3 ms·

No, the message was that winning was about “overcoming a shameless demagogue and enablers who have no problem blatantly lying about everything to everyone,” plu

No, the message was that winning was about “overcoming a shameless demagogue and enablers who have no problem blatantly lying about everything to everyone,” plus shallow pandering to diversity, rather than delivering tangible benefits to Americans. In both 2016 and 2024 the Dem message to voters was that everything was fine, no radical economic change was needed, vote against orange man and all would be well. This was a losing position against a populist. Biden called on his long record of support for labor and proposed investing in American manufacturing, which was a winner in swing states especially since the economy was hurting due to the pandemic.

estearum 11mo ago
I didn't say that should be the message. I said that there's no "pragmatic, positive message" that overcomes simply lying and having an entire media and political apparatus that supports it. Biden's primary advantage was running against a guy who was demonstrably a complete shit show as an actual incumbent. That was memory-holed by the same shameless lying (e.g. ask Republicans who they think "locked people down" during COVID). Biden (and Harris) then had a similar disadvantage going into 2024. It's extremely, extremely silly to act like voters were looking for pragmatic messages lol. Simply no evidence for that. They were primarily looking to get rid of the incumbent, as was the trend across all democracies during a period of extreme inflation.
- iamnothere 11mo ago
  That’s a common refrain, especially among the media (ironically, as they are blaming themselves) and the professional-managerial class, who seem to have a blind spot for labor needs. Voters facing hardship have agency and vote for who they believe is aligned with their needs. In 2020 Biden’s union support was key to his victory in the rust belt states, which carried him to victory. Harris didn’t have the same background and didn’t make a serious effort to reach those people, and lost a percentage of union votes at a time when the number of union voters actually increased. So she lost. But it’s true that inflation didn’t help. One reason that incumbents are doing so poorly is that they promise nothing, and deliver it. Nations are in decline across the West, and all that candidates are allowed to offer is more of the same neoliberal pablum. Anyone who attempts to offer something different faces a coordinated attack from the media and incumbent political class, and the only ones seemingly able to break through the resistance are dishonest right-populists. The left has to come up with a solution other than dismantling (excuse me, “fortifying”) democracy, which appears to be the EU solution.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    Can you tell me which Trump policies were pro-labor, pro-union, pragmatic, positive visions of the future? There was none. It turns out that actually you don't need pragmatic, positive visions of the future to win. In fact, we have plenty of evidence that pragmatic policies at all are a massive electoral liability when facing someone who is, again, willing to simply lie about everything. In Trump, you have clear evidence that people do not need pragmatic solutions to anything. Somehow you are pulling from that the conclusion that Democrats are not pragmatic enough. What makes you believe there is public appetite for pragmatic solutions? Enough to win a national election?
    - iamnothere 11mo ago
      Trump does not offer real solutions, except as a sound bite in passing (to be later ignored). But in the absence of pragmatic policies that voters can get behind, the winner will always be the candidate who offers to tear down the system that has failed the people. Mark my words.
      - estearum 11mo ago
        The reality is that sound bites have an intrinsic advantage over real solutions. Real solutions to complex problems are by their nature complex and uncertain (else the problem would've been solved already). "Immigrants are the problem" or "I will bring prices down on day one" have a fundamental memetic advantage that, in a lazy and unengaged populace, will win in 100% of scenarios. The real issue here is the GOP not holding themselves accountable to something better than suicidal demagoguery. The opposing party cannot prevent this from being successful. That's why it's a known, fundamental flaw of democracy.
        iamnothere 11mo ago
        It sounds like you’re in a real spot of trouble then. If there are no solutions available. Maybe you can double down on the 2016/2024 strategy again.

estearum 11mo ago

I didn't say that should be the message. I said that there's no "pragmatic, positive message" that overcomes simply lying and having an entire media and political apparatus that supports it. Biden's primary advantage was running against a guy who was demonstrably a complete shit show as an actual incumbent. That was memory-holed by the same shameless lying (e.g. ask Republicans who they think "locked people down" during COVID). Biden (and Harris) then had a similar disadvantage going into 2024. It's extremely, extremely silly to act like voters were looking for pragmatic messages lol. Simply no evidence for that. They were primarily looking to get rid of the incumbent, as was the trend across all democracies during a period of extreme inflation.

iamnothere 11mo ago
That’s a common refrain, especially among the media (ironically, as they are blaming themselves) and the professional-managerial class, who seem to have a blind spot for labor needs. Voters facing hardship have agency and vote for who they believe is aligned with their needs. In 2020 Biden’s union support was key to his victory in the rust belt states, which carried him to victory. Harris didn’t have the same background and didn’t make a serious effort to reach those people, and lost a percentage of union votes at a time when the number of union voters actually increased. So she lost. But it’s true that inflation didn’t help. One reason that incumbents are doing so poorly is that they promise nothing, and deliver it. Nations are in decline across the West, and all that candidates are allowed to offer is more of the same neoliberal pablum. Anyone who attempts to offer something different faces a coordinated attack from the media and incumbent political class, and the only ones seemingly able to break through the resistance are dishonest right-populists. The left has to come up with a solution other than dismantling (excuse me, “fortifying”) democracy, which appears to be the EU solution.
- estearum 11mo ago
  Can you tell me which Trump policies were pro-labor, pro-union, pragmatic, positive visions of the future? There was none. It turns out that actually you don't need pragmatic, positive visions of the future to win. In fact, we have plenty of evidence that pragmatic policies at all are a massive electoral liability when facing someone who is, again, willing to simply lie about everything. In Trump, you have clear evidence that people do not need pragmatic solutions to anything. Somehow you are pulling from that the conclusion that Democrats are not pragmatic enough. What makes you believe there is public appetite for pragmatic solutions? Enough to win a national election?
  - iamnothere 11mo ago
    Trump does not offer real solutions, except as a sound bite in passing (to be later ignored). But in the absence of pragmatic policies that voters can get behind, the winner will always be the candidate who offers to tear down the system that has failed the people. Mark my words.
    - estearum 11mo ago
      The reality is that sound bites have an intrinsic advantage over real solutions. Real solutions to complex problems are by their nature complex and uncertain (else the problem would've been solved already). "Immigrants are the problem" or "I will bring prices down on day one" have a fundamental memetic advantage that, in a lazy and unengaged populace, will win in 100% of scenarios. The real issue here is the GOP not holding themselves accountable to something better than suicidal demagoguery. The opposing party cannot prevent this from being successful. That's why it's a known, fundamental flaw of democracy.
      - iamnothere 11mo ago
        It sounds like you’re in a real spot of trouble then. If there are no solutions available. Maybe you can double down on the 2016/2024 strategy again.