43 ms·

From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. It is a clear reiteration of the message to the Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less

From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. It is a clear reiteration of the message to the Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad. The Democrats should have fielded a strong personality in their own right. This is not about left or right. It's about mobilizing people by giving them something to care about. "More of the same" and "not like that guy" isn't very enticing. I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, if you can make a strong case and gain the confidence of the electorate.

ecuaflo 2y ago
Probably not a good message to circumvent the democratic process and skip the primary either
agumonkey 2y ago
I sincerely fear this will inject way too much inertia in wrong directions globally even if it sends a clear message to non right wing crowds.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spwa4 2y ago
  I've often found this is a mistake WAY too many people make. A successful team has a failure. Often, the reaction is restructuring, big changes, ... I try to tell people that. "You're a 10 person team. You've had some 50 successful projects before this failure. That means this justifies at most a 2% change. A 2% change in the team is about half a day change, once per month, NOT more than that". Invariably, the whole team is changed entirely, randomly, or going with the political winds, usually with much worse quality as a result. And afterwards they do see it didn't work. And then they respond differently: they'll no longer admit failure, because they do see that the changes were a disaster, but you apparently fix that by refusing to admit anything ever goes wrong ... I'm different. I think every project is a failure, it's just a matter of degree. You don't succeed in projects, you minimize how bad they are. Drives people up the wall though.
  - agumonkey 2y ago
    this is not a team project, it's a whole planet at stake here i can focus on 5% improvement per year, but if the head of states ruin things at 20% during the same time i'll be dead in a few
redeux 2y ago
This is likely game over for Democrats and democracy in the US. Democracy has already been on the backslide here for some time, so it’s not overly surprising, but I don’t expect either to last the next couple of years.
- mattmanser 2y ago
  You don't think the democratic state Governors will step up if there's even a hint of that happening? In the end a lot of the money and power is mostly in blue states.
  - labster 2y ago
    Governors can be killed by executive order. It’s an official action so under the new Supreme Court ruling the President can’t be prosecuted. Anyone who carries out the order can be pardoned. The courts can of course reverse the executive order, but not resurrect a man so the case would be moot. This is a man who has talked about shooting political opponents on the campaign trail, I’d be astonished if he doesn’t follow through if there will be no consequences.
    - testrun 2y ago
      Governors can be killed by executive order This is a bald faced lie. Stop talking rubbish.
      - polotics 2y ago
        The sequence of event presented by the poster you are responding to is indeed a joke in 2024. Can you however not see a future where it becomes a practical possibility?
      - light_hue_1 2y ago
        When the liberals on the Supreme Court say this: > Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Then the claim that the President can in their official capacity assassinate others with impunity and protection from prosecution is no lie. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf You're living in a pre-Trump world. The Supreme Court changed the rules while you were asleep.
Tainnor 2y ago
Not an American, but it's wild to me how anyone could describe Kamala as "0.1% less bad". She's an accomplished politician.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  What did she accomplish?
  - tomrod 2y ago
    https://www.miamidadedems.org/what_has_kamala_harris_done https://www.miamidadedems.org/what_has_kamala_harris_done
    - jeffhuys 2y ago
      I honestly expected more, especially more specifics, but I recognize I'm biased. The reason I asked, is that nobody really knows when you ask them, which is what surprises me often. You needed to send me a link as well. Of all those, I really like the insulin one. I guess people in America have different priorities than the accomplishments on that list.
      - tomrod 2y ago
        I sent you a link for your review and reference, not because I couldn't name accomplishments. I prefer to respect the intellectual honesty of the person I speak with by providing citations for information they are unaware of.
    - pabl0rg 2y ago
      It says she “Led the push for the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, federal worker unionization”. Federal worker unionization is very undemocratic b/c federal employees essentially blackmail voters. They become untouchable.
      - simonask 2y ago
beeboobaa3 2y ago
[flagged]
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  So many doomers everywhere. This is exactly the same rhetoric as in 2016. Do y'all hear yourself? America isn't going anywhere, democracy isn't dead, calm down. The world won't end, and you know it. Being so over-the-top is why democrats lost anyways.
  - beeboobaa3 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jeffhuys 2y ago
      I'm not American, no need to insult me. Also, I don't agree :)
  - scrollaway 2y ago
    It's weird how when a company gets acquired by Oracle, everybody here understands that it's dead day 1 but it'll still take years for people to feel the effect. Yet when it's about a country of 400 million, there's zero concept that shit takes time. You understand that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was greatly helped by Trump's previous presidency, for example, right?
    - beeboobaa3 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      > You understand that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was greatly helped by Trump's previous presidency, for example, right? The invasion was helped by the President who was first to send lethal military aid to Ukraine? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-weapons-to-ukraine-a-primer/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-we... https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-did-trump-send-ukraine-weapons-that-obama-and-biden-withheld/21510033/ https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-did-trump-send-ukraine... Please elaborate on your position.
kryogen1c 2y ago
> Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad It's been confusing since the first trump term how many dems held this position. How can you call trump obviously reprehensible and irredemable... and then lose? I made the mistake of debating politics with a then-friend who called all 75 million trump voters "drooling fucktards". Word? We don't talk anymore
- frereubu 2y ago
  How is this different from what Trump supporters were saying about Democratic voters? Genuine question - I'm not in the US and from my perspective the vitriol was pretty universal.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    If both sides spouts vitriol then you pick the side that doesn't pour it on you, that is the problem described by "one side is 1% less bad than the other". If you want voters then try to welcome them instead of blame them for all the problems, goes for both sides.
    - frereubu 2y ago
      Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? Democracts have been on the receiving end of a lot of name-calling too. This doesn't feel like a good enough explanation. It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population.
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? It does, both sides got about the same amount of votes as you can see. > It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population. I don't think so, it doesn't matter how much you try to do for people if you also namecall them at the same time, they will assume you aren't on their side even if your policies are better for them. Vitriol ensures the vote becomes tribal instead of rationally inspecting both sides and picking the better option.
uxcolumbo 2y ago
[flagged]
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Bost 2y ago
    Apparently that's the case.
- ta20240528 2y ago
  > Do Trump voters really think he's going to improve their lives? Nope, but ask how many of them expect their sons to have to kneel in the next four years. You aren't asking the right questions. PS. Not American, think he' a dick, but spent a half-century watching hundreds of millions where I live keep voting for the worst people.
- aydyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    We're well aware people are looking to genocide us, yes.
    - aydyn 2y ago
      Not you all, you specifically. And for your rhetoric too.
- leptons 2y ago
  If Hamas had not attacked Israel, trump probably would have lost. Plenty of people just didn't go out to vote this time, abstaining because they only care that Biden and Harris support Israel. Talk about cutting off their nose to spite their face.
macspoofing 2y ago
> The Democrats should have fielded a strong personality in their own right. I think Biden's decision to run for a second term was what sunk them. That was a selfish decision. He then bowed out too late, and Democrats had to scramble and nominate the only viable alternative. Biden should have refrained from running last year in order to give the Democrats a full primary to choose a candidate.
- cxr 2y ago
  > I think Biden's decision to run for a second term was what sunk them You think? > Democrats had to Oh? Oh— They had to. > the only viable alternative K.
- c22 2y ago
  Agreed. I thought it seemed obvious back in 2020 that we'd see a candidate flip for this election, but no one in the Dem's leadership saw this coming? If they'd been positioning Harris and laying groundwork for the last four years this would have been an easy win for them.
  - prepend 2y ago
    Or perhaps if they had used democratic practices and let the constituents of their party actually vote to choose who they thought was best suited. Biden pulling out so close to election didn’t let them actually go through their process to elect their nominee. It’s quite possible democrats would have chosen a candidate who was not associated with Biden and thus more electable.
- nirav72 2y ago
  I think Biden is going to go down as the person that broke the democratic party. But in reality, the blame lies on Obama for convincing Biden to step aside in 2016 and let it be Hillary Clinton. Biden had a much better chance at beating Trump in 2016 than Clinton.
  - dogleash 2y ago
    I see what you're saying, but I put that on Hilary. How much dirt must she have had on everyone else such that that the party establishment treated her candidacy as Manifest Destiny and the best democrat unafraid to run against her was socialist grandpa from Vermont who wasn't even a democrat?
rozab 2y ago
I assume by 'strong personality' you mean populist. I think it's a big mistake to think populism can only be fought with populism, otherwise all democracies would have fallen to it long ago. I do think if we're pointing fingers, most of the problems came from before the Harris campaign kicked off.
- goethes_kind 2y ago
  Populism is just democracy taking the reigns back from the entrenched political establishment. There is nothing democratic about a social class of bureaucrats gatekeeping all political offices. If anything, it seems to me that populism is necessary to overcome the local minimum that the political landscape settles in from time to time.
