Harris vs Trump;

[iNow]

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Maybe Biden just shouldn't have dropped out. 

Wrong conclusion. Trump still would’ve won over Biden, but it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as close as it was against Harris. 

More likely, Biden should’ve dropped out sooner, or (better yet IMO) not run at all and let the primaries happen. 
 

23 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Possibly.

Or maybe post-covid inflation, a large section of society felt that they had more money in their pockets under the previous administration.

This is a huge part of it, but it’s less about inflation (which has largely been contained especially relative to high GDP peers and advanced nations globally) and is more about prices on headline items at the grocery store plus housing and vehicle costs etc (I.e. things the Fed intentionally made more expensive to help curb the aforementioned inflation). 

Edited November 7 by iNow

[toucana]

24 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Possibly.

Or maybe post-covid inflation, a large section of society felt that they had more money in their pockets under the previous administration.

A BBC News article notes that Trump benefited from a massive 14% bump in support from Latino voters according to exit polls.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze3yr77j9wo

Trump garnered almost 42% of the Latino vote in Pennsylvania  - almost 5% of the total vote - compared to 27% when he ran against Joe Biden in 2020.

When asked to explain why the Latino vote had shifted so decisively towards Trump, members of that community cited principally the economy and inflation.

Quote

 

"It's simple, really. We liked the way things were four years ago," said Samuel Negron, a Pennsylvania state constable and member of the large Puerto Rican community in the city of Allentown.

"Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added. "A lot of us have woken up, in my opinion, from Democratic lies that things have been better. We realised things were better then."

 

 

It will be interesting to see if they still feel the same way in about  six months time, once the economy starts to crater and inflation rockets after Trump commences a trade Tariff war with the rest of the world.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, toucana said:

It will be interesting to see if they still feel the same way in about  six months time, once the economy starts to crater and inflation rockets after Trump commences a trade Tariff war with the rest of the world.

It’ll take a few years to see it, not a few months. Bidens policies and historically large investments that are actually helping the economy will continue helping well into 2026 and Trump will be able to claim credit despite doing nothing but talk a big game. 

[Luc Turpin]

44 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Possibly.

Or maybe post-covid inflation, a large section of society felt that they had more money in their pockets under the previous administration.

Good observation!

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’ll take a few years to see it, not a few months. Bidens policies and historically large investments that are actually helping the economy will continue helping well into 2026 and Trump will be able to claim credit despite doing nothing but talk a big game. 

And folks are really not very good in attributing the economic situation to the right folks. I think the concept of time eludes a lot if people.

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, toucana said:

When asked to explain why the Latino vote had shifted so decisively towards Trump, members of that community cited principally the economy and inflation.

In the UK, arguably, the 2008 global banking crisis led to the fall of the Labour government in the following general election, just as the Covid crisis precipitated (in a similarly toxic campaign to the US) a landslide victory back to the left this year.

Actual policies seem pretty irrelevant. It seems quite depressingly random.

 

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Actual policies seem pretty irrelevant. It seems quite depressingly random.

It looks like that. You need narratives, not policies. The simpler the better. As some have put it: Trump's message was clear. Bad people want to do bad stuff to you. I make all better for you. This translates to the average voter to a clear message.

Whereas Harris had details and numbers and stuff and that point they suddenly do not understand what she stands for.

Also important: being vague. If you are specific folks on the internet hammer you on it (either legitimately or just by spreading misinformation) and folks repeating the nonsense for some reasons feel smug about it. Be vague and no one can meme you (or whatever young people say). Having a concept of a plan is  apparently a genius thing.

[swansont]

Problem being the press wanting policy from democrats, but not from the republicans. But it’s true, propaganda won out. Trying to stick to telling the truth lost. The ill-informed electorate is swayed by emotion, not facts. You have to light a fire under them to get them to the polls

[CharonY]

I do wonder how much weight traditional media still have, especially among the younger electorate.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I do wonder how much weight traditional media still have, especially among the younger electorate.

Very little. Joe Rogans podcast alone reached something like 100x what traditional media reached, and that’s ignoring X and TikTok and YouTube and all the rest 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Very little. Joe Rogans podcast alone reached something like 100x what traditional media reached, and that’s ignoring X and TikTok and YouTube and all the rest 

I suspect as much, but I was hoping for someone to tell me I am wrong. We are doomed, aren't we?

 

[TheVat]

NPR had over 30 million listeners (more if website readers counted) in a recent year, across fairly broad demographics.  Some hope, maybe.  

That's more than double Joe Rogan followers.

[StringJunky]

11 hours ago, toucana said:

It will be interesting to see if they still feel the same way in about  six months time, once the economy starts to crater and inflation rockets after Trump commences a trade Tariff war with the rest of the world.

Quite  a few commentators that I've read predict buyers remorse not too far down the line. Buying American is great for their nationalistic soul, but will hit them hard in the wallets when they realize, after draconian import taxes are implemented, they are buying products made paying American-level wages with the associated sticker price. A low-skilled Chinese factory worker's monthly wage is $370 for a 'good' wage... most are worse. Bangladeshi factory workers in the clothing industry are at about $125/month.

Prices of goods can only be cheap when your country is exploiting poorer economies that pay lower wages.

Edited November 8 by StringJunky

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Quite  a few commentators that I've read predict buyers remorse not too far down the line.

And folks will say, “Why didn’t you tell me?” about all the stuff that people were trying to tell them, but it didn’t register, or they were tuned in to sources that fed them propaganda. Those same sources will find someone to blame, and it won’t be Trump.

[Luc Turpin]

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.”

