2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

Iker Quesadillas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Almost everyone was telling me this. My own family, highly educated people with good jobs voting Trump simply because they see less and less money in their pockets and they had more, much more when he was running it. And they're not scared of him being a moron, they didn't vote for him in 2016 but they saw that the world didn't end while he was in charge so no harm no foul... How do you compete with that and explain to people on a personal level why he's the wrong choice...
 
Kamala was a bad candidate as she couldnt distance from Biden being Vp and was seen as continuity which people didnt want.

Plus she wasnt aggressive Enough playing the women card which was her big calling. Trump rallied men against her but she didnt rally women particularly white ones for her.

Surely being first women president was a big deal. Should have coupled it with abortion and told the people its a historic chance to change status quo. Promised one two more women centric policies. That really was her only choice seeing dissatisfaction with Biden.

Also Dems should have really binned Biden Earlier. It was stupid.
 
simonhch said:
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.
Click to expand...

*700 words*

It's literally that simple
 
SirAF said:
Absolutely top post, I wholeheartedly agree with every word.
Click to expand...

JezChan said:
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.
Click to expand...

bleedred said:
Bravo!!!!!
Click to expand...

TheGame said:
Excellent post.
Click to expand...

Thanks chaps. You know those moments when your clarity of vision, and passion for a topic coalesce? Well, this election, and this post, was it for me. It’s the nose that’s been sitting on my face the entire time, but I was blinkered by my own intellectual lens. A fate that I feel has befallen most of us on here. Being intelligent, logical, critical thinking, these are the qualities that make discussions with like minded individuals on here rewarding, but they are also the qualities that make us blind to simplistic reality of the arena we are attempting to comment on. The only thing defeating democrats, are democrats, and more specifically their dogmatic adherence to social and political norms. But all identity construction is essentially social in nature. So to successfully construct a “winning” identity, one has to first understand the social construct. And a core, fundamental component of that is the incredibly limited window of engagement available, and the simplicity of the processing capabilities at the other end.

“Grab him by the pussy” might not be a dignified, intelligent, politically correct or relevant campaign mantra, but in the reality of US politics, it would be a winning one. Trump positions himself as an alpha male. Well, stick him next to Dwayne Johnson, calling him a pussy, and his entire schtick is gone. 30 seconds soundbites on “tough on crime” (easy sell with the Rock), “tough on drugs” (easy sell), “self made man, American dream” (easiest sell ever), “Love America, Mr. Patriot” (this is too easy), “America’s the greatest country on earth” (like candy from a baby), “I’ll kick the ass of our enemies” (come on, give me challenge!). Etc etc etc.

Perceptions of strong leadership qualities. Camera friendly. Tough, yet positive and hopeful. Male vote. Black vote. Dem vote. Huge cross party appeal. You can’t question his patriotism, his manliness, you can’t fill a room (literally and figuratively) better than you can with the Rock. And, he does that thing that Americans want an American president to do, he projects strength.

It’s seriously alarming on so many levels that the best candidate, far and away, that I can think of for the Dems is a former WWE star, and current action movie star, who is roided to the tits. But that sentence right there is the entire encapsulation of the American political landscape. The fact people are debating whether it’s Newsome or Shapiro next, just shows how badly they are missing the point of how political engagement is digested by the masses in America today.

At this point the President is just a marketing figurehead to get the political apparatus in place that you want to govern. He’s (because let’s be honest, it’s not going to be a she) the equivalent of a “Huge Savings! 50% off” banner to get people in the store, where once inside, the real business begins. That’s the presidential campaign. “Massive tax cuts - today only”, “Be better off - vote now”, “ROCK the establishment - vote Johnson”, “Can you smell the [tax] cuts I’m cooking?”

There is no policy, there is only marketing. And the marketing is personality. It’s entertainment. Its familiarity. You don’t even need to agree with him to vote for him. And you certainly don’t need to like him, not in the traditional sense. You just need to be entertained or intrigued by him, and above all else, you can’t be bored by him. That’s the Trump secret. And that’s American politics.
 
Last edited:
Eboue said:
*700 words*

It's literally that simple
Click to expand...
Me getting across an entire campaign, and my opinion on it, in 700 words, shows exactly how simple it is. And my verbosity, and proclivity for intellectual debate and policy detail, would make me the worst candidate for the Dems. But I’m not promoting myself. I’m promoting an idea. One of simplicity. One could write a dissertation on how to be simple in politics, but because the description and analysis is long, it doesn’t change the ultimate output. I assume that is obvious, and you’re just trying to be clever and dismissive.

