[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2024-November-08, 15:04, said:

The pandemic may have had another effect. We were in the thick of it at the time, and Trump was clearly not managing it well -- this was when he was downplaying its severity while many people saw relatives getting really sick and dying, and he was advocating things like injecting bleach.

So many people may have voted against Trump because of his mishandling of the pandemic. But now they're concerned about other things.

Trump's vote count was virtually unchanged from 2020; what changed was the 11 million people who voted for Biden but either didn't, wouldn't or couldn't vote this time.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2024-November-08, 15:23, said:

Trump's vote count was virtually unchanged from 2020; what changed was the 11 million people who voted for Biden but either didn't, wouldn't or couldn't vote this time.

that varies dramatically by state

In most of the Battleground states, Harris improved on Biden's numbers
Trump did even better

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-November-08, 15:16, said:

With Kash Patel and the other sycophants back in positions of power, we are dependent on the kindness of stangers to keep a republic where voting matters - do you really think it isn't a real possibility that it's over and the USA is now Hungary? The MSM reports this like a normal horse race; it was Hannibal and his elephants come to make war.

I think that we are in trouble, plenty of trouble. So, what to do?

Over the years I have made comments on where I think the Dems have made errors. Yes, I vote Dem, mostly, not always. But my life is easy. My vote isn't enough. Votes are needed from people who are struggling. If Dems are not getting votes from those that are struggling, then I suggest Dems ask themselves what has gone wrong. And just writing that question off by saying "Well, people are stupid/selfish/racist/etc" does not get us anywhere. People are people, they always have been and always will be. So some thought is needed. Or, of course, we can just give up.

Here is a starter observation.You mention Kash Patel. I saw that and thought "Who is Kash Patel?". In order to win an election, a candidate needs votes from people who are far more oblivious than I am. So I pose the question: How can Dems get votes from people who can't instantly say just who Kash Patel is?

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2024-November-08, 16:09, said:

that varies dramatically by state

In most of the Battleground states, Harris improved on Biden's numbers
Trump did even better

Thanks for this. I had no stomach to look at this data. Now I am at a loss. One thing I am aware of: any time a genuine shock occurs, it is wise to reassess your own beliefs to see is they are still viable; could I be wrong? is always a good place to start

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-November-09, 09:03, said:

I think that we are in trouble, plenty of trouble. So, what to do?

Over the years I have made comments on where I think the Dems have made errors. Yes, I vote Dem, mostly, not always. But my life is easy. My vote isn't enough. Votes are needed from people who are struggling. If Dems are not getting votes from those that are struggling, then I suggest Dems ask themselves what has gone wrong. And just writing that question off by saying "Well, people are stupid/selfish/racist/etc" does not get us anywhere. People are people, they always have been and always will be. So some thought is needed. Or, of course, we can just give up.

Here is a starter observation.You mention Kash Patel. I saw that and thought "Who is Kash Patel?". In order to win an election, a candidate needs votes from people who are far more oblivious than I am. So I pose the question: How can Dems get votes from people who can't instantly say just who Kash Patel is?

Hopefully, your question still matters in 4 years. I don't think it will. When you look at the cooperation to generate the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, and now you've placed those same people back in power with more experience, and with all the branches of government not just on their side but willing participants following a written playbook
then it is time to form a resistance movement - the republic is a goner. A repubic, if you can keep it, Ben Franklin said.

We can't in 4 years unwind the past 50 years of declining education and wealth disparity, the desparation of those toward the bottom rungs and the greed of those nearer the top, The opium of the people has been rebranded as Chrystal Meth and fired up the faithful to devour the infadels.

Kash Patel. Steven Miller. A host of brown shirts given power. It's hard to describe just how bad this is.

Live in fear of a enough states prepared to change the Constitution; of expansion of the SCOTUS so Aileen Cannon gets a seat; of loyalty oaths to get groceries; of kangaroo courts and a fractured military.

I don't know if they will succede but the people surrounding Trump along with the GOP will try to make the USA into a clone of Hungary.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2024-November-09, 09:03, said:

So I pose the question: How can Dems get votes from people who can't instantly say just who Kash Patel is?

We need to identify an enemy and convince a bunch of rubes that nothing in life is more important than persecuting them

I suggest that we target incels. They're pretty loathsome to begin with and already go through life with a sense of grievance so it's not like there's going to be any real backlash at the margin.

Crypto douches would be another reasonable choice.

[shyams]

hrothgar, on 2024-November-08, 16:09, said:

that varies dramatically by state

In most of the Battleground states, Harris improved on Biden's numbers
Trump did even better

If by "most", you mean 4, 5, or 6 of the 7 Battleground states, this is obviously incorrect.

Harris' 2024 vote #s exceeded Biden's 2020 #s only in Wisconsin & Georgia. If one treats a 4k higher # as "improved" instead of a push, you can add in N Carolina as the 3rd Battleground State where she "improved on Biden's numbers"

Harris received lower vote #s compared to Biden 2020 in the other four Battlegroud States; it wasn't even close.

