BREAKING trump wins, why?

[NationalTitles18]

Good point. I'm frustrated that the Democrats didn't run a primary, but then Trump actually won theirs. Both situations are terrible, imo.

From my POV we can adopt the right wing propaganda that blames democrats for everything or we can carefully discern hogwash from realistic criticisms. It's my opinion that whining about Biden bowing out after the primaries is more the former than the latter and fails to acknowledge the reality of the situation faced by democrats no matter what criticism is deserved.

 

[dayhiker]

We had Trump whose transgressions have been very public running and Kamala. Kamala has a substance abuse issue that is out of hand and has more skeletons in her close that Dahmer. We weren't offered any good options in the character department unless you wanted to vote Independent and waste your vote.

It's not a wasted vote in Alabama and other states that skew heavily to one side or the other.

 

[Its On A Slab]

And in spite of all of that, the left couldn't run a viable candidate to win an election that should have been a softball across the plate.

And the country chose a convicted felon sex offender because they were paying too much for eggs.

This year's "but her emails".

H. L. Mencken was right. "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

 

[JDCrimson]

It's over. We are sitting here picking over the ashes. We wont be given another opportunity to have a viable 2 party system of government. Its all charades going forward. And Im not sure what that looks like for me and my family regardless of who I voted for. In my close experience with the government lately, it will be tone deaf to my rights and my needs. Government will become a merely a parasite even moreso than it is now.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Donald Trump is a horrible person with a history of personal and moral corruption, and of doing anything up to and including inciting a riot in an attempt to steal an election.

And the Democrats led by Kamala Harris couldn't beat him.

To add insult to injury, they lost the popular vote for the first time in 24 years. No blaming the Electoral College for this one.

That's not a justification to double down. That's a call to look in the mirror and make some changes. I would also argue that this isn't a Kamala Harris problem. It's a broader philosophical problem. She was just the face of it.

The Brit's tweet in dayhiker's post says a lot of the things I've been saying -- first among those, don't insult those who see things differently from you.

Here's a surprise: People generally don't like being called stupid, trash, bigoted, woman-hating, out of touch, over-privileged and the like. They remember those that did it, and tend not to vote for them. If you want to portray yourself as a unifier, quit spewing divisive rhetoric.

Quit playing identity politics, effectively pitting groups of people against one another (Note: That's the exact opposite of being a unifying force), and move your positions more in line with the electorate to the center.

If the Democrats had done that before, they would have easily won over the most beatable Republican since Herbert Hoover presided over the beginning of the Great Depression and badly bungled the response.

This is a self-inflicted loss.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

H. L. Mencken was right. "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Indeed, he was and considering the field, it was downright inevitable in both 2020 and 2024. People still whine about the lack of voter participation in elections, but they never seem to be able to connect the dots regarding this. Good candidates = voter enthusiasm. I made my usual "protest vote" on Tuesday, knowing full well it would accomplish nothing except making my wife happy. (She can't stand non-voters.)

 

[NationalTitles18]

Here's a surprise: People generally don't like being called stupid, trash, bigoted, woman-hating, out of touch, over-privileged and the like. They remember those that did it, and tend not to vote for them. If you want to portray yourself as a unifier, quit spewing divisive rhetoric.

I agree that no matter how true some or all of those things are democrats need to change from focusing too often on them and instead focus on the harms and damage to everyone's rights that they cause.

IOW, focus on the principles (the harm being caused to people and their rights) and not on the principals (those causing the harm).

 

[crimsonaudio]

And the country chose a convicted felon sex offender because they were paying too much for eggs.

This year's "but her emails".

H. L. Mencken was right. "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

That some on the left still cannot wrap their heads around the fact that for most Americans, it starts and ends with how they're personally doing economically and that things like the open border fiasco are more meaningful than Trump's (lack of) character should be surprising, but at this point it isn't.

The election shows clearly that the economy (on a personal level, save the charts) is #1. Only when people feel financially stable and able to provide (both now and in the future via opportunity) are people moved by things beyond that. Trump, with all his character flaws, winning twice should be all the proof anyone needs, but many still seem unable to process that.

I agree that the dems could have run someone better, but unless the message was about helping the middle-class and slowing / reversing the influx of illegal immigrants, they weren't going to win.

"It's the economy, stupid." - Jim Carville

So while I doubt Trump can or will do much of anything to improve the economy, the fact is that's one of the primary messages he ran on and it resonated with a majority of the voters - who largely don't care if he's a convict if they believe he can help them feel more financially stable.

