2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

[11101]

She was commended for not getting involved in Trump’s tit for tat and rightly so because she absolutely did not get involved in it.

She didn’t have her own platform to move away from. To this day nobody knows what her platform is.

Of course she did. Two weeks ago she was finishing up her campaigning by calling him a fascist. She slipped to his level and lost.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

All these reasons why Trump won like polices or Kamala is black etc. At the end of the day its because 80/90 percent of people havnt a fkn clue about the economy or policies or politics or economics or war or any fking thing. How many people actually delve into the numbers and policies and geopolitics and trends of gas prices and match the policies of each government and their policies to the affect on gas prices and make an informed decision as to the best way forward? No one. They just say hey it seems gas prices are high. I blame the current government. Fk them.

This is how people vote. If you polled all the voters and asked why Trump. They will tell you stupid reasons. Not Kamala is black or I compared the economic polices and Trumps was better. Its because gas prices are high. Its because we need more jobs in the US. Its because we are spending millions in Ukraine which could be used in the US. Its because we keep sending money to Israel. Its because food prices are high. Thats about as deep as they go. They don't understand or even care why or how or the future trend or how Trumps vs Kamalas politics and policies will affect those things. They just care that right now I don't like it so Ill vote for the other person and hope it changes. They dont even care that Trump is a woman abuser or he did x and y. That doesnt affect them. They just want gas prices low. They dont even know what the trend of gas prices are and that they are currently not even high. It just seems high right now.

And Im not saying these people are stupid. Well some of them. But the majority are not. They are just apathetic to politics. Sure they will get the highlights from the news or read some tweets. But thats as far as it goes. Most of it is just noise.

If we dont want the Right Wing to take over. We need to get very simple clear messages across. And that message is much harder to land then the opposite. Like immigrants bad and evil and eat cats and dogs is a much easier message then trying explain the benefits of immigration. Funding Ukraine is a good thing is a much harder sell than look at all our cash going to a war miles away that doesnt even matter. Brexit and fk Europe was a much easier sell then working together. etc

It's too bad most voters are mentally impaired clapping seals. Unlike us.

 

[choiboyx012]

I think it’s legitimate to vote for the other party in a protest vote to a cost of living crisis, on the basis of giving it no thought whatsoever. I just think it’s absurd to try and present it as some kind of rational analysis that “Trump did better”, as per @choiboyx012. If you start to give it any thought, that line of thinking becomes completely invalid.

I don't think I ever said "Trump did better". I wasn't even making an argument for him. My point about covid was that yes it caused global inflation and economic uncertainty, but in the years following many people felt the current administration was not addressing it or even pretending to be. Most of these working class middle-of-the-road Americans that are still struggling today aren't going to delve into the intricacies of the economy, CoL, housing, and who's necessarily to blame. It's as simple as people's situations were better under trump's presidency than in the last 4 years under Biden/Harris. Not that Trump was some economic genius pre-covid that should be applauded. They just see no hope, solutions, or actions from the current administration to alleviate the issues that just gets worse and worse.

 

[UpWithRivers]

It's too bad most voters are mentally impaired clapping seals. Unlike us.

If you read what I said the you would have seen I said that its not because they are stupid. Its because they are apathetic to politics. People dont have the will or time or interest to delve into politics. Let alone economics or geopolitics etc. Sure some do. Heck probably millions. But thats still the minority by a long way

 

[neverdie]

How many people actually delve into the numbers and policies and geopolitics and trends of gas prices and match the policies of each government and their policies to the affect on gas prices and make an informed decision as to the best way forward?

Have you seen/engaged with the US media ecosystem?