  - chimprich 2y ago
    It's pretty hard to define what populism is; it's kind of a "know it when I see it" kind of definition for most commentators. My best attempt at a definition would be a platform that denies known truths in favour of superficially popular positions. For example, claiming that tariffs don't increase prices, or that legal convictions are lies, or even that solid, established scientific evidence (like vaccines are safe and hugely effective or climate change is real) are untrue.
    - gg82 2y ago
      Nah, that is not what it means. Populism is a political approach that seeks to represent the interests and voice of "ordinary people" against what is perceived as an elite or establishment. Populist movements often emphasize a direct connection between the leader and the people, bypassing traditional political institutions or parties, and claim to speak for the "common people" against corrupt or out-of-touch elites. Populism can appear across the political spectrum, taking different forms depending on the issues and ideologies within a given society. This is likely to cause winners and losers to come out of the situation... and probably after time, the leaders end up becoming elites who become out of touch with the "common people" and the process is likely to repeat. I think it is closer to Democracy than whatever the democrats seem to say - which they seem to define as: "whatever gives them the power to do what they want"
lelanthran 2y ago
> From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. It is a clear reiteration of the message to the Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad. Yeah, I said as much on a reddit comment prior to knowing the results: This is a good thing for the future of the Dems! They can now take this valuable feedback and put together a better platform to run on in future races. Running on social activism isn't a winning strategy, no matter how loud that vocal minority is shouting.
- a_victorp 2y ago
  This has happened before... I don't expect Dems to ever really learn this lesson
  - notnaut 2y ago
    Why would they? The party in its current form exists as a reactionary pressure release valve for after the actual party of action deconstructs the roadblocks that keeps the money controlling both parties from self-replicating.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Did Harris run on social activism? I didn’t get that from the campaign’s messaging. Not Biden’s, either.
  - e40 2y ago
    It’s clearly the perception. Before Harris entered the race.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    I believe social activism has been associated with the Democratic Party recently, I suppose it is implied when you run under their umbrella.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      It’s rather tricky to fight this perception when it doesn’t primarily come from either one’s messaging or one’s actions.
ryukoposting 2y ago
As someone living in WI who got barraged with ads from both sides, that wasn't the messaging anyone saw AFAICT. The biggest issue on people's minds was the economy. Dem messaging on economic policy was nonexistent. Women's healthcare isn't an issue that resonates with young (read: unmarried) men. It should, but it doesn't. There could have been some "look out for your wife" messaging, but there wasn't. There's a lot of people in the comments parroting whatever narrative they cooked up for 2016, but the reality is that both candidates' approaches were wildly different this time around.
- unsupp0rted 2y ago
  Or even some "look out for your husband" messaging, but men only mattered to one side in this election to the degree that they were incidentally useful to women.
- pineaux 2y ago
  Yeah. Most democrat leaning people here and outside are not reading the situation correctly. We are currently in the process of the creation of a new world order. Its happening everywhere. Right-wing, anti-immigrant, egomaniacs with little respect for democracy as we know it are taking power in all of the western influence sphere. It might be because this is the way countries like China/russia can undermine the hegemony of the west. It might be because of the way the internet works that takes away power from the systems that used to work. Or what we could conclude that the story the liberals/left are telling all over the world implicitly locks out most people that vote and is self destructive. Either way. Don't believe the pundits they are consistently wrong.
  - numbsafari 2y ago
    All the libertarian mumbojumbo about the internet and encryption prove to be wrong. The internet becomes a tool of mass surveillance and misinformation affording the oligarchic takeover and dissolution of democracy and broad based freedoms.
  - sAbakumoff 2y ago
    The result is a combination of all these factors and many others, including racism, misogyny, and a desire to return to a time when groceries were cheap. Next summer, the recession will come as a great surprise to those who expected to be better off under Trump
whoitwas 2y ago
I can't understand. The orange goon can't complete a sentence, hates everything, crimes everything, is basically a 300# toddler... A literal toddler would be 99% less bad. If given the choice between Hitler and Trump ... at least you know what Hitler thinks. Trump will change his mind for an extra ketchup.
- Applejinx 2y ago
  He's run out of Russia, and that explains a lot. This is really a worldwide battle, but the death mostly isn't caused by bombs in most places. It's caused by intentionally mismanaging health crises while sending healthcare to Putin. There's nothing mysterious about this. It's simple warfare, but on the terms used within the Russian regime domestically. We've been the Zone for some time now, and the fog isn't any lighter this morning.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  A lot of people wanted more of what he has to offer. You won’t gain much by understanding why, even from his most eloquent supporter. The best knowledge is how to benefit from this. And the topmost rule is that Trump wants to live out his life without fear of court. We may have to strike a deal that the stability of America depends on that.
bko 2y ago
I think it would have been better if they didn't hide Biden's mental deterioration and let the primary process pick out a better candidate. There isn't a single county that she outperformed Biden from 2020.
data_maan 2y ago
> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, if you can make a strong case and gain the confidence of the electorate. If this were true it would mean Americans are dumb as rock and don't really care about "boring", technocratic but important decisions like climate change, geopolitical alliances, etc. - and just want a showman to dazzle their softened brains.
- numbsafari 2y ago
  Yeah. Exactly.
- kragen 2y ago
  This is obviously true and has been for decades. Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death from 01985 makes the case fairly strongly, but probably even stronger evidence is that the US apparently just elected as president a Twitter troll and reality-show TV host who doesn't know how to capitalize English and signed bills with a Sharpie in his previous presidential term.
  - data_maan 2y ago
    So... dumb as rock it is then?
    - kragen 2y ago
      Yes, I said that was obvious. Postman makes an excellent case that that's what happens when you reduce public discourse to entertainment. Don't get complacent; the process producing European leaders like Putin, Zelenskyy, Orban, Meloni, and Erdoǧan is no better, nor other American leaders like Lula or Maduro, nor Modi. And, although Xi's path to power doesn't depend on how relatable his stories are about how he had difficulty climbing into a garbage truck, that process is flawed in other ways that are likely worse.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  > just want a showman to dazzle their softened brains Nietzsche made this case really strongly in his chapter/essay “The Flies in the Marketplace” back in the 1880s, and pretty well predicted how this would emerge play out half a century later in Germany. “ Full of clattering buffoons is the market-place,—and the people glory in their great men! These are for them the masters of the hour.”
oefrha 2y ago
> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much. The tribalism at this point is insane, it’s basically organized religion. You choose your tribe and get assigned a (terrible) religious leader and a list of dogmas you have to subscribe to without getting ostracized. Why should my view on trade be linked to regulations be linked to climate be linked to drugs be linked to criminal justice be linked to refugees be linked to Israel be linked to identity politics be linked to abortion be linked to guns? No idea, but take it or leave it. And the choices of religious leaders? Between someone who lies as readily and confidently as he drinks water and someone who’s a boring ladder climber and <omitted because this is an overwhelmingly one-tribe site>. No thank you.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  Tribalism is human nature, as social success - a key survival criteria - requires alignment. The reason it becomes a problem is that there the only options for each "tribe" is one of two extremes, and that these are perceived so fundamentally different it is hard for people to find common grounds. When you have many more parties, you have a wider spectrum where you can have partial agreement and disagreement with much softer borders between political strongholds, and tribes can incrementally move within the spectrum without having to switch all their beliefs and ideologies from one day to the next. Being more understanding of tribes with other ideas rather than making them villains would also help both sides in communication and political mobility.
  - dataviz1000 2y ago
    Veritasium released a wonderful new video yesterday, "On These Questions, Smarter People Do Worse" which ..... I'm not going to spoil it for you but you will understand why I responded with the link. Watching, they discuss a study about gun control and I though omg I was thinking about that recently and the study they presented answers the question I've been pondering about gun control. If you watch the video, you will understand my disappointment. I had been living in New Orleans including when it had the 8th highest murder rate ... not in the United States but the world in 2022 (it was #1 in US hence not 8th). The city couldn't hire police officers and close 120 position had been unfilled. There is a very strange phenomena happening in the past 2 years, the crime rate in New Orleans is plummeting without police. [1] So, in the Veritasium video, they talk about a gun violence study and I think, that is exactly the question I'm asking. Does gun violence go down if law enforcement is removed from the equation because that is exactly for unknown reasons happening New Orleans today. Nobody is taking away guns in New Orleans and everyone I know has at least 2. I was a little disappointed with the study but tapped my self on the shoulder asking the correct question when presented with it. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno [1]https://www.fox8live.com/2024/09/19/how-new-orleans-went-murder-capital-cutting-homicides-by-almost-50/ https://www.fox8live.com/2024/09/19/how-new-orleans-went-mur...
ludsan 2y ago
> you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad. Please.
xbmcuser 2y ago
Democrats lost the enthusiasm once they sidelined Bernie Sanders for Hillary Clinton at that time they had a similar fire among it's voters. I feel they lost a lot of young male voters at that time and they are still paying for it
- pineaux 2y ago
