Gotta laugh really.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Gotta laugh really.
That's basically it.
Israel would have made little difference.
When groceries have risen 22% in the last four years voters want to know what is going to be done to tackle inflation.
Four years of Trump and coverage over that four years with some prertty insane stuff happening across different cultural groups. Then Covid and the constant questioning of "is America destroying itself"?
81 million votes is almost unheard of (is in nominal terms) Obama only got 70 million in 2008. Now more people (extra 30million or so since then) but not a massive amount.
That 81 million, imo, was a "we'll trust you and vote for a return to normality" and since that hasn't materialized all of the support just fell out. Also Biden in 2020 was a far better candidate than Harris by any politico's metric.
It’s been 132 years since president managed to get re-elected for his second term, but not second in a row.
The reduction in turnout is crazy!
Also suddenly realising today how many people where I work were / are silent Trumpers. Grim.
Also suddenly realising today how many people where I work were / are silent Trumpers. Grim.
I’m not sure how you can say that when we are seeing a clear voter collapse from the dems generally indicates that people don’t want to bother turning up to vote because they are disillusioned with the parties policies.
Well with this result the Dems have a chance to put away any last vestige of the Obama-Biden-Harris lineage and reset for 2028. It's too soon to see how they might chart their course, but I can see it likely going one of two ways:
1. Continue with how they campaign and run on (likely) upcoming scandals of Republican and crony leadership backed by a solidly conservative Supreme Court
2. Tack further towards the right and go for a Republican economy, without the racism and the bullying, only moderately discuss climate change, and minimise discussion of any kind of social issues
I don't like either one, and I'd love to hear other suggestions that are more optimistic.
1. Continue with how they campaign and run on (likely) upcoming scandals of Republican and crony leadership backed by a solidly conservative Supreme Court
2. Tack further towards the right and go for a Republican economy, without the racism and the bullying, only moderately discuss climate change, and minimise discussion of any kind of social issues
I don't like either one, and I'd love to hear other suggestions that are more optimistic.
Or they were generally more satisfied with the state of the economy and living costs?
I assume this is largely because people are more motivated to vote someone out of office than they are to vote against someone merely running for office?
Asking a question is patronizing now?
Are you under the impression that pan-arabism still exists?
Nah, I don't accept that. Here is the thing: We are doing none of those things. People are getting conned. How are we as Germans helping the environment? We ban carbon free nuclear power and import fracking gas trasported by heavy oil LNG tanks from the US. You think replacing Diesel cars by cars with 400 kg batteries whose exhaust is located in the coal factory and not under the car is "helping the environment"? It won't help the environment one bit. A modern Diesel car is not only very efficient, it can also run 30+ years easily. The BMW 3 series model E36 is still present on the streets, is it not? Even older models are everywhere on the streets. A battery car will be toast in 10 years, let alone 30. Are we all going to replace BEVs like Smartphones and Laptops? Remember, we Europeans aren't using Dodge Ram V8s. Our average car is something like an Audi A3, a 40 MPG (6 l/100 km) car and it has a life cycle well beyond 30 years. That's not killing the environment, nor is replacing that with a Tesla saving the environment at all. All we are doing is killing the industry and robbing people of their freedom of mobility. A BEV is completely unviable for most people without a house anyway. There is no way millions of BEVs could be charged. Imagine everyone in a random European street in the city looking for the few public charging stations nearby. There would be murder. So how can you ban combustion engine cars?
We are also not helping refugees because the majority aren't refugees to begin with. Why are Afghan men refugees? Because of the Taliban? Yeah, poor men under Taliban. Like most Muslim countries, that's not a democracy. But European asylum law isn't there to let everyone in who comes from a non-democratic country. Otherwise Europe has to let in a few more billion people from all over the planet.