So if you can get past your own snark, and look at the core message, you might actually find something in there that you realise is right,
 
Last edited:
simonhch said:
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.
Click to expand...

How did Biden win in 2020 then? What sound 30 second bites did he have then that made him a better candidate than Kamala? It is this type of delusion, that Trump wins because everyone is racist/sexist/dumb, that caused the Dems to lose to this moron twice.

The Dems have shown time and time again that they don't want a person who can actually bring the radical change that will convince more people to come to their side (Bernie) but rather an established politician who continues the status quo.

But no, wait, it's only because people won't want a woman president.
 
simonhch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'd emphasize racism and bigotry a little more though. I'd also stress how difficult it now is to penetrate the rightwing news bubble. What good does a New York Times front page editorial lambasting Trump do, when Trump voters never read any newspaper, let alone the NYT? When they can get all their news from the Fox Cinematic Universe, what good does it do to have a thoughtful, considered roundtable discussion on the issues on channels like MSNBC? There were a few brave souls like Pete Buttigieg and Jessica Tarlov who sought to counter the narrative on Fox News itself, but it looks like it had no effect.

This election was like trying to get your kids to eat broccoli because it's good for them, and instead they want to eat candy, all day every day. It doesn't matter what the facts were.
 
simonhch said:
Thanks chaps. You know those moments when your clarity of vision, and passion for a topic coalesce? Well, this election, and this post, was it for me. It’s the nose that’s been sitting on my face the entire time, but I was blinkered by my own intellectual lens. A fate that I feel has befallen most of us on here. Being intelligent, logical, critical thinking, these are the qualities that make discussions with like minded individuals on here rewarding, but they are also the qualities that make us blind to simplistic reality of the arena we are attempting to comment on. The only thing defeating democrats, are democrats, and more specifically their dogmatic adherence to social and political norms. But all identity construction is essentially social in nature. So to successfully construct a “winning” identity, one has to first understand the social construct. And a core, fundamental component of that is the incredibly limited window of engagement available, and the simplicity of the processing capabilities at the other end.

“Grab him by the pussy” might not be a dignified, intelligent, politically correct or relevant campaign mantra, but in the reality of US politics, it would be a winning one. Trump positions himself as an alpha male. Well, stick him next to Dwayne Johnson, calling him a pussy, and his entire schtick is gone. 30 seconds soundbites on “tough on crime” (easy sell with the Rock), “tough on drugs” (easy sell), “self made man, American dream” (easiest sell ever), “Love America, Mr. Patriot” (this is too easy), “America’s the greatest country on earth” (like candy from a baby), “I’ll kick the ass of our enemies” (come on, give me challenge!). Etc etc etc.

Perceptions of strong leadership qualities. Camera friendly. Tough, yet positive and hopeful. Male vote. Black vote. Dem vote. Huge cross party appeal. You can’t question his patriotism, his manliness, you can’t fill a room (literally and figuratively) better than you can with the Rock. And, he does that thing that Americans want an American president to do, he projects strength.

It’s seriously alarming on so many levels that the best candidate, far and away, that I can think of for the Dems is a former WWE star, and current action movie star, who is roided to the tits. But that sentence right there is the entire encapsulation of the American political landscape. The fact people are debating whether it’s Newsome or Shapiro next, just shows how badly they are missing the point of how political engagement is digested by the masses in America today.

At this point the President is just a marketing figurehead to get the political apparatus in place that you want to govern. He’s (because let’s be honest, it’s not going to be a she) the equivalent of a “Huge Savings! 50% off” banner to get people in the store, where once inside, the real business begins. That’s the presidential campaign. “Massive tax cuts - today only”, “Be better off - vote now”, “ROCK the establishment - vote Johnson”, “Can you smell the [tax] cuts I’m cooking?”

There is no policy, there is only marketing. And the marketing is personality. It’s entertainment. Its familiarity. You don’t even need to agree with him to vote for him. And you certainly don’t need to like him, not in the traditional sense. You just need to be entertained or intrigued by him, and above all else, you can’t be bored by him. That’s the Trump secret. And that’s American politics.
Click to expand...
"All those republicans out there. On Tuesday, I need you to do this. You go to that polling booth. Take a good nice stretch and then grab that ballot paper. You mark a big one for your guy, Donald J. Trump. You pick up that ballot, hold it, admire it, caress it. And when you are done with that and you are finally ready to submit, you take that paper, roll it up, shine it real nice, turn it sideways....

