2024 Presidential Election -- new thread for the final week

[LasVegas]

I think this is a red herring. There wasn't time to run a new primary. That ship sailed the moment Biden ran for re-election, because no serious Dem challenger was going to oppose him. Once he stepped aside, Harris was the best option realistically available given the time frame. And she made was was going to be a blowout loss fairly close.

The only chance for someone other than Biden or Harris to be the Democratic nominee was for Biden to announce well in advance of the primary that he wasn't going to run again. Then you might have seen the Newsom, Shapiro, Klobuchar, Harris, Buttigieg matchup battling out for the party's top spot.

Right, which is what I meant. Democrats had no say in who the nominee was which is a bad recipe for success when history is working against you.

 

[Rich]

I have a very simple take on the election:

Harris = Biden = Inflation, bad economy
Trump = Change = Good economy, fewer migrants, we don't care how he gets it done, and we can live with his rhetoric, baggage, etc.

Certainly there were other factors such as people who would not vote for a woman, or a black woman, on the other side others who voted strictly "For Democracy" or "For Reproductive Rights."

As an aside, I heard an interesting take this morning from the NY Times that the ballot measures for reproductive rights gave women an excuse to vote for the measure AND vote for Trump since he has not come out as strongly against reproductive rights as other Republicans.

But by and large it was about changing the things caused (or perceived to be caused) by the Biden administration.

 

[CrazyNotCrazie]

It’s both. It’s not the Dems fault that a large swath of this country have evolved such that they get more political utility from feeling superior to other races/genders/religions/sexualities than they do from doing what’s in their own self interest.

I do think it’s the Dems fault that they pearl clutch at even their own missteps rather than go on an absolute offensive on how and why they believe their platform is better for most of America than the GOP. Perhaps steering away from DEI being the tip of the spear (as much as I feel it is important) and pivoting to economic over social issues is the way. There is no doubt that the sickening and untrue anti-transgender advertising campaigns by the GOP hit home with many. It’s unfortunate but they found a lane that worked.

The word "evolved" is doing a lot of work there.

Otherwise agree with you. The obsession with transgender particularly bothered me. Most of these people have not knowingly been within a mile of a transgender person (though in reality they probably have and didn't know it). Yet that was their deciding issue? While complaining about inflation yet ignoring those pesky "experts" who are telling them that it is very clear which candidate will make inflation a lot worse.

 

[ryetales]

I don’t know how you don’t see it. She is unlikeable, I said before that Biden was as well and Hillary before him. Has nothing to do with gender. They way they communicate, talk to or about others, the lack of conviction in their policies, and how little they take a stand against things. They all come across as weak and petty, like an awful boss who only got the job because it’s a family business.

I hate whataboutism, but since I don't see her being unlikeable, how can anyone call Trump likeable? I really don't see that.

 

[Chicago 1995]

It’s both. It’s not the Dems fault that a large swath of this country have evolved such that they get more political utility from feeling superior to other races/genders/religions/sexualities than they do from doing what’s in their own self interest.

I do think it’s the Dems fault that they pearl clutch at even their own missteps rather than go on an absolute offensive on how and why they believe their platform is better for most of America than the GOP. Perhaps steering away from DEI being the tip of the spear (as much as I feel it is important) and pivoting to economic over social issues is the way. There is no doubt that the sickening and untrue anti-transgender advertising campaigns by the GOP hit home with many. It’s unfortunate but they found a lane that worked.

It may not be our fault, but it is our problem if we want to win elections.

I grew up in a rural community and county that is one of the Obama to Trump to Trump-ier to last night really, really, really Trump-ier. That line of thinking - that those voters don't know what is in their best interest, and some New York or California or Chicago "liberal" does has done more harm to the party that I think any of us could have imagined before last night.

If we want to win elections, we have to get past this kind of thinking and figure out how to reach those voters, because we pretty clearly can't win without some of them.

And, for what it is worth, I think there also has to be a recognition that an emphasis on social issues particularly in this economic environment (or perceived economic environment) was a misstep.

 

[bundabergdevil]

Why did they not get the turnout? Could it be they did not like the candidate or her message? Maybe it is that simple.

Perhaps partially. Trump is likely to come in below his 2020 total, too. Likely lots of things at play.

It’ll be dissected as nauseum.

 

[jipops]

It's easier to sell hate and anger than patience and policy. That's not unique to the USA either.

No, it's not unique. And it is indeed far easier. It's basically taking advantage of the human condition. That's how I see it anyways.

And I think that is why the Democrats, as we saw in this past election cycle, are held to a completely different standard than their counterparts. Just provided as examples in this thread we've already seen comments about the Democratic candidate not being "likeable". Yet somehow that is not a prerequisite standard for the GOP candidate?

One party has established itself as an actual governing party that will at times reach successes and many times trip all over themselves. I think this is inevitable with any function that does the very complex business of governing.

And then you have another party which has morphed itself into bulldozing over norms, building narratives solely based on fear, and looking to make a case to erode the rights of segments of the population as a means of solving problems.

As difficult as this is, Democrats have to solve the messaging problem that they have. This can't be a case of, "spreading hate is just easier, what can we do?"

 

[CDu]

And, for what it is worth, I think there also has to be a recognition that an emphasis on social issues particularly in this economic environment (or perceived economic environment) was a misstep.

I would say this a bit differently, as aside from reproductive freedom Harris didn't push social issues at all. She certainly wasn't campaigning on DEI and trans rights. I think it was just that they didn't emphasize the economic strategy enough - making clear the progress that the economy has made since COVID broke everything, and her plan to make things better from there.

 

[Chicago 1995]

I would say this a bit differently, as aside from reproductive freedom Harris didn't push social issues at all. She certainly wasn't campaigning on DEI and trans rights. I think it was just that they didn't emphasize the economic strategy enough - making clear the progress that the economy has made since COVID broke everything, and her plan to make things better from there.