We also haven't helped "LGBT". Europe or the West in general (except some places in the US of course) were open enough in the 2000s that everyone could do whatever he wanted in his private bedroom and with every passing generation people automatically got more progressive naturally. But lunatics have polarized people so much (not everyone is going to be d'accord with the idea of a society that a grown up men with a penis should be able to immediately and without questions asked declare himself a woman and use the bathroom of ones daughter and if you oppose that you get "hate speech" imprisoned) that most people are repelled by this ideology now, even though in most cases it's not even the "LGBT" people themselves but the do gooder activists being the loudest.
I don't see how Western societies have become better under "progressive" ideas in recent times. In German we have a saying. It roughly translates as: "Well meant but not well done". I guess it's well meant to not allow children to dress up as Native Americans during carnival or wear a Mexican hat because "cultural appropriation" but not well done at all. Other than to rile up people with nonsensical ideas like that and make the likes of Ben Shapiro successful debating against it, it achieved 0 and in fact did more harm than good. Many people who never cared are pretty "anti" now. That's why we get Trump, that's why Le Pen, AfD, FPÖ etc. get stronger and stronger.
Heads of State give orders to their military, if Trump (or any other leader) says their military will not participate then they won't, to ignore the orders of the Head of State would be consitered treason
The only positive thing I can think of about Trump is that I caught my sixth graders (in a country far away from the US) checking out American polling results in class today. That would’ve never happened had the election been between Harris and any other Republican.
Bernie must be turning in his grave. Imagine wasting all that potential and instead ending up with the unholy trinity of Hillary, Joe and Kam.
(I know he isn't actually dead but the Dems put a dagger in him ages ago so it's technically true)
(I know he isn't actually dead but the Dems put a dagger in him ages ago so it's technically true)
No, I think most of these nations act on behalf of their own perceived self interest. The Abraham Accords and the recent Saudi-Israeli pre 10.7 strategic partnership being recent examples.
Is there time for Biden to appoint younger replacements to the Supreme Court for Sotomayor and Kagan? Dems still have the old Senate until January, don't they?
Neither are the youngest, and I think Sotomayor at least has health issues doesn't she?
Neither are the youngest, and I think Sotomayor at least has health issues doesn't she?
Are we judging Trump by different metrics to everyone else, because whilst you level those accusations at Harris, the same can be said ten fold about Trump. Even worse, there are serious questions about whether Trump has been compromised by Putin and the Russian Intelligence services. In fact, we can almost say that’s a given at this point. So we’ve got all this vitriol aimed at an “unpresidential” candidate in Harris, but if she’s unpresidential, then what does that make Trump? The Dems are constantly held to a much higher standard than the Reps, and it’s not a standard that even helps them. People clearly don’t care if a President is “unpresidential”, that word has no meaning anymore. They’ve just elected a serial sex offender to the highest office. A guy that can barely string a coherent sentence together.
The biggest movement the Dems got in the polls was after the first appearances of Harris and specifically Walz. When he made those quips about Vance not getting off his couch etc., brief 30 second viral sound bites that had no political meaning whatsoever, but resonated in the theatre of a flame war….Harris surged in the polls. Then the political machine kicked in and the Harris campaign started talking about policies, abortion rights, geopolitics….you know, actual important issues….and people switched off. Meanwhile Donald did the usual….”China, China, Me, Me, election fraud, smartest guy ever, electric boat or a shark, immigrants are bad, China….you like my hat?”, and people voted for him in droves. He never said a single thing of any political, real world significance. Never presented anything resembling a plan. Insulted nearly everyone. He was chaos personified. And in people’s mind that’s what he came to encapsulate. A departure from politics as usual, chaos, and entertainment. No one elected the guy because they thought he was presidential or displayed good judgement.
Realistically, how does an intelligent, capable person compete in that arena? Presidents are no longer elected (and I’m not sure how much they ever were) on the basis of their policies or messaging, they are elected on the basis of personality. It’s the ultimate reality show, the business of entertainment. I bet half the people who voted for him, don’t even like him. But Kamala was a suit. Even worse, she was a woman in a suit. Scratch that, she was a woman of colour in a suit. But Trump, he was the Donald. A force of nature. Whether for good or bad. He was entertainment, he was simple, he was a person, not a political figure.
