6 ms·

The real problem was Biden not dropping out early enough so that they could have a fair selection process. But tbh I’m not sure how much it mattered. With the

The real problem was Biden not dropping out early enough so that they could have a fair selection process. But tbh I’m not sure how much it mattered. With the high inflation levels it was always an uphill battle for the incumbent.

theGnuMe 2y ago
Inflation caused by Trump (Covid) and greedy corps. Stocks at all time highs baby.
CWuestefeld 2y ago
Underlying that problem were the Administration thinking they could fool us all into believing that Biden's faculties were unaffected. This was a two-edged sword because it also demonstrated that maybe it doesn't matter so much who is president, at least as domestic affairs go, because the administrative state runs so much on autopilot.
- throw_that_away 2y ago
  That's the thing about the left, they think the "machine" could just run things. You actually have to have someone that fires people. Think about it, Even Kim Cheatle had to resign! Biden did not ask for ANYONE to do a good job. No one was in control of that admin, it was a complete mess. If there is an atmosphere of governance/leadership that no matter how shitty a job you do, but you get to keep your job, then no one will care about anything at the top.
  - tartoran 2y ago
    You may be right but short to remember the chaos in Trumps administration from 2016 to 2020. It really seemed like the country was about to burst. I hope it won't happen this time though...
- lolinder 2y ago
  > thinking they could fool us all into believing that Biden's faculties were unaffected Yeah, this was a big part of a general trend of the Democrats treating voters like children to be coddled and lied to. Voters don't like being treated as less-than just because they're less educated, and uneducated doesn't mean stupid. They can see through it. My county went >75% for Trump, and the reason is because Trump is the only presidential candidate in most of our lifetimes who treats working-class voters as his equal. He doesn't talk down to them, he talks like them, and they eat it up.
  - tfehring 2y ago
    I think it is stupid to vote based on how a politician talks rather than the expected impact of their proposed policies, though of course I realize that that’s how elections have been decided in practice for as long as representative governments have existed.
    - astroid 2y ago
      The thing is, when you "talk down" to people, chances are pretty good those people's best interested aren't being represented by the one doing the down-talking. However, if you "talk to" them, you are in a much better position to actually hear and respond to their concerns - with the added bonus of seeming actually human. The way you frame it seems to imply that people are voting for him because he talks 'like them' while ignoring the 'to' them. I believe the hot leftist term for this is 'code-switching' which just means talking to your audience with language they understand and relate to -- and it's usually portrayed as a virtue, not a defect. In reality, these people voted for Trump because as a result of him talking to them like equals rather than down to like subjugated servants left many feeling that he was in fact advocating for policies that support their best interests and would be impactful in their day to day lives. Obviously personality matters more than it should - but in Trumps case the entire media apparatus was single-mindedly determined to make sure they dictate what his personality is, rather than his words or actions. So if anything this win shows that policy matters more than personality at this point anyway. Now of course, if you see his policies as wrong and evil and dictatorial and the embodiment of fascism, none of that will matter and no lessons will be learned from this absolute rejection of the democrats platform.
- lenkite 2y ago
  [dead]
- asveikau 2y ago
  I believe his faculties got substantially worse in 2024. He was a lot more present in speeches in 2021 for example. Mental decline isn't black and white, and you tend to see people as your mental model of how they used to be, so you can look at brief moments of clarity and declare him "well", so many did that. But it doesn't work that way.
