America

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I've come to the conclusion that the Dems have to just accept that, at least for them, there's no such thing as un-earned media. Instead of spending 1 billion dollars in a 6 month election period they need to spend ¼ billion every year on promoting their positive policies and tearing down the inaction of the republicans. The old adage "when you're explaining you're losing" only works if you want to prescribe glib solutions for everything, like Trump. If they want their electorate to behave like grown ups the Dems are going to have to be in constant explanation mode and put serious money behind it.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

This was a comms failure, not a policy failure.

Nail -> Head.

Kamala needed to have the minerals to absolutely shove Biden under the bus. Might not be noble, might not be moral, might not be friendly, but she could've blamed anything and everything on him and claimed credit for anything else. Being correct is trumped by sounding correct (no pun intended).

Puja

The problem with that is that she doesn't disagree with his policies. To a large extent the American people don't either, until they know they are his policies.

[morepork]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

[Mikey Brown]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

[J Dory]

If MP likes to flagellate himself while watching Taylor Swift music videos, well, it's none of our business. Here you go buddy....

[Puja]

I've come to the conclusion that the Dems have to just accept that, at least for them, there's no such thing as un-earned media. Instead of spending 1 billion dollars in a 6 month election period they need to spend ¼ billion every year on promoting their positive policies and tearing down the inaction of the republicans. The old adage "when you're explaining you're losing" only works if you want to prescribe glib solutions for everything, like Trump. If they want their electorate to behave like grown ups the Dems are going to have to be in constant explanation mode and put serious money behind it.

You're not wrong there. The Republicans get a constant drip-drip feed of their talking points every day of every year and it's going to take something incredible to counteract it.

This was a comms failure, not a policy failure.

Nail -> Head.

Kamala needed to have the minerals to absolutely shove Biden under the bus. Might not be noble, might not be moral, might not be friendly, but she could've blamed anything and everything on him and claimed credit for anything else. Being correct is trumped by sounding correct (no pun intended).

Puja

The problem with that is that she doesn't disagree with his policies. To a large extent the American people don't either, until they know they are his policies.

Those policies weren't helping large swathes of the electorate though. You referenced wages growing above inflation earlier, but a) that appears to be only just, if at all, b) there was a fairly significant gap between the peak of inflation and wages rising, meaning people already tight on budgets spent a lot of time cursing the economy and the President in charge of it, and c) not every income bracket had the same increase in wages, so lower income brackets saw 4% lower income rise than inflation over the last 4 years. When Trump leaned on, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago," it wasn't just vibes - there were a lot of people that were worse off.

I'm more than aware that not all of this was Biden's fault, but he was the man at the helm and by saying, "I wouldn't change anything," Kamala left herself wide open to being pinned as being "more of the same" when for a lot of people that meant worse.

She might not disagree with the policies. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't've been politic to put distance between her and them, rebranding the things she wanted to keep and evading Trump's attacks instead of trying to explain them away.

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I suspect it was the Cheneys that were the more damaging endorsement.

Puja

[cashead]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

Yeah, for real. Honestly, why are you being so weird about Tay-tay? Just shake it off, bro.

[Stom]

If MP likes to flagellate himself while watching Taylor Swift music videos, well, it's none of our business. Here you go buddy....

Ah, you reminded me of the great mashup...

[Sandydragon]

I've come to the conclusion that the Dems have to just accept that, at least for them, there's no such thing as un-earned media. Instead of spending 1 billion dollars in a 6 month election period they need to spend ¼ billion every year on promoting their positive policies and tearing down the inaction of the republicans. The old adage "when you're explaining you're losing" only works if you want to prescribe glib solutions for everything, like Trump. If they want their electorate to behave like grown ups the Dems are going to have to be in constant explanation mode and put serious money behind it.

You're not wrong there. The Republicans get a constant drip-drip feed of their talking points every day of every year and it's going to take something incredible to counteract it.

Nail -> Head.

Kamala needed to have the minerals to absolutely shove Biden under the bus. Might not be noble, might not be moral, might not be friendly, but she could've blamed anything and everything on him and claimed credit for anything else. Being correct is trumped by sounding correct (no pun intended).

Puja

The problem with that is that she doesn't disagree with his policies. To a large extent the American people don't either, until they know they are his policies.

