Luc Turpin

A global trend involving inflation and incumbents. Could Harris have done anything to buck the trend or was it unavoidable? “This has been a banner year for elections; nearly half of the population of the world has gone to the polls in 2024 in a rare aligning of the calendar. The temperature of the world has been taken. And with a few notable exceptions, and to the extent that those elections were free and fair, the result has been largely the same: Virtually every party that was the incumbent at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost.” https://prospect.org/economy/2024-11-06-globally-predictable-result-election-inflation-trump/

I think that others not backing up things looks more like a statement of fact than an argument. I will put into practice your suggestion. Most of my opinions were based on things that I had read. "Those that changed camps......" was actually something that I also read. Moving on as in allowing others more space for conversation.

That my opinions may be called out as inaccurate is part of a healthy discussion. I have no problem with that. I was not the only one not backing up things, many were doing the same thing, but only a select "few" of us were being call-out for it. Moving on!

The statement "Democrats did not ignore the GOP strategy; they used to wrong tools to combat it. They thought that disdain over Trump, a rosy picture of the situation and a plan not expressed in layperson’s term would be sufficient to win them the election", was an opinion of mine as you and others were also doing, but, indeed funny that I was the only one being called-out for it!

Coming back after a pause! I refute your allegation that I have not provided facts for my assertions and that I am "making stuff up". Here are some examples: In describing the abortion situation in Canada and that most were early terms (a tangent topic in the Harris Vs Trump thread) – legal through all nine months; no providers except hospitals beyond 23 weeks; 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, while less than 1% beyond 21+ weeks. Reasons for late-stage abortions are: fetus gravely or fatally impaired; woman’s life or physical health at risk; abusive relationship; children or young teens unaware of pregnancy or in denial (+2 on this one). In determining whether or not early voting could constitute an indication of election results - charts on who was voting in battle state grounds by age and by party registration, and number of early votes; seven data sources on trends in early voting. In determining if late polling could give us an indication of election results - two data sources on the Iowa shocker; the last poll of the campaign. In determining paths toward winning for Harris - A data source on various Harris-Trump electoral paths to the White House. In determining that fear was probably a factor in the election - A New York Times article stating that “survey after survey showed that Americans were deeply fearful and intensely pessimistic”; Trump’s own words and their effect on the American public. In determining that Harris was probably not going to win the election even before results were known - An exit poll showing that 72% of voters were dissatisfied or angry (my emphasis) about the direction of the country and 67% called the economy bad or poor. Incumbents do not win with these kinds of numbers. Most data sets, except the Iowa shocker, were generally in line with what occurred. Remaining posts were opinions of mine that I shared with others as others were doing the same. Finaly, a plurality of "voices", especially on a political topic, makes for a richer conversation. How does this constitute lying (see above)? Not wasting more of my time on false accusations. Carry on!

Then I will go away!

Democrats did not ignore the GOP strategy; they used to wrong tools to combat it. They thought that disdain over Trump, a rosy picture of the situation and a plan not expressed in layperson’s term would be sufficient to win them the election. They underestimated the power of negative thinking and ignored the people's perception that all was not well with America. Instead of grand events preaching to the converted, Harris should have gone to meet with regular folks in rural areas, ask them how it goes, explain her plan and tell them that she is open to hearing them. I think it's called barnstorming or something to that effect. Imagine 30 second video clips of Harris sipping coffee and listening to people of all affiliations. It could even have been "set-up" events. Acknowledging that all is not well for many regular folks and that she hears what they are saying about the trajectory of the nation, would have gone a long way in this election campaign. Wash, rinse and repeat a thousand times until folks get it that Democrats are listening to people, not only consultants or fringe groups. Those that changed camps this election cycle were those bothered by the direction and economy of the country. Telling them that all is well and carry on as usual is not a very winning strategy. In 2020, it was about Trump. In 2024, Democrats tried to make it about Trump again, but the country had moved on to another prevailing backstory.

From a New York Times article that supports my contentions about the politics of fear and electorate’s mood being ignored by Democrats. “Trump sells terror, and he has found a robust market for it. That’s because it’s a durable ware. “ “Survey after survey showed that Americans were deeply fearful and intensely pessimistic. Not even the most star-studded rally could change that. Not even an endorsement by Taylor Swift could make it go away.” “As for joy, well, we got that wrong, The Reagan-era adage that sunniness wins more votes than gloominess has been repudiated repeatedly over the decades since he left office, and while I root for its return, I recognize its current quaintness." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/opinion/trump-harris-joy-anger.html And a semi-humorous view of U.S. politics from Western Europe In The Atlantic, Helen Lewis illuminated a view of America from the opposite side of the Atlantic: “In Western Europe, many see America’s presidential election this year not as a battle between left and right, liberal and conservative, high and low taxes, but something more like a soccer game between a midranking team and a herd of stampeding buffalo. Sure, the buffalo might win — but not by playing soccer.”

Good observation!

Agreed! very difficult to ignore. I am still processing everything myself. Here are a few loose-fitting thoughts about the whole matter: First, my doubts about the outcome of this election began when polls were showing a tie between Harris and Trump while the latter was carrying so much negative baggage along with him in the campaign. The Madison Square Garden thing was a disaster for Republicans with no consequence in poling. Why was that? I could not pin it down and it bothered me. But it started dawning on me when an exit poll survey indicated that 72% of voters were dissatisfied or angry about the direction of the country and 67% called the economy bad or poor. So here are a few questions: Why were Democrats so up beat about the state of the union while the people of the union were definitely not? Were they too focussed on what Trump was saying and doing, which was a distraction; too focussed on pundits and experts while forgetting about the voters themselves? You can argue until you are blue in the face that the economy is not so poor, but that counts for nothing if voters feel differently about it. Also, why were Republicans talking about towns across the U.S. that have lost their economic base over the last 10-20-30 years and not Democrats? This negative context might help us understand why some people feel threatened by immigrants. Are they racists or just worried about their own well being? To summarize, it is as if one party was talking about the "real things" that mattered to people while the other was talking about matters important to their own party. A battle of technocrat thinkers against Joe blow from the street, and it ended up a brawl won by the latter. A race that should not have even been close, but lost because of not listening to the people.

Ignoring him, if that is even possible! Or does a psychological strategy already exists for dealing with this kind of situation, but we are unaware of its existence? I have more questions than answers! What would happen if people, proponents and opponents, got tired and stopped reacting to his constant barrage of incendiary remarks? I am fabulating, I suppose!

I reiterate, the politics of fear won over the politics of reason in this election. And as evidenced by many recent posts in this thread, it still has its grip on us. The fear of Trump being elected has been replaced by the fear of what will he do in his second term! He’s got us! But, there must be a way out of all of his madness controlling us! Finally, resistance to change also played a key role in the election. And nostalgia!

sad, so, so, sad!

It will be close. Worried! Georgia and North Carolina.

Yup! Go Iowa go! And yup also!