Beshear wouldn't have a prayer. Peltola should run either way. Mainers largely loathe Golden, regardless of their demographics or where they live; he's survived to this point as the lesser of two evils. Jackson would fall flat with women.
Beyond ME, NC, AK, and KS: IA, MS, SC, and an open TX would be less fool's gold than KY, even with a good candidate. And Golden and Jackson just happen to be two of the least electable candidates we could nominate. Ideally, we'd nominate a politician or businesswoman from Bangor or Ellsworth, but getting the right candidate to run and then getting them through the primary is a tall task.
But Maine against Collins with an unknown is a bad strategy; in an open seat race it's a different strategy(which is where I would be in more agreement)
Mainers love to complain, particularly about things like politicians they're familiar with seeking a promotion. That would certainly apply to Golden, and to a lesser extent Jackson, although his bigger issue would be appealing to women while being to Collins's right on abortion. But you're right, an unknown candidate would have to excel in candidate school to have a chance.
While it's true that Golden appeals well to ME-2 (and I concede that he'd probably be the best for statewide), the love for Peltola makes sense in a way as she just... seems cooler.
As for Ossoff & Peters, I think they're probably going to do ok just because of it being an R midterm.
Israel/Palestine has historically been a banned topic in this community as the discussions often become contentious and lose sight of the core purpose of focusing on elections. I don't recall if David et al have said anything specific to the new site here, but it's probably safest to steer clear of that topic.
I’m half-Hispanic and I support immigration enforcement. My mother got her visa and waited in line to immigrate here legally. Not all Hispanics support illegal immigration. And it’s not “racist” to support immigration enforcement.
I’m not opposed to making it easier to come to the US, as I understand some of the immigration laws create barriers. But I’m not in favor of open borders or not enforcing immigration laws.
Yeah, it helps to get balance in this situation of immigration and border reform.
I also should point out that countries where immigrants are immigrating from in mass numbers are going to have to find a way to improve their economies. Cuba in particular suffers a lot because it has no true market economy and is as a result of communism dealing with plenty of economic rationing right now.
Don't forget that the women's march rallies had wider attendance than at Trump's inauguration. That plus the Democratic Party base being fired up more than it was in 2016 was indication Trump was going to potentially lose the 2020 election.
Frankly the "higher turnout benefits Democrats" mantra should have been abandoned twenty years ago. As I've had to point out many times, were that the case, Roy Barnes would have been reelected as Governor of Georgia in 2002. John Kerry would have been elected as President in 2004. Terry McAuliffe would have been elected as Governor of Virginia in 2021.
Being that Allan Lichtman's 13 keys were broken this time around, I don't think this is evidence though that his 13 keys are flawed. In fact, the methodology is a good way by which to analyze elections in order to give a bird's eye view of the national environment.
The main problem is social media; which has been my concern since 2022. 10 years ago I thought the decline of talk radio would kill a huge plank in the GOP propaganda machine, but the RW social media apparatus is now more powerful than talk radio ever was. Tons of apolitical/young men/Latinos bombarded with memes and mis-info daily.
Hard to determine a solution, but I think step one is getting as deep in the mud as they are.
A solution is to actually work with young men and recognize that the concern that many of them feel of being left behind is legitimate. Joe Rogan and the Manosphere fill this role precisely because many of them feel they have nowhere else to go.
But what does that look like? I know some professor talked about setting up some male task force and he advocated for a lot of policies which, were fine on paper, but I'm skeptical that would do much.
I do think culturally as a Party we need to completely exorcise the "woke" terminology that gained a foothold during Trump's first term: micro-aggressions, obsessing over pronouns, Robin D'Angelo-esque screeds on race, "checking your privilege", LatinX. All needs to be chucked into the 🗑 . We are getting KILLED with non-college men (and some women) of all races with that stuff. Feeds into the pretentious coastal elite narrative. I think Walz found a smart strategy NY emphasizing that we have disagreements but "people should mind their own damn business" but it seemingly was too late to seep through.
Related to that, why didn't the campaign send Walz on Rogan, Barstool etc? I could be wrong but the campaign seemed to handcuff him the last 6 weeks of the campaign-the whole point of picking him was to assauge WWC men of the ticket. Probably my biggest critique of the campaign.
And the hardest part will be finding a way to reach these voters moving forward in our fragmented media environment. Any news event that doesn't go through the Tim Pool filter isn't a news event at all. How do we communicate to voters in this environment?
At it's most simple, the media had a huge financial incentive to see Trump win. They saw what happened after 2016, saw how much more viewership and readership and subscribers they got in the wake of Trump's first win. All their management cares about is money, and they were willing to give Trump the softest coverage possible to hope to get their expected future financial boon.
The sanewashing of him, rewriting of history of the economy under him, abject indifference to policy, complete disinterest in his felony convictions, even the billionaire class going in and actively meddling in the coverage from some media orgs, all of it added up to a media environment that was aggressively biased against us.
Recognizing the problem doesn't help much though. What can we do? Republicans emulating Trump tend to do horrible and are unable to get the same media benefit as him, so we could count on 2028 being a better media environment by default. Otherwise I don't know that we can do anything. None of the wealthy class of the left is interested in started an alternative to Fox. I don't know that interacting with the media different can overcome such overt biases. I don't like "hope" as a solution but I think it's all I can see on that front.
I agree that it’s way too early - it’s just the current perception. As an example, Stacy Abrams was clearly one of the “biggest winners” of the 2020 election - it did not go well for her from there.
I don't think Whitmer has much of a chance at this point. Shapiro, maybe. I'd think Ruben Gallego would be the prohibitive favorite if he pulls this Senate election out.
I never made the downward revisions to match my popular vote guess but I should have. The only state I got wrong was one I should have never guessed to go blue in the first place: Nevada.
Obviously no need to apologize. It's just predictions that could have gone either way. For exactly two hours last night, I thought this was gonna go another way....when the national exit polls showed the top voting issue was "protecting democracy". I figured that against all odds, the Harris campaign's key message broke through in an electorate where 72% of voters were unhappy. In the end, this was even worse than I expected.
Suffice to say, David Axelrod was dead on when he said he was concerned the Democratic Party was becoming to cosmopolitan and less about being the party of the working class of voters.
Yeah I think inflation is what killed us. It's a really tough place to be in because it's near impossible to really deal with inflation in a way that doesn't hurt other aspects of the economy. The only argument Dems had is that inflation in the US is better than most other countries, but if you're a Pennsylvania or Arizona voter struggling with it, do you really care if it's worse in other countries? Doubtful.