Fair as to the campaign, but maybe I'd disagree about the last four years of work.

And reproductive rights should have been pushed. It was huge in '22, and seemed like it should have resonated this year still. Fell flat on a national level.

 

[HoKogan]

Perhaps partially. Trump is likely to come in below his 2020 total, too. Likely lots of things at play.

It’ll be dissected as nauseum.

Thats amazing (in a bad way) if true. If he finishes at or below his 2020 vote total, then democratic turnout was depressingly low and we've already seen independents break more for Trump than Harris.

 

[CDu]

As difficult as this is, Democrats have to solve the messaging problem that they have. This can't be a case of, "spreading hate is just easier, what can we do?"

Yeah, and I think it starts with winning on the media platforms that people use now. Right now, the Trump camp has a huge structural advantage in the media through podcasts and Twitter. It's going to be hard for Dems to counter that, but they have to figure out a way.

The only other way is to let Trumpism play out to its full extent and see the economic damage it causes. Which isn't ideal. But unless they can win the media messaging battle, it may take an economic collapse to turn things around.

 

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I would say this a bit differently, as aside from reproductive freedom Harris didn't push social issues at all. She certainly wasn't campaigning on DEI and trans rights. I think it was just that they didn't emphasize the economic strategy enough - making clear the progress that the economy has made since COVID broke everything, and her plan to make things better from there.

And there are a lot of Democrats who are very passionate about Climate Change yet I noticed that Harris seemed to generally stay away from this as she realized that it was not a winning issue with the "marginal voter." Those who cared about it were probably going to vote for her either way.

As I said above, Trump screamed louder and attached Harris to many of these issues, often using some very minimal basis in fact (and some creative editing for commercials that I thought was juvenile but likely resonated with others) to do so. And Harris was not able to capably refute these and/or remind people that these are not the main issues they should be using to determine their votes. I don't know the answer.

 

[JasonEvans]

Aaron Sorkin had a crystal ball back in 1995... He called it.

"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson Donald Trump is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character. And wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism and you tell them, she's to blame for their lot in life, and you go on television and you call her a whore."​

​

 

[robed deity]

Why did they not get the turnout? Could it be they did not like the candidate or her message? Maybe it is that simple.

Perhaps partially. Trump is likely to come in below his 2020 total, too. Likely lots of things at play.

It’ll be dissected as nauseum.

And this is what gets me. I agree the Dems need better messaging and there were unfortunate economic circumstances this cycle. But:

2020- nominate old white guy-win convincingly
2024-nominate black woman -lose, and it's not really that close.

Trump will get nearly the same vote.

Maybe not that simple, but I'm not so sure. And that makes me very ashamed to be an American today.

 

[BLPOG]

The Litany of Tarski is a template to remind oneself that beliefs should stem from reality, from what actually is, as opposed to what we want, or what would be convenient. For any statement X, the litany takes the form "If X, I desire to believe that X".

And similarly, "If Not X, then I desire to not believe X."
There is a lot of confusion in the comments I've read in this thread over the last day. Consider that what you believe to be satisfactory explanations of others' behavior might not reflect reality, and that there are ways to test your beliefs.

 

[CDu]

Perhaps partially. Trump is likely to come in below his 2020 total, too. Likely lots of things at play.

It’ll be dissected as nauseum.

Trump will probably get pretty darn close to his vote total from 2020, if not outright above it. He's at 71.4 million right now with a lot of California and western state votes still to go. He got 74.2 million in 2020. I don't know if he'll quite get to 74 million, but it'll probably be close. The issue for the Dems is that they are going to drop about 10 million votes from 2020 to this year, from Biden's 81.3 million to probably around 71 or 72 million.

 

[SkyBrickey]

Trump only had Fox News, but the Dems had almost all of the other media outlets.

The world of media has changed a lot more than most people understand. Elon Musk and Joe Rogan reach many, many times more people than the CNN news shows.

Elon Musk tweets hard-hitting messages multiple times a day to 200M followers - let's guess 50M are real American voters - that are then shared and echoed out to millions more. Joe Rogan has 30M listeners/followers. Meanwhile, Wolf Blitzer speaks to about 600,000 Americans each night.

And CNN is platforming Scott Jennings, David Urbin, etc. trying to stay balanced while Musk and Rogan are spewing disinformation unchecked, unchallenged.

Murdoch and Musk are the media oligarchs propping up the MAGA movement. Trump will now start silencing and dismantling the critical media like he's been openly threatening to do.

 

[CameronBornAndBred]

I can't tell you how many people I know -- and these are business owners and professionals -- who have brought up the Joe Biden "garbage" line to me over the closing stretch.

And yet Trump ran a multiyear campaign built on denigrating others.

 

[JNort]

Trump only had Fox News, but the Dems had almost all of the other media outlets.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are the way most people consume news now. All three were firmly beneficial to Trump.

 

[CDu]

2020- nominate old white guy-win convincingly

Minor quibble, but the Dems did not win convincingly in 2020. They won by about 45,000 votes total across three swing states. Just like Trump did not win convincingly in 2016. He won by about 75,000 votes across three swing states. This year is a convincing win, as it doesn't appear that any state will be within 50K votes at all. But the past two elections were razor thin margins, even though the electoral math suggested comfortable wins.

As for why that's the case? Well, in 2020, we had COVID, and enough folks wanted change even though Biden wasn't a great candidate (too old, had trouble winning the nomination in a not very strong field). In 2024, we had the economic effects of COVID, and folks wanted change even though Trump wasn't a great candidate (historically bad favorability ratings, questionable-at-best economic and health policy suggestions, too old).