All the things a voter needs to make an informed decision (and in this case, there it did come down to a feeling of being squeezed by the cost of living rather than mass amounts of theory: >90% said food security was an issue in an AP poll) is usually hidden behind so many walls of symbolic clownery. This is across the spectrum. Unless you're looking at the financial channels and making inferences yourself there's not a lot of places you can go for decent economic analysis unless it's online somewhere. Not an accident, either, because business has for years gone down this trajectory where a mixture of ratings (you'd expect this), completely privatized channels (one or two exceptions: CSPAN, for instance, but haven't checked them in years), and keeping the economy as primary issue, qua "socialist" style analysis, in place of symbolic issues has been a literal agenda of each party. They mumble about the economy every four years. One (out of office) party will say it is terrible and isolate one or two statistics for the sake of framing and messaging; the other (in office) isolates a few other statistics and says the exact opposite, that the economy is great and has never been better. This is not the fault of the American people any more than it is the fault of British people regarding Brexit (take the non-economic arguments out of it and see what's left). It is neoliberalist establishment politics as it intends television to be insofar as information about the state goes.

 

[Zehner]

Will be interesting to see how the Dems adapt to this election outcome. Some resentment among Dem-leaning pundits about the working class having abandoned the Dems instead of vice versa. The argument is that the Biden administration's economic policies were pro-labor/working class and they got no appreciation in return.

Hell, the Teamsters head didn't even want to endorse Harris even though some Teamsters pension fund was saved by Biden?

Saw someone saying "you're not gonna like the new version of the Democratic Party that comes out of this". I don't expect it to be that gloomy but they might re-assess to what extent voters actually reward you for your policies. And perhaps they dump the progressive lefty rhetoric.

Maybe the issue is not that the working class doesn't want pro-labor policies but rather that one party sucked at formulating their policies in a way that the working class can understand it. The communication of the Trump team is so simple. "Trump will fix it" and everybody gets what he means. Wrap your ideas in nice and simple language and spare the people you want to convince of the details if they aren't asking for them.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

If you read what I said the you would have seen I said that its not because they are stupid. Its because they are apathetic to politics. People dont have the will or time or interest to delve into politics. Let alone economics or geopolitics etc. Sure some do. Heck probably millions. But thats still the minority by a long way

I think it's true that people are apathetic to politics, but I disagree with the implicit premise that if they paid more attention they'd agree that the Democrats did a good job and they should vote for them.

Political parties usually think they are doing a good job, it is only electoral losses and time that make them realize the ways in which they were failing voters.

edit: edited 'great' to 'good' to be fair

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Saw someone saying "you're not gonna like the new version of the Democratic Party that comes out of this". I don't expect it to be that gloomy but they might re-assess to what extent voters actually reward you for your policies. And perhaps they dump the progressive lefty rhetoric.

After a few bruising elections they got Obama, and Reps got Trump after their own bad hits. Neither moved to the center or to the left/right, they could sell everything to everyone.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Have you seen/engaged with the US media ecosystem?

All the things a voter needs to make an informed decision (and in this case, there it did come down to a feeling of being squeezed by the cost of living rather than mass amounts of theory: >90% said food security was an issue in an AP poll) is usually hidden behind so many walls of symbolic clownery. This is across the spectrum. Unless you're looking at the financial channels and making inferences yourself there's not a lot of places you can go for decent economic analysis unless it's online somewhere. Not an accident, either, because business has for years gone down this trajectory where a mixture of ratings (you'd expect this), completely privatized channels (one or two exceptions: CSPAN, for instance, but haven't checked them in years), and keeping the economy as primary issue, qua "socialist" style analysis, in place of symbolic issues has been a literal agenda of each party. They mumble about the economy every four years. One (out of office) party will say it is terrible and isolate one or two statistics for the sake of framing and messaging; the other (in office) isolates a few other statistics and says the exact opposite, that the economy is great and has never been better. This is not the fault of the American people any more than it is the fault of British people regarding Brexit (take the non-economic arguments out of it and see what's left). It is neoliberalist establishment politics as it intends television to be insofar as information about the state goes.

Well exactly my point. For any average person trying to sift through the bullsht and comming to an informed decision is neigh on impossible. It's like asking an IT person to make decisions on hospital policies. It's not because they are stupid. It's because it will take a lot of time and effort to even come to a basic conclusion.
That's why the messaging from the left needs to be a lot clearer and dumbed down.
Food expensive. Kamala stupid. Immigrants bad. Gas prices high. Wasting money on war. Is a very clear message. That's how the likes of Trump wins.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I just met an American fund manager who is extremely bullish on the outlook for US equities and bonds. The mood in their office is quite a contrast to this thread.

