Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

I'm seeing lots of blame going towards the left, saying that they need to change if they want to connect with the people. Personally, I disagree. The left honestly did everything right. The problem with this election was the People.

This line gets repeated at every single lost election. When is the message going to get through that nobody wants centrist technocrats who don't promise to fix any of the problems with the country and seem to think that it's fine as it is?

Yes, it shouldn't be a "lesser of two evils" choice. We don't have it.

Trump is successful because he acts like he has a plan and is going to change things. It doesn't matter that he's lying and full of shit when the other choice's stance is to keep on truckin' the way we are. This is not about wanting an ideal candidate, about protest voting, or any other deflection. It's about the categorical inability of the current Democratic party to field a candidate who can get people mobilized and excited to vote for them.

The problem is not that the candidates are lesser evils. It's that that's all they ever are. The sole successful presidential candidate from the Democrats post-2000 was first-election Obama because he a) was charismatic and b) promised to fix something that a large portion of the population cares about. It doesn't matter that he was in actuality a center-right establishment stooge who contested Bush for the most-Middle East-warcrimes trophy or that his healthcare reform was what the Republicans proposed in the 1990s, he was at least willing to focus his campaign on doing something rather than on the fact that he wasn't McCain or Romney.

There will never be a firm electoral victory on the basis of "Hey at least I'm not the other guy," not because people want the perfect candidate but because it doesn't make people want to vote at all, much less for that candidate. There's a firm systemic denial of reality going on in the party establishment and way too many people buy the bullshit with the lines about not splitting the vote. Realize that 99% of the voting public doesn't think or care about any of the complexities of electoral politics. They care about their job, family, home, food, retirement, bank account, and rarely anything else beyond a superficial level. If you don't promise to make any of those things better or more secure, they won't care about what you say. You're never going to stop getting split votes and voter flips until you stop ignoring reality.

[Strongpoint]

I'm seeing lots of blame going towards the left, saying that they need to change if they want to connect with the people. Personally, I disagree. The left honestly did everything right. The problem with this election was the People.

The very basic idea of being a ruler in a country with elections and democracy is that you serve the people. You get elected promising them to do what they want. You can promise honestly. You can be a liar. You can't proudly announce "I'll do what my ideology dictates ignoring your views, needs and desires." and expect to win fair elections.

You can go for the route of representing views of a minority and getting a few % of representation... but you need something different to a two-party system.

[Truean]

Please do not quote

Agreed with about 80% ish of that, previously in post.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=162538.msg8560770#msg8560770
Determine root cause. Identify reservations/refusal to change. Plan practical mechanisms to change. Pitch mechanisms.

Again, remedy/method/mechanism is issue. The dueling threats of, " Do X or you'll never win again," declares stakes but not change method.
One coin side is "vote for candidate or get Trump."
Other coin side is "get different candidate or lose to Trump."

Both ineffective. Hard negotiating tactics: neither side wins until one forces its way and the other feels pissed. Ineffective.

Perhaps try determining root cause to identify reasons for refusal to change (reservations).
Then devise practical method/mechanism?

Democrat establishment thought they appealed to working class and minorities? Maybe not well....
$25K first time homebuyer credit and all the plans to expand housing (at least on paper).
No taxes raised on anyone making less than $400K/year.
Childcare affordability (One on Harris' points Trump said "couldn't cost that much."
Bipartisan border bill hiring more agents to secure it (which Trump tanked so he could run on an issue)
Calling the grocery stores price gougers and
"Build back better." Infrastructure funding jobs
Taxing Billionaires like Musk (who, surprise surprise joined Trump,  who wants to cut the wealthy's taxes again).

"job, family, home, food, retirement, bank account?" As you indicated, Trump doesn't have a plan.
Trump's catch phrase is literally "You're fired." He's not for those things for working people. He sure makes it look like he is.
Trump has no way to ensure jobs, families, homes, food, retirement or bank accounts beyond his own.
What should the democrats have promised? Lies more convincing than his? Not defending them; seeking solutions.

Now whether or not liberal appeals were ineffective in terms of both appealing to voters or working in real time may be different.

So, what do liberals do differently? Not saying no room for improvement. Asking what improvements practically look like. Because right now, I see conservatives riding high and happy toward controlling government, and liberals blaming each other.

