Random Politics Thread

[The Cat]

Weary Observation: I have been looking around the internet observing reactions, mostly emotional, many quite visceral, and of varying extremity.
Begrudging confession: It has been difficult bearing witness to such vivid expression of raw human emotion. While there are many lessons to be learned from all of this, enough and evident to be viewable with even limited perspective, and yet I wonder at whether or not people will learn the lessons, or if like a shameful secret long kept, they cannot bear to think of them now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1glorvw

Interesting fact: Discord, Discourse, Disenchantment, Dialogue, Dismissive, Dismal, Death, and Division all begin with the Letter D.
Curious Observation: One wonders how one builds an army or an all star when all the troops and players are all at odds with one another?

Additional Insight: Dollars and Democrats also begin with the letter D.

Pop goes the Weasel.
​

Reassuring Sentiment: Time will tell.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Totenkindly]

To answer my own question from earlier, I looked at the states on the map where vote percentages were not at 95-99%, and I'm spitballing there are probably 10-12 million votes not yet factored into the state counts, after the 140 million tallied on Tues/early Weds, so yeah -- that puts us in the 150-152 million, whereas there were 158.5 million votes in 2020.

So this election had maybe 6 million less votes.

however, when you look at the swing states:

• Arizona // 2020: 3.4 million // 2024: 4.2 million
• Georgia // 2020: 5 million // 2024: 5.2 million
• Michigan // 2020: 5.6 million // 2024: 5.5 million
• Nevada // 2020: 1.4 million // 2024: 1.5 million
• North Carolina // 2020: 5.5 million // 2024: 5.5 million
• Pennsylvania // 2020: 7 million // 2024: 6.8 million
• Wisconsin // 2020: 3.3 million // 2024: 3.3 million

The battleground states were close to par for 2020, if slightly under or over.
Pennsylvania seems the most apathetic. I wonder how many of those were Republicans who wouldn't ever vote Dem but could not vote for Trump this time.

Looking at other states, esp the big ones:

• TX and CA look pretty close to 2020.
• I do see that New York state is down almost 800K votes though this time out.
• Virginia seems down about 200-300K.
• Mississippi down by about 200K.
• Missouri might be down 100K.
• Illinois is down 600K.

I am seeing people more indifferent to voting for president in states that were already not in contention, that is where the bleed seems to be.

These numbers could be a bit off, with me visually rounding + they are just pulled off a results map that had popups of vote % counted + the trump/harris tallies. it isn't listing the independent candidates either.

 

[Stigmata]

Seriously, Democrats need to cool with the divisive rhetoric. We can't just ignore people who disagree with us, dismissing them as Nazis and Bigots. So what if they repeat Hitler talking points verbatim and embrace Nazi symbolism, doesn't make them actual Nazis. The fact is, the Democrats left the working class behind. So what if the Democrats solely saved the teamster's pensions. So what if the Biden administration was the most pro-union and pro-labor administration in 40 years. So what if some people were able to get their crippling student loan debt forgiven. So what if they bolstered the consumer financial protection bureau. Who cares about the CHIPS act? Also, can we stop sending money to help other countries overseas when we have people who are struggling here? Not that we really want to allocate government funds to helping US citizens, because that would be socialism/communism/some sort of -ism that we don't really know what it means, but it's bad and it's tearing our country apart, but it gets of likes on Facebook when I post about it and that makes me feel good.

At the end of the day, what matters is how we posture about policy and not actually what we do. If Republicans really cared about the policies, they would've nominated Ron Desantis. The fact is, they want the show; the flash; the bravado; the vibes, and all the boring legislative stuff just isn't sexy-- memes about tax policy don't get upvotes.

Some of the points pundits are making in reflection to the election have merit, but if you zoom out a little bit you see the trend that in every western democracy the post-covid elections were a referendum on the party who was in charge during covid and the economic fallout that ensued -- I think that point has really been undersold as everyone is racking their brains to put it all together. This election confirms that we are officially in a post-truth, anti-intellectualism society, and no one cares about what the actual US economic data suggests if the vibes don't match. For low-propensity, low-information voters, right-wing media gaslit them into thinking we were in the throws of a complete economic depression, and it worked because they had an applicable real world context to apply it to in the forms of housing costs and other sectors of the economy that affected by inflation/supply change shortages, with no real effective counter-messaging from the Democrats.

