2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[Jezza819]

Wipe what…?

The Crimes
The Stains
The Victims Tears

All of the above. Whatever conservatives are accused of Trump will just pardon them. There might be some token convictions that get probation but I wouldn't bet a lot on it.

 

[UKMikey]

All of the above.

You mean the first two. I doubt they care about the victims.

 

[Imari]

View attachment 1405273

"I put up with this **** when I was a kid and now I want my turn to be grandpa."

 

[Scaff]

Have fun America, you're getting a National Emergence in the new year...

Trump Confirms Plans To Declare National Emergency For Mass Deportations

www.huffpost.com

 

[Liquid]

I think the way things are heading, the Statue of Liberty should be forfeited back to France.

 

[Danoff]

Have fun America, you're getting a National Emergence in the new year...

Trump Confirms Plans To Declare National Emergency For Mass Deportations

www.huffpost.com

Is this going to include human rights abuses and lots of pain for lots of people? Yes. Is it going to harm the economy? Yes. Is it going to cost a lot? Yes.

But are we going to make America great as a result?

 

[UKMikey]

Is this going to include human rights abuses and lots of pain for lots of people? Yes. Is it going to harm the economy? Yes. Is it going to cost a lot? Yes.

But are we going to make America great as a result?

MAGA: They're eating the wabbits

 

[TB]

MAGA: They're eating the wabbits ducks

 

[GranTurNismo]

This is an interesting read. While it would be quite hyperbolic to claim that Kamala Harris lost because she spent time touting the Cheneys on the campaign trail, it does symbolize a larger problem with both the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party.

Liz Cheney Was an Electoral Fiasco for Kamala Harris

Conservatives backed Trump by bigger percentages than in 2020. And time spent with Cheney prevented Harris from reaching out to the voters she needed.

www.thenation.com

I find this paragraph especially compelling:

"Every day was precious, and every signal sent to potential voters was significant. The days spent with Cheney, and the resources expended to promote endorsements from neoconservative Republicans, cost the Democrats in significant ways. They sent a signal to potential Democratic voters, many of who recalled the Iraq War and other Cheney projects, that the focus of the campaign was on outreach to the right, They ate up time that could have been spent campaigning in union halls in working-class communities with figures such as United Auto Workers union president Shawn Fain and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. They burned up time that could have been devoted to sincere, if difficult, conversations about Gaza. They foreclosed opportunities to reach out to Latino communities in swing states. The list goes on and on"

"Moderate Republicans" simply don't exist in any sizable numbers, yet the Democratic Party has particularly relied on this myth this election cycle. I meant, the type of never-Trumper-turned-centrist hardly seems to exist outside of legacy news media altogether. Data indicates that in spite of Harris' efforts to court this group, that 94% of Republicans voted for Trump in 2024 (the same figure as in 2020), while just 9% of self-identified conservatives voted for Harris in 2024, compared to 14% of them voting for Biden in 2020. I'd even go as far to say that the current DNC modus operandi is reliant on the myth of the moderate Republican- these types are vastly overrepresented in legacy media (while the growing progressive left hardly gets any airtime, even if it is adversarial), as cynical justification to keep the party from moving leftward on economic issues and not alienating its dark-monied influences. The Democratic establishment has shown themselves to want to be a less liberal and populist party mostly due to the influence of the donor class, and the only thing holding them back from going further in this direction is the party's actual voter base. The most influential party leaders (who are still largely the same folks who ran Bill Clinton's campaign) believe the way to win is to always move right, right, right. The Democratic Party has been pushing that Trump is some sort of exception, a glitch in the system, and that if he's beaten then "the fever will break." Cuddling up to the Cheneys both moves the campaign right and reinforces this farce that Trump is different from the Republican party as, hey look, Republicans are voting for Kamala! By even painting Trump as exceptional and different from the Republican party, they made him a desirable candidate for people who hate both parties and just want to vote for an outsider.

Part of a fundamental peril the Democratic Party faces that the GOP simply doesn't, is that by being composed of competing coalitions, spending too much time messaging to one group will eventually placate others. It is reasonable to argue that the Harris campaign aggressively campaigning to a group that hardly even exists did, in fact, anger the party's more liberal base and is partially why Harris so underperformed. The electorate did not move further right, rather key Democratic constituencies did not turn out to vote for Harris. Many Democratic voters are unmotivated by the party's constant talk about compromise, unity, respectability politics, and wishy-washy messaging on nearly every issue outside of abortion, while the GOP makes no effort to have any veneer of bipartisanship and will do anything to push through its nakedly partisan and unpopular agenda. Also, Democratic voters don't see the Cheneys as role models simply for standing up to Trump, as they make no effort not to be anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ+, war hawks, etc. Who do they even appeal to? Who are these mysterious voters that like a right wing pivot by a Democrat, but don't ultimately vote for the actual right wing party?