Trump is well organized, unified, and very well funded. Liberals aren't and if that doesn't  change, then things will get worse for non conservatives. Someone somewhere needs to come up with a plan or the democrats and liberals are looking at worse.

Please do not quote

[Flying Dice]

Again, it's an optics/messaging issue. It doesn't matter how much is worked towards or accomplished if people aren't aware of it. The modern voter does little or no research, is not very critical or insightful, and has a short memory. It's why the talk radio style of basic, emotional talking points driven in every hour of every day has worked well for the right for 40+ years.

In addition to actually doing things that are good for the public they need to talk about their outcomes in plain English and they need to do it constantly, not once or twice. Be on all communication channels constantly pounding the narrative of "We made houses cheaper, we didn't raise taxes, we fought to fund border security," &c.

One of the issues is that a lot of the left's speechwriters and similar are policy wonks who don't have much awareness of any of that. They want to be precise and accurate about the fiddly little details, and they want to talk about every little thing. This confuses people and dilutes the message. It makes it easier for attack-dog types to steamroll over those details with overgeneralizations and lies. The simpler a political message is and the more it's repeated, the better it gets through to the public. Look at how well a lot of the Trump/Vance lies took root despite them openly admitting they were lies.

It's not complicated. Do things that are good for a large swath of society. Talk about those things constantly in simple soundbites, and about more things you're going to do. Find someone charismatic to helm it.

[Maximum Spin]

I'm seeing lots of blame going towards the left, saying that they need to change if they want to connect with the people. Personally, I disagree. The left honestly did everything right. The problem with this election was the People.

The day of the election, one of the top google searches was 'Did Biden drop out?'. Of course Trump's lies will sound more appealing to people who never bother to get informed and find out what's really going on. People have grown complacent, and most don't bother to vote at all, while those who do vote don't really understand what they're voting for.

Hopefully, if we still have a country in 4 years, the people will have learned a hard lesson about the importance of politics, and supporting sane stable leaders.

"Would it not in that case be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?"

[lemon10]

I've seen a lot of posts about what the Democrats did wrong, when really, they didn't lose because they did things wrong. Could they have done stuff better? Yeah, 100%. But the reason they did so bad wasn't that, 100% #ItsTheEconomyStupid.

Really, that's all it boils down to. The economy got way worse because of global inflation, and all the governments in charge at the time got shafted for it. In fact if you look at that graph the Democrats actually did really well.

Again, they could have done stuff better.
People were really worried about the economy, and Trump lied constantly "Yeah, I'll magically fix it", and Democrats did stuff like saying "Nah, the economy is perfect, your just imagining you can barely afford to eat/pay rent, look at all these statistics" or just as bad, didn't lie and pretend they could fix the global economy with a push of a button. Like they still would have lost, but *shrugs* less so.

Just about the only way I think they could have won is if they picked Bernie (lol, like the Party officials would have ever done that).
---
Trump won pretty soundly, but if he had been president in 2020-2024? Things wouldn't be so rosy for him.

[Egan_BW]

Oh well. Global levels of wisdom aren't great, but continue to rise. Maybe in another 500 years or so the world will start to make sense.

[Truean]

Please do not quote

Ok, so optics, charisma, messaging. Understood. Said that for years.

Recognize weirdness; any republican (never mind democrat) like Trump was not electable (Bush (W or H), Reagan, or any politician).
Nixon resigned over watergate.... Trump (prior to pardoning himself) has how many felonies/cases as of now?
Unprecedented. Trump gets elected, twice, and in a popular vote landslide the second time? 
Alleged "massive" democratic 2024 election fraud / cheating? Disappeared once Trump won?

Democracy requires two things to function, freedom and education. Apathetic electorate? "Post truth era." Facts don't matter?
Bean counters with stupid numbers and bad polls get listened to, "because numbers don't lie." They lied. Failure followed.

Who is the next "Charismatic Obama?" Boomer liberals haven't raised one. Harris was 11th hour hail mary play. Trump is making successors.

Yeah, the message and messenger need work, but the receiver is broken if facts don't matter too.

I don't know. I started typing an explanation but I think liberals are just upset they put all their eggs in one (now fallen) basket.
Harris laughed at Trump's absurdity, thinking she baited him. Ineffective, overconfident prosecutor underestimated threat. He baited her.
Rather than adapt to Trump's strategy, make changes, etc., many liberals are going to blame each other and do Trump's work for him.