  - itsoktocry 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - asveikau 2y ago
      I've followed politics for my whole life and watched tons of Biden speeches going back decades. I was seeing his old "spark" quite a bit well into 2024. The debate, he fell off a cliff, and his follow-up interviews were even worse. 3 months before he competently delivered a barn-burning SOTU address. IIRC a few months before that, he delivered a good NATO speech. He'd slip up minor points but he also did that in 2002. Back then they used to call him a gaffe factory.
  - asdasdsddd 2y ago
    He was cooked by 2022, Biden was stumbling over tele-prompted speeches.
    - asveikau 2y ago
      The gap between his last state of the union (March 2024) and the debate (June 2024) seemed pretty big, and I'm not the only one to say that. But again, it isn't black and white. Maybe the speech format suited him better.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Biden barely campaigned in 2020.
  - astroid 2y ago
    "you tend to see people as your mental model of how they used to be" Pot? Meet Kettle. I worked in an advanced Alzheimer's ward for about 4 years when I was younger. There is a look that happens in the eyes which is a sure-sign they are effectively gone - it's like a light has been turned off. (even if they have moments of lucidity, there is a clear switch that is talked about in exactly these terms if you work in these places and are close to them every day.) Biden clearly had 'the look' back in 2021, and was making enough gaffes for people who maybe aren't as familiar with the signs of mental decline could clearly see it. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean everyone else was wrong and saw what they wanted to see. If you are going to argue 'well, that's just like your perspective man' you have to at least see how that same argument can be turned towards you. You are absolutely right that it is not black and white - I fully believe that back in 2021 he had enough moments of lucidity (which generally are somewhat reliable, which appear to be tied to the circadian rhythm hence 'sundowners') -- so if all you watched were his scheduled speeches I could see how you may have been left with that impression. There were plenty of other opportunities to watch his decline in real time however.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Plus with every iota of decrease in the government’s credibility, the relative credibility of candidate’s promises and proposed policies also matter less too in deciding between them…
- 8note 2y ago
  Given Trump's current faculties, it might show that people are more willing to trust that he probably won't do much either. He'll be on a similar auto-pilot at this age
asveikau 2y ago
Inflation is a complicated topic that doesn't get adequately captured in the sound bites. I kept hearing clips of voters saying they want prices to go back down, but my understanding of the economics is that this would be terrible. Instead, IMO, what we need is for wages to increase while minimizing the inflationary effect of wage increases. That's not a catchy slogan, however. Parallel to this, I don't think the post COVID inflation is really due to politicians.
- caeril 2y ago
  > my understanding of the economics is that this would be terrible Deflation is only "terrible" because we have collectively decided to build an economy on debt instead of savings (Keynesian instead of Friedmanian). In a different economic order, prices declining would be a good thing for everyone. But we're stuck with it, so inflation it is.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    Doesn't deflation especially disadvantage the young - since you're usually not born with savings of your own.
    - RpmReviver 2y ago
      Depends how much deflation there is with wages compared to everything else, there's a scenario that they have an opportunity to start saving The majority of the expenses for the disadvantaged young are housing, gas, and food. With housing being 4x more expensive than 4 or 5 years it basically puts all the disadvantaged from even buying a house and then puts them at the mercy of the renters market