  Yes. At that point many people saw the corruption of the democratic party.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rafinha 2y ago
  That "enough of the damn emails" moment from Bernie Sanders during the democratic debate was very weird to say the least. It seemed he wasnt interested at all at moving forward with the nomination.
boosting6889 2y ago
It is much simpler than that. My dad watches Fox News all day nonstop. When I say all day I mean he is watching it from the time he wakes up at 6am until going to sleep and doesn’t watch anything else. It does not matter who the democrats field, Fox News will just demonize that person and their viewers will vote accordingly. He does not even agree with any traditionally conservative ideology; he is pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, pro-union, doesn’t like tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy doesn’t agree illegal immigration is a huge problem, but he votes for Trump because he watches Fox News nonstop. The one common thread among every Trump supporter I know is Fox News.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  >The one common thread among every Trump supporter I know is Fox News. Nobody I know watches Fox News. My social circle is almost entirely current/former US military expats, so it's not easy to even access cable television outside of work, if you even work on a US military base (and not everyone does). Most people are tied into YouTube, podcasts, etc. Mostly economically liberal, socially conservative, with graduate STEM educations or MBAs. Mostly prime working-age males or kinda close to retirement. Significant over-representation of minorities. Religiously either atheist, Catholic, or Muslim. Almost all vocally Trump-leaning or at the very least VERY anti-woke. The anti-Trump contingent in my personal life is all older people: (2) retired boomers, one a white Progressive guy from the Pacific Northwest, the other a black guy from Virginia, both with TDS from consumption of legacy media (NYT in the white guy's case, mainstream cable news in the black guy's case) (2) almost-retired black women, both unmarried, one with no kids and the other a now-empty-nester with adult adopted children. Both watch a lot of US TV as well.
- ars 2y ago
  I know tens of Trump supporters, not a single one of them watches Fox News.
immibis 2y ago
From a game theoretical perspective the Democrat establishment is fine with this since they all support Trump anyway. They'd rather not be in power but have their policies represented in the President, than have the president but have him not do what they really want.
rmbyrro 2y ago
Nah.. as the old saying goes: "It's the economy, stupid." Trump wasn't elected, the bad inflationary economy created by monetary shenanigans elected Trump.
- linotype 2y ago
  You realize though that Trump’s policy plan is more inflationary than Kamala’s right?
giantg2 2y ago
"I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, if you can make a strong case and gain the confidence of the electorate." That's pretty sad state of the system. Policy positions should be the primary thing voters care about. "It's about mobilizing people by giving them something to care about." Yeah, but this is how you get the most extreme candidates. Look at the primaries. They have very small numbers of voters, and the voters in just a few states set the tone for those elections due to timing. You can make a huge difference by mobilizing voters with increasingly extreme positions or rhetoric. As you said, status quo doesn't energize. That means the people are less likely to get involved fir the staus quo unless they have a strong sense of duty about voting.
weberer 2y ago
>I don't think the policy positions even matter that much I disagree hard. You should have a strong policy that people can believe in. When the average person sees that the price of certain groceries are 3x what they used to be, they stop caring about petty personal attacks.
- dtquad 2y ago
  How are Democrats to blame for inflation caused by Trump-era COVID entitlements funded by money printing? Sure some of it continued for months into the Biden administration but the bulk of it happened under Trump.
  - weberer 2y ago
    Why didn't they focus on that? I think the average person would care a lot more about that fact than Trump being convicted on 34 counts of not properly filing business records. Since inflation actually affects them. Yet the convictions took up no shortage of airtime in attack ads.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      I think this part changes the context: 34 counts of not properly filing business records in order to hide the fact that he paid a porn star to keep quiet about their affair in order to hide this information from voters before an election… But it seems nobody cared anyways, he didn’t need to hide it
- ks2048 2y ago
  I agree that the price of groceries probably decided the election. But I don't see how Trump had any "strong policy that people can believe in". There was just anti-status-quo amongst the 10% of votes that are up-for-grabs at this point.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    I agree but the point is: democracy mandates all candidates strenuously pursue the 5% in 7 states. The Republican Party has a better model of their psyche. I think you and I agree it’s a cynical model, but the Democratic Party doesn’t get results with theirs.
DrScientist 2y ago
It's about the courage to be honest- or perhaps just plain honesty. Note I'm not saying Trump is honest - it's just some of the democrat dishonesty was off-the-scale. As an example - "Biden is fine to serve 4 more years". Such obvious dishonesty is really damaging when voting is largely emotional.
wesselbindt 2y ago
In theory, I agree with you. In practice, however, they've lost elections before, and it's never really affected their policies. They move ever more right, regardless of what happens. The border wall used to be bad, and now it's something they actively pursue. Universal health care used to be a thing they'd at least mention (and it's still a very popular position to take), and these days? Not a peep. Their strategy, at least the past three cycles, has been "I offer you nothing, but do you really want to vote for the other side?" And I don't see that changing.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  You’ll get downvoted by women because "I offer you nothing,” is strikingly untrue about abortion.
  - wesselbindt 2y ago
    We've had four years of a democratic regime. What have they done for abortion? To clarify: I think this is an important issue, but I think the past four years demonstrates that the promises democrats make regarding protection of abortion rights are empty ones. The capability to do something is demonstrably there (look at Trump, he got Roe v Wade overturned, which is huge, and it's not like he has more power than a democrat president), the will to wield this capability is not.
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      They vetoed all 0/0 national abortion bans that reached the Oval Office.
      - wesselbindt 2y ago
        Ok, I'm not super sure what point you're trying to make. I think the claim you're trying to make is that the democratic party has something on offer regarding abortion. We're on the back end of a four year democratic presidency. There's logically two possibilities regarding abortion: - there's something on offer now that Biden wasn't offering four years ago - Harris' offer is the same as what Biden was offering four years ago That's a mathematical fact. In the first case, my question is "what is it?" Personally, I haven't seen anything in the messaging of Biden and Harris' respective campaigns to indicate there is a difference between them on this front, but I could've missed something, and I'm glad to be corrected. In the second case, we have a means of seeing what this offer actually means in terms of actions and policies. And judging by the accomplishments of the Biden regime on this front, that's basically nothing. Effectively, nothing is on offer on the abortion front.
bbor 2y ago
They nominated one of the most progressive senators to ever serve, promised huge changes to Medicaid and home buying assistance, protecting abortion access, and legalized marijuana. Oh, and “believes in democracy”. That’s a lot, lot more than “1% better”
strangescript 2y ago
The dems started this when they black balled Bernie in 2016. They were too focused on their own self interest and they are going to reap what they sowed long into the future now.
dathinab 2y ago
> From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. there is a real not very small risk of the us stopping(1) being a democracy in the next 4 years, and even if not it will nearly guaranteed heal other autocratic rulers weighting that against the democrats learning a lesson they already knew (but might not have listened to) seems like a pretty terrible deal (1): Assuming you can call a 2 party system democratic, which given how the elections worked out (power dynamic wise) the last few times is clearly not that clear anymore (it still is democratic, but in a gray area). Let's be honest if people had effectively/power dynamic wise more choices (e.g. multiple presidential election rounds ranking of candidates where votes of eliminated candidates spill over etc.) I think non of the last 2 presidents would have been elected.
- fastball 2y ago
  There is a very very close to 0% chance of the US stopping being a democracy in the next 4 years.
  - thenaturalist 2y ago
    With the obliteration of the balance of power by the SCOTUS, extremely favorable SCOTUS judges with a conservative majority, a Senate and possibly a House majority the risks from an authoritarian-loving, narcissistic candidate who has "concepts" of plans, goes against mainstream economics in his economic policy, fanboys over a billionair drug-addicted narcissist who wants to destroy institutions by slashing "100 billion USD per year" from Federal institutions and put RFK Jr in control of the national health who tried to sabotage the constitutional and peaceful transfer of power and who instigated a violent storm of a parliament with casualties involved, the risks have certainly hardly ever been higher?
    - fastball 2y ago
      You're pointing out a bunch of things that are scary to you, without actually describing how democracy will be lost. The majority of our democracy can be attributed to the constitution, which requires a supermajority to be amended. I also think you would be pleasantly surprised by the number of people who voted for Trump who would not be happy with the dissolution of democracy. Also I think you'd be hard-pressed to get a majority of SCOTUS judges to be happy with that.
bmitc 2y ago
This is an extremely bizarre take. People just re-elected someone who tried to overthrow the government and is a complete know-nothing. It's well reported that he doesn't actually do anything during his presidency until he acts on a whim with some nonsensical action. You claiming this is a good result from any perspective is so strange. If anything, it shows the U.S. is a lost cause and that the majority of Americans are narcissists alongside the person they just elected. The Republicans have won by actively dumbing down and pigeonholing their constituency.
quotemstr 2y ago
Dear Democrats, Yes! You're right. You should have run a stronger personality. Much stronger. Harris didn't "think big". She should have been more strident in advocating for censorship, inflation, imprisoning her political enemies, and legalizing crime. Please run these stronger personalities in every election from now on. We'd appreciate it. Thanks, and much love, Republicans