Also, as it pertains to the Gen-Z political shift, particularly among disaffected young men, the social media algorithms has ran a masterclass at effectively targeting them with misogynistic/sexist/racist content that fuels their victim mentality regarding the current state of social affairs-- they've curated these safe space eco-chambers for them where it is feminism/multi-culturalism/modernisms fault as to why they have struggled to find their footing in the modern world, one where women are increasing more educated and less dependent upon men to achieve financial security. If you are in any other online spaces where you come into proximity with a lot of guys in that like 18-26 age bracket, but just listening to them and how they view the world, so many of these guys are just completely lost. To some extent, the Trump vote to them is rebelling against the liberal status quo that they feel has failed them anyway. I've said it a million times, but Trumpism is a reactionary counter-cultural movement against the socially liberal gains made in the 20th century, and some of these young guys voted for Trump with legitimate accelerationist aspirations.

Trump AG hopeful says he wants to drag Democrats’ ‘political dead bodies through the streets and burn them’
MAGA allies say they can finally admit Project 2025 ‘is the agenda’ for Trump’s second term

This is just the beginning, folks. For all the Gaza protest voters and the "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils" protest voters, I hope not too many people have to die for you to realize that sometimes things actually can be worse than a status quo milquetoast liberal.

 

[Stigmata]

You've got a ton of people who still firmly believe the 2020 election was stolen.
How can one combat a firehose of misinformation that can't be turned off?

I think the bolded section gives them too much benefit of the doubt. These people believe the election was stolen because it is politically expedient, and for a group of people who notoriously struggle with self-reflection and introspection, that beats having to accept that maybe their ideas just aren't that popular. While this election seems to be the Democrats who are being forced to acknowledge that there is an echo chamber effect going on within our media spaces, 2020 was their turn to have that same epiphany and look how they responded.

Want to know how they were full of shit in 2020? Why is no one "just asking questions" this time around? Many of these states still have the same election officials and secretary of states they did in 2020. Why is there no "sure is strange" talk about ballot boxes being destroyed in traditionally heavy Democrat voting areas? Where's all the out of context pictures and audio excerpts this time? So in 2020 we witnessed the biggest sham election of our lifetime and our country is falling apart and the US will never be the same, but everything in 2024 is all gucci and no need to be curious because we said it's all good this time they just happened to win?

 

[Lark]

Harris did go on Fox News. For a die-hard Trump voter, though, nothing she or another candidate could do would be enough.

Everyone keeps pointing to the economy, and how Harris' plans lacked detail. I don't disagree, but Trump provided even fewer plans and details, and what he did present was 1) often incoherent or jumbled up with completely unrelated content, or 2) more likely to exacerbate the problems. Huge tariffs on imports is one specific proposal he kept mentioning, but the cost would be passed on to consumers, increasing prices even further for the affected goods, and if significant enough to trigger a trade war, would have had even more negative consequences. Trump inherited a strong economy from Obama, then trashed it with the help of the pandemic and his almost willfully ignorant approach to it. Biden managed to get things headed back in the right direction, but the average person isn't feeling the effects yet. Trump can ride this for a year or two before he trashes things again.

Your items 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 assume the American people have the stomach for actually hearing out and digesting detailed, fact-based analysis, even when presented concisely in a 2-3 minute review. Sadly, many do not, which is not unrelated to serious deficiencies in our education system, but that is another issue. How do you get them to focus for that long, and give what you are saying at least as much credibility as the rants of a Donald Trump? It is bread and circuses, pure and simple. Trump entertains and promises a few more dollars in your pocket. We will have to wait for him to fail to deliver big on that, AND cause alot more suffering that manages to get through a press he threatens to muzzle and an internet the likes of cronies Musk and Bezos can all too easily manipulate.

I think it'd be a mistake to think that anyone who is part of the Trump craze is motivated by rational judgement.

At the very best maybe some kind of political cynicism but at that its a reach, probably the preserve of the political classes rather than actual voter-supporters.

Its an almost pure personality cult, Trump told lies, was even insensible a lot of the time, it didnt matter, he was whatever his supporters imagined him to be or needed him to be.

For a long time I thought the US left at least was suffering from different mental illness, its not restricted to the left anymore.

That's where the cynicism comes in, populism is nothing but taking advantage of that kind of illness or syndrome of decay.

 

[SensEye]

To answer my own question from earlier, I looked at the states on the map where vote percentages were not at 95-99%, and I'm spitballing there are probably 10-12 million votes not yet factored into the state counts, after the 140 million tallied on Tues/early Weds, so yeah -- that puts us in the 150-152 million, whereas there were 158.5 million votes in 2020.

Just wanted to mention this as I also have to add my own mea culpa here. I thought turnout was lower but I forgot what a laggard California is with vote counting due to them declaring Dem so early. So there probably is 10 million more votes (mostly Dem) coming in there. In the the end the popular vote might turn out very 50/50.

