3 ms·
“Narrowest possible lost”, sure, minus the fact that despite raising over $1B the Harris campaign still ended up $20M in debt, Republicans are majority in every
by tourmalinetaco 2y ago
“Narrowest possible lost”, sure, minus the fact that despite raising over $1B the Harris campaign still ended up $20M in debt, Republicans are majority in every section of elected government with plans to reinforce that, millions of Americans are becoming disillusioned with Democratic ideology, and you even have the president and his wife casting aside his own VP in favor of Trump by refusing to attend her election night party, but instead meeting with the very same man who did not give him the same courtesy in 2020.
Yeah, aside from all that it was the “narrowest possible loss”.
- astrange 2y ago> minus the fact that despite raising over $1B the Harris campaign still ended up $20M in debt Why do you think this is worth bringing up? Because it has numbers in it? I don't know what happens to the debt of a campaign after it's over, but I do know it's neither of our problems. It sounds like they've already covered it through late donations though. Her campaign was swing state-focused and it does seem like it worked in those states (based on relative swings), but it had an unusually short length of time to run. It likely would've just worked if it was a normal length campaign, or if she'd gone on Rogan. > Republicans are majority in every section of elected government with plans to reinforce that More like plans to lose it. Enough cabinet members have been pulled from R House members that they're going to have a 2-3 person majority for months. Starting a presidential year with a trifecta isn't rare, but even more common is that they lose it in the midterms. US voters have no consistent opinions, but their most consistent opinion is "thermostatic swing" - in a midterm year they always vote against whoever is president. Basically they're just haters. > millions of Americans are becoming disillusioned with Democratic ideology Eh. I think any theory which assumes voters are actually paying attention or have coherent ideologies is wrong. They have better things to do than that. In particular, Trump and Obama are very similar here - they're both popular with all kinds of people, because everyone just kind of imagines he agrees with them. (Also, neither of them have successors, which the rest of their party should be worried about.)
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoLosing over $1.5B of donor (or more accurately, investor) capital does not reflect well when the Trump campaign didn’t even use all of $1B, ran for longer, and won the presidency. Major DNC donors know this and will be less likely to fund future campaigns that include the people who worked on this, especially Harris and Walz. > I think any theory which assumes voters are actually paying attention or have coherent ideologies is wrong. Then you’d be wrong. Many voters don’t have coherent ideas on say international policy, however many have specific ideologies regarding more local, important issues, such as food accessibility, welfare, immigration status, body autonomy, etc. Perhaps not across the board, but this belief that people are gormless masses to be controlled is probably a major reason your party has been losing steam. Obama doesn’t have a successor. Trump has Jr and JD who can and probably will run next cycle (most likely Trump funding, Jr organizing, with JD running) while Barron may in the further future. Whether these are strong enough though, time will tell.