  - atq2119 2y ago
    There are a number of issues with this comment. One of them is that debt and saving are just sides of the same coin. More importantly, everybody can see that debt for investment allows more growth. Just think about how many more people can afford to own their own home thanks to taking on debt. This allows them to pay a mortgage instead of rent, which allows them to build up wealth. Equivalent effects exist in industry. Debt is an extremely useful tool. We made the right choice here as a society.
AlexandrB 2y ago
> The real problem was Biden not dropping out early enough so that they could have a fair selection process. This is why it's important for the media to hold politicians' feet to the fire - even if they agree with them. I think there was just a murmur[1] of Biden's problems before the catastrophic debate. Imagine if the media had been hammering the administration on this point 6 months prior. [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13102973/New-York-Times-doubles-scathing-opinion-pieces-criticizing-Biden-White-House-said-president-extremely-upset-liberal-leaning-paper-turned-him.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13102973/New-York-T...
- nataliste 2y ago
  Dean Philips attempted to primary Biden on the basis of age and low favorability. The media shut him out.
  - mtswish 2y ago
    The media didn't shut him out, no one would have voted for that guy.
    - nataliste 2y ago
      The media and the party had many opportunities to deal with Biden's age. They didn't. And yes, they did shut out Dean Philips, on the basis of exactly this kind of "he's an unknown, therefore unelectable." Well, they went with a known, and now they're paying for it.
      - dsubburam 2y ago
        Tip: It is Dean Phillips. Not Dean Philips. I made that mistake too recently.
- xienze 2y ago
  > I think there was just a murmur[1] of Biden's problems before the catastrophic debate. Before the debate, anyone talking about Biden’s obvious decline was dismissed as a right wing troll parroting Russian propaganda.
FireBeyond 2y ago
There was not enough focus on economy in a way that actually mattered, certainly - though it probably wouldn't have made a difference. Biden absolutely should have dropped out earlier. It made Harris look like a last minute sub (which she really was). It's telling (on a number of levels) that one of the most popular Google searches yesterday, on election day, was "Did Biden drop out?"
- dehrmann 2y ago
  > There was not enough focus on economy in a way that actually mattered Between price controls, tariffs, and excepting tips from taxes, I had no confidence either candidate could pass Econ 101. The proposals can play well politically, but it leaves people who have a basic understanding of economics at a loss of who'd be better.
JamesBarney 2y ago
That mattered quite a bit for a three reasons. 1. Kamala isn't a great candidate shown by her poor primary results in 2020. 2. She has all the baggage of running pretty far to the left in 2020. (Like saying she was for performing gender affirming surgery on trans illegal immigrants, agree or disagree with the stance this is a deeply unpopular position) 3. She was tied to the current administration which meant she couldn't distance herself from the inflation issue or attack Trump on age and fitness as much as another candidates not tied to the administration.
dehrmann 2y ago
One of the more insightful things I heard in the last few days was this generation of politicians got a lesson in how toxic inflation is politically. And inflation wasn't even that bad, but it felt bad.
philodelta 2y ago
I think a democrat who could actually distance themselves from Biden, someone who had more leeway to criticize his policies without the obvious "if current policy is wrong, what's stopping you from changing it" question, would have faired better. Maybe not won, but done better. Certainly there was no way Biden would have won re-election and switching was a good choice, but too little too late.