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Bernie Sanders is that strong personality, but he got shunned from becoming a candidate because he's too opinionated. It feels like the democrats push for a centrist candidate because anything more progressive/liberal/left will scare off the moderates. But the dems have so little to work with.
tasty_freeze 2y ago
If you think there is a 0.1% difference between the parties, that is because there is that much difference in the issues you care about.
ak_111 2y ago
Yep. The most interesting phenomena in all most all electoral history is the Obama-Obama-Trump-Trump-Trump voters (those that voted Obama twice, then Trump thrice). It is probably 1-2% of the electorate but probably 5-10% in most swing states. Democrats should study those people very very intensely and understand how they lost them. It was exceptionally radical to vote for Obama in 2008, people were calling him a cupboard muslim and terrorist sympathiser. They really believed he will deliver change and create a decisive break with neoliberal policy (both domestic and foreign), it is quite amazing that exactly these voters would vote 3 times for Trump after that. Yet apart from Obamacare Obama delivered basically zero change in foreign or domestic policy. You simply can't take voters who went out of their way to vote for you for granted in this way and expect there won't be a backlash.
- eadmund 2y ago
  > It was exceptionally radical to vote for Obama in 2008 What are you talking about? He got 68% of the electors; 53% of the population voted for him. That’s not radical: that’s mainstream.
  - ak_111 2y ago
    Yes exactly I meant for some people it was very radical to vote for him despite the aggressive McCain/Palin campaign that was painting him as a black foreigner cupboard muslim with a strange un-american name. Imagine those white, MAGA ultra-anti-woke Trump supporters. Some of these voted for Obama twice there is a whole wikipedia page about it. They would be like a feminist Ivy League literature professor voting for Trump now, relative to her demographic it is very radical. The fact that Obama won so much of electorate implies that there were quite a lot of people who radically went against their usual political leaning. Those voters gave him the benefit of the doubt that he would shake the system.
- chubot 2y ago
  Hm that's kind of interesting, what's your source for this phenomenon? It sounds plausible, but I haven't seen anyone discuss it
rdtsc 2y ago
> The Democrats should have fielded a strong personality in their own right. Wonder if keeping Biden have been better. He got 80M+ popular votes, after all! Why swap him out? I guess Harris was seen as Biden++, already working for Biden admin and younger, so naturally she would get 90M+ popular votes or something.
nyeah 2y ago
Quibble on the numbers, not on the basic statement. I'm not sure that campaign promises such as suspending the Constitution, jailing political opponents, etc., really are only 0.1% worse than continuing the Republic as it has operated for nearly 250 years. Looking back a few years from now, we may find a delta of 0.2%, 0.5%, or possibly even more.
- HumblyTossed 2y ago
  > continuing the Republic We're a democracy.
  - nyeah 2y ago
    We have until Jan 20 to argue which word was more accurate.
  - kratom_sandwich 2y ago
    "A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy." - Wikipedia
    - HumblyTossed 2y ago
      sigh. we are a democracy.
EasyMark 2y ago
I can't agree this only shows the game theory sometimes fails because despite almost all the advantage to select one version of a thing vs another, often an group or individual will go against their own best interests because of pure emotion. When an option is a little bit better than the previous version of itself and the other option is complete failure of the system with the system destroying itself (democracy) then the winning group loses along with the "losing" group.
Kraftwurm 2y ago
This time the Americans could choose between two completely different types of personalities for their President. - A quite smart and kind Woman who believes in demcratic values - An extremely selfish, through and through corrupt and unbelievably stupid bully with a clear agenda to end the Democracy The chose. That's all. Nothing to see here.
jonahbenton 2y ago
You really don't know what you're talking about.
fredgrott 2y ago
Dem here, Harris needed to deliver her first speech and separate from Biden on policy...i.e. knockout punch.... Any less was always a crap shot.... This speaks to relationship between Bidden, Harris and the Dem elites...in that where no alternate leadership can rise...
Buttons840 2y ago
From a game theory perspective, Trump is like a 2/2 MTG card that deals 10 damage to yourself when played. Trump, personally, will not do much to contribute to the Republican cause. Trump's contributions will mostly be saying dumb things that get his opposition riled up and energized to vote against him next time. He's also going to be a very old sundowning president--it's Republican's turn to defend that.
chrismsimpson 2y ago
In other countries we have this thing called civic duty. Do try it sometime.
l33t7332273 2y ago
I think the Democrats were claiming to be more like 75% less bad, but other than that your point stands.
throwaway8754aw 2y ago
Also the left's constant political games of trying to do everything and anything to put him in jail and etc the public grew tired of.. ignored unless you were on the their side. They tried so many things impeachment, pee pee tape, this trail, that trail.. nothing worked and probably helped him in the end. As well the economy yet as independent I voted for whom I've done better under financially and it just happens to be under the 46th so that's how I voted. But didn't care either way as a part of me wanted to vote for the 47th due my republican family legacy and the very distant hope home interest rates go down to 3 to 5 percent which I know that's a distant hope. But either way I'd been happy with the first woman or with the 47th as I too grew tired of the crap they threw on him, he survived an assassin and his no tax on tips, overtime or social security will help those in need. Get rid of income tax altogether sounds interesting yet crazy via the crazy comedian off hinged man who will surely say things people will incessantly talk about.
- proggy 2y ago
  The reason why our courts, which are historically apolitical, tried to convict him is because he committed a nearly uncountable number of crimes. And he broke even more norms. Our biggest failure as a nation was not convicting him sooner and more decisively.
  - throwaway8754aw 2y ago
    Political gaming is done by the left and the right ..the majority spoken they are tired of it. Fake news is real and it's rampant from all sides and everywhere used for political to economical advantage (startups do it all the time like OpenAI demoing & promising a H.E.R. Like product but it's nowhere to be found ..was that all a fake demo?). My point is people are tired of all that ..I surely am.. I want truth reality I do not want an internet filled with AI fake crap nor do I want to hear about another Donald Trump impeachment case... give me truth reality yet will there ever be such when lying and making up crap at times behooves the parties doing so. Yet as we see here in this instance same fake playbook against him the majority had enough. You say The courts are not apolitical as a left leaning you sound you surely have said the Supreme Court is right focused have you not?
havblue 2y ago
I think the policy positions do matter though... The Democrats were pro labor before Clinton helped to pass NAFTA. Limbaugh would even mock Democrat voters who thought Bill would "find you a job". There's no illusion of that anymore. There's just people dropping out of the workforce and the unemployment numbers being fudged to make it look like everything is fine. Neither party responded to this until Trump came around. Meanwhile, the Democrats also seemingly gave up on the whole social safety net argument as well. Obama at least ran on helping people but, well, I don't see that anymore. While I agree that their messaging has failed, I ultimately think they've failed to provide any substance to their argument.
dkarl 2y ago
This is a terrible take. Everyone wants to believe that this result will vindicate their pet peeve about the Democrats. A lot of people want this loss to prove that Democrats should have been stronger on Gaza. A lot of people want this loss to prove that Democrats should have rejected identity politics. And there's a long tail of other things that people think a Democratic loss will push the Democrats towards: protectionism, isolationism, socialism, etc. The Democrats are going to lick their wounds, crunch the numbers, and probably move towards Trump on economics. Or something else. 95% of people who are hoping that the Democrats are going to suddenly see the light on their pet issue are going to be disappointed. They aren't going to go hard left on Gaza. They aren't going to go hard right on identity politics. The loss is going to cause a whole bunch of damage, and we're going to get very little if any long-term benefit to weigh against it.
- ars 2y ago
  Other way around on Gaza. The US should have done more to help its ally. The fact that Houthis have shut down shipping, and the US hasn't stopped them is absolutely shameful. And by helping its ally more, the war would have ended quicker leaning to overall less death. Which is why a majority of Muslims actually voted for Trump.
HumblyTossed 2y ago
> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, Right. The misogynists won. There are simply too many people in this country who don't want a woman President.
miltonlost 2y ago
Most mainstream media being owned by right-wing billionaires manufacturing what is actually (mis)informing the public of Trump's decline, combined with other people only getting their "news" from randos on TikTok or podcasts, and just the general decline in critical thinking taught at schools (and lack of reading)... I don't know what can be done with these disparate realities. I don't put blame on Harris' campaign, since it actually did discuss and put out policies to help people beyond just calling Trump a fascist and evil. That you think (or at least say you think) they didn't shows how badly their message wasn't conveyed BY the media that are the only people that can convey it. If the local news owned by Sinclair is your station and it says only right-wing talking points, if two newspapers can have their endorsements scuttled by their billionaire owners, if podcasters like Joe Rogan can pass along Russian misinformation and facebook memes as truth, how can the Harris campaign get through to people? But was the campaign actually passed down to voters? and did those voters willingly seek it out, since it will not be presented to them in their chosen bubbles? The entire system of billionaires blatantly criming in an election without repercussions and the media manufacturing consent silenced any chance of fair representation of what is happening and who is at fault. Like inflation being a consequence of Trump's policies and not Biden's due to inflation's inherent time lag that most people never learn about
consteval 2y ago
I think it's pretty much undeniable this will only push the dems further right.
gosub100 2y ago
I know this would only happen in an alternate universe, but they should be able to come out and say "ya know, we got it wrong" on certain issues, such as immigration. They will face a bit of immediate shame from pundits, but gain in the long term by removing that point of contention from the conservatives. Thus opening up a share of their voters. To be fair to Republicans, they could say "ya know, we do believe human civilization has caused climate change and there is a government role to address it. We just disagree on the terms and mechanism for how that should work"