 

[Danoff]

This is an interesting read. While it would be quite hyperbolic to claim that Kamala Harris lost because she spent time touting the Cheneys on the campaign trail, it does symbolize a larger problem with both the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party.

Liz Cheney Was an Electoral Fiasco for Kamala Harris

Conservatives backed Trump by bigger percentages than in 2020. And time spent with Cheney prevented Harris from reaching out to the voters she needed.

www.thenation.com

I find this paragraph especially compelling:


"Moderate Republicans" simply don't exist in any sizable numbers, yet the Democratic Party has particularly relied on this myth this election cycle. I meant, the type of never-Trumper-turned-centrist hardly seems to exist outside of legacy news media altogether. Data indicates that in spite of Harris' efforts to court this group, that 94% of Republicans voted for Trump in 2024 (the same figure as in 2020), while just 9% of self-identified conservatives voted for Harris in 2024, compared to 14% of them voting for Biden in 2020. I'd even go as far to say that the current DNC modus operandi is reliant on the myth of the moderate Republican- these types are vastly overrepresented in legacy media (while the growing progressive left hardly gets any airtime, even if it is adversarial), as cynical justification to keep the party from moving leftward on economic issues and not alienating its dark-monied influences. The Democratic establishment has shown themselves to want to be a less liberal and populist party mostly due to the influence of the donor class, and the only thing holding them back from going further in this direction is the party's actual voter base. The most influential party leaders (who are still largely the same folks who ran Bill Clinton's campaign) believe the way to win is to always move right, right, right. The Democratic Party has been pushing that Trump is some sort of exception, a glitch in the system, and that if he's beaten then "the fever will break." Cuddling up to the Cheneys both moves the campaign right and reinforces this farce that Trump is different from the Republican party as, hey look, Republicans are voting for Kamala! By even painting Trump as exceptional and different from the Republican party, they made him a desirable candidate for people who hate both parties and just want to vote for an outsider.

Part of a fundamental peril the Democratic Party faces that the GOP simply doesn't, is that by being composed of competing coalitions, spending too much time messaging to one group will eventually placate others. It is reasonable to argue that the Harris campaign aggressively campaigning to a group that hardly even exists did, in fact, anger the party's more liberal base and is partially why Harris so underperformed. The electorate did not move further right, rather key Democratic constituencies did not turn out to vote for Harris. Many Democratic voters are unmotivated by the party's constant talk about compromise, unity, respectability politics, and wishy-washy messaging on nearly every issue outside of abortion, while the GOP makes no effort to have any veneer of bipartisanship and will do anything to push through its nakedly partisan and unpopular agenda. Also, Democratic voters don't see the Cheneys as role models simply for standing up to Trump, as they make no effort not to be anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ+, war hawks, etc. Who do they even appeal to? Who are these mysterious voters that like a right wing pivot by a Democrat, but don't ultimately vote for the actual right wing party?

Democrats: "We could have adjusted our message just a little bit to more perfectly capture some voters".
Trump: Simulates sex with a microphone, pontificates about Hitler.

Edit:

To be clear, if any of you are thinking that the democrats should have polished their campaign a little more to win over voters, you do not understand what happened.

Edit 2:

Let me put this another way. If what happened was that some group of left-leaning individuals didn't turn out for Harris, it's not because they didn't get the message delivered to them, it's because they didn't understand it. They way they will get that message is not campaigning or messaging. That OBVIOUSLY didn't work. They way they will get the message is pain. The pain of watching and experiencing what happens from here.

 

[Kriptical]

This is an interesting read. While it would be quite hyperbolic to claim that Kamala Harris lost because she spent time touting the Cheneys on the campaign trail, it does symbolize a larger problem with both the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party.

Liz Cheney Was an Electoral Fiasco for Kamala Harris

Conservatives backed Trump by bigger percentages than in 2020. And time spent with Cheney prevented Harris from reaching out to the voters she needed.

www.thenation.com

I find this paragraph especially compelling:


"Moderate Republicans" simply don't exist in any sizable numbers, yet the Democratic Party has particularly relied on this myth this election cycle. I meant, the type of never-Trumper-turned-centrist hardly seems to exist outside of legacy news media altogether. Data indicates that in spite of Harris' efforts to court this group, that 94% of Republicans voted for Trump in 2024 (the same figure as in 2020), while just 9% of self-identified conservatives voted for Harris in 2024, compared to 14% of them voting for Biden in 2020. I'd even go as far to say that the current DNC modus operandi is reliant on the myth of the moderate Republican- these types are vastly overrepresented in legacy media (while the growing progressive left hardly gets any airtime, even if it is adversarial), as cynical justification to keep the party from moving leftward on economic issues and not alienating its dark-monied influences. The Democratic establishment has shown themselves to want to be a less liberal and populist party mostly due to the influence of the donor class, and the only thing holding them back from going further in this direction is the party's actual voter base. The most influential party leaders (who are still largely the same folks who ran Bill Clinton's campaign) believe the way to win is to always move right, right, right. The Democratic Party has been pushing that Trump is some sort of exception, a glitch in the system, and that if he's beaten then "the fever will break." Cuddling up to the Cheneys both moves the campaign right and reinforces this farce that Trump is different from the Republican party as, hey look, Republicans are voting for Kamala! By even painting Trump as exceptional and different from the Republican party, they made him a desirable candidate for people who hate both parties and just want to vote for an outsider.

Part of a fundamental peril the Democratic Party faces that the GOP simply doesn't, is that by being composed of competing coalitions, spending too much time messaging to one group will eventually placate others. It is reasonable to argue that the Harris campaign aggressively campaigning to a group that hardly even exists did, in fact, anger the party's more liberal base and is partially why Harris so underperformed. The electorate did not move further right, rather key Democratic constituencies did not turn out to vote for Harris. Many Democratic voters are unmotivated by the party's constant talk about compromise, unity, respectability politics, and wishy-washy messaging on nearly every issue outside of abortion, while the GOP makes no effort to have any veneer of bipartisanship and will do anything to push through its nakedly partisan and unpopular agenda. Also, Democratic voters don't see the Cheneys as role models simply for standing up to Trump, as they make no effort not to be anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ+, war hawks, etc. Who do they even appeal to? Who are these mysterious voters that like a right wing pivot by a Democrat, but don't ultimately vote for the actual right wing party?

Im a white male, who spent most of their life self employed, with about 10 employees on average. I’m relatively well educated, pragmatic, practical, and from a risk/reward perspective, relatively conservative in judgement. Im also, a life long independent. Never believing either party did a sufficient job. I also thought Harries was a poor choice, who ran a poorly thought out campaign, and received a eminently predictable result, largely for the reasons you’ve listed.

I thought the republicans needed a rebuild, but honestly…it’s really the democrats who have been lost for years. Frankly, most of the republicans i know will lie about being never trumpers, but its only camouflage, until they think they are among their people. They have no qualms, nor guilt, about this lie. Most enjoy executing it, as it makes them feel cunning. Point being. The republicans have proven they are happy with their choice, they would just prefer not being judged for it. The democrats, with their now decades long reign of centrist leadership, however appears completely lost and due for a full rebuild before becoming relevant again.

 

[Danoff]

Im a white male, who spent most of their life self employed, with about 10 employees on average. I’m relatively well educated, pragmatic, practical, and from a risk/reward perspective, relatively conservative in judgement. Im also, a life long independent. Never believing either party did a sufficient job. I also thought Harries was a poor choice, who ran a poorly thought out campaign, and received a eminently predictable result, largely for the reasons you’ve listed.

I thought the republicans needed a rebuild, but honestly…it’s really the democrats who have been lost for years. Frankly, most of the republicans i know will lie about being never trumpers, but its only camouflage, until they think they are among their people. They have no qualms, nor guilt, about this lie. Most enjoy executing it, as it makes them feel cunning. Point being. The republicans have proven they are happy with their choice, they would just prefer not being judged for it.

Yes, the republicans are happy with their choice. That should have been clear in 2016, and 2020.

The democrats, with their now decades long reign of centrist leadership, however appears completely lost and due for a full rebuild before becoming relevant again.

No, it's because people like yourself, for whatever reason, have still not quite understood what they're doing. The Democrats are not in a position to become relevant again. It no longer matters, the nation is broken. Will we have another election again? I hazard to say that it will not be a fair one if it happens.

The republicans are willing to get behind the biggest idiot asshole they could find, who messes up absolutely everything, is 80 years old (and it shows), and has character flaws a mile long. Who was personal friends with Epstein, is a rapist, and literally attacked the country.

But what to people like you say, that the democrats didn't do a good enough job picking a candidate. Despite picking a candidate who was in fact NOT friends with Epstein. NOT a rapist. And did actually have good ideas to improve conditions of all kinds.

If you can't get out of your own damned way in a situation like that, you DESERVE to lose your country. Even if you voted for Harris, if you're talking about what the democrats need to do NEXT TIME, you still somehow didn't understand the situation.

Edit:

TL;DR

**** around and find out America.

 

[McLaren]

Trump doesn't know anything about Project 2025, just so happens to be coincidentally picking the guy who wrote about the FCC as its incoming chairman.

Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission who wrote a section on the agency for Project 2025, is President-elect Trump's pick as chairman of the bipartisan regulatory body.

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/18/brendan-carr-trump-fcc-chair

 

[Danoff]

The electorate did not move further right

Oh yes it did.

Trump himself has only moved right since 2016, and the electorate has followed him.

 

[Kriptical]

Yes, the republicans are happy with their choice. That should have been clear in 2016, and 2020.

No, it's because people like yourself, for whatever reason, have still not quite understood what they're doing. The Democrats are not in a position to become relevant again. It no longer matters, the nation is broken. Will we have another election again? I hazard to say that it will not be a fair one if it happens.

The republicans are willing to get behind the biggest idiot asshole they could find, who messes up absolutely everything, is 80 years old (and it shows), and has character flaws a mile long. Who was personal friends with Epstein, is a rapist, and literally attacked the country.

But what to people like you say, that the democrats didn't do a good enough job picking a candidate. Despite picking a candidate who was in fact NOT friends with Epstein. NOT a rapist. And did actually have good ideas to improve conditions of all kinds.

If you can't get out of your own damned way in a situation like that, you DESERVE to lose your country. Even if you voted for Harris, if you're talking about what the democrats need to do NEXT TIME, you still somehow didn't understand the situation.

Edit:

TL;DR

**** around and find out America.

Don’t get so caught up in my optimistic framing of the future of the country, nor take that as ignorance relative to its state. We share a perspective that the upcoming period will be filled with pain, death and generally avoidable suffering. That these idiots are finally going to get what they have been ordering. And that it will take that pain to hopefully lead to a changing of perspective‘s …someday.

Or thermonuclear war.

For the record, i’ve voted democrat since bush/Cheney, and tried to convince anyone who will listen that this right-center-right tac is futile and would eventually lead us to a point such as this.

Additionally, you’ll recall my points about Biden being taxed physically, but fine, and that removing him would lead to catastrophic results. I knew he was under strain prior to the debate because of hunters trial, and fighting covid, not senility. I knew this because Greenville, has always been a small place…which i’ve lived in or thereabouts, for 20yrs…


….but nah. People chose to believe teh veedeeeooos. Mine eyes!!! And big money as they orchestrated their coup
🤦‍♂️

Fwiw: anyone who didn’t vote against trump and republicans, all the way down the ballot this time, i blame for this. Also, fresh out of empathy and sympathy, for whats coming. This was a win at all costs moment and they categorically failed. I agree, in a sane world, voting for a crusty turd should have been more palatable than voting for what we have. But apparently school vouchers and the like, have done an excellent job dumbing down the population, and an expectation that people have a rudimentary grasp of poli sci and world events is unrealistic.

 

[Danoff]

Additionally, you’ll recall my points about Biden being taxed physically, but fine, and that removing him would lead to catastrophic results.

Every point where Harris was vulnerable, Biden was moreso.

Fwiw: anyone who didn’t vote against trump and republicans, all the way down the ballot this time, i blame for this.

Yes.

And that's where the blame stops for me. I see no evidence that any slightly different technique or message from Harris would have made a difference. Because the message was not what people were voting on. If they were, the results would have been different.

The American people just re-elected the single worst president we have ever had despite many insane moments and statements since then.

This election should not have been close. We are far more broken than a messaging a little differently on the middle east or economic policy, or campaigning for a few moments with Liz Chaney. This is an absolutely massive problem, not some kind of tweak. It's a problem that we can only fix through a great deal of suffering apparently.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Oh yes it did.

Trump himself has only moved right since 2016, and the electorate has followed him.

Democrats: "We could have adjusted our message just a little bit to more perfectly capture some voters".
Trump: Simulates sex with a microphone, pontificates about Hitler.

Edit:

To be clear, if any of you are thinking that the democrats should have polished their campaign a little more to win over voters, you do not understand what happened.

Edit 2:

Let me put this another way. If what happened was that some group of left-leaning individuals didn't turn out for Harris, it's not because they didn't get the message delivered to them, it's because they didn't understand it. They way they will get that message is not campaigning or messaging. That OBVIOUSLY didn't work. They way they will get the message is pain. The pain of watching and experiencing what happens from here.

I mostly agree but there are a few caveats. Harris' campaign shortcomings (aforementioned Cheneys/moderate republicans fiasco, failure to sufficiently oppose Israel's genocide, abandoning more progressive policies, not appearing on podcasts, and even only having three months to campaign) did not cost her the election and she still would have lost even if all of the above was corrected and she ran an absolutely flawless campaign. The problem, which you correctly point out, wasn't that Harris' campaign wasn't polished enough (I thought it was a decent though not excellent campaign). The problem was that the nominee should never have been Harris, as she is not equipped to take the necessary steps to lead the party to victory given the circumstances, as I outline below.