The difference between 2012 and 2024 is that in the former election, the majority of Americans did not refuse to pretend that the 2008 Wall Street Crash never happened as well as the vastly unpopular Bush the Younger administration and War in Iraq. In 2024 though, the majority of Americans very much refused to pretend that COVID never happened. In their eyes, Orange Slob was President and the economy was good. Then Biden somehow became President and the economy sucked. No connecting the dots there. If voters did not connect the dots back in 2012, Obama would have been a one term President as Biden is.
I get flack for saying this, but COVID was never that popular of an issue with voters except liberals. Most people didn't want the lockdowns and the restrictions back then. The only friends of mine who really were obsessed with COVID. The rest didn't honestly care.
The corollary is that you can't tell voters "you're wrong." If voters say the economy sucks, the economy sucks. If voters say crime is a problem, crime is a problem. Et cetera.
I just don't buy this; look at how much Americans are spending on vacations, luxury items, going out etc. Americans aren't getting crippled by inflation; if they were you'd see spending getting pared back.
This is oft-said but Jon Tester didn't know how to talk to ordinary folks? Sherrod Brown? Tim Walz? We ran people who could've come out of central casting as "middle American working man Joe but with a heart of gold" and voters went "meh".
Rightly or wrongly, we are seen as the party of "coastal elites." Doesn't sit well with people who have to "believe" in the "American Dream" and who can't accept that we don't treat everyone the same. DEI is unpopular with many people precisely because it at best erases the illusion that we are an equal opportunity society, and at worst seen as giving "special treatment to the undeserved."
100 per cent. Especially with those who live in non urban/suburban and non well educated parts of the country. As a person on the Spectrum, I consider people with disabilities - including those who happen to be White heterosexual males - to be minorities. I recognize, however that many are simply uncomfortable with people with disabilities, even people with good intentions. Society simply fears "different."
I have a stuttering issue as well, particularly when I'm nervous. A major reason why "The King's Speech" is my favourite film. But yes, in the eyes of many people, accommodations are seen as "special treatment", which doesn't bode well.
As am I. I have both a BA and MA and have been gainfully employed for many years. I recognize, however that unfortunately #1. people like us are the exception, not the rule for people on the Spectrum and #2. as we are still a relatively small minority, the majority of people even in 2024 wouldn't recognize Autism if it jumped up and bit them in the butt.
I'm referring to the ideal situation, not something that in the current reality is able to necessarily achieve across the board in organizations.
DEI is important to pay attention to because it shows that a company is able to not be insulated from the real world and see that it's living in the past. However, if a company is able to successfully have a no bias agenda in hiring, then it's truly inclusive and doesn't need to worry about DEI.
FYI, I am neurodivergent and know very well that the corporate world doesn't understand professionals who have ADHD, autism, etc. enough.
I would slightly disagree. The main issue is that the Democratic Party is becoming the following:
1) Too negative. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris ran presidential campaigns that spent more time going negative than simply trying to unite the country. President Obama had this gift of bringing the country together and was wise in both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaign to not succumb to negativity being a central part of his campaigns.
2) Not completely aware of what's going on in the rear view mirror. It isn't just immigration and inflation but gender divide as well. Both men and women's issues need to be paid attention to.
I think you are comparing apples to watermelons in that analogy; 2008 to 2024 is insanely unfair to Harris in that analogy(and frankly, very unfair to Hillary in the other)
2008, 2016 and 2024 are indeed completely different elections in much different times.
However, it's the campaign I'm referring to, not necessarily the particular context that happened at a given presidential election year. I'm mainly pointing out that Obama was able to unite the country without becoming a divisive politician. If say he ran for his 2nd term in 2016 or 2024, I don't know for certain he would have won against Trump.
What I'm mainly looking at is how both 2016 and 2024 are similar in tone and what could have been done to improve this as well as other things in the campaign.
Thanks for the efforts of everyone who worked in the elections(no matter the outcome); personally, I am going to take a short break to reflect and recharge, and then when the time right, get back in the game
I think what we've seen in 2022 and 2024 is that Trumpy candidates who are not Trump himself just do not have the same pull. Look at how much Kari Lake is running behind Trump.
I don't get it, but it's clearly the truth. A horrible choice, but if I had to choose I'd say that Kari Lake is a significantly less odious person than Trump. And yet...
Even beyond the bias I mention in another comment, something about Trump manages to avoid getting the level of critique for his failings that basically all other politicians receive.
I think it's a combination of:
(1) His narcissism and internal delusion, which leads to him consistently denying any wrongdoing in his actions in a way that at least sounds like he believes it. And:
(2) The sheer volume of scandals and failings of his; each new one drowns out the one prior to it. Almost like an episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns finds out he has so many diseases that it keeps him in good health.
Candidates like Lake and Robinson only get focus on a narrow quantity of awful traits of theirs, but the focus on those failings is consistent. How many months ago was the last serious media focus on Trump's felony convictions? How many years ago for Access Hollywood? His impeachments? What about the next two dozen stories that would have endured in isolation?
If any one of those stories had endured and not been supplanted by the next story, it would have sunk him. He generates so much garbage that none of it gets any sustained attention and in many ways it might as well not exist. He is the epitome of the "flood the zone with shit" strategy.
Not to mention candidates who make the mistake of overtly calling themselves fascists or Nazis. I maintain that Mark Robinson could very well have pulled off the win in North Carolina had the "Black Nazi" comment not come out. It's one thing to be called a Nazis or a fascist. It's another thing to actually call yourself one. He did the latter. Orange Slob has NEVER actually called himself a fascist.
He was also running against a VERY strong candidate. Governor Elect Josh Stein is the sitting Attorney General and previously served in the North Carolina Senate. He wasn't and isn't a nobody.
It's yet to be seen whether, Vance, DeSantis, Cruz and co will drive out the same MAGAs and supporters Trump did, but it's highly unlikely Trump will run again for reelection. It's already reported that Trump himself has no plans for future rallies and his age will literally catch up to him by 2028. At the very least there's a clean slate for Democrats and Republicans to work with by then.
I mean there's always the hypothetical that Trump tries to run anyway and hope that the Supreme Court or Congress backs him up. Also the dystopian hypothetical that he decides to stay in office indefinitely. Either way the point is time continues to catch up to him. This is basically demented Reagan on steroids.
Also, at least for Trump is really the last remaining figure the GOP has who can win at the presidential level in this environment. All the other presidential candidates who ran in the primaries before Trump overwhelmingly swept all the states wouldn't have been assured to have captured the attention in the media the way Trump did at his rallies.
