Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,085]

Democrats face a reckoning and a long rebuilding. There is no quick fix.

Donald Trump’s commanding victory left Democrats adrift. They must first understand why they lost before figuring out how to rebuild.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/10/how-democrats-rebuild-after-defeat/

The question was asked countless times over the past few years: What is the future of the Republican Party? That question was answered on Tuesday by the voters. The party’s future is its present: President-elect Donald Trump. The pertinent question now is what is the future of the Democratic Party?

Defeat has launched a reckoning for Democrats. Ahead of Tuesday, many Democrats could not fathom that Trump could prevail, let alone win the popular vote, as he appears to be headed for while many ballots have yet to be counted. The search for answers has begun.

Start with some fundamentals. This was a tough environment for the incumbent party. President Joe Biden’s approval rating on Election Day was 40 percent positive and 59 percent negative, according to network exit polls. Even in an era when politicians have uniformly low approval ratings, that 59 percent negative judgment was an anchor that weighted down Vice President Kamala Harris.

On Election Day, 68 percent of voters said the economy was either “not so good” or “poor,” according to exit polls. Democrats wanted voters to focus on low unemployment, sustained if modest growth and a stock market that continued to expand everyone’s retirement accounts. Voters had another view: 46 percent said their family’s finances were worse today than four years ago while 24 percent said they were better; 75 percent said inflation had caused a moderate or severe hardship on them or their families.

Overall, voters were in a sour mood. In the exit polls, 73 percent said they were either dissatisfied or angry. This was an environment in which voters were calling for change — as they have in every election since 2006, except for 2012, when President Barack Obama was reelected. Of the 28 percent of the electorate who said finding the candidate who could bring needed change was their priority, Trump won them by nearly 3 to 1.

Given all that, it’s not so surprising that the party that held the White House and the Senate was driven out of power. Amid all the internecine finger-pointing about what Harris and her campaign could or should have done differently, and those questions are legitimate, it’s important to remember how much fundamentals affect the outcome of elections.

In the midterm elections two years from now, if Trump fails to deliver on the broad promises of his campaign, if the economy falters, if a Trumpian Republican Party without overwhelming strength in Congress proves incapable of governing effectively, Democrats could believe they are truly on the rebound. If history is any guide, and in the Trump era that’s not always a safe assumption, Democrats are likely to make gains in Congress in 2026.

Beyond the climate that burdened Harris, however, last week’s election highlighted the challenges Democrats have to confront to wrest power back. Trump has accelerated a realignment of the American electorate based on education, which has been the most significant fault line in politics since his first campaign in 2016. In 2024, it proved to be more significant than the gender gap, which drew huge attention but turned out not to be any larger than recent norms.

Colleagues at The Washington Post offered insight into this with an article analyzing the electorate that put Trump in the White House for a second time. The conclusion: The Trump coalition in 2024 was more diverse, younger and more working-class than the coalition that voted for him previously.

Voters without college degrees supported Trump by a margin of 14 percentage points, the most for any Republican since 1984. In that year, Ronald Reagan won them by 19 percentage points en route to a landslide victory by winning 59 percent of the popular vote and carrying 49 states. Trump managed to attract these working-class voters though his popular vote percentage currently stands at about 51 percent.

Trump’s coalition remains overwhelmingly White in its makeup, but one reason he has expanded his coalition is the shift in support among Latinos, particularly Latino men. Nationally, Trump carried Latino men by 54 percent to 44 percent. His support grew by 19 percentage points from 2020. In Texas and in Florida, he won Latino men with 64 percent of the votes.

Increasingly it appears that the Hispanic vote will be up for grabs, rather than solidly Democratic. That’s a huge change that Democrats cannot ignore. And it speaks to the broader decline in support among working-class voters generally.

Political parties are not static institutions. They are organic, capable of adapting and responding to setbacks. What this requires is not playing the blame game internally or looking for scapegoats or criticizing those for voting the other way. It requires sober analysis, a sound theory of the way back and a leader who can distill that into a winning campaign.

The most effective presidential candidates are often those who can define or redefine their party, as Trump and Obama did, rather than simply being defined by the party. Harris, because she entered so late in the election cycle, because she was the vice president and because she had not independently carved out an identity when she ran in the 2020 campaign, was defined by her party at a time when there was dissatisfaction with its leadership.

In some ways, the Democrats have faced worse moments. Republicans scored three huge presidential victories in 1980, 1984 and 1988, winning a total of 1,437 electoral votes to 173 for the Democrats. By 1992, voters were turning out an incumbent Republican president, George H.W. Bush, and handing the presidency to Bill Clinton, a Democrat. By 1996, Clinton was winning voters without college educations by 14 percentage points — an almost complete reversal of Reagan’s strength from 12 years earlier.