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

I suspect as much, but I was hoping for someone to tell me I am wrong. We are doomed, aren't we?

 

You are wrong, 'we' will be fine; but they are definitely doomed...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.”

I fail to see how acknowledging the GOP strategy means the democrats ignored this. If anything, the comment about Taylor Swift means they acknowledged it. They were unsuccessful at combatting it. Those are different things.

[Peterkin]

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

I suspect as much, but I was hoping for someone to tell me I am wrong. We are doomed, aren't we?

Yes, but at least we're all doomed together. The climate will do for many of us; the territorial, refugee and water wars will take out more; then we just wait for the prehistoric virus to come up one of the Arctic oil wells and Kennedy's Department of Health to handle it. 

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

I fail to see how acknowledging the GOP strategy means the democrats ignored this.

In the sense that they failed to take advantage of it.

They could not, given their principles, exploit the racism and sexism Trump has so well exploited.

Edited November 8 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

NPR had over 30 million listeners (more if website readers counted) in a recent year, across fairly broad demographics.  Some hope, maybe.  

That's more than double Joe Rogan followers.

The downside to that is that I believe NPR listeners skews to the older age bracket. I.e. young folks, the traditional drivers for societal change are more likely getting more misinformed (not just uninformed). Just recently there was a Leger poll in Canada, suggesting that the largest group doubting the holocaust are in the youngest segment.

39 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, but at least we're all doomed together. The climate will do for many of us; the territorial, refugee and water wars will take out more; then we just wait for the prehistoric virus to come up one of the Arctic oil wells and Kennedy's Department of Health to handle it. 

Nah, don't you worry. The pathogen does not have to be something prehistoric. We just stop vaccinating and enjoy all the diseases we had 50ish years ago. You'll make a killing selling iron lungs, I tell ya.

[MSC]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

And folks will say, “Why didn’t you tell me?” about all the stuff that people were trying to tell them, but it didn’t register, or they were tuned in to sources that fed them propaganda. Those same sources will find someone to blame, and it won’t be Trump.

Oh 100% you know for a fact the moment blame can fall to Trump, all of a sudden they'll talk about how economic policy can take time to really have an impact so it was Biden fault. It's such an unfair double standard; if it's Biden or any Democrats policies, hardship is immediate, if it's Trump policies the hardship was caused by the previous guy. Ridiculous! 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I fail to see how acknowledging the GOP strategy means the democrats ignored this. If anything, the comment about Taylor Swift means they acknowledged it. They were unsuccessful at combatting it. Those are different things.

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.

 

 

 

Edited November 8 by Luc Turpin

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, MSC said:

Oh 100% you know for a fact the moment blame can fall to Trump, all of a sudden they'll talk about how economic policy can take time to really have an impact so it was Biden fault. It's such an unfair double standard; if it's Biden or any Democrats policies, hardship is immediate, if it's Trump policies the hardship was caused by the previous guy. Ridiculous! 

That is the point, though. Folks with influence and money have long realized that instead of playing the game, it is far more effective to play the system and make the rules. Media used to have a sort of check on it (but the Murdoch empire also has shown how vulnerable traditional media is). However this check relies on two things: One, the quality of reporting with the intent to force accountability and two, having the electorate actually act on this information.

Both mechanisms have been successfully eroded, not for the first time in modern history. So you can just claim things. As we have discussed already the last time around, traditional norms have virtually vanished and we have not created any new structures to adapt. So folks either went all in (as the GOP) into an accountability-free space where you can just say whatever you think folks like. Even if you are directly responsible for deaths due to your misinformation, you can just blame some random things except yourself.

Alternatively, you can go the traditional route, try to garner the reasonable populace and think that this is enough. Rater unfortunately that does not seem like a winning strategy, whereas the free-wheeling accountability-free space is a scary winner.

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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. 

They did and it made little inroads. As I said, that would still be the assumption that you can reason things out. I have worked through the pandemic with a broadish segment of the population and the level of things they believe you cannot address in a handful of meetings. Not even in many. And once you make inroads, others have invented 200 new conspiracy theories. It is a losing proposition in the long run as it takes time, training and effort to discuss facts. Lying is effortless and every idiot is doing it.

Also to add, it is almost impossible to talk policy over feels. If folks think their economic issue is because of immigration and that mass deportation magically will solve it, discussing policies that would actually help them will not register with the masses.

You can convince individuals, if you take the time, but that won't be enough to sway elections. And the alternative is basically stoking their fears and then offer cheap (and nonsensical) solution.

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Democrats did not ignore the GOP strategy;

Did they or didn’t they? At least take a consistent position.

35 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Now, take the first step and back this up with evidence. I know evidence isn’t your strong suit, but without it, it’s just blather.

For example, I saw ads saying Harris would cut taxes for the middle class. How is that not in “layperson’s terms”? Or her saying she’ll stop price-gouging? Or “more affordable housing”?

Stop making stuff up. If you can’t deal in facts, go away.

[Luc Turpin]

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did they or didn’t they? At least take a consistent position.

Now, take the first step and back this up with evidence. I know evidence isn’t your strong suit, but without it, it’s just blather.

For example, I saw ads saying Harris would cut taxes for the middle class. How is that not in “layperson’s terms”? Or her saying she’ll stop price-gouging? Or “more affordable housing”?

Stop making stuff up. If you can’t deal in facts, go away.

Then I will go away!

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Stop making stuff up. If you can’t deal in facts, go away.

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Then I will go away!

LOL! It is rare when someone actually admits they are lying. Now we get to see if he is also lying about 'going away'.