Our stock soared yesterday much to the delight of a lot of Americans in the company.

 

[neverdie]

It's not because they are stupid. It's because it will take a lot of time and effort to even come to a basic conclusion.

That's why the messaging from the left needs to be a lot clearer and dumbed down.

I disagree. It is dumbed down. If we say Harris is left (which I cannot agree with at all, in governmental apparatus terms and how she would have governed - center-left is as generous as you could be, with dead-center being more accurate with odes to the right) then we have to conclude that the message was already dumbed down. She wasn't giving lectures on micro or macro economic theory, she was taking in soundbites which was her strategy (hardly novel).

But you're right, it has nothing to do with the stupidity of the American (or any) people. It has so many other factors before that which one has to understand. I recommend Chomsky (many speeches) on this exact issue.

 

[antohan]

Doesnt the party conduct a primary for selecting the nominee?

Pretty sure, had Biden announced earlier in the year that he is not planning on contesting for a second term, there would have been more candidates who would thrown their hat in the race. Given the late juncture at which Biden backed off and access to the money raised till then being only available to Harris, there was no other obvious choice.

They didn't. Therein lies the biggest issue (at least to me). Any average Joe could tell Biden wasn't fully with it and renewing for another term was completely bonkers. It wasn't rocket science, you just need to have observed decline in your own family elders to know that.

It places a giant question mark on all the "alternative leaders" of the Democratic Party that they played along with that. Not Harris necessarily, as she was next in line as VP, but everybody else.

You and I know what happens in football when players hide and don't show up to offer passing alternatives. Again, not rocket science, basic stuff common folk will easily pick up.

So you have an organisation with no visible leadership expecting to lead the nation (and the world), deciding who will be in charge of that in a rush over the course of a weekend, having skipped all the democratic mechanisms to engage its voters/constituents in that process.

It all stinks and makes you wonder who is really in charge. Moreover, sometimes you are not particularly enamoured with a candidate but trust that advisors and strong core of a party will make up for it. Nobody witnessing how the Democratic Party handled this over the last couple of years can reasonably feel "hell yeah, these are the people I want running the world's most important economy and orchestrating geopolitcs".

It was a terrible campaign, any time I paid attention to anything my impression was it was all being run by a dysfunctional Week 1 Team Iota off Sir Alan's The Apprentice (the good one).

 

[Mike Smalling]

I wonder how the whole yas queen, brat, celebrity endorsements thing really played to voters. As an incumbent overseeing a cost of living crisis do voters really want that from the continuity candidate?

This stuff is inconsequential, would be my guess. Might drive a little bit of turnout among young voters already leaning Democrat, but it would be minor. And I doubt it drives resentment to the extent that people vote against it. People that rail against "Hollywood elites" are already voting Trump.

 

[nickm]

Maybe the issue is not that the working class doesn't want pro-labor policies but rather that one party sucked at formulating their policies in a way that the working class can understand it. The communication of the Trump team is so simple. "Trump will fix it" and everybody gets what he means. Wrap your ideas in nice and simple language and spare the people you want to convince of the details if they aren't asking for them.

Read an interesting thing on twitter this morning, which made the argument that people also vote according to who is on your side. If for example there are lots of protesters who lay down on roads and stop working class people getting to work on time, who tend to be culturally associated with Democrats, then working class people are going to loathe them and by extension the party they are associated with.

I do think the activist base sometimes does far more damage than they realise.

 

[Sweet Square]

The whole fascist schtick is predictable dropped now the election is over.



Also the cut away after the crowd cheers about peaceful transfer of power to show the stage covered in bulletproof glass is perfect.

 

[SirAF]

The whole fascist schtick is predictable dropped now the election is over.



Also the cut away after the crowd cheers about peaceful transfer of power to show the stage covered in bulletproof glass is perfect.

What is she supposed to do then? The Democrats have to behave like adults here, there is no other option. Trump's rhetoric after he lost culminated in J6 and even more polarization.