That might actually be worse news, as it means it was not voter apathy/overconfidence that led to a Trump victory, but undecided and former Dems flipping over to Trump. Given how bad Trump is, it's a damning comment on how poor the Dem strategy was.

In general, I feel the problem is the Dems need to stop listening to the far left progressives who have an outsize voice in their party and move back towards the center. Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence (so far - it is admittedly very early in this new unexpected return to Trumpism) that Democratic supporters have figured this out.

It seems very lame to me to try and pin the blame on Walz or poor messaging or some such, when it's obvious Harris (and Biden before her) were the problem. Nobody but the progressives liked either of those two, but the progressive voice carried the day and now you've got Trump. I saw alarming signs in Harris speech she might be considering a 2028 run. If she turns out to be the nominee in 2028, it will show me the Democrats have learned nothing from this loss. Their only hope in that case would be that Trump makes such a clusterf*ck of his 2nd term that the Republicans have to be tossed out. Assuming democracy still works in America by that time.

 

[Stigmata]

In general, I feel the problem is the Dems need to stop listening to the far left progressives who have an outsize voice in their party and move back towards the center. Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence (so far - it is admittedly very early in this new unexpected return to Trumpism) that Democratic supporters have figured this out.

Is that you, Joe Scarborough? Liberals make this same point every single time a Democrat loses, and every single time they lose is because Liberals have this unrequited love affair with the concept of bipartisanship and courting right-leaning voters instead of following Trump's playbook of continually energizing and feeding red meat to their own base.

Outside of Bill Clinton who existed in a completely different era of American politics at this point, what Democrat ever won a national election pivoting to the center to center-right? Obama ran in 08 and ran on a progressive platform and won in a landslide. When he saw the challenge coming from his right in 2012 from Romney and a subset of the country who was furious about the corporate bailouts, what did he do? Pivoted to his left and won in a landslide in an election he was projected to lose.

Biden 2020? Despite being a centrist for most his political career, ran to his left ($15 dollar minimum wage, public option, ect) and beat Trump with the most votes every cast for one candidate.

When Kamala's favorability was at her highest was when he started off campaigning from her left, energizing her base, and yet decided to throw all that away listening to the typical crowd of DC insider empty suits who gave her the shitty advice of trying to capture the never-Trump republican vote and to play endorsement Mario Party with Liz/Dick Cheney and other Republicans. What they should take away from this, is that despite what Republicans may feel in the moment, chances are they will do what they always do and fall in line and vote for whoever is at the top of the Republican ticket.

FDR ran a leftist platform for his time and was so popular they instituted term limits to stop him from running, but yes, tell me more about how what the electorate really wants is more means tested half-measures and incrementalism. Swayable voters are telling us, they are so desperate for structural changes for how this country is run, that they'll take a gamble on a morally bankrupt convicted felon and rapist, just on the off change he may actually deliver this time in some way that will materially benefit their lives.

With that said, the Democrat establishment will more than likely do what they always do after a loss and trot out another corporate Democrat like Greasy Gavin or Amy Klobuchar, then wonder why people would just rather stay home and watch Thursday night football rather than go out and stand in line for hours to vote on election day.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Thanks for saying the above post, so that I don't have to type that wall of text.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Tomb1]

The republicans are eight seats away from controlling the house of representatives.

 

[SensEye]

@stigmatica - well, good luck with your more of the same approach. I don't think it is going to work. However, I do believe Trump will do a terrible job over all, and so blowback from that might get the Dems back in power. I doubt it will be because the Dems progressive platform is widely desired, but only because the Republican's will have pissed everybody off. And so the cycle will continue, with the pendulum swinging one way or the other, and election after election being more about throwing the other bums out rather then implementing sensible policies.

I'm suggesting a more centrist approach over all. I think it would work if anybody tried it, but right now both the MAGA right and progressive left just prefer to rage at and insult each other. Those in the middle get stuck picking the least of two evils. I mean, if one removed the fear factors (i.e. threat to democracy and fascist cards) from this election, I think the Dems would have been absolutely crushed rather than just beaten.

To be honest, given the current state of affairs, I think America would really benefit from a multiparty system right now. The far left could hive off into their own party, the MAGA right could do the same, and hopefully the current Democratic and Republican parties would stake out their more traditional positions. Then people might have some choice. It's never going to happen, but it might be the only path forward.