Those policies weren't helping large swathes of the electorate though. You referenced wages growing above inflation earlier, but a) that appears to be only just, if at all, b) there was a fairly significant gap between the peak of inflation and wages rising, meaning people already tight on budgets spent a lot of time cursing the economy and the President in charge of it, and c) not every income bracket had the same increase in wages, so lower income brackets saw 4% lower income rise than inflation over the last 4 years. When Trump leaned on, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago," it wasn't just vibes - there were a lot of people that were worse off.

I'm more than aware that not all of this was Biden's fault, but he was the man at the helm and by saying, "I wouldn't change anything," Kamala left herself wide open to being pinned as being "more of the same" when for a lot of people that meant worse.

She might not disagree with the policies. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't've been politic to put distance between her and them, rebranding the things she wanted to keep and evading Trump's attacks instead of trying to explain them away.

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I suspect it was the Cheneys that were the more damaging endorsement.

Puja

Exactly. Given the global issues, its perfectly legitimate to argue that things could have been far worse under another administration. But it was Biden's presidency and people felt skint. That's a hard hurdle to overcome.

I dont buy the publicity thing. Obama cut through with the 'Yes we can' optimism message. Explaining things in detail is always a risky bet with the electorate who just arent that interested for much of the time. But better to push a message of 'we can fix this' rather than 'the other lot are weird/Nazis etc'. It might be correct to point out the authoritarianism of Trump and his supporters. But why should voeters vote for the Democrats? Thats the message that seemed to be lost in everything the Dems pushed out. Trump had plenty of pops at Harris, but he also provided simple messages on what he would do that appeals to many voters.
The weird guys thing cut through, it needed to be followed up with something positive but adly wasnt.

[Puja]

The weird guys thing cut through, it needed to be followed up with something positive but adly wasnt.

The weird thing was effective, because it drew attention to the Republicans being out of touch by talking about shit that nobody cared about like culture wars and abortion instead of talking about how they would fix the country. Unfortunately, following that, the Republicans started talking/lying about the economy and the Democrats promptly went on to look out of touch by talking about culture wars and abortion.

Puja

[morepork]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

Celebrity endorsement over policy dialogue. I have no beef with the Swiftess. People here, in the USandA, were very tired of celebrity endorsement at an early point in the campaign. My hangup is the lack of policy dialogue at the considerable expense of presenting celebrities. George Clooney given space in the New York Times can funck off also. How about spending that money on hammering the fact that wages have kept up with inflation and federal support for small business grants for US companies have been fought for over the last four years? The "rally" is sacrosanct, apparently.

[Mikey Brown]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

Celebrity endorsement over policy dialogue. I have no beef with the Swiftess. People here, in the USandA, were very tired of celebrity endorsement at an early point in the campaign. My hangup is the lack of policy dialogue at the considerable expense of presenting celebrities. George Clooney given space in the New York Times can funck off also. How about spending that money on hammering the fact that wages have kept up with inflation and federal support for small business grants for US companies have been fought for over the last four years? The "rally" is sacrosanct, apparently.

Fair enough. I wasn't aware Taylor Swift had done anything more than (eventually) put out a tweet in support, or of any other celebrity involvements really. Though I was under the impression George Clooney was actually pretty well informed as celebrities go. His wife certainly seems like a real one.

I think the reality is people who actually care about details will seek them out, it's reaching everyone else that's the problem. Smart policy is obviously key but mobilising your potential supporters (especially a group as abnormally huge and disconnected from politics as Taylor Swift's fans) means grabbing people's attention. The Dems were running against a reality TV star with Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock at his side. The whole thing is a circus.

[Zhivago]

Trump won because his message is ultimately an optimistic one. Who wouldn't want their country to be great? You know I'd love Britain to be great. The details are important, sure, but who has time for the details in this hectic world.

Then you have the electorate of course. The average voter is a simple person. So things aren't great, right? There must be a reason for that. Someone's to blame. That's a simple message. As old as time. But, like it or not, immigration does cause problems that need adressing. At the very least it fragments society if people are not well integrated. And there has been high immigration in the US. If we look at the % of immigrant population in the USA it is close to levels seen in the late 19th century.



What I don't understand is why the left (which I would regard myself as being part of) ignore the impact of immigration on the average working man? And in fact have a tendency to tell the average voter to disbelieve his own experience.

Actually from a purely economic perspective, immigration is important. Reproductive rates have fallen massively, and immigration is the quickest fix. That's why politicians have encouraged/allowed it.