ecuaflo 2y ago

Probably not a good message to circumvent the democratic process and skip the primary either

agumonkey 2y ago

I sincerely fear this will inject way too much inertia in wrong directions globally even if it sends a clear message to non right wing crowds.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
spwa4 2y ago
I've often found this is a mistake WAY too many people make. A successful team has a failure. Often, the reaction is restructuring, big changes, ... I try to tell people that. "You're a 10 person team. You've had some 50 successful projects before this failure. That means this justifies at most a 2% change. A 2% change in the team is about half a day change, once per month, NOT more than that". Invariably, the whole team is changed entirely, randomly, or going with the political winds, usually with much worse quality as a result. And afterwards they do see it didn't work. And then they respond differently: they'll no longer admit failure, because they do see that the changes were a disaster, but you apparently fix that by refusing to admit anything ever goes wrong ... I'm different. I think every project is a failure, it's just a matter of degree. You don't succeed in projects, you minimize how bad they are. Drives people up the wall though.
- agumonkey 2y ago
  this is not a team project, it's a whole planet at stake here i can focus on 5% improvement per year, but if the head of states ruin things at 20% during the same time i'll be dead in a few

redeux 2y ago

This is likely game over for Democrats and democracy in the US. Democracy has already been on the backslide here for some time, so it’s not overly surprising, but I don’t expect either to last the next couple of years.

mattmanser 2y ago
You don't think the democratic state Governors will step up if there's even a hint of that happening? In the end a lot of the money and power is mostly in blue states.
- labster 2y ago
  Governors can be killed by executive order. It’s an official action so under the new Supreme Court ruling the President can’t be prosecuted. Anyone who carries out the order can be pardoned. The courts can of course reverse the executive order, but not resurrect a man so the case would be moot. This is a man who has talked about shooting political opponents on the campaign trail, I’d be astonished if he doesn’t follow through if there will be no consequences.
  - testrun 2y ago
    Governors can be killed by executive order This is a bald faced lie. Stop talking rubbish.
    - polotics 2y ago
      The sequence of event presented by the poster you are responding to is indeed a joke in 2024. Can you however not see a future where it becomes a practical possibility?
    - light_hue_1 2y ago
      When the liberals on the Supreme Court say this: > Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Then the claim that the President can in their official capacity assassinate others with impunity and protection from prosecution is no lie. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf You're living in a pre-Trump world. The Supreme Court changed the rules while you were asleep.

Tainnor 2y ago

Not an American, but it's wild to me how anyone could describe Kamala as "0.1% less bad". She's an accomplished politician.

jeffhuys 2y ago
What did she accomplish?
- tomrod 2y ago
  https://www.miamidadedems.org/what_has_kamala_harris_done https://www.miamidadedems.org/what_has_kamala_harris_done
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    I honestly expected more, especially more specifics, but I recognize I'm biased. The reason I asked, is that nobody really knows when you ask them, which is what surprises me often. You needed to send me a link as well. Of all those, I really like the insulin one. I guess people in America have different priorities than the accomplishments on that list.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      I sent you a link for your review and reference, not because I couldn't name accomplishments. I prefer to respect the intellectual honesty of the person I speak with by providing citations for information they are unaware of.
  - pabl0rg 2y ago
    It says she “Led the push for the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, federal worker unionization”. Federal worker unionization is very undemocratic b/c federal employees essentially blackmail voters. They become untouchable.
    - simonask 2y ago

beeboobaa3 2y ago

[flagged]

jeffhuys 2y ago
So many doomers everywhere. This is exactly the same rhetoric as in 2016. Do y'all hear yourself? America isn't going anywhere, democracy isn't dead, calm down. The world won't end, and you know it. Being so over-the-top is why democrats lost anyways.
- beeboobaa3 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    I'm not American, no need to insult me. Also, I don't agree :)
- scrollaway 2y ago
  It's weird how when a company gets acquired by Oracle, everybody here understands that it's dead day 1 but it'll still take years for people to feel the effect. Yet when it's about a country of 400 million, there's zero concept that shit takes time. You understand that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was greatly helped by Trump's previous presidency, for example, right?
  - beeboobaa3 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    > You understand that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was greatly helped by Trump's previous presidency, for example, right? The invasion was helped by the President who was first to send lethal military aid to Ukraine? https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-weapons-to-ukraine-a-primer/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-we... https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-did-trump-send-ukraine-weapons-that-obama-and-biden-withheld/21510033/ https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-did-trump-send-ukraine... Please elaborate on your position.

kryogen1c 2y ago

> Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad It's been confusing since the first trump term how many dems held this position. How can you call trump obviously reprehensible and irredemable... and then lose? I made the mistake of debating politics with a then-friend who called all 75 million trump voters "drooling fucktards". Word? We don't talk anymore

frereubu 2y ago
How is this different from what Trump supporters were saying about Democratic voters? Genuine question - I'm not in the US and from my perspective the vitriol was pretty universal.
- Jensson 2y ago
  If both sides spouts vitriol then you pick the side that doesn't pour it on you, that is the problem described by "one side is 1% less bad than the other". If you want voters then try to welcome them instead of blame them for all the problems, goes for both sides.
  - frereubu 2y ago
    Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? Democracts have been on the receiving end of a lot of name-calling too. This doesn't feel like a good enough explanation. It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow? It does, both sides got about the same amount of votes as you can see. > It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population. I don't think so, it doesn't matter how much you try to do for people if you also namecall them at the same time, they will assume you aren't on their side even if your policies are better for them. Vitriol ensures the vote becomes tribal instead of rationally inspecting both sides and picking the better option.

uxcolumbo 2y ago

[flagged]

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
[flagged]
- Bost 2y ago
  Apparently that's the case.
ta20240528 2y ago
> Do Trump voters really think he's going to improve their lives? Nope, but ask how many of them expect their sons to have to kneel in the next four years. You aren't asking the right questions. PS. Not American, think he' a dick, but spent a half-century watching hundreds of millions where I live keep voting for the worst people.
aydyn 2y ago
[flagged]
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  We're well aware people are looking to genocide us, yes.
  - aydyn 2y ago
    Not you all, you specifically. And for your rhetoric too.
leptons 2y ago
If Hamas had not attacked Israel, trump probably would have lost. Plenty of people just didn't go out to vote this time, abstaining because they only care that Biden and Harris support Israel. Talk about cutting off their nose to spite their face.

macspoofing 2y ago

> The Democrats should have fielded a strong personality in their own right. I think Biden's decision to run for a second term was what sunk them. That was a selfish decision. He then bowed out too late, and Democrats had to scramble and nominate the only viable alternative. Biden should have refrained from running last year in order to give the Democrats a full primary to choose a candidate.

cxr 2y ago
> I think Biden's decision to run for a second term was what sunk them You think? > Democrats had to Oh? Oh— They had to. > the only viable alternative K.
c22 2y ago
Agreed. I thought it seemed obvious back in 2020 that we'd see a candidate flip for this election, but no one in the Dem's leadership saw this coming? If they'd been positioning Harris and laying groundwork for the last four years this would have been an easy win for them.
- prepend 2y ago
  Or perhaps if they had used democratic practices and let the constituents of their party actually vote to choose who they thought was best suited. Biden pulling out so close to election didn’t let them actually go through their process to elect their nominee. It’s quite possible democrats would have chosen a candidate who was not associated with Biden and thus more electable.
nirav72 2y ago
I think Biden is going to go down as the person that broke the democratic party. But in reality, the blame lies on Obama for convincing Biden to step aside in 2016 and let it be Hillary Clinton. Biden had a much better chance at beating Trump in 2016 than Clinton.
- dogleash 2y ago
  I see what you're saying, but I put that on Hilary. How much dirt must she have had on everyone else such that that the party establishment treated her candidacy as Manifest Destiny and the best democrat unafraid to run against her was socialist grandpa from Vermont who wasn't even a democrat?

rozab 2y ago

I assume by 'strong personality' you mean populist. I think it's a big mistake to think populism can only be fought with populism, otherwise all democracies would have fallen to it long ago. I do think if we're pointing fingers, most of the problems came from before the Harris campaign kicked off.