Not a matter of who, but rather what will stop him. Simply put Mother Nature and time. As we've been seeing at his rallies, Trump's energy has been getting lower and lower and his mental deterioration has only worsened. Trump being escorted by an aide constantly perhaps in a wheelchair or walker by 2028 would not surprise me.
Biden should never have run again to begin with. And the party needs to break its reliance on insiders and believing that raising gobs and gobs of money is the be all. It needs to stop acting as if it is afraid of its own voters and create some passion on issues like the oligarchy will now be living under. According to the exits, there were fewer voters identifying as Democrats than Republicans AND independents. That has never happened before.
One of the fatal flaws with Harris's campaign was the lack of a clear message or theme for her presidency. This election confirmed the following: 1) voters don't care about civic issues if there isn't a direct connection to their material welfare (i.e. preserving democracy); 2) voters are responsive to vapid sloganeering and easily digestible policies/pledges.
The latter is one of Trump's core strengths ("build the wall", "stop the migrants", "lower inflation", etc). It doesn't matter if his promises aren't practical because voters don't care about the fine print. Harris had a strong platform, but you couldn't intuitively connect her to any single issue with the exception of abortion. Democrats need to ditch the nuance and get down to the level of the average voter.
What ProudNewEnglander is talking about is that Democrats are not including enough diversity in the party so as to influence the party to be more inclusive.
Getting more diversity included more participants in the Democratic Party who can speak to the struggles of the poor and working class, especially considering states like WV are increasingly out of reach for Democrats.
Everyone in the party should have a sit down with Bernie Sanders. Regardless of how you feel about him, I think we can all agree he's an extremely effective communicator. He's a master of the simple, thematically clear messaging we need to embrace.
Not saying he should be the face of the party. Just noting that irrespective of substance, the mechanics of his messaging are extremely strong. We should replicate that structure and approach, not necessarily the policy specifics.
Or is he "strong" because he has the good fortune of living in a small, rural, left leaning, homogeneous state where just about everyone looks, thinks, and acts exactly like him?
Some aspects of Bernie's messages are popular. But he would never have beaten Trump in 2016 because this just isn't a socialist country. And socialism isn't popular here. I hope that doesn't wade into the primary talk.
I don't think it's so black and white as much as you're arguing.
During the 2016 primaries, Bernie Sanders was actually respected by Trump supporters/voters and had a better ability to win them over than Clinton ever did (in fact, she didn't even bother to try in the 2016 campaign). The fact that Bernie was talking about getting money out of politics resonated with the MAGA base Trump created. Also, Bernie neither went after MAGA supporters nor called them "deplorable" like Clinton did.
The reason why Sanders and Trump got traction in the primaries was because they taped into sentiment that both the Democratic and Republican parties failed to capture for a long time - Being disillusioned by the two-party system.
Remember, Clinton lost MI, PA and WI by narrow margins. If Bernie had the Democratic Party machine and base fired up, I have no doubt he would have improved on Clinton's margins.
Bernie never faced the general election. There’s videos of him praising Marxist dictators, praising Soviet era breadlines. He’s also a “self-proclaimed Socialist”.
Trump would’ve destroyed him with red-baiting ads. They would’ve worked with devastating effectiveness.
I got this email from Bernie, and I felt like posting it here. I'm a socialist, but I'm so pissed at this email that I think I'm going to unsubscribe from his emails. The Democrats are always better for working people than the Republicans, and Biden and this Congress in particular did so much for working people! And it's Trump and his corrupt cabal who will really bring a Russian-style oligarchy to this country. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie has become an annoying crank, and he definitely picked the wrong time for this shit, too.
Dear Michael,
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.
Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.
Today, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, many young people will have a worse standard of living than their parents. And many of them worry that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will make a bad situation even worse.
Today, despite spending far more per capita than other countries, we remain the only wealthy nation not to guarantee health care to all as a human right and we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We, alone among major countries, cannot even guarantee paid family and medical leave.
Today, despite strong opposition from a majority of Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government’s all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children.
Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.
In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.
Yep. Whether we Democrats like it or not, this is a "Star Wars" country. Not a "Star Trek" country. This is a "Duck Dynasty" country. Not a "Downton Abbey" country. We forget that at our peril.
It was widely praised by conservative warriors like Newt Gingrich at the time for its simplistic good/evil message and its supposed "democratic USA vs evil Communists" theme. It wasn't until the prequels came out where it became seen and denounced as "left wing." And BTW, there is a lesson from the prequels that relates to this election, don't respond to young men the way the Jedi Council responded to Anakin Skywalker. Or else they'll seek out people like Joe Rogan and the Manosphere the way Anakin Skywalker sought out Senator Palpatine.
We started -1 on the night from redistricting (+AL-02, LA-06; - 3 NC seats).
We have currently flipped 3 seats (NY-04, NY-19, NY-22).
Rs have flipped 3 D-held seats (PA-07, PA-08, MI-07).
Still a lot of vote to count, particularly in California. Outside of CA, we have a good chance at picking up OR-05, and the D is ahead in AZ-06. Only D outside of CA currently in any danger is Peltola, who is behind by 4 but with a lot of the vote out (plus ranked choice at the end).
No words, of course. This election has revealed a profound moral rot within our country. Not sure what happens next, but surely nothing good.
That said, I think we may have a new frontrunner for the 2028 Democratic nomination: Ruben Gallego. Based on yesterday's results, we clearly need a nominee who 1) can appeal to Latinos, and 2) effectively communicate with "ordinary" Americans. Don't think there's anyone who better fits these criteria or has a similarly compelling background (Marine combat veteran from a swing state).
I hate what this election says about our national character and the apparent preference for shallow machismo. Unfortunately, this probably needs to inform our strategy for at least the next cycle.
Both factored into the outcome. Trump dominated polling that asked "Who do you think is a stronger leader?", even though he's a stone-cold imbecile and criminally incompetent. Sexism alone doesn't explain what happened, but it was definitely a contributing factor.
That said, I am annoyed that there wasn't more messaging on Trump's trade policy, which will turbocharge inflation and savage the economy.
I think there was a different hierarchy of priorities for Latinos in 2016. Trump's blatant racism and hostility to immigrants were central themes of his first campaign, and there was more uncertainty over how that would affect them if he became president. While those were still themes this year, Latinos apparently feel they survived his first term and are less threatened.
I agree with this take. A lot of macho Hispanic guys who may not have ordinarily been willing to vote for a woman for President did so because they were frightened of Trump's racism.