Clinton was part of a larger effort to assess the party’s problems, with deep research by pollster Stanley Greenberg into why working-class voters in Macomb County, Michigan, were defecting and with much of the intellectual thinking and testing run through a centrist group known as the Democratic Leadership Council.

It was left to Clinton, however, to synthesize all this into a compelling package, one that sought to de-emphasize the party’s most significant vulnerabilities, though not abandoning them wholesale, and finding new policies and ideas designed to change the image of the party in ways that would bring voters back.

The losses Democrats suffered on Tuesday were not of the numerical magnitude of the Republican victories in the 1980s. Harris lost Wisconsin by less than a percentage point, Michigan by less than 2 points, Pennsylvania by 3 points. Trump’s electoral college majority, after he was projected Saturday to have won in Arizona, the last state to be called, is 312, smaller than both of Obama’s totals in 2008 and 2012.

But that doesn’t mean the Democrats’ problems are not severe. In an era when there are few swing states, when most are either solidly blue or solidly red, winning working-class voters — whether Whites in places like those three Northern states or Latinos in the Southwest — is critical. And at the same time, Democrats must energize Black voters in the cities and suburban voters as well.

Today there are competing ideas about what the party must do to win back more working-class voters. For some on the left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) being the leading proponent, that means a more robust and populist economic program. Sanders lost that fight to Biden in the 2020 primaries, but the party’s progressive wing remains robust. For others, however, it means hewing even more to center-left policies, a recognition that many voters judged Harris as too far left for their tastes.

Trump and his campaign seized on immigration. They lied about Haitian migrants eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. Democrats were understandably outraged. But they underestimated broader concerns of voters about what had been a surge of undocumented immigrants coming into the country. When Republican governors sent busloads of migrants to northern cities, Democratic officeholders had to plead with the White House to help them deal with the strain on resources.

The Trump campaign also exploited the Democrats’ embrace of identity politics and specifically for transgender rights with an ad attacking Harris for advocating for gender-affirming care for prison inmates paid for by taxpayers. The tagline on the ad said, “Kamala’s for they/them. President Trump is for you.” The Democrats can’t afford to be judged as too woke by too many voters, lest they leave themselves vulnerable to just this kind of attack.

Clinton’s New Democrat formulation is a thing of the past. Some of the policies from that era have been rejected, especially some of the tough-on-crime measures that resulted in massive incarcerations of Black men. What worked then is not a prescription for what will work now.

The country has changed, and the Democratic Party has changed. The Democratic Party is centered more than ever in big urban centers and has lost touch with too many voters in rural areas. Its coalition is more diverse and more difficult to unite. It has lost some of its economic identity while identity politics of a different kind have taken on more significance.

What is most valuable to remember as Democrats begin this period of self-reflection is that what took place many years ago was an intellectual exercise with a political objective. The product was also something that did not enjoy immediate acceptance. Clinton had to formulate it and then test it in the real world of politics against opposition from others in the party, in a competition of ideas before he could take it to the country as a whole.

Too often in these moments, political parties look for an easy fix — a new message or a charismatic messenger. Those are necessary but not sufficient. The problems Democrats now confront are complicated and years in the making. Listening is the first step — understanding why many people were willing or even wanted to vote for Trump, given his obvious flaws — and building from what they learn. Only after that can they begin to regain the trust needed to be able to compete in places where they have been left behind.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,085]

10 hours ago, cosmicway said:

The question is why.
It can't be immigrants.
Because I hear about this Mexico story the exact same things from the time I was in nursery school - therefore the dems did n't bother big time.
It can be Trump's "money exists" tale but also the dislike of overwokism.

 

There are a tonne of reasons I will lay out over the next month

BUT

let's start with 3 big ones:

1. The Democrats never should have publically embraced and campaigned with hard RW neocons (the so-called Never-Trumper Republicans). That dismayed vast swathes of the Dem's base and at the same time yielded few R's to switch over to the Dems to replace the lost Dem base voters. Same for Biden's zionist boot-licking (in actual deeds, not his hollow words).

2. The RW is VASTLY better at social media, podcasts, and old school talk radio (plus Fox News). Social media is a pox, and AI is now making it far worse. Some their messaging depressed LW turnout, as the constant droning that America is fucked (how ironic) led many casual Dem voters to develop a feeling of hopelessness and also fear (of voting) via intimidation. Plus it also vaused a shedload of traditional Dem voters to swith to supporting the Repubs (which also lowered Dem vot toatals of course).

