2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

[R'hllor]

Damn they really gunning for Latinos out there, thought they aint like that

 

[Roane]

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?

There was a discussion when Hilary stood and lost about how America is not ready for a female president.

Basically the whole "we're America" and women are not seen as being strong enough to enable America to stay strong when dealing with other world leaders etc.

I wonder if Harris has been a bloke the turn out and votes would have been different?

 

[JezChan]

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.

Bravo - fully agreed. I grieve that this is the way it is, and that this election result further solidifies our inertia down this same path.

 

[crappycraperson]

The same Dem hacks who never let go of Russia stealing 2016 election now going into conspiracy rabbit hole of Dems votes disappearing due to the turn out difference from 2020.

 

[bleedred]

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.

Bravo!!!!!

 

[WI_Red]

That’s a simplistic view that radically undermines MAGA and the Trump cult.

and does not take into account that Trump perpetuated the border crisis by single-handedly tanking legislation that would have addressed it.

 

[Seveneric]

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.

Oh I agree 100%, I think celeb endorsements (for any side) are stupid and shouldn't matter. However, from the days of WW2, American politics has become intertwined with pop culture.

But my post was addressing people who think the celeb endorsements hurt the Dems when Republicans too have had celeb endorsements (and their base seems to have no problem with it), but it's just that the Dem leaning celebs tend to be more relevant, therefore their endorsements receive more press coverage.

 

[RedDevil@84]

and does not take into account that Trump perpetuated the border crisis by single-handedly tanking legislation that would have addressed it.

I wonder if he has any motivation to bring in the legislation now. Or maybe after the elections, they don't care about illegal immigration anymore.

 

[sepulturite]

They are bad people

You must be a prison guard then?

 

[Blood Mage]

She even managed to lose Michigan.

Trump will end with 312 EV.

Why do people act like the rust belt states vote differently? They always vote the same way. The real embarrassment for Kamala was losing Nevada which is supposed to be a light blue state.

 

[Eboue]

You must be a prison guard then?

ha ha ha

 

[DavelinaJolie]

I wonder if he has any motivation to bring in the legislation now. Or maybe after the elections, they don't care about illegal immigration anymore.

As we've seen before, parties like to leave issues hanging out there so they can run on them, rather than actually deal with them.

 

[berbatrick]

is this the first time in the us that the incumbent party has lost thrice in a row?

 

[Stadjer]

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.

Was Ruth Bader the one who stayed on because she wanted the first female president of the US to name her replacement?

 

[WI_Red]

I wonder if he has any motivation to bring in the legislation now. Or maybe after the elections, they don't care about illegal immigration anymore.

It's up to Schumer to bring it back up for a vote in the Senate, a man who has about as much spine as Garland and less charisma then that fecking dead squirrel that everyone seems to care about.

 

[ManUtd1999]

Given the low turnout for Harris, do you think that Biden would have done better, at least with the popular vote?

 

[erikcred]

Musk is an asset though. Whatever you think of him, he employs thousands of Americans, owns a social media platform, and is a successful entrepreneur. It is a different kettle fish to having some airhead on stage who has sung a few songs and who might be irrelevant to Democrat voters aged 40 +.

I don't know, man. The Dems tried that too by roping in Mark Cuban.

 

[VorZakone]

It's up to Schumer to bring it back up for a vote in the Senate, a man who has about as much spine as Garland and less charisma then that fecking dead squirrel that everyone seems to care about.

The squirrel story was just incredible. Mentioned by the likes of Vance, Musk etc.

 

[B. Munich]

What we are seeing now is partly the results of years of growing economic differences between the top 1% and the bottom 60% of income groups. Large scale poverty and poor prospects for making a decent to good life will be a strong motivation to try change it anyway possible.

Yeah and these idiots vote for a corrupt, billionaire felon to fix this.
You can't make this up.

 

[TheGame]

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.

Excellent post.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

To those who said Bernie was perfect for 2016 - his foreign policy was a disaster.

 

[sullydnl]

There was a discussion when Hilary stood and lost about how America is not ready for a female president.

Basically the whole "we're America" and women are not seen as being strong enough to enable America to stay strong when dealing with other world leaders etc.

I wonder if Harris has been a bloke the turn out and votes would have been different?

Depends on the bloke, I would think.

Hillary and Kamala are both women, and I've no doubt that there is a degree of misogyny that counts against them. But the other more crucial factor they have in common is that they're both easily framed as out-of-touch, elitist politicians. In a way that Trump (despite obviously being part of the "elite") somehow avoids.