theGnuMe 2y ago

Inflation caused by Trump (Covid) and greedy corps. Stocks at all time highs baby.

CWuestefeld 2y ago

Underlying that problem were the Administration thinking they could fool us all into believing that Biden's faculties were unaffected. This was a two-edged sword because it also demonstrated that maybe it doesn't matter so much who is president, at least as domestic affairs go, because the administrative state runs so much on autopilot.

throw_that_away 2y ago
That's the thing about the left, they think the "machine" could just run things. You actually have to have someone that fires people. Think about it, Even Kim Cheatle had to resign! Biden did not ask for ANYONE to do a good job. No one was in control of that admin, it was a complete mess. If there is an atmosphere of governance/leadership that no matter how shitty a job you do, but you get to keep your job, then no one will care about anything at the top.
- tartoran 2y ago
  You may be right but short to remember the chaos in Trumps administration from 2016 to 2020. It really seemed like the country was about to burst. I hope it won't happen this time though...
lolinder 2y ago
> thinking they could fool us all into believing that Biden's faculties were unaffected Yeah, this was a big part of a general trend of the Democrats treating voters like children to be coddled and lied to. Voters don't like being treated as less-than just because they're less educated, and uneducated doesn't mean stupid. They can see through it. My county went >75% for Trump, and the reason is because Trump is the only presidential candidate in most of our lifetimes who treats working-class voters as his equal. He doesn't talk down to them, he talks like them, and they eat it up.
- tfehring 2y ago
  I think it is stupid to vote based on how a politician talks rather than the expected impact of their proposed policies, though of course I realize that that’s how elections have been decided in practice for as long as representative governments have existed.
  - astroid 2y ago
    The thing is, when you "talk down" to people, chances are pretty good those people's best interested aren't being represented by the one doing the down-talking. However, if you "talk to" them, you are in a much better position to actually hear and respond to their concerns - with the added bonus of seeming actually human. The way you frame it seems to imply that people are voting for him because he talks 'like them' while ignoring the 'to' them. I believe the hot leftist term for this is 'code-switching' which just means talking to your audience with language they understand and relate to -- and it's usually portrayed as a virtue, not a defect. In reality, these people voted for Trump because as a result of him talking to them like equals rather than down to like subjugated servants left many feeling that he was in fact advocating for policies that support their best interests and would be impactful in their day to day lives. Obviously personality matters more than it should - but in Trumps case the entire media apparatus was single-mindedly determined to make sure they dictate what his personality is, rather than his words or actions. So if anything this win shows that policy matters more than personality at this point anyway. Now of course, if you see his policies as wrong and evil and dictatorial and the embodiment of fascism, none of that will matter and no lessons will be learned from this absolute rejection of the democrats platform.
lenkite 2y ago
[dead]
asveikau 2y ago
I believe his faculties got substantially worse in 2024. He was a lot more present in speeches in 2021 for example. Mental decline isn't black and white, and you tend to see people as your mental model of how they used to be, so you can look at brief moments of clarity and declare him "well", so many did that. But it doesn't work that way.
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - asveikau 2y ago
    I've followed politics for my whole life and watched tons of Biden speeches going back decades. I was seeing his old "spark" quite a bit well into 2024. The debate, he fell off a cliff, and his follow-up interviews were even worse. 3 months before he competently delivered a barn-burning SOTU address. IIRC a few months before that, he delivered a good NATO speech. He'd slip up minor points but he also did that in 2002. Back then they used to call him a gaffe factory.
- asdasdsddd 2y ago
  He was cooked by 2022, Biden was stumbling over tele-prompted speeches.
  - asveikau 2y ago
    The gap between his last state of the union (March 2024) and the debate (June 2024) seemed pretty big, and I'm not the only one to say that. But again, it isn't black and white. Maybe the speech format suited him better.
- anon291 2y ago
  Biden barely campaigned in 2020.
- astroid 2y ago
  "you tend to see people as your mental model of how they used to be" Pot? Meet Kettle. I worked in an advanced Alzheimer's ward for about 4 years when I was younger. There is a look that happens in the eyes which is a sure-sign they are effectively gone - it's like a light has been turned off. (even if they have moments of lucidity, there is a clear switch that is talked about in exactly these terms if you work in these places and are close to them every day.) Biden clearly had 'the look' back in 2021, and was making enough gaffes for people who maybe aren't as familiar with the signs of mental decline could clearly see it. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean everyone else was wrong and saw what they wanted to see. If you are going to argue 'well, that's just like your perspective man' you have to at least see how that same argument can be turned towards you. You are absolutely right that it is not black and white - I fully believe that back in 2021 he had enough moments of lucidity (which generally are somewhat reliable, which appear to be tied to the circadian rhythm hence 'sundowners') -- so if all you watched were his scheduled speeches I could see how you may have been left with that impression. There were plenty of other opportunities to watch his decline in real time however.
MichaelZuo 2y ago
Plus with every iota of decrease in the government’s credibility, the relative credibility of candidate’s promises and proposed policies also matter less too in deciding between them…
8note 2y ago
Given Trump's current faculties, it might show that people are more willing to trust that he probably won't do much either. He'll be on a similar auto-pilot at this age

asveikau 2y ago

Inflation is a complicated topic that doesn't get adequately captured in the sound bites. I kept hearing clips of voters saying they want prices to go back down, but my understanding of the economics is that this would be terrible. Instead, IMO, what we need is for wages to increase while minimizing the inflationary effect of wage increases. That's not a catchy slogan, however. Parallel to this, I don't think the post COVID inflation is really due to politicians.