3. Because of the 2 centre-RW Democratic Senators (the POS's Joe Manchin of WV and Kyrsten Sinema of AZ) refusing to carve out a filibuster exception for 2 massively vital voting rights acts back in 2022, the Rethugs (at every level, from precinct up to statewide level) purged and voter supressed the hell out of millions of Dem voters nationwide via a myriad number of malign ways.

[robsblubot 3,595]

12 hours ago, cosmicway said:

The question is why.
It can't be immigrants.
Because I hear about this Mexico story the exact same things from the time I was in nursery school - therefore the dems did n't bother big time.
It can be Trump's "money exists" tale but also the dislike of overwokism.

I will partially disagree with Vesper above. Agreed regarding the social media aspect, which is undeniable and isn't a new problem.

I wrote long time ago on this thread, that Harris wasn't a very good candidate. I confess that I expected Jan 6 to have a much bigger, or ANY!, effect in this election, but the GOP and Trump managed to completely control the narrative this time around--see point above.

Migrants from South America are difficult to handle by dems: they tend to be very religious (GOP advantage) and are used to have a "strong man" as leader/president (current favors GOP). They don't like open borders, because they are afraid that the next batch of illegals (or not) will take *their job* or at least lower wages (abundant supply).

Woke is a complicated term because it is a good thing, an idea about inclusion. Then there is the various forms of *implementing it* which is what are IMO incredibly unpopular. GOPs most effective ads, usually during NFL games, were about ID politics. DeSantis has become very popular in FL just going after ID politics and little else.

For this reason, I'm not very optimistic about midterms in 26, unless the Trump administration itself becomes very unpopular--a possibility too.

 

[Vesper 30,085]

46 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

I will partially disagree with Vesper above.

What exactly are you disagreeing with me about?

I in no way remotely listed all of the many reasons why Trump won.

I just put out 3 reasons for a depressed Democratic turnout, and those 3 are not the only ones.

If you disagree with those 3 reasons for depressed turnout, then please do elaborate as to why.

 

 

[Vesper 30,085]

Trump Wins The White House. Again. - Jonathan Pie

lol

'real life Bond villain Elon Musk beavering away on X spreading a flurry of slurry across the Gooniverse and Jeff Bezos crouched in a fellating position ready to receive the Royal orange cock of the tax dodging multi-millionaire'

 

great comment:

Edited November 11, 2024 by Vesper

[robsblubot 3,595]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

What exactly are you disagreeing with me about?

I in no way remotely listed all of the many reasons why Trump won.

I just put out 3 reasons for a depressed Democratic turnout, and those 3 are not the only ones.

If you disagree with those 3 reasons for depressed turnout, then please do elaborate as to why.

 

 

For example, I don’t buy #1. It’s Harris they did not feel exited about no one else.

Obama could kiss Liz one the stage and the crowds would still go out and vote for him.

we also need to to factor in the similar message in Congress.

[cosmicway 1,333]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

What exactly are you disagreeing with me about?

I in no way remotely listed all of the many reasons why Trump won.

I just put out 3 reasons for a depressed Democratic turnout, and those 3 are not the only ones.

If you disagree with those 3 reasons for depressed turnout, then please do elaborate as to why.

 

 

It's not that he won.
He was going to finish thereabouts in any case once the republican party did not split because of J6 and he managed to handle it.
Also any attempt by the dems to approach soft never Trump republicans quite clearly never worked.

We are researching why so many dems stayed at home.
So I don't think it was illegal immigration because that is an old story.
I also don't think it was Trump's "money exists" promises, because if you believe that it rather makes you vote Trump, not abstain.
It was overwokism.
Palestine also, why not ? After all 7/10 was designed to boost Trump (old trick - divide the enemies of Allah - divide the class enemies).
Imagine the maximalist scenario. Trump dismantles NATO. The sixth fleet is pulled out of the med. Trump gives the finger to the Europeans,
Then Putin takes over. As things stand now Putin has more chances from the south than he has from the north.
The north scenario is after Ukraine jump to Finland, Sweden, Poland. But the south scenario is easier (always without NATO) and political excuses can be found. Go for Serbia, Turkey or Greece, Syria, Egypt ...

Edited November 11, 2024 by cosmicway

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

More evidence from Amsterdam people  of the Maccabi Nazis assaulting people - chanting genocide to arabs and boasting about killing children

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

More evidence from Amsterdam people  of the Maccabi Nazis assaulting people - chanting genocide to arabs and boasting about killing children

 

I would do that if I was in a city where they are displaying this flag:

[cosmicway 1,333]

How many people identify with the Palestinians in America - UK - Europe ?
I don't mean having views like mine (if used peaceful methods they would have the pal state now). Those are likely to be the majority.
I mean identify with Gaza after the 7/10 events.