This guy doesn't get it:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/10/jamal-simmons-joe-biden-kamala-harris/76182658007/
WTF is he doing suggesting Biden step down and appoint Harris President for 71 days. Optics? She didn't win the electorate but gets in for just over 2 months? Jesus, where do these morons come up with this crap,

"The move, Simmons argued, would keep Harris from having to oversee “her own defeat” when the presidential election is certified in the Senate, and “it would dominate the news at a point where Democrats have to learn” to grab the public's attention."

Your strategy lost dude. You are in a hole, quit digging. This guy is not a lawyer and it shows. Please tell me the Democrats have better strategists than this. You lost the election, very badly, and want to talk about how this will "dominate the news at a point where Democrats have to learn to grab the public's attention?" The only attention that'll grab is a way to piss off the electorate that they will always remember and hate your client (Harris) even more for, along with any other Democrat. Trump would pounce on that and eat it up. Trump is praying Biden does this, because it would massively benefit Trump. I bet he got great grades at Harvard Kennedy School and looks great on paper though. Where the hell is anyone with some common sense and why is this moron being listened to at all? Where are any decent Democratic policy advisors?

Please do not quote

[hector13]

Yeah. one of the big problems I had with Biden was that he said he was going to be a bridge to a new generation of Dem leaders, and then utterly failed to push even a single person forward as a successor.

[martinuzz]

Musk really bought the elcetions didn't he?
J.D. Vance threatened Europe that if Europe tries to regulate Musk's platform, the US will leave NATO.

[wobbly]

Musk really bought the elcetions didn't he?
J.D. Vance threatened Europe that if Europe tries to regulate Musk's platform, the US will leave NATO.

Musk likes to howl and rage when he doesn't get his way, but if you look at his fight with Brazil, Brazil's government didn't buckle and give in, and Twitter was actually forced to comply with the laws.

[Starver]

Yeah. one of the big problems I had with Biden was that he said he was going to be a bridge to a new generation of Dem leaders, and then utterly failed to push even a single person forward as a successor.

That could have been for any number of reasons. Back before it looked like there'd be any real problem getting a second term, it might have been reasonable to assume that (not necessarily public) careful nurturing might be going on to this end, rather than hot-housing one or more of the 'new generation'. Even if that was "just Kamala", the plans might have been to have had the 2025-2029 VPing duties as a more structured presentation of her qualities, rather than (as it was) the emergency fall-back option. (And it might at least have been giving the carefully staged appearance of a wider choice, apart from the actually intended successor (whether Harris, with not-Harris as token opposition, or not-Harris, vs. Harris as the fall-gal). But that sort of thing was forced out of play, the way the timings fell.)


There's a number of things that will shape how you lead. Among them[1][2] are: Intent (you have plans), Integrity (you operate honestly), Implaccability (steadfastness), Intelligence (understanding) and Information (knowledge). I don't think you'll find many people who score high on every one of those, especially in the face of all Incoming surprises (that test all the rest), but I'd rate the President-(re-)elect as depressingly low on most things, compared with all the alternatives. The first was clearly lacking the original time round, but has probably been significantly buffed up this time round.




[1] I left out Ideology, as I think that's really a subjective valuation in the eye of the beholder. One man's good ideology is guaranteed to be another's bad. Though I always thought it overlapped with Intent, anyway, except to prove that this other term only meant whether you had a clear intent, rather than left yourself surprised by your ability to suddenly call your shots.

[2] I forget where I picked up this piece of political philosophy, but I'm going to assume the originator started with the idea of alliteration and then started flipping through the dictionary. Why miss out "Innovation", though? Or "Immortality"! Or at least "Impressive six-pack"...

[McTraveller]

Not directly related to the election, but generally political: industry articles about how "US EV policies are out of sync with buyers."

Basically saying that legislation should wait for buyers to change their habits.  Right, like if people want to buy snake oil, who are we to say that we should just let them keep getting scammed and/or harmed by products?

I thought part of the general welfare clause was specifically to put policies in place that may not be aligned with "buyer preferences" when those preferences are detrimental to society as a whole?

It seems a microcosm of general human behavior.

[Eschar]

The people making the consumables have a vested interest in shaping "what the consumers want," or simply not providing any options other than snake oil

[Starver]

Snake Oil actually seems a relatively environmentally responsible option. It'd be closer to a biofuel than a fossil one...

(Aviation fuel version, ahoy!)