......AND STICK IT UP YOUR CANDY ASSES"
 
Last edited:
hasanejaz88 said:
How did Biden win in 2020 then? What sound 30 second bites did he have then that made him a better candidate than Kamala? It is this type of delusion, that Trump wins because everyone is racist/sexist/dumb, that caused the Dems to lose to this moron twice.

The Dems have shown time and time again that they don't want a person who can actually bring the radical change that will convince more people to come to their side (Bernie) but rather an established politician who continues the status quo.

But no, wait, it's only because people won't want a woman president.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no.

He's a communist. Trump said so. Wait, you're breaking out a dictionary to convince me otherwise, what are you a socialist?
 
Will the media self examine and realise that maybe they should be more dedicated to truth, proportionality and integrity rather than the current sherade of pretending that treating evil and utter nonsense as discourse equal to factual real politics is somehow being objective?

They've normalised Trump.
 
From Andrew Egger, in The Bulwark:
But the hard truth, after as staggering a loss as this, is that there may never have been a path for Harris. Biden was too unpopular and got out of the race way too late. And Harris found herself trapped. She needed to run away from Biden to escape the voters’ wrath at his term. But she also needed to run toward him as her only defense against Republican charges that she was too far to the left: After all, that was how she’d positioned herself in 2020 before she joined his ticket. In a polarized, doom-and-gloom electorate, both moves likely cost her more voters than they gained her.

This wasn’t the race she asked for—to be the last person standing to mount a furious defense against the rising tide of Trump’s lawless populism. The campaign she waged, given the circumstances, was likely the strongest anyone in her position could have mustered. In the end, how well or poorly she piloted her campaign just didn’t matter. Trump was blessed in 2016 to run against one of the weakest Democratic candidates ever put forward; this year, he was blessed to run against the woman left holding the bag, however stoically, for a president who had proven incapable of holding it himself.


https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/what-will-trumps-win-mean
 
B20 said:
Will the media self examine and realise that maybe they should be more dedicated to truth, proportionality and integrity rather than the current sherade of pretending that treating evil and utter nonsense as discourse equal to factual real politics is somehow being objective?

They've normalised Trump.
Click to expand...
No, no they won't. They got exactly what they wanted. The chaos of the next 4 years means more viewers and more $$$ and that is all that matters.
 
erikcred said:
If true, hilarious that both the pro-genocide and anti-genocide segments fecked her over.
Click to expand...
Well feck her for her smarniness on that. Not happy Trump won, but at least he's committed to his evil plans. The Democrats genuinely thought they could just shrug off their complicity in a genocide without consequence.
 
Sarni said:
This is a fantastic post, one of the best I’ve read on this forum in a long, long time. Kudos.
Click to expand...

Twisted_Woody said:
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?
Click to expand...

Redplane said:
I wish I could upvote you several times.
Very well written.
Click to expand...

Scanny said:
The best post on this I’ve read today.
Click to expand...

erikcred said:
Reading this post was such a journey. Depressing, true and funny all at the same time.
Click to expand...

Thank you all. Very humbling and generous praise. I am glad it resonated, because I feel deeply affected by what has happened.
Iker Quesadillas said:
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.
Click to expand...
I appreciate any critical response, I really do. It’s necessary for an idea to grow and evolve that it is pressure tested. That said, I have to take umbrage with the suggestion that my analysis treats Trump as if he is a random candidate. The intent, and I believe I had expressed this clearly - but noted and apologies if I didn’t - is quite the opposite. As I believe I said, he is a “known” quantity. He’s familiar. ‘He’s a person’ is the approximate language I believe I used. I felt, and intended to be, I was very specific on the personal nature of this election. Evidenced by the focus on the cult of personality. It’s the same principles that got him elected the first time. In fact, nearly everything I wrote is antithetical to the idea of him being a random candidate. It is purposefully specific and personal to him, which is why the antidote is equally personal and specific.