Winstonm, on 2024-November-09, 10:44, said:

Thanks for this. I had no stomach to look at this data. Now I am at a loss. One thing I am aware of: any time a genuine shock occurs, it is wise to reassess your own beliefs to see is they are still viable; could I be wrong? is always a good place to start

Not that it matters but Harris in 2024 also received a lower % vote share compared to Biden in 2020 in ALL States (exception seems to be Utah).

It wasn't third party candidates that caused the lower % either. Trump's 2024 % vote share was higher than Trump's 2020 % vote share in nearly all states. Even the higher % for Harris in Utah seems to have come from grabbing Libertarian or "Others" votes, not at Trump's expense.

Looks like there's no one left to blame other than them racist & sexist voters

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2024-November-10, 01:02, said:

If by "most", you mean 4, 5, or 6 of the 7 Battleground states, this is obviously incorrect.

Harris' 2024 vote #s exceeded Biden's 2020 #s only in Wisconsin & Georgia. If one treats a 4k higher # as "improved" instead of a push, you can add in N Carolina as the 3rd Battleground State where she "improved on Biden's numbers"

Harris received lower vote #s compared to Biden 2020 in the other four Battlegroud States; it wasn't even close.



Not that it matters but Harris in 2024 also received a lower % vote share compared to Biden in 2020 in ALL States (exception seems to be Utah).

It wasn't third party candidates that caused the lower % either. Trump's 2024 % vote share was higher than Trump's 2020 % vote share in nearly all states. Even the higher % for Harris in Utah seems to have come from grabbing Libertarian or "Others" votes, not at Trump's expense.

Looks like there's no one left to blame other than them racist & sexist voters

I agree that the voters chose. But why did they choose what they did? Here's something to consider:

Quote

Before the election, Catherine Rampell and Youyou Zhou at the Washington Post polled voters about policies without revealing which candidate proposed them. Harris' were far more popular — even Trump voters generally liked her ideas more, as long as they knew they weren't hers.

It appears what cost this election was an inability to counter the propaganda of the right wing, the bubble in which so many live.

[shyams]

Winstonm, on 2024-November-10, 11:54, said:

It appears what cost this election was an inability to counter the propaganda of the right wing, the bubble in which so many live.

Does this mean that your political party was proven to be inept at basic politics?
Or do you blame the Trump voters (50.4% of total) because they were stupid, racist, sexist, easily brainwashed, or something equivalent?

I have seen YouTube videos and Twitter posts where your favoured TV pundits kept saying how "despite only 107 days to campaign, the Harris campaign was impeccable" or "flawless" or the campaign was a "resounding success". That doesn't make it true... it merely makes these TV pundits deluded, or wrong, or (worse) obeying orders to sing from the same hymn sheet.

Some months ago, I said something like "don't blame the voters". The media analysis since Nov 7 has predominantly focused on blaming some category of voter or another. Worse still, most of you seem to be swallowing it all.

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-November-10, 13:47, said:

[size="3"]Does this mean that your political party was proven to be inept at basic politics?
Or do you blame the Trump voters (50.4% of total) because they were stupid, racist, sexist, easily brainwashed, or something equivalent?

Primarily the latter, but the Democrats didn't do themselves any favors
We really need to do a much better job demonizing the right

The next four years have the potential to be incredibly bad.
Hopefully things will sink in better this time

I was down at the grocery store a couple days ago and woman with a strong Spanish accent was excited explaining how great it was that Trump won...

And I could help but say "I voted for Trump as well and I know why I'm happy. But why are you? Because this time next year, your lazy brown ass will be on the other side of the Rio Grande. Your family as well"

She did not take this at all well.
And I laughed at her

[hrothgar]

With respect to the Harris campaign, I think that its possible to run a good campaign and still lose.

Given where there were three months back, I think that they were extremely effective.
Did I hope for more? Obviously so.

I do believe that the Democratic Party needs a bunch of retrospective analysis about what is going to be necessary to compete more effectively in 2026 and 2028. In particular, an approach based on trying to rally the faithful every four years no longer sees effective. The Democrats had a much stronger ground game. Their traditional get out the vote programs were much stronger. However, it's unclear if these are the techniques that matter in 2024.

I think that an awful lot is going to depend on a combination of

1. Democratic governors and state legislators serving as counterweights to Trump

I actually think that Massachusetts will be a very interesting example.
There is a very real change that both the Affordable Care Act and Medicare are going down in flames.

This is going to have horrific effects on US citizens.
MA still maintains its own state run versions of the same.