But there's one name that throws a monkey wrench into the "macho Hispanic guys who won't vote for a woman" storyline: Claudia Scheinbaum
Ah fair enough. I'm not in America so I've been spared from the onslaught of ads. Just doesn't seem like the inflationary fallout of his policies was a big part of the campaign narrative.
Caspian calling bigots what they are on an explicitly pro-democratic election website is not the reason these people vote the way they do. He didn't say it should be our electoral strategy going forward either.
There's nothing wrong here with calling bigots out for what they are. The question is: what are we going to do about the fact that so much of our country is exactly that? How do we work around it and win?
not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot(though I suspect a huge number are); there are many reasons why people continue to vote for the guy other than that
Most of my friends voted for Trump. I don't talk about it with them 99% of the time, but some in the rare time I did talk to them said they realized he was a bad person but they wanted lower taxes. So they were willing to accept that.
Perfect example of at least trying to listen to the electorate you actually have; not the one you wish you have(we'd been told for months inflation mattered)
Sure but bigot, criminal or otherwise, they're still fellow humans and citizens whether we like them or not. Many were and still vote with us as indicated in the senate races. We can choose to dehumanize others and risk alienating ourselves losing people we could have potentially reached or we can choose to reach out to them and try to help and understand them. My aunt is 1 such person. Hopelessly brainwashed by Fox and conservative Christian ideology plastering her house with Jesus photos. But she cared for my grandparents and our family and still cares for her sister with stage 4 cancer. Like many MAGAs, she gets quite reactionary and angry about issues like immigrants and abortion, but she still cares for us and the country, just in her own perverse way. We still talk and help her out in her advanced age because she's family, much like how many of these bigots are our family, friends, coworkers and neighbors. We owe it to ourselves and others to help and be better, even when they act deplorably.
Exactly. The majority of Americans don't want to hear about bigotry from politicians. In their eyes, the majority of Americans regardless of ideology are anything BUT bigoted. Unless your opponent actually overtly is bigoted, it's a loser argument.
That's works right up until you realize that half of Americans don't care about policy they care about punishing people for existing "above their station" (which, in some cases, is perceived as being a mass grave).
Policy only gets you so far when half of Americans are motivated by hatred, grievance, and a desire to punish.
You may be right about some of them. However, attacking all of those who voted from Trump, specifically the persuadable ones, isn't going to get them to reconsider their political choices in 2026.
I was just thinking . .we clearly need a male Latino veteran to run next time, who curses and can "bro out" with anyone. Unfortunately he's very short.
I take issue with you on Peters; he played the hand dealt to him and it was 2 7 off suit from the start
Beshear wouldn't have a prayer. Peltola should run either way. Mainers largely loathe Golden, regardless of their demographics or where they live; he's survived to this point as the lesser of two evils. Jackson would fall flat with women.
We have very few options though
Beyond ME, NC, AK, and KS: IA, MS, SC, and an open TX would be less fool's gold than KY, even with a good candidate. And Golden and Jackson just happen to be two of the least electable candidates we could nominate. Ideally, we'd nominate a politician or businesswoman from Bangor or Ellsworth, but getting the right candidate to run and then getting them through the primary is a tall task.
But Maine against Collins with an unknown is a bad strategy; in an open seat race it's a different strategy(which is where I would be in more agreement)
Mainers love to complain, particularly about things like politicians they're familiar with seeking a promotion. That would certainly apply to Golden, and to a lesser extent Jackson, although his bigger issue would be appealing to women while being to Collins's right on abortion. But you're right, an unknown candidate would have to excel in candidate school to have a chance.
Andy Beshear should not run for Senate imo
I think Golden used to work for Susan Collins? He's not running aginst her
He should run for an open seat; King is no spring chicken and Golden is young dude
While it's true that Golden appeals well to ME-2 (and I concede that he'd probably be the best for statewide), the love for Peltola makes sense in a way as she just... seems cooler.
As for Ossoff & Peters, I think they're probably going to do ok just because of it being an R midterm.
Israel/Palestine has historically been a banned topic in this community as the discussions often become contentious and lose sight of the core purpose of focusing on elections. I don't recall if David et al have said anything specific to the new site here, but it's probably safest to steer clear of that topic.
Thanks for the confirmation! I thought he had, but I couldn't recall for certain.
Hmmm. I guess they can enjoy the leverage they now have after that primal scream.
I’m half-Hispanic and I support immigration enforcement. My mother got her visa and waited in line to immigrate here legally. Not all Hispanics support illegal immigration. And it’s not “racist” to support immigration enforcement.
I’m not opposed to making it easier to come to the US, as I understand some of the immigration laws create barriers. But I’m not in favor of open borders or not enforcing immigration laws.
Yeah, it helps to get balance in this situation of immigration and border reform.
I also should point out that countries where immigrants are immigrating from in mass numbers are going to have to find a way to improve their economies. Cuba in particular suffers a lot because it has no true market economy and is as a result of communism dealing with plenty of economic rationing right now.
“Trump almost certainly would have won in 2020 had it not been for the COVID-19 pandemic.” Not so sure about that.
Don't forget that the women's march rallies had wider attendance than at Trump's inauguration. That plus the Democratic Party base being fired up more than it was in 2016 was indication Trump was going to potentially lose the 2020 election.
Frankly the "higher turnout benefits Democrats" mantra should have been abandoned twenty years ago. As I've had to point out many times, were that the case, Roy Barnes would have been reelected as Governor of Georgia in 2002. John Kerry would have been elected as President in 2004. Terry McAuliffe would have been elected as Governor of Virginia in 2021.
Being that Allan Lichtman's 13 keys were broken this time around, I don't think this is evidence though that his 13 keys are flawed. In fact, the methodology is a good way by which to analyze elections in order to give a bird's eye view of the national environment.
I don't think Obama's comments had anything to do with this -- Black turnout was roughly equal as last time.
Agreed. In a brief supposed 40,000-feet summary, citing those comments as some critical factor is odd to say the least.
That’s garbage.
Not helpful today
Legacy news media (at least, those agencies and individuals who sanewashed Trump) are the targets of my ire today. Along with beltway consultants.
The main problem is social media; which has been my concern since 2022. 10 years ago I thought the decline of talk radio would kill a huge plank in the GOP propaganda machine, but the RW social media apparatus is now more powerful than talk radio ever was. Tons of apolitical/young men/Latinos bombarded with memes and mis-info daily.
Hard to determine a solution, but I think step one is getting as deep in the mud as they are.