If the Dems learn anything from this, it’s that good policies don’t make good politics. Dignity and qualifications don’t make a good candidate. Men don’t want a woman telling them what to do. And the only basis on which to compete, is on personality. People don’t like Trump, but they think they understand him, and that he understands them. They see him flawed, fallible, and often incompetent, and in that they see themselves.
I’m never going to attack Harris for being an intelligent, highly capable woman, or say she was a terrible candidate, when in reality - viewed through the lens of logic and intelligence - she was ten times the candidate Trump ever was. I think the outpouring of vitriol towards her is appalling. But what is abundantly clear, is that no candidate can ever be viewed through the lens of logic and intelligence ever again. This is no longer the criteria by which Presidents are elected. It’s just really hard for intelligent people to be purposefully thick. But it’s only by understanding that the lens of judgement for all future candidates has to be the strength of their cult of personality, that the Democratic Party can be successful again.
This election was fought and won in 10-30 second sound bites on social media. There was zero communication of any meaningful content. People don’t even know where the new President really stands on any given subject. Just vague impressions of being tough on immigrants, China, and putting more money in your pockets. There is no actual plan for how to accomplish or tackle any of those things. He’s a walking infomercial.
The Dems have two choices moving forwards. The first is to find a candidate that is the living embodiment of hope. Hope beats fear 90% of the time. Obama was exactly that guy. “Yes we can”. Simple, hopeful, powerful, he made people believe and was a brilliant orator. I don’t see an obvious candidate with that platform. It would’ve been Bernie, but that ship has sailed.
The second choice is to go full cult of personality mode. You find your own Trump. A larger than life character, who produces viral soundbites and captures the imagination. Outspoken, and at times controversial. America fecking loves an anti-hero more than anything. Somebody who isn’t afraid to say whatever the feck they want, and be scant on policy around it. They take this approach, and in the right circles, they can still dig deep on strong policy platforms through their VP pick, to keep the college educated crowd on board. But their bombastic Potus pick is there to win the hearts and minds of the “average Joe”, who we have to remember is simple, pretty thick, and won’t engage in politics for more than the regulation 10-30 second sound bites.
People have been searching for deeper meaning. Examining polls. Trawling data for clues. Turning on each other. Attacking their own candidate. But the truth is incredibly fecking simple (just like the electorate):
- Policy details don’t matter in an election.
- The entire campaign has be able to be boiled down to repeatable 30 second sound bites.
- Practicality > idealism. People just want to know if they’ll have more or less money in their pocket.
- Every general issue, whether is foreign affairs, immigration, climate change etc etc., all boils down to how it will affect people financially. Again, will I have more or less money in my pocket.
- Americans generally don’t want a woman telling them what to do.
- It’s not WHAT you say, it’s HOW you look and sound when you say it.
- Personality >>>>>> Policy. Policies are almost irrelevant. It’s all about personality.
People don’t want Trump, not on the whole, I am largely convinced of this. But they know him and are entertained by him. To the average person, he isn’t a threat. The fact he’s a rambling simpleton makes him even less threatening. Harris is an intelligent, capable woman of colour, who has operated in every branch of government. She’s “thinky”, you can see the wheels turning, you don’t know what’s going on in there….whats she really up to? What’s she really like behind closed doors? Trump, is what you see is what you get. You can trust his untrustworthiness. But Harris, she comes across all smart and caring and shit, but behind closed doors, oooh I bet she’s a devious bitch with Machiavellian plans that I don’t understand. But that’s all the thought I can put into that, because NCIS re-runs are on, and I need to put the kids to bed.
That’s the mindset we are dealing with, that’s the level of thought and engagement most people are committing to this.
Give me a decent social media budget, an outspoken, gregarious, celebrity male between 49 and 69, and a quiet intellectual VP pick, and I’ll win ten elections out of ten for the Dems against a Trump led Republican Party. Give me an intelligent, policy driven man who’s an average speaker, and I’ll win you 8/10 vs Trump. Give me an intelligent, policy driven woman, who’s an average speaker and I’ll win you 3/10 vs Trump. Now make her black, and I’ll get you 0/10.