goethes_kind 2y ago
Populism is just democracy taking the reigns back from the entrenched political establishment. There is nothing democratic about a social class of bureaucrats gatekeeping all political offices. If anything, it seems to me that populism is necessary to overcome the local minimum that the political landscape settles in from time to time.
- chimprich 2y ago
  It's pretty hard to define what populism is; it's kind of a "know it when I see it" kind of definition for most commentators. My best attempt at a definition would be a platform that denies known truths in favour of superficially popular positions. For example, claiming that tariffs don't increase prices, or that legal convictions are lies, or even that solid, established scientific evidence (like vaccines are safe and hugely effective or climate change is real) are untrue.
  - gg82 2y ago
    Nah, that is not what it means. Populism is a political approach that seeks to represent the interests and voice of "ordinary people" against what is perceived as an elite or establishment. Populist movements often emphasize a direct connection between the leader and the people, bypassing traditional political institutions or parties, and claim to speak for the "common people" against corrupt or out-of-touch elites. Populism can appear across the political spectrum, taking different forms depending on the issues and ideologies within a given society. This is likely to cause winners and losers to come out of the situation... and probably after time, the leaders end up becoming elites who become out of touch with the "common people" and the process is likely to repeat. I think it is closer to Democracy than whatever the democrats seem to say - which they seem to define as: "whatever gives them the power to do what they want"

lelanthran 2y ago

> From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. It is a clear reiteration of the message to the Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad. Yeah, I said as much on a reddit comment prior to knowing the results: This is a good thing for the future of the Dems! They can now take this valuable feedback and put together a better platform to run on in future races. Running on social activism isn't a winning strategy, no matter how loud that vocal minority is shouting.

a_victorp 2y ago
This has happened before... I don't expect Dems to ever really learn this lesson
- notnaut 2y ago
  Why would they? The party in its current form exists as a reactionary pressure release valve for after the actual party of action deconstructs the roadblocks that keeps the money controlling both parties from self-replicating.
vundercind 2y ago
Did Harris run on social activism? I didn’t get that from the campaign’s messaging. Not Biden’s, either.
- e40 2y ago
  It’s clearly the perception. Before Harris entered the race.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  I believe social activism has been associated with the Democratic Party recently, I suppose it is implied when you run under their umbrella.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    It’s rather tricky to fight this perception when it doesn’t primarily come from either one’s messaging or one’s actions.

ryukoposting 2y ago

As someone living in WI who got barraged with ads from both sides, that wasn't the messaging anyone saw AFAICT. The biggest issue on people's minds was the economy. Dem messaging on economic policy was nonexistent. Women's healthcare isn't an issue that resonates with young (read: unmarried) men. It should, but it doesn't. There could have been some "look out for your wife" messaging, but there wasn't. There's a lot of people in the comments parroting whatever narrative they cooked up for 2016, but the reality is that both candidates' approaches were wildly different this time around.

unsupp0rted 2y ago
Or even some "look out for your husband" messaging, but men only mattered to one side in this election to the degree that they were incidentally useful to women.
pineaux 2y ago
Yeah. Most democrat leaning people here and outside are not reading the situation correctly. We are currently in the process of the creation of a new world order. Its happening everywhere. Right-wing, anti-immigrant, egomaniacs with little respect for democracy as we know it are taking power in all of the western influence sphere. It might be because this is the way countries like China/russia can undermine the hegemony of the west. It might be because of the way the internet works that takes away power from the systems that used to work. Or what we could conclude that the story the liberals/left are telling all over the world implicitly locks out most people that vote and is self destructive. Either way. Don't believe the pundits they are consistently wrong.
- numbsafari 2y ago
  All the libertarian mumbojumbo about the internet and encryption prove to be wrong. The internet becomes a tool of mass surveillance and misinformation affording the oligarchic takeover and dissolution of democracy and broad based freedoms.
- sAbakumoff 2y ago
  The result is a combination of all these factors and many others, including racism, misogyny, and a desire to return to a time when groceries were cheap. Next summer, the recession will come as a great surprise to those who expected to be better off under Trump

whoitwas 2y ago

I can't understand. The orange goon can't complete a sentence, hates everything, crimes everything, is basically a 300# toddler... A literal toddler would be 99% less bad. If given the choice between Hitler and Trump ... at least you know what Hitler thinks. Trump will change his mind for an extra ketchup.

Applejinx 2y ago
He's run out of Russia, and that explains a lot. This is really a worldwide battle, but the death mostly isn't caused by bombs in most places. It's caused by intentionally mismanaging health crises while sending healthcare to Putin. There's nothing mysterious about this. It's simple warfare, but on the terms used within the Russian regime domestically. We've been the Zone for some time now, and the fog isn't any lighter this morning.
ttyprintk 2y ago
A lot of people wanted more of what he has to offer. You won’t gain much by understanding why, even from his most eloquent supporter. The best knowledge is how to benefit from this. And the topmost rule is that Trump wants to live out his life without fear of court. We may have to strike a deal that the stability of America depends on that.

bko 2y ago

I think it would have been better if they didn't hide Biden's mental deterioration and let the primary process pick out a better candidate. There isn't a single county that she outperformed Biden from 2020.

data_maan 2y ago

> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, if you can make a strong case and gain the confidence of the electorate. If this were true it would mean Americans are dumb as rock and don't really care about "boring", technocratic but important decisions like climate change, geopolitical alliances, etc. - and just want a showman to dazzle their softened brains.

numbsafari 2y ago
Yeah. Exactly.
kragen 2y ago
This is obviously true and has been for decades. Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death from 01985 makes the case fairly strongly, but probably even stronger evidence is that the US apparently just elected as president a Twitter troll and reality-show TV host who doesn't know how to capitalize English and signed bills with a Sharpie in his previous presidential term.
- data_maan 2y ago
  So... dumb as rock it is then?
  - kragen 2y ago
    Yes, I said that was obvious. Postman makes an excellent case that that's what happens when you reduce public discourse to entertainment. Don't get complacent; the process producing European leaders like Putin, Zelenskyy, Orban, Meloni, and Erdoǧan is no better, nor other American leaders like Lula or Maduro, nor Modi. And, although Xi's path to power doesn't depend on how relatable his stories are about how he had difficulty climbing into a garbage truck, that process is flawed in other ways that are likely worse.
_yb2s 2y ago
> just want a showman to dazzle their softened brains Nietzsche made this case really strongly in his chapter/essay “The Flies in the Marketplace” back in the 1880s, and pretty well predicted how this would emerge play out half a century later in Germany. “ Full of clattering buffoons is the market-place,—and the people glory in their great men! These are for them the masters of the hour.”

oefrha 2y ago

> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much. The tribalism at this point is insane, it’s basically organized religion. You choose your tribe and get assigned a (terrible) religious leader and a list of dogmas you have to subscribe to without getting ostracized. Why should my view on trade be linked to regulations be linked to climate be linked to drugs be linked to criminal justice be linked to refugees be linked to Israel be linked to identity politics be linked to abortion be linked to guns? No idea, but take it or leave it. And the choices of religious leaders? Between someone who lies as readily and confidently as he drinks water and someone who’s a boring ladder climber and <omitted because this is an overwhelmingly one-tribe site>. No thank you.

arghwhat 2y ago
Tribalism is human nature, as social success - a key survival criteria - requires alignment. The reason it becomes a problem is that there the only options for each "tribe" is one of two extremes, and that these are perceived so fundamentally different it is hard for people to find common grounds. When you have many more parties, you have a wider spectrum where you can have partial agreement and disagreement with much softer borders between political strongholds, and tribes can incrementally move within the spectrum without having to switch all their beliefs and ideologies from one day to the next. Being more understanding of tribes with other ideas rather than making them villains would also help both sides in communication and political mobility.
- dataviz1000 2y ago
  Veritasium released a wonderful new video yesterday, "On These Questions, Smarter People Do Worse" which ..... I'm not going to spoil it for you but you will understand why I responded with the link. Watching, they discuss a study about gun control and I though omg I was thinking about that recently and the study they presented answers the question I've been pondering about gun control. If you watch the video, you will understand my disappointment. I had been living in New Orleans including when it had the 8th highest murder rate ... not in the United States but the world in 2022 (it was #1 in US hence not 8th). The city couldn't hire police officers and close 120 position had been unfilled. There is a very strange phenomena happening in the past 2 years, the crime rate in New Orleans is plummeting without police. [1] So, in the Veritasium video, they talk about a gun violence study and I think, that is exactly the question I'm asking. Does gun violence go down if law enforcement is removed from the equation because that is exactly for unknown reasons happening New Orleans today. Nobody is taking away guns in New Orleans and everyone I know has at least 2. I was a little disappointed with the study but tapped my self on the shoulder asking the correct question when presented with it. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno [1]https://www.fox8live.com/2024/09/19/how-new-orleans-went-murder-capital-cutting-homicides-by-almost-50/ https://www.fox8live.com/2024/09/19/how-new-orleans-went-mur...

ludsan 2y ago

> you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad. Please.

xbmcuser 2y ago

Democrats lost the enthusiasm once they sidelined Bernie Sanders for Hillary Clinton at that time they had a similar fire among it's voters. I feel they lost a lot of young male voters at that time and they are still paying for it

pineaux 2y ago
Yes. At that point many people saw the corruption of the democratic party.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rafinha 2y ago
That "enough of the damn emails" moment from Bernie Sanders during the democratic debate was very weird to say the least. It seemed he wasnt interested at all at moving forward with the nomination.

boosting6889 2y ago

It is much simpler than that. My dad watches Fox News all day nonstop. When I say all day I mean he is watching it from the time he wakes up at 6am until going to sleep and doesn’t watch anything else. It does not matter who the democrats field, Fox News will just demonize that person and their viewers will vote accordingly. He does not even agree with any traditionally conservative ideology; he is pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, pro-union, doesn’t like tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy doesn’t agree illegal immigration is a huge problem, but he votes for Trump because he watches Fox News nonstop. The one common thread among every Trump supporter I know is Fox News.