 

[sullydnl]

Well exactly my point. For any average person trying to sift through the bullsht and comming to an informed decision is neigh on impossible. It's like asking an IT person to make decisions on hospital policies. It's not because they are stupid. It's because it will take a lot of time and effort to even come to a basic conclusion.
That's why the messaging from the left needs to be a lot clearer and dumbed down.
Food expensive. Kamala stupid. Immigrants bad. Gas prices high. Wasting money on war. Is a very clear message. That's how the likes of Trump wins.

Somewhat agree with this.

Most people simply don't care much about politics. They don't lack the capacity to understand, but they simply aren't interested in following the details of what's happening even across an election campaign, let alone the rest of the time. They have lives and interests in which politics understandably doesn't feature, apart from every few years when they put in a bit of effort to vote.

However for that exact reason the Democrats had a fundamental problem, one they would struggle to get past no matter how clear or simplified their message was. And that was that because of inflation, voters simply felt worse off now than they did when Trump was in charge.

So sure, their message should absolutely be tailored to target that average voter. But even if they did everything right in terms of messaging, it was still going to be an uphill battle stopping that most basic of factors ("Am I better off now than I was before?") being the most decisive one. For a lot of voters, everything else is just noise.

 

[B20]

I think Democrats could have a lot of luck with a "1980" platform. Basically rolling back Reaganomics and everything that followed. So basically

Refund government programs.
More restrictions on financial services industry
Significantly raise Corporate Taxes

It allows them to run on an nostalgic "make america great again" platform connected to actual policies. Going back to the policies that actually made America great and keep gunning against the "trickle down" effect as basically being the root of the increasing inequality effect that was started in the 80s.

Set aims like Restoring the Real Hourly Wage to 1980 levels. Minimum wage too.

An actual vision for the US and one that actually rebuffs and reverses right-wing economic policies.

 

[Hozierstanks]

So the betting markets were more accurate than any polling in the end then.

 

[Andycoleno9]

So the betting markets were more accurate than any polling in the end then.

It is their job. Mistakes are too costly in that business.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Read an interesting thing on twitter this morning, which made the argument that people also vote according to who is on your side. If for example there are lots of protesters who lay down on roads and stop working class people getting to work on time, who tend to be culturally associated with Democrats, then working class people are going to loathe them and by extension the party they are associated with.

I do think the activist base sometimes does far more damage than they realise.

Agree with that.

A movement to a business to a racket isn't that the saying?

 

[Eriku]

What is she supposed to do then? The Democrats have to behave like adults here, there is no other option. Trump's rhetoric after he lost culminated in J6 and even more polarization.

Yeah, seriously. Had she pulled a Trump and refused to acknowledge the results of a democratic election and/or urging for insurrection or the like then she’d be pelted for that too, I’m sure.

 

[Lemoor]

It is their job. Mistakes are too costly in that business.

They were absolute shit in 2020 and 2022, lets not pretend that they have some sort of a good historical track record.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Yeah, seriously. Had she pulled a Trump and refused to acknowledge the results of a democratic election and/or urging for insurrection or the like then she’d be pelted for that too, I’m sure.

There are perhaps options between refusing to concede and congratulating the supposed fascist takeover which will end democracy, while even promising to help it along.

 

[Mogget]

Read an interesting thing on twitter this morning, which made the argument that people also vote according to who is on your side. If for example there are lots of protesters who lay down on roads and stop working class people getting to work on time, who tend to be culturally associated with Democrats, then working class people are going to loathe them and by extension the party they are associated with.

I do think the activist base sometimes does far more damage than they realise.

It is interesting how that only works in one direction. It doesn't matter who or what is associated with the Republicans, it doesn't seem to stop people voting for them in the same way.

Maybe protestors/activists are more damaging for a brand than paedophiles and rapists.

 

[Siorac]

Yeah, seriously. Had she pulled a Trump and refused to acknowledge the results of a democratic election and/or urging for insurrection or the like then she’d be pelted for that too, I’m sure.

You can't win after you lost.

Everything you do will be viewed in the light of the crushing defeat. She probably can't wait for January so that she can feck off for good and get out of the limelight.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Read an interesting thing on twitter this morning, which made the argument that people also vote according to who is on your side. If for example there are lots of protesters who lay down on roads and stop working class people getting to work on time, who tend to be culturally associated with Democrats, then working class people are going to loathe them and by extension the party they are associated with.