Dwayne Johnson could have done nothing for three months, if he’d taken over at the same time as Harris, just lifted weights and done whatever the feck The Rock does - and then come out at some point in the middle of the “campaign”, called Trump a pussy, said America needs a real man, made a couple of jokes about his probably tiny penis, taken a whole bunch of media appearances in diners and “regular Joe hangouts” with regular people, and he’d have won by a fecking landslide.
American politics is literally that simple.
Dems stumbled upon the perfect candidate to negate the Trump era but establishment would not allow it.
I am not American, but I felt uncomfortable with all of these celeb endorsements and them talking at these rallies (I actually questioned it earlier in this thread and was told that apparently those are significant in America). And that goes both ways, just that the GOP had to resort to the Undertaker and fecking Hulk Hogan, while the dems seemed to wheel out a lot more people at a lot more of their rallies.
If I was someone who perceives myself to be financially worse off under this government than I was four years ago, or just someone who is generally struggling, I would probably be very annoyed if these rich celebrities, who are very unlikely to feel the financial effects of any kind of government policy, came out and told me who to vote for. The two things just aren't compatible in my opinion.
I will say again, if Rooney, Sir Alex or Matt Smith came out and endorsed a candidate, that would not make me any more likely to want to vote for them.
A commie?
Too late. Dems older gen leaders are selfish. Sotomayor should have stepped down a year ago. Ruth Bader should have stepped down sooner. Biden should never have run. Schumer needs to give the leadership up to someone more young and combative.
If you were logical, you'd also deeply disapprove of billionaire Musk endorsing billionaire Trump.
Maybe there's this perception that Democrat celebrity endorsements are "lecturing" people and that this is less the case with Republican celebrity endorsements.
That's what I feared; not out of the question that he gets another pick in addition to likely replacing Thomas and Alito.
Why?
They are bad people
That makes sense. I remember some comedian said that Trump is the average man's idea of what a rich man is like. Musk is doing the same thing now.
Wow, so it's not just Muslims/Arabs who were swayed by the issue. Wonder what the breakup of the correspondents was.
You mean the job in itself or people who tend to become prison guards?
Depends on whether he's someone who's a rapist and brings drugs or not. Some, I assume are good people.
I have done nothing but disapprove of that since it started. I even questioned if what he was doing was even legal in the musk thread.
This is not meant to be me trying to defend anything trump and friends have done.
I have just found the celebrity endorsements being a major part of the campaign for the dems to be quite uncomfortable, and have thought so since hilary was doing it
Absolutely top post, I wholeheartedly agree with every word.
Isn't America still like 80% white? Gee if you want people to vote for you maybe generalizing and demonizing so many wasn't such a good idea after all. The amount of this shit i have seen for 10 years on social media is insane, even worse today of course and i guarantee its happened within this thread, people are sick of divisive identity politics and it turns out to some extent even "minorities" are as well.
Aren't we supposed to be more than our skin color? At one point i was a liberal and this is what radicalized me, not the economy, not immigration this. Especially because of the double standards, if I talked about black men like like i have seen people do today would rightly call me out, you simply cant be the party of "anti racism" while also being racist yourself, just because you change the definition of a word doesn't do the same for everybody else.
Aren't we supposed to be more than our skin color? At one point i was a liberal and this is what radicalized me, not the economy, not immigration this. Especially because of the double standards, if I talked about black men like like i have seen people do today would rightly call me out, you simply cant be the party of "anti racism" while also being racist yourself, just because you change the definition of a word doesn't do the same for everybody else.
I definitely didn't mean you personally.
I understand that not everyone disillusioned with the Dems went right over to Trump.
So did the 34% decide to vote for Trump who is extremely pro-Israel, or did they decide to vote elsewhere or not at all, which they knew would let Trump in anyway. I would imagine the vast amount of that 34% voted for her anyway.
I think white Americans are about 60% of the population.