CapricornNoble 2y ago
>The one common thread among every Trump supporter I know is Fox News. Nobody I know watches Fox News. My social circle is almost entirely current/former US military expats, so it's not easy to even access cable television outside of work, if you even work on a US military base (and not everyone does). Most people are tied into YouTube, podcasts, etc. Mostly economically liberal, socially conservative, with graduate STEM educations or MBAs. Mostly prime working-age males or kinda close to retirement. Significant over-representation of minorities. Religiously either atheist, Catholic, or Muslim. Almost all vocally Trump-leaning or at the very least VERY anti-woke. The anti-Trump contingent in my personal life is all older people: (2) retired boomers, one a white Progressive guy from the Pacific Northwest, the other a black guy from Virginia, both with TDS from consumption of legacy media (NYT in the white guy's case, mainstream cable news in the black guy's case) (2) almost-retired black women, both unmarried, one with no kids and the other a now-empty-nester with adult adopted children. Both watch a lot of US TV as well.
ars 2y ago
I know tens of Trump supporters, not a single one of them watches Fox News.

immibis 2y ago

From a game theoretical perspective the Democrat establishment is fine with this since they all support Trump anyway. They'd rather not be in power but have their policies represented in the President, than have the president but have him not do what they really want.

rmbyrro 2y ago

Nah.. as the old saying goes: "It's the economy, stupid." Trump wasn't elected, the bad inflationary economy created by monetary shenanigans elected Trump.

linotype 2y ago
You realize though that Trump’s policy plan is more inflationary than Kamala’s right?

giantg2 2y ago

"I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, if you can make a strong case and gain the confidence of the electorate." That's pretty sad state of the system. Policy positions should be the primary thing voters care about. "It's about mobilizing people by giving them something to care about." Yeah, but this is how you get the most extreme candidates. Look at the primaries. They have very small numbers of voters, and the voters in just a few states set the tone for those elections due to timing. You can make a huge difference by mobilizing voters with increasingly extreme positions or rhetoric. As you said, status quo doesn't energize. That means the people are less likely to get involved fir the staus quo unless they have a strong sense of duty about voting.

weberer 2y ago

>I don't think the policy positions even matter that much I disagree hard. You should have a strong policy that people can believe in. When the average person sees that the price of certain groceries are 3x what they used to be, they stop caring about petty personal attacks.

dtquad 2y ago
How are Democrats to blame for inflation caused by Trump-era COVID entitlements funded by money printing? Sure some of it continued for months into the Biden administration but the bulk of it happened under Trump.
- weberer 2y ago
  Why didn't they focus on that? I think the average person would care a lot more about that fact than Trump being convicted on 34 counts of not properly filing business records. Since inflation actually affects them. Yet the convictions took up no shortage of airtime in attack ads.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    I think this part changes the context: 34 counts of not properly filing business records in order to hide the fact that he paid a porn star to keep quiet about their affair in order to hide this information from voters before an election… But it seems nobody cared anyways, he didn’t need to hide it
ks2048 2y ago
I agree that the price of groceries probably decided the election. But I don't see how Trump had any "strong policy that people can believe in". There was just anti-status-quo amongst the 10% of votes that are up-for-grabs at this point.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  I agree but the point is: democracy mandates all candidates strenuously pursue the 5% in 7 states. The Republican Party has a better model of their psyche. I think you and I agree it’s a cynical model, but the Democratic Party doesn’t get results with theirs.

DrScientist 2y ago

It's about the courage to be honest- or perhaps just plain honesty. Note I'm not saying Trump is honest - it's just some of the democrat dishonesty was off-the-scale. As an example - "Biden is fine to serve 4 more years". Such obvious dishonesty is really damaging when voting is largely emotional.

wesselbindt 2y ago

In theory, I agree with you. In practice, however, they've lost elections before, and it's never really affected their policies. They move ever more right, regardless of what happens. The border wall used to be bad, and now it's something they actively pursue. Universal health care used to be a thing they'd at least mention (and it's still a very popular position to take), and these days? Not a peep. Their strategy, at least the past three cycles, has been "I offer you nothing, but do you really want to vote for the other side?" And I don't see that changing.

ttyprintk 2y ago
You’ll get downvoted by women because "I offer you nothing,” is strikingly untrue about abortion.
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  We've had four years of a democratic regime. What have they done for abortion? To clarify: I think this is an important issue, but I think the past four years demonstrates that the promises democrats make regarding protection of abortion rights are empty ones. The capability to do something is demonstrably there (look at Trump, he got Roe v Wade overturned, which is huge, and it's not like he has more power than a democrat president), the will to wield this capability is not.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    They vetoed all 0/0 national abortion bans that reached the Oval Office.
    - wesselbindt 2y ago
      Ok, I'm not super sure what point you're trying to make. I think the claim you're trying to make is that the democratic party has something on offer regarding abortion. We're on the back end of a four year democratic presidency. There's logically two possibilities regarding abortion: - there's something on offer now that Biden wasn't offering four years ago - Harris' offer is the same as what Biden was offering four years ago That's a mathematical fact. In the first case, my question is "what is it?" Personally, I haven't seen anything in the messaging of Biden and Harris' respective campaigns to indicate there is a difference between them on this front, but I could've missed something, and I'm glad to be corrected. In the second case, we have a means of seeing what this offer actually means in terms of actions and policies. And judging by the accomplishments of the Biden regime on this front, that's basically nothing. Effectively, nothing is on offer on the abortion front.

bbor 2y ago

They nominated one of the most progressive senators to ever serve, promised huge changes to Medicaid and home buying assistance, protecting abortion access, and legalized marijuana. Oh, and “believes in democracy”. That’s a lot, lot more than “1% better”

strangescript 2y ago

The dems started this when they black balled Bernie in 2016. They were too focused on their own self interest and they are going to reap what they sowed long into the future now.

dathinab 2y ago

> From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. there is a real not very small risk of the us stopping(1) being a democracy in the next 4 years, and even if not it will nearly guaranteed heal other autocratic rulers weighting that against the democrats learning a lesson they already knew (but might not have listened to) seems like a pretty terrible deal (1): Assuming you can call a 2 party system democratic, which given how the elections worked out (power dynamic wise) the last few times is clearly not that clear anymore (it still is democratic, but in a gray area). Let's be honest if people had effectively/power dynamic wise more choices (e.g. multiple presidential election rounds ranking of candidates where votes of eliminated candidates spill over etc.) I think non of the last 2 presidents would have been elected.

fastball 2y ago
There is a very very close to 0% chance of the US stopping being a democracy in the next 4 years.
- thenaturalist 2y ago
  With the obliteration of the balance of power by the SCOTUS, extremely favorable SCOTUS judges with a conservative majority, a Senate and possibly a House majority the risks from an authoritarian-loving, narcissistic candidate who has "concepts" of plans, goes against mainstream economics in his economic policy, fanboys over a billionair drug-addicted narcissist who wants to destroy institutions by slashing "100 billion USD per year" from Federal institutions and put RFK Jr in control of the national health who tried to sabotage the constitutional and peaceful transfer of power and who instigated a violent storm of a parliament with casualties involved, the risks have certainly hardly ever been higher?
  - fastball 2y ago
    You're pointing out a bunch of things that are scary to you, without actually describing how democracy will be lost. The majority of our democracy can be attributed to the constitution, which requires a supermajority to be amended. I also think you would be pleasantly surprised by the number of people who voted for Trump who would not be happy with the dissolution of democracy. Also I think you'd be hard-pressed to get a majority of SCOTUS judges to be happy with that.

bmitc 2y ago

This is an extremely bizarre take. People just re-elected someone who tried to overthrow the government and is a complete know-nothing. It's well reported that he doesn't actually do anything during his presidency until he acts on a whim with some nonsensical action. You claiming this is a good result from any perspective is so strange. If anything, it shows the U.S. is a lost cause and that the majority of Americans are narcissists alongside the person they just elected. The Republicans have won by actively dumbing down and pigeonholing their constituency.

quotemstr 2y ago

Dear Democrats, Yes! You're right. You should have run a stronger personality. Much stronger. Harris didn't "think big". She should have been more strident in advocating for censorship, inflation, imprisoning her political enemies, and legalizing crime. Please run these stronger personalities in every election from now on. We'd appreciate it. Thanks, and much love, Republicans

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Bernie Sanders is that strong personality, but he got shunned from becoming a candidate because he's too opinionated. It feels like the democrats push for a centrist candidate because anything more progressive/liberal/left will scare off the moderates. But the dems have so little to work with.

tasty_freeze 2y ago

If you think there is a 0.1% difference between the parties, that is because there is that much difference in the issues you care about.