If Biden gracefully announced he would not seek re-election early in 2023 and the DNC embraced an open primary process, the Democrats could have handily won. Not only would Harris likely have lost said primary for a more likable candidate (lets not avoid the elephant in the room, that Kamala has suffered a serious favorability crisis since 2019), the Democratic base would be reinvigorated, with bolder agendas and narratives in the limelight again as opposed for everyone in the party having to begrudgingly rationalize Biden's shortcomings. The problem isn't that lefties didn't turn out, it's that all key demographics of the democratic base (though maybe less so for higher income, educated suburbanites like you or I) didn't turn out enough.

I think a big takeaway for many on the left after this election is that having the superior policy platform not only isn't enough on its own, but barely moves the needle at all. The median voter, if presented with nothing but both candidate's agendas, would agree that Harris' domestic policy is much superior to Trump's. Yet Harris lost, bigly as some may say. The problem is deeper than just a lack of good messaging around these policies, it was the lack of narrativizing, of which there was none of on the Democratic side, yet this is where Trump excels. Regardless of what you or I think about it, we are in a populist political era right now and Democrats have not nearly accustomed to and embraced this as much as the GOP. People like scapegoats, and that's what Trump offers. Whether or not people heard Trump simulating sex on the microphone and pontificating about Hitler would have made no difference in his favorability. The plurality of Americans are working class people who are financially burdened (unlike higher income suburbanites like you or I) and these people associate Trump with lower costs of living so they voted for him.

But it didn't have to be this way. The Democrats had the opportunity to craft a narrative about the economy. Acknowledging positive numeric data doesn't tell the whole story- the way politicians ought to talk about the economy is different than how economists talk about it and this was overlooked by Democrats, who instead spent much time touting good jobs and easing inflation numbers rather than meeting voters where they are at. They did not address structural issues of the economy that were there before COVID- rising income and wealth inequality, wages not keeping up with productivity, a growing gig economy with effectively no labor protections, wages not being able to afford rent and groceries requiring 2-3+ jobs, etc. And they would, in turn, blame these issues on the failures of "establishment" politicians in both parties, shareholder capitalism, corporate greed, etc, in the same way that Trump scapegoats domestic policy failures onto immigrants, Soros/the deep state, racial and sexual minorities, etc. This would be done to foster class consciousness amongst working Americans, which as shown by the outcome of the 2024 election, is at an all-time low. And all of this could have been achieved without Harris tweaking her economic policy at all. The Democrats had the opportunity to narrativize for the last 3+ years and they didn't, plausibly as doing so may threaten the party's corporate donors. Instead, Harris refused to even attempt to differentiate herself from Biden who had <50% approval rating effectively his entire term (with Harris' even lower). Explaining to people that the economy actually isn't as bad as they say it is (which is largely true, even) just sounds preachy to many, which has been an enduring criticism of the Democrats' messaging; people don't know about economics, and wouldn't be moved to care. The takeaway is, the Democrats need to abandon this "when-they-go-low-we-go-high" attitude and just play the GOP at their own game.

I'll also add that both the Biden and Harris 2024 campaign had saving and restoring democracy as one of its key messages (probably tied with abortion rights). I know this message has particularly resonated with you (and myself, and really anyone who should care about the nation remaining a democracy), but many working Americans turned a blind eye to it. As with economics, most cannot define what democracy is. And it's true that unlike authoritarianism, democracy itself is wonky, technical, and abstract. But they often associate democracy with order and the status quo. Given this, the logical question is, who is democracy working for? If the status quo, as aforementioned, is an economic structure that has failed a majority of people, voting blue to "save democracy" is hardly compelling even as the GOP has been so explicitly authoritarian, especially in the last 4 years.

-----

If there is some silver lining in any of this, Trump has just nominated Brendan Carr to lead the FCC (who also literally wrote the "FCC" chapter of the Project 2025), who is a big opponent of net neutrality. And I know you are also not a fan of net neutrality as indicated by your post history, while Harris most certainly would have nominated an FCC chair, like Biden, who supports net neutrality. So maybe the next four years will be a smidge less bad.

 

[Danoff]

I mostly agree but there are a few caveats. Harris' campaign shortcomings (aforementioned Cheneys/moderate republicans fiasco, failure to sufficiently oppose Israel's genocide, abandoning more progressive policies, not appearing on podcasts, and even only having three months to campaign) did not cost her the election and she still would have lost even if all of the above was corrected and she ran an absolutely flawless campaign. The problem, which you correctly point out, wasn't that Harris' campaign wasn't polished enough (I thought it was a decent though not excellent campaign). The problem was that the nominee should never have been Harris, as she is not equipped to take the necessary steps to lead the party to victory given the circumstances, as I outline below.