If you were building an ideal democrat candidate from scratch to win this election it would probably be the equivalent of a young Biden. A man sure, but more crucially a man from a swing state who brings greater appeal to blue collar workers. Bill Clinton another reference point. Again a man, but also a man who also brought his own state (Arkansas) and blue collar workers.

 

[TheGame]

The same Dem hacks who never let go of Russia stealing 2016 election now going into conspiracy rabbit hole of Dems votes disappearing due to the turn out difference from 2020.

 

[TheGame]

 

[Rado_N]

I’ve not really been keeping up with this thread or the general fallout online, but thinking about the number of people who cited democracy as their key issue in the early exit data, do we think Harris being handed the domination without a primary was a focus there?

 

[Chip]

Any decent podcast already out with episodes analyzing the results? I need something depressing to fall asleep to, but I can't seem to find any with fresh episodes.

 

[berbatrick]

Given the low turnout for Harris, do you think that Biden would have done better, at least with the popular vote?

he would've lost virginia or something.

he quit in july with months of polls showing him down as much or more in all the states she lost, and he was also losing virginia and NH in some polls (where she has clung on). his approval rating has been sub-40% in all polls including exit polls after the election.

if you're comparing to 2020: covid and trump's handling of it was a big issue, raising questions about his competence, people had disliked having to hear about politics all the time, biden was the most generic politician imaginable, and would presumably fix those issues. in this election, the issues were different - no covid, it was about inflation and immigration. people want to see immigrants in camps, and they want cheaper burgers. they remembered the low inflation and tough rhetoric and actions of trump against migrants, and punished harris (and the biden admin she was part of) for the opposite.

 

[Sarni]

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.

This is a fantastic post, one of the best I’ve read on this forum in a long, long time. Kudos.

 

[Chip]

I’ve not really been keeping up with this thread or the general fallout online, but thinking about the number of people who cited democracy as their key issue in the early exit data, do we think Harris being handed the domination without a primary was a focus there?

That's actually an interesting angle - a lot of people will surely feel that she hadn't earned her candidacy. And tbf, she would probably never have been in contention.

One thing is sure: if you think that democracy is key and you voted for Trump you are an idiot.

 

[TheGame]

 

[Twisted_Woody]

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.

This is one of the best posts in this thread. Perhaps one of the best I've read in the CE forum. Just well done. Are you an author by chance?

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I’ve not really been keeping up with this thread or the general fallout online, but thinking about the number of people who cited democracy as their key issue in the early exit data, do we think Harris being handed the domination without a primary was a focus there?

IIRC 'democracy' means 'election was stolen' for conservatives.

 

[sullydnl]

I’ve not really been keeping up with this thread or the general fallout online, but thinking about the number of people who cited democracy as their key issue in the early exit data, do we think Harris being handed the domination without a primary was a focus there?

Nah, I'm not sure the process by which Harris got the nomination registered with voters remotely as much as one side arguing that Trump is an insurrectionist neo-fascist and the other arguing the democracts were literal election-thieves.

 

[Redplane]

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.

I wish I could upvote you several times.
Very well written.

 

[Scanny]

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.

The best post on this I’ve read today.

 

[erikcred]

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.

Reading this post was such a journey. Depressing, true and funny all at the same time.

 

[B20]

I guess delivering a pro forma candidate and then witlessly smiling and nodding in response to genocide complicity whilst basically saying "we're not Trump" isn't much of a platform to run on after all.

 

[Pintu]

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.

Clearly not enough of those 34% bothered, specially in the swing states… Her numbers are about 10 Millions under 2020-Biden… Too many potential Democrats stayed home and you can’t help thinking the genocide and the genocide related crackdown on university protests did play into it.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

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.

The problem with this analysis is that it treats Donald Trump as a random candidate instead of what he actually is: the former president of the United States of America.

A comparison of his 'unpresidential' qualities re: Harris is meaningless because we are not talking about the same thing. People have to imagine Harris being president; they simply have to remember Trump being president. And unfortunately people actually remember the Trump presidency somewhat positively, because the economy was good. You don't need elaborate plans for your second term, you already had one. People are judging you on whether they liked your first term.

 

[VorZakone]

The problem with this analysis is that it treats Donald Trump as a random candidate instead of what he actually is: the former president of the United States of America.

A comparison of his 'unpresidential' qualities re: Harris is meaningless because we are not talking about the same thing. People have to imagine Harris being president; they simply have to remember Trump being president.

And unfortunately people actually remember the Trump presidency somewhat positively, because the economy was good.

A colleague today said to me: "he already had 1 term and the world didn't collapse so what's with all the fearmongering?".