caeril 2y ago
> my understanding of the economics is that this would be terrible Deflation is only "terrible" because we have collectively decided to build an economy on debt instead of savings (Keynesian instead of Friedmanian). In a different economic order, prices declining would be a good thing for everyone. But we're stuck with it, so inflation it is.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  Doesn't deflation especially disadvantage the young - since you're usually not born with savings of your own.
  - RpmReviver 2y ago
    Depends how much deflation there is with wages compared to everything else, there's a scenario that they have an opportunity to start saving The majority of the expenses for the disadvantaged young are housing, gas, and food. With housing being 4x more expensive than 4 or 5 years it basically puts all the disadvantaged from even buying a house and then puts them at the mercy of the renters market
- atq2119 2y ago
  There are a number of issues with this comment. One of them is that debt and saving are just sides of the same coin. More importantly, everybody can see that debt for investment allows more growth. Just think about how many more people can afford to own their own home thanks to taking on debt. This allows them to pay a mortgage instead of rent, which allows them to build up wealth. Equivalent effects exist in industry. Debt is an extremely useful tool. We made the right choice here as a society.

AlexandrB 2y ago

> The real problem was Biden not dropping out early enough so that they could have a fair selection process. This is why it's important for the media to hold politicians' feet to the fire - even if they agree with them. I think there was just a murmur[1] of Biden's problems before the catastrophic debate. Imagine if the media had been hammering the administration on this point 6 months prior. [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13102973/New-York-Times-doubles-scathing-opinion-pieces-criticizing-Biden-White-House-said-president-extremely-upset-liberal-leaning-paper-turned-him.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13102973/New-York-T...

nataliste 2y ago
Dean Philips attempted to primary Biden on the basis of age and low favorability. The media shut him out.
- mtswish 2y ago
  The media didn't shut him out, no one would have voted for that guy.
  - nataliste 2y ago
    The media and the party had many opportunities to deal with Biden's age. They didn't. And yes, they did shut out Dean Philips, on the basis of exactly this kind of "he's an unknown, therefore unelectable." Well, they went with a known, and now they're paying for it.
    - dsubburam 2y ago
      Tip: It is Dean Phillips. Not Dean Philips. I made that mistake too recently.
xienze 2y ago
> I think there was just a murmur[1] of Biden's problems before the catastrophic debate. Before the debate, anyone talking about Biden’s obvious decline was dismissed as a right wing troll parroting Russian propaganda.

FireBeyond 2y ago

There was not enough focus on economy in a way that actually mattered, certainly - though it probably wouldn't have made a difference. Biden absolutely should have dropped out earlier. It made Harris look like a last minute sub (which she really was). It's telling (on a number of levels) that one of the most popular Google searches yesterday, on election day, was "Did Biden drop out?"

dehrmann 2y ago
> There was not enough focus on economy in a way that actually mattered Between price controls, tariffs, and excepting tips from taxes, I had no confidence either candidate could pass Econ 101. The proposals can play well politically, but it leaves people who have a basic understanding of economics at a loss of who'd be better.

JamesBarney 2y ago

That mattered quite a bit for a three reasons. 1. Kamala isn't a great candidate shown by her poor primary results in 2020. 2. She has all the baggage of running pretty far to the left in 2020. (Like saying she was for performing gender affirming surgery on trans illegal immigrants, agree or disagree with the stance this is a deeply unpopular position) 3. She was tied to the current administration which meant she couldn't distance herself from the inflation issue or attack Trump on age and fitness as much as another candidates not tied to the administration.

dehrmann 2y ago

One of the more insightful things I heard in the last few days was this generation of politicians got a lesson in how toxic inflation is politically. And inflation wasn't even that bad, but it felt bad.

philodelta 2y ago

I think a democrat who could actually distance themselves from Biden, someone who had more leeway to criticize his policies without the obvious "if current policy is wrong, what's stopping you from changing it" question, would have faired better. Maybe not won, but done better. Certainly there was no way Biden would have won re-election and switching was a good choice, but too little too late.