 

[Bodhisattva]

One of the things I find interesting about the election-time is how different people view what is important to them and, therefore, how that influences their voting choices. With my wife being a Vietnamese immigrant, I've had the opportunity to engage with hundreds of people who now live throughout the country. Now, not every Vietnamese-American votes the same, of course, but there are some very similar experiences and concerns.

1. People my wife's age suffered under communist rule, which caused them to flee their homeland as soon as they could. They had many family members and friends killed in the process. They don't trust government, for good reason. They want to be left alone to build their own lives. The next generation (American born) have adopted this independent mindset. Democrats are more the party of big government, which is far more intrusive than they'd prefer.

2. Whether Buddhist or Catholic, Vietnamese are from a traditional culture that is socially conservative. They generally don't care what you do but resent having leftist social issues forced upon them. Again, they want to be left alone. Democrats push a far-left social agenda and are often contemptuous or even hostile to one's cultural and religious beliefs.

3. At the local political level, Democrats tend to be hostile to educational merit and school choice. Asians overwhelmingly have education at the top of their list of what is important. It is the way to come to a new country and become successful. It is the path to achieve the American Dream. And all these people I talk to - my wife's friends and friends of friends and their families - are incredibly successful. There's no trick to it. Work hard. Study hard. Get rewarded on merit. Rewarding someone based on race or gender is offensive to those who believe in merit. It's bad enough to allow less qualified people to jump the line. The infuriating result is that some fully qualified people are passed over entirely. It's one of the many reasons why government sucks. It's also stupid-funny that government doesn't consider Asians to be minorities for DEI purposes because they are too successful.

4. As a result of being successful and prosperous citizens, Vietnamese-Americans make very good incomes. As follows, they are taxed at higher and higher levels and forced to subsidize people who don't work as hard. This is communist-light wealth redistribution, and it is not looked upon favorably at all. Democrats maintain that paying more and more is "paying your fair share."

Now, this appears to be the general default for my wife's community. It doesn't mean they are Republicans or that they voted for Trump. But I do know that they don't like a large part of the Democrat platform. In my conversations, I couldn't find any of the hundreds that said they would vote for Kamala.

Just grist for the mill.

 

[NationalTitles18]

That some on the left still cannot wrap their heads around the fact that for most Americans, it starts and ends with how they're personally doing economically and that things like the open border fiasco are more meaningful than Trump's (lack of) character should be surprising, but at this point it isn't.

The election shows clearly that the economy (on a personal level, save the charts) is #1. Only when people feel financially stable and able to provide (both now and in the future via opportunity) are people moved by things beyond that. Trump, with all his character flaws, winning twice should be all the proof anyone needs, but many still seem unable to process that.

I agree that the dems could have run someone better, but unless the message was about helping the middle-class and slowing / reversing the influx of illegal immigrants, they weren't going to win.

"It's the economy, stupid." - Jim Carville

So while I doubt Trump can or will do much of anything to improve the economy, the fact is that's one of the primary messages he ran on and it resonated with a majority of the voters - who largely don't care if he's a convict if they believe he can help them feel more financially stable.

Says it all, or a big chunk of it.

 

[92tide]

When do we acknowledge that the American electorate embraced Trump and all his baggage and rejected any and every alternative?

For the record, it's possible both can be true as they are not mutually exclusive and I am not commenting now on the role of democrats.

remember, only democrats have agency

 

[NationalTitles18]

remember, only democrats have agency

That seems to be the case. And declaring that agency, responsibility, and accountability (and consequences) hurts feelings.

Two things can be true at the same time. Some don't seem to agree, but it's true.

 

[cdub55]

I've been mulling over this most of the day. The mistake the Harris campaign made was to focus on Trump being a terrible person. He is mind you, but everyone knew he was a terrible person 8 years ago, and he got elected. Biden was able to win as "not Trump", but even that was a close call.

Harris needed to establish her specific vision for America; Trump gave her all the leverage she needed with his "I've got a concept of an idea" in the debate. From then on, she should have focused on specific policy initiatives, introducing every single one with "I've got more than just a concept of a plan." (She did have some, I know, but we didn't hear about them often enough. Problem is, discussing policy initiatives requires more than the 30-second soundbite the media has become conditioned into generating.) Trump, as usual, lied his ass off, but he told lies that people wanted to hear.

More basically, she needed to acknowledge people's frustration with the economy. OK, so the numbers are promising. That's all well and good, but that's like pointing to the Dow Jones--it doesn't reflect what individual families are working with. That gave Trump an inflection point that he hammered home to devastating effect. And of course, he tapped into the fear of the Other, whether immigrants, LGTBQ, and then spun that web wider to include anyone who opposed him.

