutely are:
Property values should rise forever, property taxes should fall, a rise in wages is good but might matter less than a rise in home value (and is therefore no longer the primary economic fight). You can align the timeline of the bourgeois' success against the unions, starting in the mid-70s, with the first major post-war surges of home value, culminating in 2008. The primary identity is no longer "worker", it is "owner" or "consumer".
So what you are left with is the absence of class in politics, where all the policies and most of the meaningful voters are owners of some significant capital. Blue vs white collar, cultural affect, education- which seems to determine one's view of basic liberal values, and race.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true actually. For a variety of reasons I think people's primary identity is either intersectional ("BIPOC women", "LGBTQ+"), activity related ("gamer", "gym bro"), or cultural value related ("red-blooded traditional American", "Southern Baptist"). I don't think the frame you are using really applies to the vast majority of people.
 
Raoul said:
The case was made a few weeks ago and she opted for Walz. Let's hope it works out.
Click to expand...

Don’t get me wrong, Walz is a great guy. Appeals to Union workers, some military, maybe some blue collar workers across multiple states.

Does that outweigh the 2-3% bump that Shapiro would have given her in PA?

The Republican operatives played a blinder by discrediting him. You know all that Genocide Josh stuff came from them.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
That's a bit different than what I'm interpreting as Berba and Sweet saying but I agree that your idea would be a great idea. Generally, I support what you're saying to help more people become homeowners and plans like that I think would improve the overall situation. Although as you finish with, I wouldn't expect that proposal to overcome the cultural issue voting of a large chunk of the population.
Click to expand...

You’re right. There are many that wouldn’t be swayed by this policy, even if it would help them massively.

We all know that the truest thing that Trump said was that he could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue and people would still vote for him.
 
NLunited said:
This homeowner in the US wants to keep his property taxes low, no thank you.

I’m in favour of disconnecting property tax rates from market value, so that working class people aren’t forced to sell when property values rise a lot. This is bad for the economy, the environment and kills neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

Funny thing that you can tax an asset like a house before is sold and increase this tax when the theorical (you didnt sell the house so who knows what will be the end value) value increases but you cant do the same with stock market as is a theoretical value.

Sure, property taxes goes to services like road maintanence, sewers, schools, garbage collectors, firefighters etc...but i dont think any of these services costs you more in one block than 15 blocks down the road that property taxes might be 20% more. And if they have more money to spend, for example, in schools, is morally bankrupt that the richer have better schools than the poorer
 
Raoul said:
Vance tweeting this from his official account. Probably not the smartest move given that his excuse over the cat lady video was that it was a "sarcastic quip from years ago".

Click to expand...

It's very funny how this guy used to be viewed as a generally intelligent, rational person.

At least everyone always knew Sarah Palin was an incompetent moron.
 
nimic said:
It's very funny how this guy used to be viewed as a generally intelligent, rational person.

At least everyone always knew Sarah Palin was an incompetent moron.
Click to expand...
He's a sellout. He realised there was more to gain from pandering to the MAGA crazies, it's a grift for guys like him.

Palin on the other hand is a true believer lunatic.
 
Blood Mage said:
He's a sellout. He realised there was more to gain from pandering to the MAGA crazies, it's a grift for guys like him.

Palin on the other hand is a true believer lunatic.
Click to expand...
It is called pivoting
 
nimic said:
It's very funny how this guy used to be viewed as a generally intelligent, rational person.

At least everyone always knew Sarah Palin was an incompetent moron.
Click to expand...

The rumor is Trump has soured on Vance a bit, which may explain posts like this. Obvious attempts to butter up the boss such as Trump himself does over on Truth Social.
 
nimic said:
It's very funny how this guy used to be viewed as a generally intelligent, rational person.

At least everyone always knew Sarah Palin was an incompetent moron.
Click to expand...
Agreed. JD Vance will go down as one of the worst VP picks ever and when you have Palin as your competition in this timeline that is indeed something. I dont think he's dumb, but that makes it worse. Playing the pee brain comes more natural to those who literally have one.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I don't think that's true actually. For a variety of reasons I think people's primary identity is either intersectional ("BIPOC women", "LGBTQ+"), activity related ("gamer", "gym bro"), or cultural value related ("red-blooded traditional American", "Southern Baptist"). I don't think the frame you are using really applies to the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

that's my next line after the one you bolded - if there's no class distinction, all these become the divide.
 
Redplane said:
Agreed. JD Vance will go down as one of the worst VP picks ever and when you have Palin as your competition in this timeline that is indeed something. I dont think he's dumb, but that makes it worse. Playing the pee brain comes more natural to those who literally have one.
Click to expand...

Vance is light years ahead of Palin in terms of political acumen. He just doesn’t have the generically boring and antiseptic traits that Pence displayed. Most of Maga world are probably fine with him. It’s with independent women that he could wind up an albatross around Trump’s neck.
 
Carolina Red said:
I’m old enough to remember the GOP calling this communism…

Click to expand...


Isn't it about $15k per cycle of IVF? And that is per round - many couples need multiple rounds.

Will they allow same sex couples to have IVF? Probably not.

There is no way it comes to fruition.

He is just going to keep making promises that he cant keep.
 
gaffs said:
Isn't it about $15k per cycle of IVF? And that is per round - many couples need multiple rounds.

Will they allow same sex couples to have IVF? Probably not.

There is no way it comes to fruition.

He is just going to keep making promises that he cant keep.
Click to expand...
Sad thing always is the amount of people that will fall for it. Especially the vulnerable ones meaning those who would otherwise vote Dem but instead following their husband or dad it they vote R. The patriarchy is still very much alive in many parts of this country no matter how much some of them whine about being "oppressed".
 
Redplane said:
Sad thing always is the amount of people that will fall for it. Especially the vulnerable ones meaning those who would otherwise vote Dem but instead following their husband or dad it they vote R. The patriarchy is still very much alive in many parts of this country no matter how much some of them whine about being "oppressed".
Click to expand...

Exactly. I know friends that have gone through years of IVF. Even one couple where the woman moved job to just get insurance that would cover part of it - glad to say she gives birth in October but it took several rounds. It's painful process to have the hope then for it to be taken away.

For those that want a child desperately, but can't afford IVF, they may be suckered in by this.

It it one thing to give people hope for a tax cut or a border bill, buts its another thing to let them believe you will give them free IVF, only to not deliver. Thats evil.
 
4bars said:
Funny thing that you can tax an asset like a house before is sold and increase this tax when the theorical (you didnt sell the house so who knows what will be the end value) value increases but you cant do the same with stock market as is a theoretical value.

Sure, property taxes goes to services like road maintanence, sewers, schools, garbage collectors, firefighters etc...but i dont think any of these services costs you more in one block than 15 blocks down the road that property taxes might be 20% more. And if they have more money to spend, for example, in schools, is morally bankrupt that the richer have better schools than the poorer.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it makes no sense.
 
Property taxes in the US makes no sense to me.

Doesn't it completely screw over the people who live in a generational home (i.e their parents, grandparents etc) and subject them to market conditions, especially since wages have not gone anywhere close up as much as property prices have?

Like imagine you buy a house at 30 in the 90's, working as a retail assistant. When you're 50, the price has what, 4x'd, your wage is still the shitty federal minimum wage but your tax liability has increased ALOT more?

What happens if you literally cannot afford to keep it due to rising market conditions? Forced to sell up/move out/be homeless?
 
What the hell, I'm reading on reddit and people who live in places like Houston Texas are paying 8k USD per year on their home that is valued at 250k.

How on earth are people supposed to afford that?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.