Abortion rights will be another obvious touch point as will attempts to impose mass deportations

2. Effective resistance in the House and the Senate

The Republicans are going to have majorities in both houses. They can push through anything they want. (It will be interesting to see how long the filibuster lasts)

I don't think that Chuck Schumer is the man for this hour.
I have more hope for AOC and Hakeem Jeffries

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2024-November-10, 13:47, said:

Does this mean that your political party was proven to be inept at basic politics?
Or do you blame the Trump voters (50.4% of total) because they were stupid, racist, sexist, easily brainwashed, or something equivalent?

I have seen YouTube videos and Twitter posts where your favoured TV pundits kept saying how "despite only 107 days to campaign, the Harris campaign was impeccable" or "flawless" or the campaign was a "resounding success". That doesn't make it true... it merely makes these TV pundits deluded, or wrong, or (worse) obeying orders to sing from the same hymn sheet.

Some months ago, I said something like "don't blame the voters". The media analysis since Nov 7 has predominantly focused on blaming some category of voter or another. Worse still, most of you seem to be swallowing it all.

You are overestimating the significance of television. Pew Research shows that now almost 60% of Americans get their news either often or occasionally from social media. Social meadia is the gigantic megaphone that can turn one successful lie into millions of votes, especially younger voters who broke hard for Turmp. Propaganda works. These same voters prefer Harris's policies when they don't know they are Harris's.

The change that has occured is a cultrual change; my ager group watched Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley; now over half the nation looks at X and Meta. That is a change in the culture that has to be overcome else effective propaganda will continue to spread ignorance of facts.

[barmar]

Last night's "Last Week Tonight" had a pretty good brief summary. I think it could be summarized with Carville's "It's the economy, stupid." Even though inflation was caused by the pandemic that Biden inherited, and since then the economy has made a remarkable recovery, most working-class voters don't feel it. Milk and egg prices are high and they're never going to return to pre-pandemic prices. Unemployment is at record lows, but people are still having a hard time affording housing and food.

Whether deserved or not, incumbents are nearly always blamed for situations like this, so they vote for change. Ask people why they voted for Trump, and you get lots of "My family was better off when he was President."

Harris was running on "Trump is a criminal and a fascist" and "We need to restore reproductive rights." But people who are struggling to put food on the table don't have the luxury of worrying about social programs and democracy. They believe Trump when he says he can fix this. They believe the BS that illegal immigrants are part of the problem, and mass deportations are the solution.

[pilowsky]

Trump's plan to add a tax of 20-60% onto the trillion dollars worth of imports from China and Mexico alone will definitely improve the ability of US citizens to buy groceries.
The plan to deport 8% of the gross domestic product will also be helpful.

[shyams]

My progeny sound English & speak the language in a generic Londoner accent. It's very difficult to discern whether they are 1st, 2nd or 3rd gen British.

In contrast, when I talk, it is immediately clear that I grew up in some foreign country before moving to London.

Shouldn't be hard to figure out the reason for this post.
* I waited almost 48 hours for Democrat voters here to call out someone. But you all are seemingly too scared of your Cerberus.
* Not one of you objected or commented. Also, a so-called Admin was perfectly okay to gloss over that post!

[mycroft]

You see, I got caught two weeks ago with another "hey defend this, no, really, I'm just interested in a discussion".

And I've seen your responses before.

And things are going to be hellish - no idea how, they've claimed to want to do it all, and won't be able/capable of doing all of it. But some of it will happen, and waiting for the hammer to fall is stressful enough.

And I am really scared about the rest of my life - just from the fallout, I don't live there.

Why, given all of this, would I want to jump into that very obvious trap? Why would anybody?

[mycroft]

I've been thinking this for a long time, but haven't said it publicly.

The biggest story of the 21st century has been "who is allowed to be considered people?" "who is allowed to be considered American"

Whether it's "don't call me cis, I'm just male" ("straight", too), "don't bring politics into bridge" (of course, your spouse isn't "politics"; your religion isn't "politics"; your economic policies aren't "politics", it's just how "the world works"; and somehow we still don't have more than one black person in our club/tournament. Wonder why?), "I'm an American, where do you come from?" (as an ex-pat myself, I get this frequently. But then again, I *am* an ex-pat, in an ex-pat community; it's a lot more reasonable than nisei Americans in Los Ángeles or San Francsico, never mind the third-generation latino USAmericans); who are allowed to have books about their life without being "porn" or "grooming": or "who is allowed to protect themselves against/with violence?", there are people who are "people", and people who are "not people enough".

And the next years are going to be an experience in what happens when we go from "these people don't count as people" to "these not-people don't get {x}", I'm pretty certain. It's certainly being tried in Extremely North Texas; I can't imagine it not being tried in the new Greater Texas. Never mind Greater Alberta, when that comes next year.

[pilowsky]

With the appointment of Matt Gaetz to Attorney-General, satire is now officially dead.
What next? MTG for NIH?

[andrei]

Winstonm, on 2024-November-08, 15:23, said:

Trump's vote count was virtually unchanged from 2020.

As usual , you are wrong ...