Back when I was in grad school at Bama, I was a member of the Alabama Student Party, a group of independents trying to make inroads into the Machine controlled SGA government. We got John Merrill elected SGA president, and the bulk of the ASP membership was convinced that we were headed to the promised land. There was only one problem--most of them thought that since we were fighting the good fight, God would smile on our endeavors and victory would most assuredly follow as day follows night. Myself and a few others repeatedly warned that good intentions mean jack squat if you don't have a well-considered plan, but we were roundly ignored, and the following year saw the Machine pull off damn near a clean sweep.

I suspect the Democrats were in a similar spot--once they established Harris as the nominee, they figured everyone would see that Harris was a vast improvement over Trump (and for all her faults, I maintain that she was). The DNC spent a LOT of money on media, but not enough on the message (apologies to Marshall McLuhan).

You hit a lot of the points. Neither candidate did a good job of discussing policy. Part of the problem is so many bullets were flying from the other side discussing character that they wanted to deflect those issues instead of telling us what they would do to fix the economy, border, etc. Trump had one up on her in that the economy was much better when he was in office than it was the last 4 years. We can argue why that is but the fact of the matter is that it was. Kamala did a very poor job of discussing policy and showing a strong sense of knowledge of the topics she was presented in her town hall meeting and other opportunities she had in front of mass audiences. Americans focus on this election was without a doubt the economy first and foremost and Trump already had an advantage over her and she didn't do enough to close that gap throughout the process.

 

[NationalTitles18]

You hit a lot of the points. Neither candidate did a good job of discussing policy. Part of the problem is so many bullets were flying from the other side discussing character that they wanted to deflect those issues instead of telling us what they would do to fix the economy, border, etc. Trump had one up on her in that the economy was much better when he was in office than it was the last 4 years. We can argue why that is but the fact of the matter is that it was. Kamala did a very poor job of discussing policy and showing a strong sense of knowledge of the topics she was presented in her town hall meeting and other opportunities she had in front of mass audiences. Americans focus on this election was without a doubt the economy first and foremost and Trump already had an advantage over her and she didn't do enough to close that gap throughout the process.

Closer to the truth is that Trump got a pass on his covid economy while democrats did not.

 

[dayhiker]

Closer to the truth is that Trump got a pass on his covid economy while democrats did not.

Trump's big relief package is what started the inflation. People seem to have amnesia about that. I said inflation would happen when it was passed.

 

[jthomas666]

Closer to the truth is that Trump got a pass on his covid economy while democrats did not.

He got a pass on his entire COVID response.

 

[Toddrn]

Tragically 15-20 million voters died in the last 10-20 years and they were not able to get to the polls.

Harris even said a few weeks ago that 2/3 of the population had died. LOL

 

[CrimsonNagus]

Really good episode discussing the outcome. In a nutshell, Schmidt says that if the lesson Democrats take from this is that they need to go more to the left, even more progressive next time, then we'll have President Vance.

Many other good points in the episode. Only 35 minutes long.

An Election Autopsy With Steve Schmidt

Podcast Episode · Somebody's Gotta Win with Tara Palmeri · November 6, 2024 · 33m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[cdub55]

1. No, if Biden were physically capable, he'd still be running.

2. Harris was reluctant to criticize Biden; that choice enabled the Trump campaign to use strategies they had already developed for Biden (seasoned with a healthy dose of racism and misogyny).

If Biden would have ran it would have been worse than it was. Harris re-invigorated some and gave a fighting chance.

 

[cdub55]

As long as you remember it's OK to call democrats and the left dumb dumb dumb (quoting an earlier post), but it's not OK for democrats to say anything remotely negative about an electorate that chose Trump.



I don't know what anyone saying that was watching and don't really care, but I paid attention to much of her campaign speech (all close to the same), rallies, interviews, the one debate Trump was brave enough to have, and her campaign was anything but leftist. She spoke in broad terms but had more detail than Trump would ever discuss or admit to. She spoke over and over of unity and coalitions and working together and brought in many republicans to advocate for her elections. I should say former republicans. Those guys need to understand that even though nothing about them has changed they are no longer welcome in that party, just as I am no longer welcome.

A.) Ah the hypocrisy in this statement is oozing...

B.) That's what you do when you don't know the in's and out's of very complex issues. You speak in broad terms and ideals. She has yet to say something that gave me insight to the inner workings of government in any capacity,