 

[Virtual ghost]

@stigmatica - well, good luck with your more of the same approach. I don't think it is going to work. However, I do believe Trump will do a terrible job over all, and so blowback from that might get the Dems back in power. I doubt it will be because the Dems progressive platform is widely desired, but only because the Republican's will have pissed everybody off. And so the cycle will continue, with the pendulum swinging one way or the other, and election after election being more about throwing the other bums out rather then implementing sensible policies.

I'm suggesting a more centrist approach over all. I think it would work if anybody tried it, but right now both the MAGA right and progressive left just prefer to rage at and insult each other. Those in the middle get stuck picking the least of two evils. I mean, if one removed the fear factors (i.e. threat to democracy and fascist cards) from this election, I think the Dems would have been absolutely crushed rather than just beaten.

To be honest, given the current state of affairs, I think America would really benefit from a multiparty system right now. The far left could hive off into their own party, the MAGA right could do the same, and hopefully the current Democratic and Republican parties would stake out their more traditional positions. Then people might have some choice. It's never going to happen, but it might be the only path forward.

I am sorry but with this you wouldn't change anyone's mind here. Since at the end of the day Harris, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, Kerry are all centrists. Therefore you are the one that wants more of the same. They are what you want and that doesn't really work or it works barely. This is exactly what created Trump in the first place if you haven't noticed. After all Trump had it's big victory exactly since he went to the left of these people on a number of economic topics.


So either you are making stuff up or you don't know how genuine left wing financial policy looks like.

 

[Stigmata]

 

[Totenkindly]

Welp, nothing the true believers didn't already know.
But damn, are these guys douchey.
(Another thing we already knew.)

 

[ygolo]

Just wanted to mention this as I also have to add my own mea culpa here. I thought turnout was lower but I forgot what a laggard California is with vote counting due to them declaring Dem so early. So there probably is 10 million more votes (mostly Dem) coming in there. In the the end the popular vote might turn out very 50/50.

That might actually be worse news, as it means it was not voter apathy/overconfidence that led to a Trump victory, but undecided and former Dems flipping over to Trump. Given how bad Trump is, it's a damning comment on how poor the Dem strategy was.

In general, I feel the problem is the Dems need to stop listening to the far left progressives who have an outsize voice in their party and move back towards the center. Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence (so far - it is admittedly very early in this new unexpected return to Trumpism) that Democratic supporters have figured this out.

It seems very lame to me to try and pin the blame on Walz or poor messaging or some such, when it's obvious Harris (and Biden before her) were the problem. Nobody but the progressives liked either of those two, but the progressive voice carried the day and now you've got Trump. I saw alarming signs in Harris speech she might be considering a 2028 run. If she turns out to be the nominee in 2028, it will show me the Democrats have learned nothing from this loss. Their only hope in that case would be that Trump makes such a clusterf*ck of his 2nd term that the Republicans have to be tossed out. Assuming democracy still works in America by that time.

I know it's unpopular to say, but Harris was in an impossible situation.

The campaign, where she ran it, did affect things in the right direction. The places her team picked to run the campaign were in exactly the right place. Her message was aimed at helping the working class and those who struggle-at least at first.

The problem wasn't the top of the ticket, nor the teams tactics at the level of messages and targeted states.

Probably old media was an inefficient use of the campaign funds. Talking points and being on message may work in old media.

But being yourself and getting into long conversations online works on newer media.

Note that Sanders, Warren, as well as AOC, and the rest of the Squad had a pretty easy time getting elected.

Sticking to what you believe and being open to talking to people who disagree seems to still work, if you're looking for bright spots in the election.

I live in a district in California where many of the people I know switch allegiances despite knowing how bad Trump is-many registered democrats. They liked Kamala Harris a lot better than Trump, but couldn't stand the Democratic Party anymore. The majority of my friends are "brown," with a decent split of Asian, and Hispanic. A large percentage of them are underemployed. Many consider the Democrats the real party of rich white people who pulled the wool over their eyes for ages.

You can disparage them if you like, but it's the Democratic Party initiated NIMBY regulations that lost their homes to. It's their anti-tech regulations that shuttered their places of employment. You can see who sponsored what bills. These are local things an California Democrats maybe a different breed.

Why would a Hispanic UPS driver be an ardent supporter of a president whose mass deportations could incorrectly catch him in the net? IDK exactly, but I know he hates the Democratic Party enough to do so.

Edit: You may want to examine, in detail, which laws and regulations do structural violence to which class, while checking which class benefits from the laws and regulations.