They voted for Biden in 2020 which is when protesting was a very salient issue.

 

[nimic]

Will be interesting to see how the Dems adapt to this election outcome. Some resentment among Dem-leaning pundits about the working class having abandoned the Dems instead of vice versa. The argument is that the Biden administration's economic policies were pro-labor/working class and they got no appreciation in return.

Hell, the Teamsters head didn't even want to endorse Harris even though some Teamsters pension fund was saved by Biden?

Saw someone saying "you're not gonna like the new version of the Democratic Party that comes out of this". I don't expect it to be that gloomy but they might re-assess to what extent voters actually reward you for your policies. And perhaps they dump the progressive lefty rhetoric.

The Dems definitely might take away from this that they need to move right to win elections - Liberal/social democratic parties often do. It's interesting to compare that to the response of the GOP after 2020 (or even 2012). They doubled down.

A lot of us thought they would be pubished for sticking with an increasingly erratic Trump, who had just lost an election as an incumbent  and shocked the country (and seemingly his own party) with Jan 6th, but then...

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

So sure, their message should absolutely be tailored to target that average voter. But even if they did everything right in terms of messaging, it was still going to be an uphill battle stopping that most basic of factors ("Am I better off now than I was before?") being the most decisive one. For a lot of voters, everything else is just noise.

It's an uphill battle.

But Obama won in 2012 under poor economic conditions and very negative sentiment about being 'better off now.'

 

[Pexbo]

I think Democrats could have a lot of luck with a "1980" platform. Basically rolling back Reaganomics and everything that followed. So basically

Refund government programs.
More restrictions on financial services industry
Significantly raise Corporate Taxes

It allows them to run on an nostalgic "make america great again" platform connected to actual policies. Going back to the policies that actually made America great and keep gunning against the "trickle down" effect as basically being the root of the increasing inequality effect that was started in the 80s.

Set aims like Restoring the Real Hourly Wage to 1980 levels. Minimum wage too.

An actual vision for the US and one that actually rebuffs and reverses right-wing economic policies.

Something I’ve been guilty of as much as anyone else - projecting your own beliefs onto the average American. Honestly, we are not the same.

The average American is right wing conservative capitalist that believes in Reagonomics. They believe the corporate greed of the 80s is a big part of what made America great. The voting demographic is not progressive and what you’ve suggested would be eviscerated by Fox News and its ilk as anti-capitalist, anti-growth communism.

 

[Blood Mage]

The Dems know they'd probably win on populist issues like socialized health-care and minimum wage rise. But they care more about making their rich donors happy than winning, and that's part of the problem. Almost controlled opposition territory.

 

[Mike Smalling]

It's an uphill battle.

But Obama won in 2012 under poor economic conditions and very negative sentiment about being 'better off now.'

Given the sentiment that was probably already brewing at the time, and with the hindsight of the 2016 election, the Republicans ran a terrible candidate in 2012. With the financial crisis still fresh in peoples memory they went with the former private equity guy. I doubt that happens again anytime soon - it seems ludicrous now.

 

[Brwned]

I don't think I ever said "Trump did better". I wasn't even making an argument for him. My point about covid was that yes it caused global inflation and economic uncertainty, but in the years following many people felt the current administration was not addressing it or even pretending to be. Most of these working class middle-of-the-road Americans that are still struggling today aren't going to delve into the intricacies of the economy, CoL, housing, and who's necessarily to blame. It's as simple as people's situations were better under trump's presidency than in the last 4 years under Biden/Harris. Not that Trump was some economic genius pre-covid that should be applauded. They just see no hope, solutions, or actions from the current administration to alleviate the issues that just gets worse and worse.

But the same thing would’ve happened under Trump - prices would’ve went up by record levels, they would still be struggling today, and they would invariably think the administration isn’t doing enough - because the factors beyond the president’s control were clear and unavoidable. Things were better under Trump when the situation was easy and hard under Biden when the situation was hard. You equivocated on that and are still starting to palm it off as a reflection of how the electorate at large think, but it sounds like it largely reflects your own view too.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

But the same thing would’ve happened under Trump - prices would’ve went up by record levels, they would still be struggling today, and they would invariably think the administration isn’t doing enough - because the factors beyond the president’s control were clear and unavoidable. Things were better under Trump when the situation was easy and hard under Biden when the situation was hard. You equivocated on that and are still starting to palm it off as a reflection of how the electorate at large think, but it sounds like it largely reflects your own view too.