But we do need to address why reproductive rates have fallen. It is a prime signal that our society is broken. A healthy society wants to have children. And I mean this in the sense that if you consider why people don't have (many) kids, it will be heavily influenced by financial reasons. Like not having enough space/bedrooms for example, or being able to provide for the children.

The left seems not to care about this stuff. And it's a problem.

[Stom]

Trump won because his message is ultimately an optimistic one. Who wouldn't want their country to be great? You know I'd love Britain to be great. The details are important, sure, but who has time for the details in this hectic world.

Then you have the electorate of course. The average voter is a simple person. So things aren't great, right? There must be a reason for that. Someone's to blame. That's a simple message. As old as time. But, like it or not, immigration does cause problems that need adressing. At the very least it fragments society if people are not well integrated. And there has been high immigration in the US. If we look at the % of immigrant population in the USA it is close to levels seen in the late 19th century.



What I don't understand is why the left (which I would regard myself as being part of) ignore the impact of immigration on the average working man? And in fact have a tendency to tell the average voter to disbelieve his own experience.

Actually from a purely economic perspective, immigration is important. Reproductive rates have fallen massively, and immigration is the quickest fix. That's why politicians have encouraged/allowed it.

But we do need to address why reproductive rates have fallen. It is a prime signal that our society is broken. A healthy society wants to have children. And I mean this in the sense that if you consider why people don't have (many) kids, it will be heavily influenced by financial reasons. Like not having enough space/bedrooms for example, or being able to provide for the children.

The left seems not to care about this stuff. And it's a problem.

I know that I have a tendency to react viscerally to blanket "immigration is bad" comments, and then end up pushing a more extreme view the other way as a kind of counter to the extreme view I don't agree with. Even when I do understand the problem of immigration. I just don't feel like the societal problems that have come with immigration in the 2020s are BECAUSE of immigration. They're because of inequality, in my book.

If migrants are sold a vision of democracy, hope, freedom, and the ability to feed their family...they arrive, and are greeted with skyrocketing costs, rented apartments with very little controls on standards, and stagnant at best wages, not just for low skilled workers but for skilled workers outside of the tech bubble...what's going to happen to them? Are they going to integrate?

Or are they going to work hard and be isolated from wider society because their priorities are different from John Smith?

What if there actually was prosperity? What if there actually was the ability to better yourself?

Well then we'd really need to look at immigration policy as more and more people would want to get in. And the standard compared to home would likely be lower. So it would be beneficial to your own home economy to raise standards in the poorer countries so you could take the best of the best.

All it takes to communicate ALL OF THIS is saying:

Yes, we have an immigration problem and I want to fix it.

There's your soundbite. And then you explain it. Anyone interested can dive deep, anyone looking for a soundbite gets that.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

Celebrity endorsement over policy dialogue. I have no beef with the Swiftess. People here, in the USandA, were very tired of celebrity endorsement at an early point in the campaign. My hangup is the lack of policy dialogue at the considerable expense of presenting celebrities. George Clooney given space in the New York Times can funck off also. How about spending that money on hammering the fact that wages have kept up with inflation and federal support for small business grants for US companies have been fought for over the last four years? The "rally" is sacrosanct, apparently.

The problem is that you are in no way the median American court and the median American voter has little to no interest in policy dialogue. It's pretty much just vibes all the way down now. Which is also the answer to Puja's assertion that most of the Boden policies didn't help vast swathes of people. I'd say that's so disputable as to be plain wrong. It's just that it's complex. In 2 years Hidden got a lot done. He stabilised the economy and avoided the recession that pretty much every economists said was on its way. I get that avoiding disaster didn't exactly play, but it should. That's on top of the policies I set out earlier. Could they have done more? The truthful answer is no. Biden passed the most progressive agenda that it was possible to get through a narrow Congress majority before the midterms and nothing useful was getting passed after that. Most of which ignores that Harris's programme added to this and they trump offered nothing beyond grievance.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Gaza was a factor. Not for the average voter, probably not enough to swing the popular vote, but enough to make the difference in Michigan and Wisconsin. Look at the margin of Trump's victory versus the Muslim population (also Jewish population):

Michigan, margin: 81k, Muslim pop: 242k, Jewish pop: 88k
Wisconsin, margin: 29k, Muslim pop: 69k, Jewish pop: 33k

In the rest, it probably wouldn't have make the difference, or not helped at all. A detailed poll of voters' reasons would of course be better than my speculation!).
Georgia, margin: 117k, Muslim pop: 124k, Jewish pop: 141k
Pennsylvania, margin: 140k, Muslim pop: 150k, Jewish pop: 494k
North Carolina, margin: 189k, Muslim pop: 131k, Jewish pop: 49k
Arizona, margin: 182k, Muslim pop: 110k, Jewish pop: 124k