Especially with how much of life unfolds online these days it’s the only way
A solution is to actually work with young men and recognize that the concern that many of them feel of being left behind is legitimate. Joe Rogan and the Manosphere fill this role precisely because many of them feel they have nowhere else to go.
But what does that look like? I know some professor talked about setting up some male task force and he advocated for a lot of policies which, were fine on paper, but I'm skeptical that would do much.
I do think culturally as a Party we need to completely exorcise the "woke" terminology that gained a foothold during Trump's first term: micro-aggressions, obsessing over pronouns, Robin D'Angelo-esque screeds on race, "checking your privilege", LatinX. All needs to be chucked into the 🗑 . We are getting KILLED with non-college men (and some women) of all races with that stuff. Feeds into the pretentious coastal elite narrative. I think Walz found a smart strategy NY emphasizing that we have disagreements but "people should mind their own damn business" but it seemingly was too late to seep through.
Related to that, why didn't the campaign send Walz on Rogan, Barstool etc? I could be wrong but the campaign seemed to handcuff him the last 6 weeks of the campaign-the whole point of picking him was to assauge WWC men of the ticket. Probably my biggest critique of the campaign.
And the hardest part will be finding a way to reach these voters moving forward in our fragmented media environment. Any news event that doesn't go through the Tim Pool filter isn't a news event at all. How do we communicate to voters in this environment?
That is the #1 place I would place blame as well.
At it's most simple, the media had a huge financial incentive to see Trump win. They saw what happened after 2016, saw how much more viewership and readership and subscribers they got in the wake of Trump's first win. All their management cares about is money, and they were willing to give Trump the softest coverage possible to hope to get their expected future financial boon.
The sanewashing of him, rewriting of history of the economy under him, abject indifference to policy, complete disinterest in his felony convictions, even the billionaire class going in and actively meddling in the coverage from some media orgs, all of it added up to a media environment that was aggressively biased against us.
Recognizing the problem doesn't help much though. What can we do? Republicans emulating Trump tend to do horrible and are unable to get the same media benefit as him, so we could count on 2028 being a better media environment by default. Otherwise I don't know that we can do anything. None of the wealthy class of the left is interested in started an alternative to Fox. I don't know that interacting with the media different can overcome such overt biases. I don't like "hope" as a solution but I think it's all I can see on that front.
I'm not sure a FOX alternative would be a solution anyway(it is debatable)
How are Whitmer and Shapiro winners?
They are clear front runners to go in 2028.
Way too early and idk if I'd call them the favorites
I agree that it’s way too early - it’s just the current perception. As an example, Stacy Abrams was clearly one of the “biggest winners” of the 2020 election - it did not go well for her from there.
I don't think Whitmer has much of a chance at this point. Shapiro, maybe. I'd think Ruben Gallego would be the prohibitive favorite if he pulls this Senate election out.
Pretty much agree, however I would hold off on CA for now, still lots of vote out there to count.
I noticed that Craig lost by 9 !; wow, and thanks for your service
No. All those things would cause people who voted for Harris or weren't eligible to vote to suffer.
please take a deep breath and slowly exhale
They are using the name Charles Ritt. Not a sincere post.
Charles Ritt? I'm not following you; sorry
Sorry, not enough sleep. I was thinking it was a shortened version of Rittenhouse but forgot the first name.
Not a helpful post
Agreed👍; I let the Selzer poll and the Ralston call for Harris in Nevada to blind me(lesson learned)
Where is Mark? Say something.
Also how is your revised state by state matched up? I think the original one didn’t sit with a Trump popular vote victory.
Now with TX FL OH well into double digit, blue states with shaky turnout, I think it is likely if CA stays a 20pt but reduced turnout.
I never made the downward revisions to match my popular vote guess but I should have. The only state I got wrong was one I should have never guessed to go blue in the first place: Nevada.
In fairness to everyone, no one predicted the bottom falling out even right wing pollsters didn't see this bloodbath.
Many pollsters saw it. They only thing they missed was the lack of ticket-splitting that eventually reverted to the prez race.
AtlasIntel saw it.
There is still an oracle in Iowa, and his name is Mark.
Wishing that Selzer was still the oracle of Iowa!
Obviously no need to apologize. It's just predictions that could have gone either way. For exactly two hours last night, I thought this was gonna go another way....when the national exit polls showed the top voting issue was "protecting democracy". I figured that against all odds, the Harris campaign's key message broke through in an electorate where 72% of voters were unhappy. In the end, this was even worse than I expected.
The problem here is that ultimately Democrats don’t know how to talk to ordinary voters and people.
I agree 100% with you.
Suffice to say, David Axelrod was dead on when he said he was concerned the Democratic Party was becoming to cosmopolitan and less about being the party of the working class of voters.
Yeah I think inflation is what killed us. It's a really tough place to be in because it's near impossible to really deal with inflation in a way that doesn't hurt other aspects of the economy. The only argument Dems had is that inflation in the US is better than most other countries, but if you're a Pennsylvania or Arizona voter struggling with it, do you really care if it's worse in other countries? Doubtful.
Inflation plus the fact that the majority of Americans associate the Trump years with good economics. Never mind that COVID happened under his watch.
The cycle continues, repugs break the economy, dems have to spend their term fixing it. Repugs come back...etc
The difference between 2012 and 2024 is that in the former election, the majority of Americans did not refuse to pretend that the 2008 Wall Street Crash never happened as well as the vastly unpopular Bush the Younger administration and War in Iraq. In 2024 though, the majority of Americans very much refused to pretend that COVID never happened. In their eyes, Orange Slob was President and the economy was good. Then Biden somehow became President and the economy sucked. No connecting the dots there. If voters did not connect the dots back in 2012, Obama would have been a one term President as Biden is.
I get flack for saying this, but COVID was never that popular of an issue with voters except liberals. Most people didn't want the lockdowns and the restrictions back then. The only friends of mine who really were obsessed with COVID. The rest didn't honestly care.
The corollary is that the big macro economic indicators don’t really tell the story of what’s actually going on on the ground in people’s lives.
The corollary is that you can't tell voters "you're wrong." If voters say the economy sucks, the economy sucks. If voters say crime is a problem, crime is a problem. Et cetera.
Ebola was nothing to worry about! If Republicans get people worried about the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, should we amuse them and comiserate?
I just don't buy this; look at how much Americans are spending on vacations, luxury items, going out etc. Americans aren't getting crippled by inflation; if they were you'd see spending getting pared back.
The difference being though the economy is doing well right now, but not in 2008. But if voters say differently............