 

[Coriolis]

From what I noticed Fox and Rogan aren't exactly the same thing (even in the terms of audience). After all the argument was about showing guts, so if you skip one that is kinda missed opportunity. Of course that she lost by too much that a chat with Rogan would have saved her. However this is exactly why I made 10 point argument. Because it is evident that there was more than one thing that is responsible for the result.


But to be honest I find your post to be self defeating. I constantly hear this "All of my countrymen are idiots!" on this forum and to me this is just wrong approach. Especially since no one really tried to talk genuine common sense with the public (in detail). Not to mention that there is still something like 100 000 000 grown up citizens who aren't voting. Therefore the odds are that many of these aren't voting because campaigns think that all people are idiots. In other words you are forgetting that these elections where basically lost in the 3 mid western states by a few points. So yeah, not everyone has to like your "complex approach" but this approach could very easily get you over the line in key areas. If anything you can split the campaign into two versions. One for average Joe and one for those that have the developed intellect. Someone simply has to start and plenty of extra people will hook up.

There is a big difference between claiming people are idiots - which I don't - and recognizing that many of them are being bamboozled by propaganda and salesmanship designed to distract and engage. Much money and effort is spent engineering exactly this. It is not enough to present such folks a concise, logical argument. You need to be able to appeal to them in a way that allows them to break out of the echo chamber so they can attend to what you are saying with an open if still critical mind. Democrats have not been able to figure out how to do this, and will likely fail until they do, or until the situation becomes so bad it is the equivalent of beating someone over the head. The approach you describe would be ideal, but would require much more one-on-one or small group interaction than most campaigns so far have been set up for, plus some very sound and careful guidance on how to approach the various groups. I think Democrats are developing a will for this. I heard many accounts of personal outreach, but it got moving too late in the campaign to have the desired result. I don't know how much research was behind the approaches either.

 

[Coriolis]

@stigmatica - well, good luck with your more of the same approach. I don't think it is going to work. However, I do believe Trump will do a terrible job over all, and so blowback from that might get the Dems back in power. I doubt it will be because the Dems progressive platform is widely desired, but only because the Republican's will have pissed everybody off. And so the cycle will continue, with the pendulum swinging one way or the other, and election after election being more about throwing the other bums out rather then implementing sensible policies.

I'm suggesting a more centrist approach over all. I think it would work if anybody tried it, but right now both the MAGA right and progressive left just prefer to rage at and insult each other. Those in the middle get stuck picking the least of two evils. I mean, if one removed the fear factors (i.e. threat to democracy and fascist cards) from this election, I think the Dems would have been absolutely crushed rather than just beaten.

To be honest, given the current state of affairs, I think America would really benefit from a multiparty system right now. The far left could hive off into their own party, the MAGA right could do the same, and hopefully the current Democratic and Republican parties would stake out their more traditional positions. Then people might have some choice. It's never going to happen, but it might be the only path forward.

I've been seeing room for a multiparty system for awhile now, but that doesn't mean we will get one. The Republicans can split into traditional conservatives and Trump-style populists. The democrats can split into Bernie-Sanders-style socialists and centrists. Then there will have to be coalition building to get anything done.

 

[ygolo]

Exit polling:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This is not a mandate for Fascism. It's a frustration with the status quo--like trends are globally. I wouldn't necessarily call it a self-aware, thoughtful or strategic expression of frustrations.

But the polls show the reason. People did not believe they were better off from 4 years ago. I believe it's as simple as that. All the other things are noise.

Almost any candidate would have been in a no win situation as the representative of the incumbent government.

 

[Virtual ghost]

There is a big difference between claiming people are idiots - which I don't - and recognizing that many of them are being bamboozled by propaganda and salesmanship designed to distract and engage. Much money and effort is spent engineering exactly this. It is not enough to present such folks a concise, logical argument. You need to be able to appeal to them in a way that allows them to break out of the echo chamber so they can attend to what you are saying with an open if still critical mind. Democrats have not been able to figure out how to do this, and will likely fail until they do, or until the situation becomes so bad it is the equivalent of beating someone over the head. The approach you describe would be ideal, but would require much more one-on-one or small group interaction than most campaigns so far have been set up for, plus some very sound and careful guidance on how to approach the various groups. I think Democrats are developing a will for this. I heard many accounts of personal outreach, but it got moving too late in the campaign to have the desired result. I don't know how much research was behind the approaches either.

I was talking in general and simplistic manner. Since there is this "consensus" that people are stupid and unable to process complex information. What is something I don't agree with. Some people are indeed like that but you don't have to win over everyone to win the elections. The whole point of my posts was that if you don't go into details you are opening the doors for what you call "salesmanship". In other words if both parties go this way the people will choose red original.