As a critique, I don’t really recognise the validity of your response. However, repositioned as an addendum, it makes much more sense. And I don’t disagree with you. I actually think it reinforces the whole analysis regarding simplicity. On a complex level, one would look back on a Trump presidency as see that the damage he did on civil rights, the climate, and the egregious death toll from Covid, are the legacies of his presidency. However, as I pointed out before - and you succinctly touched upon - everything boils down to whether people have more or less money in their pocket. Trump inherited a good economy, Biden inherited a mess. Trump gets credit, Biden - and the Dems by association - get trashed. The nuances of actual causality and effect are too complex and uninteresting for the vast majority of people. So once again it comes down to simplicity.

And the simple fact is that people are going to vote based on a bet or hope of what will happen. In the absence of any powerful messaging, they will of course resort to simple historical correlations. But that’s easily subverted and undercut, and this all eventually boils back down to the politics of personality.
 
simonhch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great post, but would argue this covers how to win over Republicans primarily rather than voters in America in general. But that's why it's harder to run as a Democrat than a Republican - your voters are going to demand you to be variable across a range of concerns rather than reductive.
 
Spare a thought for Melania guys, she has to pretend to be Tango man's wife for another four years.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
How did Biden win in 2020 then? What sound 30 second bites did he have then that made him a better candidate than Kamala? It is this type of delusion, that Trump wins because everyone is racist/sexist/dumb, that caused the Dems to lose to this moron twice.

The Dems have shown time and time again that they don't want a person who can actually bring the radical change that will convince more people to come to their side (Bernie) but rather an established politician who continues the status quo.

But no, wait, it's only because people won't want a woman president.
Click to expand...
It’s a long post. You probably didn’t read it all. The answers are contained within. That said, I respect your right to disagree, even though the umbrage you’ve taken with my post, actually belies the content.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
So you think trump will end the genocide?
Click to expand...
No. I do think "well since both parties are committed to this genocide, we can shrug our shoulders" is a shit position to take when it's clearly a big issue. It's a shit silver lining since it will not make any difference for Palestine and the world will likely be worse off, but I do like that there is an actual consequence for a supposedly moral political party to fund and support a genocide and then act as if nothing happened during the entire election. So feck em for their immorality on this and their hypocrisy of pretending to have morals about it.

Trump doesn't have that problem since he's comfortable embracing the evil of it. So he could speak freely to the issue.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'd emphasize racism and bigotry a little more though. I'd also stress how difficult it now is to penetrate the rightwing news bubble. What good does a New York Times front page editorial lambasting Trump do, when Trump voters never read any newspaper, let alone the NYT? When they can get all their news from the Fox Cinematic Universe, what good does it do to have a thoughtful, considered roundtable discussion on the issues on channels like MSNBC? There were a few brave souls like Pete Buttigieg and Jessica Tarlov who sought to counter the narrative on Fox News itself, but it looks like it had no effect.

This election was like trying to get your kids to eat broccoli because it's good for them, and instead they want to eat candy, all day every day. It doesn't matter what the facts were.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree at all. There is a lot of ground to cover to be frank. Multiple things can all be true at once. And for the record, my feelings on bigotry and racism are of the same ilk as yours. Yes, I’m a white man. But I’m a white man with a half black daughter, and a Mexican partner. Bigotry and racism are not only political discussions in our household, but very real, every day concerns. Today I have little girl who thinks that America is against women, and a partner who is afraid for friends and family, and herself.

Misogyny, bigotry, hatred, racism, there is a strong malevolent undercurrent in the US that has risen to the surface with the emergence of the populist right. I have focused on that a lot in the past; but right now in the present, there is also a clarity about the superficiality and consumerist nature of American politics - the personality, entertainment factor - that I felt I needed to get across. Ultimately the way through the door isn’t to answer every question, it’s just to answer the big, simple questions. I don’t even know how you answer the questions of bigotry and racism. It’s a cultural change that needs to happen, and I would say the rate of progress will be glacial.
 
Kaush949 said:
"All those republicans out there. On Tuesday, I need you to do this. You go to that polling booth. Take a good nice stretch and then grab that ballot paper. You mark a big one for your guy, Donald J. Trump. You pick up that ballot, hold it, admire it, caress it. And when you are done with that and you are finally ready to submit, you take that paper, roll it up nice and easy.....

......AND STICK IT UP YOUR CANDY ASSES"
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
Chip said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Rest is Politics possibly
 
Really a minor point in all this, but where does someone like Harris go from here? I imagine she's done running for office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.