Here’s one thing:
What will the GOP do once Trump finishes his final four year term?
That’s the uncertain question.
Maybe not the time for that comment. Actually, there's no time for the implication that Dems aren't ordinary people.
This is oft-said but Jon Tester didn't know how to talk to ordinary folks? Sherrod Brown? Tim Walz? We ran people who could've come out of central casting as "middle American working man Joe but with a heart of gold" and voters went "meh".
Fair point
Rightly or wrongly, we are seen as the party of "coastal elites." Doesn't sit well with people who have to "believe" in the "American Dream" and who can't accept that we don't treat everyone the same. DEI is unpopular with many people precisely because it at best erases the illusion that we are an equal opportunity society, and at worst seen as giving "special treatment to the undeserved."
DEI on balance is a good thing. But some aspects of DEI go way too far like having pronouns like "he/him/they". That turns off people.
100 per cent. Especially with those who live in non urban/suburban and non well educated parts of the country. As a person on the Spectrum, I consider people with disabilities - including those who happen to be White heterosexual males - to be minorities. I recognize, however that many are simply uncomfortable with people with disabilities, even people with good intentions. Society simply fears "different."
I have a stuttering issue as well, particularly when I'm nervous. A major reason why "The King's Speech" is my favourite film. But yes, in the eyes of many people, accommodations are seen as "special treatment", which doesn't bode well.
I'm on the spectrum, but highly functioning.
As am I. I have both a BA and MA and have been gainfully employed for many years. I recognize, however that unfortunately #1. people like us are the exception, not the rule for people on the Spectrum and #2. as we are still a relatively small minority, the majority of people even in 2024 wouldn't recognize Autism if it jumped up and bit them in the butt.
The best thing to do is just not show a bias and DEI is solved.
Easier said than done. Especially when it comes to disability issues.
I'm referring to the ideal situation, not something that in the current reality is able to necessarily achieve across the board in organizations.
DEI is important to pay attention to because it shows that a company is able to not be insulated from the real world and see that it's living in the past. However, if a company is able to successfully have a no bias agenda in hiring, then it's truly inclusive and doesn't need to worry about DEI.
FYI, I am neurodivergent and know very well that the corporate world doesn't understand professionals who have ADHD, autism, etc. enough.
I would slightly disagree. The main issue is that the Democratic Party is becoming the following:
1) Too negative. Both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris ran presidential campaigns that spent more time going negative than simply trying to unite the country. President Obama had this gift of bringing the country together and was wise in both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaign to not succumb to negativity being a central part of his campaigns.
2) Not completely aware of what's going on in the rear view mirror. It isn't just immigration and inflation but gender divide as well. Both men and women's issues need to be paid attention to.
I've always thought it was easier to get people to vote against something than for something.
I think you are comparing apples to watermelons in that analogy; 2008 to 2024 is insanely unfair to Harris in that analogy(and frankly, very unfair to Hillary in the other)
2008, 2016 and 2024 are indeed completely different elections in much different times.
However, it's the campaign I'm referring to, not necessarily the particular context that happened at a given presidential election year. I'm mainly pointing out that Obama was able to unite the country without becoming a divisive politician. If say he ran for his 2nd term in 2016 or 2024, I don't know for certain he would have won against Trump.
What I'm mainly looking at is how both 2016 and 2024 are similar in tone and what could have been done to improve this as well as other things in the campaign.
Too negative? Trump's entire campaign was "we're going to hell everything sucks"
When we’re talking about what drives voters to cast their votes for Trump, it’s like putting gasoline on the fire:
You can’t expect to unite enough voters if they’re thinking, “What more does Harris have that can impact me besides her relentless attacks on Trump?”
Democratic voters are simply driven differently than Republican voters. The former actually want to vote FOR things.
Thanks for the efforts of everyone who worked in the elections(no matter the outcome); personally, I am going to take a short break to reflect and recharge, and then when the time right, get back in the game
Well, look at the bright side. Trump can’t run again. Although I’m sure he’ll try.
Jr
Doubt it. And I doubt that coke head would be successful if he did.
I don't think he'd be successful at all; but, I think one of Trump family\children will run
The Trump boys don't have the juice; IMO Vance is the logical front-runner but I'm sure DeSantis is itching for a other go.
I think they think they do have the 'juice'(of course I don't think that, but my opinion isn't the point)
I think what we've seen in 2022 and 2024 is that Trumpy candidates who are not Trump himself just do not have the same pull. Look at how much Kari Lake is running behind Trump.
Absolutely
I don't get it, but it's clearly the truth. A horrible choice, but if I had to choose I'd say that Kari Lake is a significantly less odious person than Trump. And yet...
It's media coverage, IMO.
Even beyond the bias I mention in another comment, something about Trump manages to avoid getting the level of critique for his failings that basically all other politicians receive.
I think it's a combination of:
(1) His narcissism and internal delusion, which leads to him consistently denying any wrongdoing in his actions in a way that at least sounds like he believes it. And:
(2) The sheer volume of scandals and failings of his; each new one drowns out the one prior to it. Almost like an episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns finds out he has so many diseases that it keeps him in good health.
Candidates like Lake and Robinson only get focus on a narrow quantity of awful traits of theirs, but the focus on those failings is consistent. How many months ago was the last serious media focus on Trump's felony convictions? How many years ago for Access Hollywood? His impeachments? What about the next two dozen stories that would have endured in isolation?
If any one of those stories had endured and not been supplanted by the next story, it would have sunk him. He generates so much garbage that none of it gets any sustained attention and in many ways it might as well not exist. He is the epitome of the "flood the zone with shit" strategy.
Not to mention candidates who make the mistake of overtly calling themselves fascists or Nazis. I maintain that Mark Robinson could very well have pulled off the win in North Carolina had the "Black Nazi" comment not come out. It's one thing to be called a Nazis or a fascist. It's another thing to actually call yourself one. He did the latter. Orange Slob has NEVER actually called himself a fascist.
I agree with you but Robinson had as much(if not more) baggage than Trump, with much less charisma
He was also running against a VERY strong candidate. Governor Elect Josh Stein is the sitting Attorney General and previously served in the North Carolina Senate. He wasn't and isn't a nobody.
It's yet to be seen whether, Vance, DeSantis, Cruz and co will drive out the same MAGAs and supporters Trump did, but it's highly unlikely Trump will run again for reelection. It's already reported that Trump himself has no plans for future rallies and his age will literally catch up to him by 2028. At the very least there's a clean slate for Democrats and Republicans to work with by then.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/04/donald-trump-rallies-election-2024/75952197007/
He's not allowed to run
I mean there's always the hypothetical that Trump tries to run anyway and hope that the Supreme Court or Congress backs him up. Also the dystopian hypothetical that he decides to stay in office indefinitely. Either way the point is time continues to catch up to him. This is basically demented Reagan on steroids.