If Biden gracefully announced he would not seek re-election early in 2023 and the DNC embraced an open primary process, the Democrats could have handily won. Not only would Harris likely have lost said primary for a more likable candidate (lets not avoid the elephant in the room, that Kamala has suffered a serious favorability crisis since 2019), the Democratic base would be reinvigorated, with bolder agendas and narratives in the limelight again as opposed for everyone in the party having to begrudgingly rationalize Biden's shortcomings. The problem isn't that lefties didn't turn out, it's that all key demographics of the democratic base (though maybe less so for higher income, educated suburbanites like you or I) didn't turn out enough.

I think a big takeaway for many on the left after this election is that having the superior policy platform not only isn't enough on its own, but barely moves the needle at all. The median voter, if presented with nothing but both candidate's agendas, would agree that Harris' domestic policy is much superior to Trump's. Yet Harris lost, bigly as some may say. The problem is deeper than just a lack of good messaging around these policies, it was the lack of narrativizing, of which there was none of on the Democratic side, yet this is where Trump excels. Regardless of what you or I think about it, we are in a populist political era right now and Democrats have not nearly accustomed to and embraced this as much as the GOP. People like scapegoats, and that's what Trump offers. Whether or not people heard Trump simulating sex on the microphone and pontificating about Hitler would have made no difference in his favorability. The plurality of Americans are working class people who are financially burdened (unlike higher income suburbanites like you or I) and these people associate Trump with lower costs of living so they voted for him.

But it didn't have to be this way. The Democrats had the opportunity to craft a narrative about the economy. Acknowledging positive numeric data doesn't tell the whole story- the way politicians ought to talk about the economy is different than how economists talk about it and this was overlooked by Democrats, who instead spent much time touting good jobs and easing inflation numbers rather than meeting voters where they are at. They did not address structural issues of the economy that were there before COVID- rising income and wealth inequality, wages not keeping up with productivity, a growing gig economy with effectively no labor protections, wages not being able to afford rent and groceries requiring 2-3+ jobs, etc. And they would, in turn, blame these issues on the failures of "establishment" politicians in both parties, shareholder capitalism, corporate greed, etc, in the same way that Trump scapegoats domestic policy failures onto immigrants, Soros/the deep state, racial and sexual minorities, etc. This would be done to foster class consciousness amongst working Americans, which as shown by the outcome of the 2024 election, is at an all-time low. And all of this could have been achieved without Harris tweaking her economic policy at all. The Democrats had the opportunity to narrativize for the last 3+ years and they didn't, plausibly as doing so may threaten the party's corporate donors. Instead, Harris refused to even attempt to differentiate herself from Biden who had <50% approval rating effectively his entire term (with Harris' even lower). Explaining to people that the economy actually isn't as bad as they say it is (which is largely true, even) just sounds preachy to many, which has been an enduring criticism of the Democrats' messaging; people don't know about economics, and wouldn't be moved to care. The takeaway is, the Democrats need to abandon this "when-they-go-low-we-go-high" attitude and just play the GOP at their own game.

I'll also add that both the Biden and Harris 2024 campaign had saving and restoring democracy as one of its key messages (probably tied with abortion rights). I know this message has particularly resonated with you (and myself, and really anyone who should care about the nation remaining a democracy), but many working Americans turned a blind eye to it. As with economics, most cannot define what democracy is. And it's true that unlike authoritarianism, democracy itself is wonky, technical, and abstract. But they often associate democracy with order and the status quo. Given this, the logical question is, who is democracy working for? If the status quo, as aforementioned, is an economic structure that has failed a majority of people, voting blue to "save democracy" is hardly compelling even as the GOP has been so explicitly authoritarian, especially in the last 4 years.

I basically disagree with almost all of that.

Overconfident moderate voters are not taking Trump seriously enough (still) and hoping that he'll make hamburgers cost $2 less, and they want dramatic asshole action on illegal immigration. That's about it. I do not think that any narrativizing, or distancing from Biden (who managed to beat Trump let's remember), or tweaking, or anything like that would make any difference. There were tons of potential negative drawbacks from a primary, I don't think you should assume that would have been perfection.

You, and just about everyone who discusses politics, give voters simultaneously too much credit and not enough. Not enough credit because you think they're more easily swayed than they are, despite lots of evidence to the contrary in this election where nothing swayed anyone. And too much credit in that you think they think about stuff a lot more than they do. Inflation bad, sky doesn't look like it's falling, brown people bad - vote for asshole who doesn't like brown people. Done.