[Fernando 6,585]

On 06/11/2024 at 09:04, cosmicway said:

No, don't believe that.
Propping up Trump was within Hamash plans to perpetrate the 7/10 atrocities.
It succeeded. Jews voted for "hardliner" Trump, muslims abstained from voting democrat.
This lot of muslims who voted Trump as you say were maybe Turko-americans.
 

‘They blew it’: Democrats lost 22,000 votes in Michigan’s heavily Arab American cities

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/09/democrats-lose-michigan-arab-american-voters

 

Arabs did vote for Trump as I was saying. 

[Fernando 6,585]

8 hours ago, Vesper said:

 

There are a tonne of reasons I will lay out over the next month

BUT

let's start with 3 big ones:

1. The Democrats never should have publically embraced and campaigned with hard RW neocons (the so-called Never-Trumper Republicans). That dismayed vast swathes of the Dem's base and at the same time yielded few R's to switch over to the Dems to replace the lost Dem base voters. Same for Biden's zionist boot-licking (in actual deeds, not his hollow words).

2. The RW is VASTLY better at social media, podcasts, and old school talk radio (plus Fox News). Social media is a pox, and AI is now making it far worse. Some their messaging depressed LW turnout, as the constant droning that America is fucked (how ironic) led many casual Dem voters to develop a feeling of hopelessness and also fear (of voting) via intimidation. Plus it also vaused a shedload of traditional Dem voters to swith to supporting the Repubs (which also lowered Dem vot toatals of course).

3. Because of the 2 centre-RW Democratic Senators (the POS's Joe Manchin of WV and Kyrsten Sinema of AZ) refusing to carve out a filibuster exception for 2 massively vital voting rights acts back in 2022, the Rethugs (at every level, from precinct up to statewide level) purged and voter supressed the hell out of millions of Dem voters nationwide via a myriad number of malign ways.

On the 2 when Trump won he mentioned Joe Rogan. 

So you are right he used social media to his benefits. 

I guess him doing this interview help him get more votes. 

As well going against NY times as I told you before. Never the newspaper should say not do this as people will do the opposite. 

Anyhow here's the Joe Rogan interview which Trump gave a shout out when he won. 

 

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

21 minutes ago, Fernando said:

‘They blew it’: Democrats lost 22,000 votes in Michigan’s heavily Arab American cities

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/09/democrats-lose-michigan-arab-american-voters

 

Arabs did vote for Trump as I was saying. 

22,000 is a small number (even for Greece !).

[IMissEden 21]

20 minutes ago, Fernando said:

On the 2 when Trump won he mentioned Joe Rogan. 

So you are right he used social media to his benefits. 

I guess him doing this interview help him get more votes. 

As well going against NY times as I told you before. Never the newspaper should say not do this as people will do the opposite. 

Anyhow here's the Joe Rogan interview which Trump gave a shout out when he won. 

 

 

? 
Since say, 2010, social media has been a priority tool for most in politics. Dems rely on it — they pay meme accounts to post things, make sure they go viral and etch into peoples minds. Normal. 

Repub have bucked the modern trends — that’s pretty much core to who they are —- and this is an extremely late arrival at the table, last to use it, re utilising social media as the primary driver. Everything is decided on social media now via manipulated frames. Or has been set that way over last 15 or so years. But not for red. Every Conservative party no matter the country are the last, latest arrivers to it. Can take that as unaware of latest trends, or, not caring to be aware of how to manipulate people. 
 

It’s nothing to comment on at this stage. 
 

Vesper’s comment is Wrong, re “RW are best at social media use”. Categorically just nah. That can’t even be unpacked because of how shockingly wrong a take it is. My word 

Edited November 11, 2024 by IMissEden

[cosmicway 1,333]

2 minutes ago, IMissEden said:

? 
Since say, 2010, social media has been a priority tool for most in politics. Dems rely on it — they pay meme accounts to post things, make sure they go viral and etch into peoples minds. Normal. 

Repub have bucked the modern trends — that’s pretty much core to who they are —- and this is an extremely late arrival at the table, last to use it, re utilising social media as the primary driver. Everything is decided on social media now via manipulated frames. Or has been set that way over last 15 or so years. But not for red. Every Conservative party no matter the country are the last, latest arrivers to it. Can take that as unaware of latest trends, or, not caring to be aware of how to manipulate people. 
 

It’s nothing to comment on at this stage. 

In the UK the Tories-Mogg-Farage own 99.5% of the media.
In America I don't know - maybe evens.