Yes.
Also, at least for Trump is really the last remaining figure the GOP has who can win at the presidential level in this environment. All the other presidential candidates who ran in the primaries before Trump overwhelmingly swept all the states wouldn't have been assured to have captured the attention in the media the way Trump did at his rallies.
Who's going to stop him if he does try?
Not a matter of who, but rather what will stop him. Simply put Mother Nature and time. As we've been seeing at his rallies, Trump's energy has been getting lower and lower and his mental deterioration has only worsened. Trump being escorted by an aide constantly perhaps in a wheelchair or walker by 2028 would not surprise me.
He'll never allow that imo (FDR was able to hide it; Trump couldn't)
Biden should never have run again to begin with. And the party needs to break its reliance on insiders and believing that raising gobs and gobs of money is the be all. It needs to stop acting as if it is afraid of its own voters and create some passion on issues like the oligarchy will now be living under. According to the exits, there were fewer voters identifying as Democrats than Republicans AND independents. That has never happened before.
dead right about money; and give Trump credit he got the votes
you are making your own frame; no one said what you are saying they said(cherry picking on the original post is misleading)
Not to me but ok
No
Denial is not a game plan
One of the fatal flaws with Harris's campaign was the lack of a clear message or theme for her presidency. This election confirmed the following: 1) voters don't care about civic issues if there isn't a direct connection to their material welfare (i.e. preserving democracy); 2) voters are responsive to vapid sloganeering and easily digestible policies/pledges.
The latter is one of Trump's core strengths ("build the wall", "stop the migrants", "lower inflation", etc). It doesn't matter if his promises aren't practical because voters don't care about the fine print. Harris had a strong platform, but you couldn't intuitively connect her to any single issue with the exception of abortion. Democrats need to ditch the nuance and get down to the level of the average voter.
People with an education aren't the enemy. We do need to communicate gooder though
Again, what do you want, no Ivy league? Only state colleges?
I’ll chime in here:
What ProudNewEnglander is talking about is that Democrats are not including enough diversity in the party so as to influence the party to be more inclusive.
Getting more diversity included more participants in the Democratic Party who can speak to the struggles of the poor and working class, especially considering states like WV are increasingly out of reach for Democrats.
Everyone in the party should have a sit down with Bernie Sanders. Regardless of how you feel about him, I think we can all agree he's an extremely effective communicator. He's a master of the simple, thematically clear messaging we need to embrace.
I like Bernie but I'm not thinking he's the right 'face'; I'm more along the lines of Pete Butigeg
Not saying he should be the face of the party. Just noting that irrespective of substance, the mechanics of his messaging are extremely strong. We should replicate that structure and approach, not necessarily the policy specifics.
Gotcha;
Or is he "strong" because he has the good fortune of living in a small, rural, left leaning, homogeneous state where just about everyone looks, thinks, and acts exactly like him?
Some aspects of Bernie's messages are popular. But he would never have beaten Trump in 2016 because this just isn't a socialist country. And socialism isn't popular here. I hope that doesn't wade into the primary talk.
I don't think it's so black and white as much as you're arguing.
During the 2016 primaries, Bernie Sanders was actually respected by Trump supporters/voters and had a better ability to win them over than Clinton ever did (in fact, she didn't even bother to try in the 2016 campaign). The fact that Bernie was talking about getting money out of politics resonated with the MAGA base Trump created. Also, Bernie neither went after MAGA supporters nor called them "deplorable" like Clinton did.
The reason why Sanders and Trump got traction in the primaries was because they taped into sentiment that both the Democratic and Republican parties failed to capture for a long time - Being disillusioned by the two-party system.
Remember, Clinton lost MI, PA and WI by narrow margins. If Bernie had the Democratic Party machine and base fired up, I have no doubt he would have improved on Clinton's margins.
Bernie never faced the general election. There’s videos of him praising Marxist dictators, praising Soviet era breadlines. He’s also a “self-proclaimed Socialist”.
Trump would’ve destroyed him with red-baiting ads. They would’ve worked with devastating effectiveness.
This just isn’t a Socialist country.
I got this email from Bernie, and I felt like posting it here. I'm a socialist, but I'm so pissed at this email that I think I'm going to unsubscribe from his emails. The Democrats are always better for working people than the Republicans, and Biden and this Congress in particular did so much for working people! And it's Trump and his corrupt cabal who will really bring a Russian-style oligarchy to this country. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie has become an annoying crank, and he definitely picked the wrong time for this shit, too.
Dear Michael,
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.
Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.
Today, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, many young people will have a worse standard of living than their parents. And many of them worry that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will make a bad situation even worse.
Today, despite spending far more per capita than other countries, we remain the only wealthy nation not to guarantee health care to all as a human right and we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We, alone among major countries, cannot even guarantee paid family and medical leave.
Today, despite strong opposition from a majority of Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government’s all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children.
Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.
In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.
Stay tuned.
Yep. Whether we Democrats like it or not, this is a "Star Wars" country. Not a "Star Trek" country. This is a "Duck Dynasty" country. Not a "Downton Abbey" country. We forget that at our peril.
But Star Wars was anti-fascist.
It was widely praised by conservative warriors like Newt Gingrich at the time for its simplistic good/evil message and its supposed "democratic USA vs evil Communists" theme. It wasn't until the prequels came out where it became seen and denounced as "left wing." And BTW, there is a lesson from the prequels that relates to this election, don't respond to young men the way the Jedi Council responded to Anakin Skywalker. Or else they'll seek out people like Joe Rogan and the Manosphere the way Anakin Skywalker sought out Senator Palpatine.
I mean conservatives liked Born in the USA too.
Doesn't mean they interpreted it correctly.
I would argue there's a third confirmation: The Bradley Effect is still very much a thing.
I think it's more of a Hillary effect
House as stands currently -
We started -1 on the night from redistricting (+AL-02, LA-06; - 3 NC seats).
We have currently flipped 3 seats (NY-04, NY-19, NY-22).
Rs have flipped 3 D-held seats (PA-07, PA-08, MI-07).
Still a lot of vote to count, particularly in California. Outside of CA, we have a good chance at picking up OR-05, and the D is ahead in AZ-06. Only D outside of CA currently in any danger is Peltola, who is behind by 4 but with a lot of the vote out (plus ranked choice at the end).