ak_111 2y ago

Yep. The most interesting phenomena in all most all electoral history is the Obama-Obama-Trump-Trump-Trump voters (those that voted Obama twice, then Trump thrice). It is probably 1-2% of the electorate but probably 5-10% in most swing states. Democrats should study those people very very intensely and understand how they lost them. It was exceptionally radical to vote for Obama in 2008, people were calling him a cupboard muslim and terrorist sympathiser. They really believed he will deliver change and create a decisive break with neoliberal policy (both domestic and foreign), it is quite amazing that exactly these voters would vote 3 times for Trump after that. Yet apart from Obamacare Obama delivered basically zero change in foreign or domestic policy. You simply can't take voters who went out of their way to vote for you for granted in this way and expect there won't be a backlash.

eadmund 2y ago
> It was exceptionally radical to vote for Obama in 2008 What are you talking about? He got 68% of the electors; 53% of the population voted for him. That’s not radical: that’s mainstream.
- ak_111 2y ago
  Yes exactly I meant for some people it was very radical to vote for him despite the aggressive McCain/Palin campaign that was painting him as a black foreigner cupboard muslim with a strange un-american name. Imagine those white, MAGA ultra-anti-woke Trump supporters. Some of these voted for Obama twice there is a whole wikipedia page about it. They would be like a feminist Ivy League literature professor voting for Trump now, relative to her demographic it is very radical. The fact that Obama won so much of electorate implies that there were quite a lot of people who radically went against their usual political leaning. Those voters gave him the benefit of the doubt that he would shake the system.
chubot 2y ago
Hm that's kind of interesting, what's your source for this phenomenon? It sounds plausible, but I haven't seen anyone discuss it

rdtsc 2y ago

> The Democrats should have fielded a strong personality in their own right. Wonder if keeping Biden have been better. He got 80M+ popular votes, after all! Why swap him out? I guess Harris was seen as Biden++, already working for Biden admin and younger, so naturally she would get 90M+ popular votes or something.

nyeah 2y ago

Quibble on the numbers, not on the basic statement. I'm not sure that campaign promises such as suspending the Constitution, jailing political opponents, etc., really are only 0.1% worse than continuing the Republic as it has operated for nearly 250 years. Looking back a few years from now, we may find a delta of 0.2%, 0.5%, or possibly even more.

HumblyTossed 2y ago
> continuing the Republic We're a democracy.
- nyeah 2y ago
  We have until Jan 20 to argue which word was more accurate.
- kratom_sandwich 2y ago
  "A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy." - Wikipedia
  - HumblyTossed 2y ago
    sigh. we are a democracy.

EasyMark 2y ago

I can't agree this only shows the game theory sometimes fails because despite almost all the advantage to select one version of a thing vs another, often an group or individual will go against their own best interests because of pure emotion. When an option is a little bit better than the previous version of itself and the other option is complete failure of the system with the system destroying itself (democracy) then the winning group loses along with the "losing" group.

Kraftwurm 2y ago

This time the Americans could choose between two completely different types of personalities for their President. - A quite smart and kind Woman who believes in demcratic values - An extremely selfish, through and through corrupt and unbelievably stupid bully with a clear agenda to end the Democracy The chose. That's all. Nothing to see here.

jonahbenton 2y ago

You really don't know what you're talking about.

fredgrott 2y ago

Dem here, Harris needed to deliver her first speech and separate from Biden on policy...i.e. knockout punch.... Any less was always a crap shot.... This speaks to relationship between Bidden, Harris and the Dem elites...in that where no alternate leadership can rise...

Buttons840 2y ago

From a game theory perspective, Trump is like a 2/2 MTG card that deals 10 damage to yourself when played. Trump, personally, will not do much to contribute to the Republican cause. Trump's contributions will mostly be saying dumb things that get his opposition riled up and energized to vote against him next time. He's also going to be a very old sundowning president--it's Republican's turn to defend that.

chrismsimpson 2y ago

In other countries we have this thing called civic duty. Do try it sometime.

l33t7332273 2y ago

I think the Democrats were claiming to be more like 75% less bad, but other than that your point stands.

throwaway8754aw 2y ago

Also the left's constant political games of trying to do everything and anything to put him in jail and etc the public grew tired of.. ignored unless you were on the their side. They tried so many things impeachment, pee pee tape, this trail, that trail.. nothing worked and probably helped him in the end. As well the economy yet as independent I voted for whom I've done better under financially and it just happens to be under the 46th so that's how I voted. But didn't care either way as a part of me wanted to vote for the 47th due my republican family legacy and the very distant hope home interest rates go down to 3 to 5 percent which I know that's a distant hope. But either way I'd been happy with the first woman or with the 47th as I too grew tired of the crap they threw on him, he survived an assassin and his no tax on tips, overtime or social security will help those in need. Get rid of income tax altogether sounds interesting yet crazy via the crazy comedian off hinged man who will surely say things people will incessantly talk about.

proggy 2y ago
The reason why our courts, which are historically apolitical, tried to convict him is because he committed a nearly uncountable number of crimes. And he broke even more norms. Our biggest failure as a nation was not convicting him sooner and more decisively.
- throwaway8754aw 2y ago
  Political gaming is done by the left and the right ..the majority spoken they are tired of it. Fake news is real and it's rampant from all sides and everywhere used for political to economical advantage (startups do it all the time like OpenAI demoing & promising a H.E.R. Like product but it's nowhere to be found ..was that all a fake demo?). My point is people are tired of all that ..I surely am.. I want truth reality I do not want an internet filled with AI fake crap nor do I want to hear about another Donald Trump impeachment case... give me truth reality yet will there ever be such when lying and making up crap at times behooves the parties doing so. Yet as we see here in this instance same fake playbook against him the majority had enough. You say The courts are not apolitical as a left leaning you sound you surely have said the Supreme Court is right focused have you not?

havblue 2y ago

I think the policy positions do matter though... The Democrats were pro labor before Clinton helped to pass NAFTA. Limbaugh would even mock Democrat voters who thought Bill would "find you a job". There's no illusion of that anymore. There's just people dropping out of the workforce and the unemployment numbers being fudged to make it look like everything is fine. Neither party responded to this until Trump came around. Meanwhile, the Democrats also seemingly gave up on the whole social safety net argument as well. Obama at least ran on helping people but, well, I don't see that anymore. While I agree that their messaging has failed, I ultimately think they've failed to provide any substance to their argument.

dkarl 2y ago

This is a terrible take. Everyone wants to believe that this result will vindicate their pet peeve about the Democrats. A lot of people want this loss to prove that Democrats should have been stronger on Gaza. A lot of people want this loss to prove that Democrats should have rejected identity politics. And there's a long tail of other things that people think a Democratic loss will push the Democrats towards: protectionism, isolationism, socialism, etc. The Democrats are going to lick their wounds, crunch the numbers, and probably move towards Trump on economics. Or something else. 95% of people who are hoping that the Democrats are going to suddenly see the light on their pet issue are going to be disappointed. They aren't going to go hard left on Gaza. They aren't going to go hard right on identity politics. The loss is going to cause a whole bunch of damage, and we're going to get very little if any long-term benefit to weigh against it.

ars 2y ago
Other way around on Gaza. The US should have done more to help its ally. The fact that Houthis have shut down shipping, and the US hasn't stopped them is absolutely shameful. And by helping its ally more, the war would have ended quicker leaning to overall less death. Which is why a majority of Muslims actually voted for Trump.

HumblyTossed 2y ago

> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, Right. The misogynists won. There are simply too many people in this country who don't want a woman President.

miltonlost 2y ago

Most mainstream media being owned by right-wing billionaires manufacturing what is actually (mis)informing the public of Trump's decline, combined with other people only getting their "news" from randos on TikTok or podcasts, and just the general decline in critical thinking taught at schools (and lack of reading)... I don't know what can be done with these disparate realities. I don't put blame on Harris' campaign, since it actually did discuss and put out policies to help people beyond just calling Trump a fascist and evil. That you think (or at least say you think) they didn't shows how badly their message wasn't conveyed BY the media that are the only people that can convey it. If the local news owned by Sinclair is your station and it says only right-wing talking points, if two newspapers can have their endorsements scuttled by their billionaire owners, if podcasters like Joe Rogan can pass along Russian misinformation and facebook memes as truth, how can the Harris campaign get through to people? But was the campaign actually passed down to voters? and did those voters willingly seek it out, since it will not be presented to them in their chosen bubbles? The entire system of billionaires blatantly criming in an election without repercussions and the media manufacturing consent silenced any chance of fair representation of what is happening and who is at fault. Like inflation being a consequence of Trump's policies and not Biden's due to inflation's inherent time lag that most people never learn about

consteval 2y ago

I think it's pretty much undeniable this will only push the dems further right.

gosub100 2y ago

I know this would only happen in an alternate universe, but they should be able to come out and say "ya know, we got it wrong" on certain issues, such as immigration. They will face a bit of immediate shame from pundits, but gain in the long term by removing that point of contention from the conservatives. Thus opening up a share of their voters. To be fair to Republicans, they could say "ya know, we do believe human civilization has caused climate change and there is a government role to address it. We just disagree on the terms and mechanism for how that should work"