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... -president

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Gaza was a factor. Not for the average voter, probably not enough to swing the popular vote, but enough to make the difference in Michigan and Wisconsin. Look at the margin of Trump's victory versus the Muslim population (also Jewish population):

Michigan, margin: 81k, Muslim pop: 242k, Jewish pop: 88k
Wisconsin, margin: 29k, Muslim pop: 69k, Jewish pop: 33k

In the rest, it probably wouldn't have make the difference, or not helped at all. A detailed poll of voters' reasons would of course be better than my speculation!).
Georgia, margin: 117k, Muslim pop: 124k, Jewish pop: 141k
Pennsylvania, margin: 140k, Muslim pop: 150k, Jewish pop: 494k
North Carolina, margin: 189k, Muslim pop: 131k, Jewish pop: 49k
Arizona, margin: 182k, Muslim pop: 110k, Jewish pop: 124k

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... -president

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

Is that Muslim population or registered Muslim voters?

And of course Gaza was a factor. Everything was a factor. The weight of Gaza? Who knows, though it doesn't seem to have changed the result of the election. What Muslims voting for Trump/Stein have guaranteed is that no one will pay any attention to what they want. The lesson for the Dems is that they're an unreliable constituency that is not worth chasing if Dems will lose more median voters.

[paddy no 11]

Gaza was a factor. Not for the average voter, probably not enough to swing the popular vote, but enough to make the difference in Michigan and Wisconsin. Look at the margin of Trump's victory versus the Muslim population (also Jewish population):

Michigan, margin: 81k, Muslim pop: 242k, Jewish pop: 88k
Wisconsin, margin: 29k, Muslim pop: 69k, Jewish pop: 33k

In the rest, it probably wouldn't have make the difference, or not helped at all. A detailed poll of voters' reasons would of course be better than my speculation!).
Georgia, margin: 117k, Muslim pop: 124k, Jewish pop: 141k
Pennsylvania, margin: 140k, Muslim pop: 150k, Jewish pop: 494k
North Carolina, margin: 189k, Muslim pop: 131k, Jewish pop: 49k
Arizona, margin: 182k, Muslim pop: 110k, Jewish pop: 124k

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... -president

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

Is that Muslim population or registered Muslim voters?

And of course Gaza was a factor. Everything was a factor. The weight of Gaza? Who knows, though it doesn't seem to have changed the result of the election. What Muslims voting for Trump/Stein have guaranteed is that no one will pay any attention to what they want. The lesson for the Dems is that they're an unreliable constituency that is not worth chasing if Dems will lose more median voters.

The lesson for the dems is if you don't give people a reason to vote for you they won't

(Trump may be waaaaay worse than biden for palestine but sleepy Joe has been abysmal on this, and Harris signalled no change)

[Mellsblue]

This podcast covers the major points from the last couple of days on this thread. It was a good listen:

[Son of Mathonwy]

Gaza was a factor. Not for the average voter, probably not enough to swing the popular vote, but enough to make the difference in Michigan and Wisconsin. Look at the margin of Trump's victory versus the Muslim population (also Jewish population):

Michigan, margin: 81k, Muslim pop: 242k, Jewish pop: 88k
Wisconsin, margin: 29k, Muslim pop: 69k, Jewish pop: 33k

In the rest, it probably wouldn't have make the difference, or not helped at all. A detailed poll of voters' reasons would of course be better than my speculation!).
Georgia, margin: 117k, Muslim pop: 124k, Jewish pop: 141k
Pennsylvania, margin: 140k, Muslim pop: 150k, Jewish pop: 494k
North Carolina, margin: 189k, Muslim pop: 131k, Jewish pop: 49k
Arizona, margin: 182k, Muslim pop: 110k, Jewish pop: 124k

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... -president

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... n-by-state

Is that Muslim population or registered Muslim voters?

And of course Gaza was a factor. Everything was a factor. The weight of Gaza? Who knows, though it doesn't seem to have changed the result of the election. What Muslims voting for Trump/Stein have guaranteed is that no one will pay any attention to what they want. The lesson for the Dems is that they're an unreliable constituency that is not worth chasing if Dems will lose more median voters.