Correct. and if this would have happened under Trump we would hope that people voted him out instead of asking them to give him a chance.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Given the sentiment that was probably already brewing at the time, and with the hindsight of the 2016 election, the Republicans ran a terrible candidate in 2012. With the financial crisis still fresh in peoples memory they went with the former private equity guy. I doubt that happens again anytime soon - it seems ludicrous now.

Dems had an important advantage at the time which is that pretty much all of them understood things were bad, and could act accordingly.

This time not so much. A lot of excessive positivity about the Biden admin's economic performance and the 'vibecession' idea that people felt bad because the media told them to.

 

[Morty_]

The Dems know they'd probably win on populist issues like socialized health-care and minimum wage rise. But they care more about making their rich donors happy than winning, and that's part of the problem. Almost controlled opposition territory.

This is often said, but there is not much evidence that this is what " the working class" in the swing states are after.

Also, these programs cost money, which means taxes, so it's an automatic deal breaker with most of them.

 

[11101]

I just met an American fund manager who is extremely bullish on the outlook for US equities and bonds. The mood in their office is quite a contrast to this thread.

Lots of Trump policies are protectionist and inflationary, great for stock prices. Longer term the US economy depends on a free, open market and depending on how much Trump follows through on his talk that might not be such a rosy outlook.

 

[Siorac]

The Dems know they'd probably win on populist issues like socialized health-care and minimum wage rise. But they care more about making their rich donors happy than winning, and that's part of the problem. Almost controlled opposition territory.

Policies don't matter.

We who are spending a lot of time worrying about politics like to pretend that they are important but they aren't. Majority of voters don't actually care about policies at all.

 

[RedC]

I think Democrats could have a lot of luck with a "1980" platform. Basically rolling back Reaganomics and everything that followed. So basically

Refund government programs.
More restrictions on financial services industry
Significantly raise Corporate Taxes

It allows them to run on an nostalgic "make america great again" platform connected to actual policies. Going back to the policies that actually made America great and keep gunning against the "trickle down" effect as basically being the root of the increasing inequality effect that was started in the 80s.

Set aims like Restoring the Real Hourly Wage to 1980 levels. Minimum wage too.

An actual vision for the US and one that actually rebuffs and reverses right-wing economic policies.

All of the Democrats make their real money from the current inequality, none of them actually want to cause the sort of shift that would lead to their pockets feeling considerably lighter.

 

[Brwned]

Will be interesting to see how the Dems adapt to this election outcome. Some resentment among Dem-leaning pundits about the working class having abandoned the Dems instead of vice versa. The argument is that the Biden administration's economic policies were pro-labor/working class and they got no appreciation in return.

Hell, the Teamsters head didn't even want to endorse Harris even though some Teamsters pension fund was saved by Biden?

Saw someone saying "you're not gonna like the new version of the Democratic Party that comes out of this". I don't expect it to be that gloomy but they might re-assess to what extent voters actually reward you for your policies. And perhaps they dump the progressive lefty rhetoric.

The mainstream democrats love big business and Hollywood far more than they respect the working class. Trump actively shifted the Republican platform to appeal more to the working class, gradually since 2016, because the Democrats considered that their stronghold despite being so obviously weak on it. And beyond concrete policies, he made much more of an effort to connect with what working class people care about in his messaging.

This response - they don’t appreciate us enough so we’ll show them - is just a symptom of exactly that. They mostly talk down to working class people, and think they’re owed something. Bunch of wankers.

At this point people have to admit to the fact that the Democrats are a terrible party at this point. If there’s a consensus that Trump is awful in so many ways and the Democrats can lose to him twice, you have to start asking “how bad are they?”. This logic of theirs should be ridiculed as them being yet more out of touch with the voters. Blaming the voters rather than the party just doesn’t wash any more.