If there is some silver lining in any of this, Trump has just nominated Brendan Carr to lead the FCC (who also literally wrote the "FCC" chapter of the Project 2025), who is a big opponent of net neutrality. And I know you are also not a fan of net neutrality as indicated by your post history, while Harris most certainly would have nominated an FCC chair, like Biden, who supports net neutrality. So maybe the next four years will be a smidge less bad.

Net neutrality is a stumbling block in the way of combating misinformation. But... in the wrong hands (and the internet and the government are in the wrong hands), we can do worse than net neutrality. We can do better, it is true, but we can do worse. I think we're poised to do worse.

 

[inCloud]

Tusli Gabbard has a history of sympathizing with the Russian position

She knows why you should avoid military conflicts as plague. She could be wrong(I don't agree with her), but I respect her good will. Wish more politicians with license to kill have actual combat experience. Reasons why Khrushchev and Kennedy pass through Caribbean crisis is that both were at battlefield during wwII.

 

[Danoff]

She knows why you should avoid military conflicts as plague

And who is going to tell this to Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump.

 

[Brett]

I think the way things are heading, the Statue of Liberty should be forfeited back to France.

It won't have to be forfeit back. It will be deported.

 

[GranTurNismo]

I think the way things are heading, the Statue of Liberty should be forfeited back to France.

"I wouldn't go to France. 'Cause France is no longer France. France, is no longer, France"- Trump.

 

[Biggles]

She knows why you should avoid military conflicts as plague. She could be wrong(I don't agree with her), but I respect her good will. Wish more politicians with license to kill have actual combat experience. Reasons why Khrushchev and Kennedy pass through Caribbean crisis is that both were at battlefield during wwII.

Neville Chamberlain tried to "avoid military conflicts as plague". His policy of appeasement towards Hitler's Germany led to Germany's reoccupation of the Rhineland ... the absorbing of Austria ... the annexation of the Sudetenland ... then the whole of Czechoslovakia ... and then the invasion of Poland. Chamberlain was undoubtedly a person of "good will" - I am less sure the Gabbard is. In the end Chamberlain was forced to admit that:

It is perfectly evident now that force is the only argument Germany understands and that "collective security" cannot offer any prospect of preventing such events until it can show a visible force of overwhelming strength backed by the determination to use it. ...

 

[GranTurNismo]

I basically disagree with almost all of that.

Overconfident moderate voters are not taking Trump seriously enough (still) and hoping that he'll make hamburgers cost $2 less, and they want dramatic asshole action on illegal immigration. That's about it. I do not think that any narrativizing, or distancing from Biden (who managed to beat Trump let's remember), or tweaking, or anything like that would make any difference. There were tons of potential negative drawbacks from a primary, I don't think you should assume that would have been perfection.

You, and just about everyone who discusses politics, give voters simultaneously too much credit and not enough. Not enough credit because you think they're more easily swayed than they are, despite lots of evidence to the contrary in this election where nothing swayed anyone. And too much credit in that you think they think about stuff a lot more than they do. Inflation bad, sky doesn't look like it's falling, brown people bad - vote for asshole who doesn't like brown people. Done.

But Trump is detached from reality in a way that doesn't harm him electorally. Voters don't care that much about election denialism or democratic norms. There’s an image that a lot of the electorate has of Trump "sure, he’s brash, but that’s just his tells-it-like-it-is attitude and since he’s since he’s good for the economy I am willing to put up with it", that voters don’t apply to any of the other election-denying Republicans. See Lake, Kent, Mastriano etc who’s wackiness did absolutely affect them electorally.

I just think as democratic voters (as you and I seem to be despite having opposing views on most issues), it would be irresponsible to not focus on what the Democratic party ought to change and how. Deflecting back to WHAT ABOUT THE GOP is pointless. Let them hang themselves doing unpopular things as the Democrats can clean out their own damn house. It doesn't matter if you think Harris ran a flawless campaign or if 2024 will effectively be the last free and fair election. We have to act like the above weren't the case. To be blackpilled and say post-hoc that the Democrat would have lost anyway no matter what is just irresponsible and only facilitates the party to be encouraged to cling onto poor strategies.

 

[inCloud]

And who is going to tell this to Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump.

She definitely could tell that to Trump, isn't it part of her new job? And Trump could tell it to other two.

Neville Chamberlain

Merkel, Obama and Holland are collective Chamberlain in this story, not sure how Gabbart is related.

Chamberlain was undoubtedly a person of "good will"

He was coward and traitor. He sold his allies to Stalin and Hitler.

 

[Biggles]

Overconfident moderate voters are not taking Trump seriously enough (still) and hoping that he'll make hamburgers cost $2 less, and they want dramatic asshole action on illegal immigration. That's about it. I do not think that any narrativizing, or distancing from Biden (who managed to beat Trump let's remember), or tweaking, or anything like that would make any difference. There were tons of potential negative drawbacks from a primary, I don't think you should assume that would have been perfection.