Do you happen to know all incumbent losers for the House? as of now?
For R’s - D’Esposito, Molinaro, Brandon Williams
For D’s - Cartwright, Wild (MI-07 was Slotkin’s old seat so was open)
Thanks so much👍
Wasn't seeing Cartwright lose(I'd seen polls of the slotkin seat)
Agreed👍; the Democratic party needs to look under the hood
It will probably come down to the 5 Republican seats in California. And Democrats will probably have to win at least three of them.
Are senate seats from flipped states still salvageable? Gallego's still ahead, as are Baldwin & Slotkin, but I have no idea what's still out to count.
Gallego, Baldwin, Slotkin, and Rosen all have decent odds. Casey's in rough shape, though.
ARe we sure about that? Anybody know what's left in Philly?
No words, of course. This election has revealed a profound moral rot within our country. Not sure what happens next, but surely nothing good.
That said, I think we may have a new frontrunner for the 2028 Democratic nomination: Ruben Gallego. Based on yesterday's results, we clearly need a nominee who 1) can appeal to Latinos, and 2) effectively communicate with "ordinary" Americans. Don't think there's anyone who better fits these criteria or has a similarly compelling background (Marine combat veteran from a swing state).
I hate what this election says about our national character and the apparent preference for shallow machismo. Unfortunately, this probably needs to inform our strategy for at least the next cycle.
I think the desire for a “strongman” and the fact that his opponent was a woman was more of a factor.
Or at least someone who CLAIMS that they can get things done.
Both factored into the outcome. Trump dominated polling that asked "Who do you think is a stronger leader?", even though he's a stone-cold imbecile and criminally incompetent. Sexism alone doesn't explain what happened, but it was definitely a contributing factor.
That said, I am annoyed that there wasn't more messaging on Trump's trade policy, which will turbocharge inflation and savage the economy.
I think there was a different hierarchy of priorities for Latinos in 2016. Trump's blatant racism and hostility to immigrants were central themes of his first campaign, and there was more uncertainty over how that would affect them if he became president. While those were still themes this year, Latinos apparently feel they survived his first term and are less threatened.
We'll see if they still feel that way when they start getting put in camps to prepare for mass deportation.
I agree with this take. A lot of macho Hispanic guys who may not have ordinarily been willing to vote for a woman for President did so because they were frightened of Trump's racism.
But there's one name that throws a monkey wrench into the "macho Hispanic guys who won't vote for a woman" storyline: Claudia Scheinbaum
Here in Georgia, we definitely got hit with a lot of Harris ads about how Trump’s trade and tax policy will affect the economy.
Ah fair enough. I'm not in America so I've been spared from the onslaught of ads. Just doesn't seem like the inflationary fallout of his policies was a big part of the campaign narrative.
We tried to, calling it a tax on working families. Voters simply didn't believe it.
Sexism kind of does explain it though. Subconsciously or not, for a lot of people, "strong leader" implies a man.
Too many Americans are just irredeemable bigots.
Obama said hate and fear won. I think that’s pretty clear.
Both sides already have that impression of their counterparts, and have for at least 15 years now.
I do not care. They're bigots and they deserve to be called out on it. We are superior than them.
Caspian calling bigots what they are on an explicitly pro-democratic election website is not the reason these people vote the way they do. He didn't say it should be our electoral strategy going forward either.
There's nothing wrong here with calling bigots out for what they are. The question is: what are we going to do about the fact that so much of our country is exactly that? How do we work around it and win?
First step: don't call them "bigots." The country doesn't want to hear it.
not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot(though I suspect a huge number are); there are many reasons why people continue to vote for the guy other than that
Most of my friends voted for Trump. I don't talk about it with them 99% of the time, but some in the rare time I did talk to them said they realized he was a bad person but they wanted lower taxes. So they were willing to accept that.
"Fascism is cool as long as I get more money" is still being a bad person though.
I know of a former Green Party member who ended up supporting Trump. It's mainly out of frustration that the left has gone too far.
Perfect example of at least trying to listen to the electorate you actually have; not the one you wish you have(we'd been told for months inflation mattered)
Good luck trying to win an election doing that.
Sure but bigot, criminal or otherwise, they're still fellow humans and citizens whether we like them or not. Many were and still vote with us as indicated in the senate races. We can choose to dehumanize others and risk alienating ourselves losing people we could have potentially reached or we can choose to reach out to them and try to help and understand them. My aunt is 1 such person. Hopelessly brainwashed by Fox and conservative Christian ideology plastering her house with Jesus photos. But she cared for my grandparents and our family and still cares for her sister with stage 4 cancer. Like many MAGAs, she gets quite reactionary and angry about issues like immigrants and abortion, but she still cares for us and the country, just in her own perverse way. We still talk and help her out in her advanced age because she's family, much like how many of these bigots are our family, friends, coworkers and neighbors. We owe it to ourselves and others to help and be better, even when they act deplorably.
I think this is the biggest issue Democrats struggle with across the board. Democrats care about being right, Republicans care about winning.
In a sane world, being right would match up with winning, but we don't live in a sane world.
Which is fine except too many Democrats don't take into account that not everyone has the exact same definition of "what is right."
Exactly. The majority of Americans don't want to hear about bigotry from politicians. In their eyes, the majority of Americans regardless of ideology are anything BUT bigoted. Unless your opponent actually overtly is bigoted, it's a loser argument.
How do you fight bigotry without fighting the bigots?
Talking about policies that the majority of Americans actually support for instance.
That's works right up until you realize that half of Americans don't care about policy they care about punishing people for existing "above their station" (which, in some cases, is perceived as being a mass grave).
Policy only gets you so far when half of Americans are motivated by hatred, grievance, and a desire to punish.
I mean if being called bigots hurts their feelings they can try not being bigots.
once again missing the point from above mainly about the 'only' thing that matters in politics, which is winning
You may be right about some of them. However, attacking all of those who voted from Trump, specifically the persuadable ones, isn't going to get them to reconsider their political choices in 2026.
Bold of you to assume Project 2025 leads to free and fair elections in 2026.
There will be elections in 2026. I'm not going to catastrophize everything the way some on the left do.
I never said there wouldn't be elections. Hungary has elections. So does Russia.
I'm not going to catastrophize like you and others are. Our side has the whiniest people ever.
I was just thinking . .we clearly need a male Latino veteran to run next time, who curses and can "bro out" with anyone. Unfortunately he's very short.
Assuming he holds on and wins this year.