Good question - I think it's Muslim 'adherents', so is probably an overestimate in relation to voters. On the other hand, it's from a 2020 survey, so the figures are likely to be higher now.

Obviously 'everything is a factor' if it could have influenced a single vote. My argument is that given the margins in Wisconsin and Michigan and the Muslim populations there, a depressed Muslim vote, or worse, a switch to Trump, could plausibly have lost those states for Harris.

Your last point that Muslim voters have guaranteed that 'no one will pay any attention to what they want' is a very strange one. The opposite is true. The best way to be ignored is to always vote the same way no matter what politicians say. In fact, they've made it more likely that Muslim wishes will be taken into account in future.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Fwiw I think a lesson for the Dems should be that there are no voting blocks worth chasing. The appearance of found so turns off too many other voters. That's not too easy they shouldn't address the concerns of those blocks but those concerns tend (in America) to be the same as most others. Black courts in particular seem to be interested only in a fair crack. Latino voters at this point are indistinguishable from "white" voters.

Dealing specifically with my point above, if Dems had shifted towards the Muslim vote then they'd have lost a bunch of other votes. In America your only real option is to vote for whoever you can pressure once they're in office. That's demonstrably not the Muslim ban guy.

[paddy no 11]

Some goat murderer is Secretary of homeland security

Mike hackabee ambassador to Israel, loves settlements does mike

[paddy no 11]

No such thing as an occupation says Mike

[Son of Mathonwy]

Fwiw I think a lesson for the Dems should be that there are no voting blocks worth chasing. The appearance of found so turns off too many other voters. That's not too easy they shouldn't address the concerns of those blocks but those concerns tend (in America) to be the same as most others. Black courts in particular seem to be interested only in a fair crack. Latino voters at this point are indistinguishable from "white" voters.

Dealing specifically with my point above, if Dems had shifted towards the Muslim vote then they'd have lost a bunch of other votes. In America your only real option is to vote for whoever you can pressure once they're in office. That's demonstrably not the Muslim ban guy.

I don't think I follow your first paragraph. The Dems didn't chase a voter block that could have plausibly won them two of the swing states, so the lesson is not to chase voter blocks?

Any sensible party needs to be aware of what the voters want and (unless they have a magical policy which all voters want) have to in some way split them into blocks which broadly share the same interests. And then try to find some compromise between what the party wants to achieve and what enough of the people can be convinced to vote for.

You can't just say a shift to the Muslim vote would have lost them a bunch of other votes without making a specific argument (because you could make that point for any policy, like it's a zero-sum game, which it clearly isn't). A shift towards the Muslim vote would have been popular with some non-Muslims (like the young) and unpopular with others. But we know overall, it wasn't an important issue for most people. My point is that in these 2 states its was a vital, vote-affecting issue for significant minorities.

Obviously I'm not saying Harris should have abruptly moved to the kind of position I would like the US to hold*, but she should have given the Muslims something, some reason to believe she was going to stop the killing in Gaza, like saying it's gone too far, killing 43k is not a proportionate response to the killing of 1.2k, American bombs should not be used to blow up babies, we wouldn't expect our police to kill 20 innocent people trying to catch 1 murderer, starving women and children is not acceptable etc. Instead she said she agreed with everything that Biden had done, and offered no hope for a change in policy.


*eg pressure Israel to obey international law, leave the occupied territories and make reparations, suspend all support for Israel and bring sanctions against it until it complies.

[Puja]

US Politics since 2016 has been dominated by rich billionaires gaining power out of petty spite because someone laughed at them. Trump has been on the record saying that a major factor in him deciding to get into politics was Obama roasting him for his birtherism during the White House Correspondents comedy dinner. And now we have Elon Musk, who took over Twitter because he didn't like people saying mean stuff about him, then endured several months of cock-ups, poor decisions, and getting roasted by most of the planet, and responded by diving into the arms of the right wing who didn't laugh at him, and seeking power apparently to demonstrate how absolutely smart he actually is and how he was right all along about everything.

Oh, and he thinks he's funny. "Department of Governmental Efficiency " (DoGE). How witty, the name you've given to letting an imbecile flail around and dismantle the bits of the government and civil service that he doesn't understand! It's a funny meme! I think I'd prefer the Shiba Inu to be in charge! I suspect it would do less damage!

I just thank the gods below and everburning that he's not a natural US citizen and can't aim for President himself. Although if he ingratiates himself to Trump enough, maybe there'll be a constitutional amendment and we still can face the prospect of Musk 2028.

Puja