You, and just about everyone who discusses politics, give voters simultaneously too much credit and not enough. Not enough credit because you think they're more easily swayed than they are, despite lots of evidence to the contrary in this election where nothing swayed anyone. And too much credit in that you think they think about stuff a lot more than they do. Inflation bad, sky doesn't look like it's falling, brown people bad - vote for asshole who doesn't like brown people. Done.

Unfortunately, I think you are exactly right. Voting for Trump in 2016 was somewhat excusable, voting for him in 2024, after he refused to accept the results of the 2020 election, and encouraged a riot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power - that is inexcusable. He should have been disqualified from running ... thrown out of the Republican party and overwhelmingly rejected by voters. The problem is not Trump - there are always assholes in life and in politics - it's the people who voted for him.

Benjamin Franklin "... a republic, if you can keep it."

The brevity of Franklin's response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.
Dr. Richard Beeman. Professor of History at The University of Pennsylvania State

 

[HenrySwanson]

Unfortunately, I think you are exactly right. Voting for Trump in 2016 was somewhat excusable, voting for him in 2024, after he refused to accept the results of the 2020 election, and encouraged a riot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power - that is inexcusable. He should have been disqualified from running ... thrown out of the Republican party and overwhelmingly rejected by voters. The problem is not Trump - there are always assholes in life and in politics - it's the people who voted for him.

Benjamin Franklin "... a republic, if you can keep it."

The brevity of Franklin's response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.
Dr. Richard Beeman. Professor of History at The University of Pennsylvania State

See further:

An unhappy union

The United States will remain bitterly divided, even after this election. Are the states destined to break apart, or can they be reconciled and Americ...

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

Johnson agreed that the Constitution embodied an original agreement, but not between the states alone. Rather, there were three parties to the compact. “To me, the Constitution appears, in every line of it, to be a contract, which in legal language, may be denominated tripartite,” Johnson wrote. “The parties are the people, the states, and the United States.” The Union was created by the joint action of three parties. It was not simply a perpetual push-and-pull between the states and the federal government. The additional party was “the people”, whom Johnson presented as independent of either the states or the nation.


Johnson was a South Carolinian, a slaveowner and a son of revolutionaries. He believed in maintaining the founders’ legacy. Yet his theory of federalism is startling to modern ears. It is not what we expect to hear from such a person at such a time. First, he endorses the republican idea of the people as a single political actor. Second, he suggests that the people, as well as the states and even the United States, each existed prior to the Constitution. The Constitution did not create the states or the United States. They, along with the people, created it.


As Johnson’s theory demonstrates, the federal-versus-state binary has never been an accurate or complete picture of American federalism. The people are crucial actors in the scene, too.


We should take inspiration from Johnson’s three-part constitutional map. Instead of sitting by as passive spectators at a political tennis match, watching the volleys between Washington DC on one side and the states on the other, the people can enter the game as well. We have the power, through Article V of the Constitution, to change the existing version of federalism if we find that it has become too bound up in the states-versus-federal-government dynamic for the work we need it to do—not least to reinvigorate the people’s engagement in politics.

 

[Fezzik]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/muslims-who-voted-trump-upset-by-his-pro-israel-cabinet-picks-2024-11-15/

"Trump won because of us and we're not happy with his secretary of state pick and others," said Rabiul Chowdhury, a Philadelphia investor who chaired the Abandon Harris campaign in Pennsylvania and co-founded Muslims for Trump.

Hassan Abdel Salam, a former professor at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities and co-founder of the Abandon Harris campaign, which endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein, said Trump's staffing plans were not surprising, but had proven even more extreme that he had feared. "It's like he's going on Zionist overdrive," he said. "We were always extremely skeptical ... Obviously we're still waiting to see where the administration will go, but it does look like our community has been played."

I had to double-check this wasn't an Onion article. These people get a Picard.

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/muslims-who-voted-trump-upset-by-his-pro-israel-cabinet-picks-2024-11-15/

I had to double-check this wasn't an Onion article. These people get a Picard.

The leopard is getting fatter.

 

[McLaren]

She definitely could tell that to Trump, isn't it part of her new job? And Trump could tell it to other two.

Fat chance of that happening; Trump just signaled Benny isn't getting enough weapons to level Gaza.

Amid escalating tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, President-elect Donald Trump has promised to lift all restrictions and delays on the supply of military equipment and ammunition to Israel immediately after his inauguration, Israeli Channel 12 News reports.

Trump said to lift all military restrictions on Israel on 1st day in office according to reports

President-elect Donald Trump’s promise could lead to a 60-day cease-fire, allowing Israel to suspend hostilities until military support resumes under the new administration.

www.yahoo.com