• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Top 5 Reasons the Democrats Lost the Election

Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
671
I think these are the top five reasons the Democrats lost the election:

1. Biden should not have immediately endorsed his far-left vice president when he dropped out but should have allowed more-viable candidates to have a chance to contend. Nancy Pelosi recently made the same point. In reality, Biden never should have run for reelection in the first place. This would have enabled the party to have a real primary.

2. Harris should have taken the border crisis seriously, both as an economic threat and a national security threat. She should have apologized for dropping the ball as the border czar. Then, she should have pledged to seal the border and to stop the disastrous catch-and-release policy. And, she should not have used the dishonest argument that Trump is "anti-immigration" and "anti-immigrant." Most people understand that opposition to illegal immigration is not "anti-immigrant."

3. Harris should have ditched the transgender agenda. Even many Democrats, arguably the majority of them, do not agree with allowing biological males to compete in female sports, and do not support allowing teens to start taking puberty blockers, much less allowing teens to get irreversible transgender surgery. Republicans hammered her on the transgender issue because their own polling showed that most Americans disagree with the transgender agenda.

4. Picking Tim Walz was an odd and inexcusable blunder. Walz, an unknown woke leftist, gave her nothing she did not already have. He gave her no new voters, and he came from a very safe blue state. Plus, he comes across as unserious and flaky. Governor Josh Shapiro, a confirmed centrist and a person with solid gravitas, was the obvious pick.

5. Harris should have frankly acknowledged that a solid majority of Americans are worse off now than they were four years ago. Exit polling shows that Trump won an astonishing 81% of the vote of voters who said they are worse off now than they were when Biden took office. Note: Only 24% of those polled said they are better off now than they were four years ago.
 
I think these are the top five reasons the Democrats lost the election:

1. Biden should not have immediately endorsed his far-left vice president when he dropped out but should have allowed more-viable candidates to have a chance to contend. Nancy Pelosi recently made the same point. In reality, Biden never should have run for reelection in the first place. This would have enabled the party to have a real primary.

2. Harris should have taken the border crisis seriously, both as an economic threat and a national security threat. She should have apologized for dropping the ball as the border czar. Then, she should have pledged to seal the border and to stop the disastrous catch-and-release policy. And, she should not have used the dishonest argument that Trump is "anti-immigration" and "anti-immigrant." Most people understand that opposition to illegal immigration is not "anti-immigrant."

3. Harris should have ditched the transgender agenda. Even many Democrats, arguably the majority of them, do not agree with allowing biological males to compete in female sports, and do not support allowing teens to start taking puberty blockers, much less allowing teens to get irreversible transgender surgery. Republicans hammered her on the transgender issue because their own polling showed that most Americans disagree with the transgender agenda.

4. Picking Tim Walz was an odd and inexcusable blunder. Walz, an unknown woke leftist, gave her nothing she did not already have. He gave her no new voters, and he came from a very safe blue state. Plus, he comes across as unserious and flaky. Governor Josh Shapiro, a confirmed centrist and a person with solid gravitas, was the obvious pick.

5. Harris should have frankly acknowledged that a solid majority of Americans are worse off now than they were four years ago. Exit polling shows that Trump won an astonishing 81% of the vote of voters who said they are worse off now than they were when Biden took office. Note: Only 24% of those polled said they are better off now than they were four years ago.
1.) Wasn't enough time to have a real primary, at least not one that would not have left the winner bruised and battered going into the general.

2.) Harris was never a "Border Czar". Please stop watching Fox News.

3.) The "transgender agenda" was mostly pushed by Republicans as a bigoted attack on a very small segment of society. If Harris had thrown them under the bus, the left-wing would have been pissed off, and Republicans would have just chosen another culture war target.

4.) Walz was a good, solid choice. No appreciable negatives, charming and likeable. Shapiro was way too pro-Isreal for the left. Given how many left-wingers did not vote Harris due to the ongoing war in Gaza, it's hard to see this as a mistake.

5.) A majority of Americans are not worse off today than four years ago (smack in the middle of the COVID downturn). They just think they are because Fox News tells them they are. A much different problem.
 
1.) Wasn't enough time to have a real primary, at least not one that would not have left the winner bruised and battered going into the general.
Tbh, I don't buy this. If Biden's health abruptly failed and incapacitated him forcing her to assume the presidency, and then take over on the campaigning side as the nominee, then sure... it's unforeseen circumstance and you can't really blame someone for that. This would have been the situation on the republican side if Trump didn't narrowly avoid getting assassinated back in July. So it's understandable to give that to the Harris campaign IF it was a comparable situation in any way.

However, It was clear for a very long time from videos of his interactions that he was suffering from issues and any criticism raised to point it out was shut out either by media personalities, by Harris herself, and by the party. Her compressed campaign period is simply the result of decisions made from the top, not to address a known issue early. It's a textbook case of not being prepared, and not taking timely action. I can't speak for others but seeing Biden crash in that debate after having the media and the Democratic machine drill it in this perception that nothing was wrong was not helpful to their credibility. And that's just the lowest hanging fruit among the reasons, not necessary THE main reason.

Exit polls shows America's primary concerns were in the economy, and in immigration.

Economically, we're better off now than we were in middle of 2020 considering we went through an artificially induced employment crash and recession caused by lockdowns in response to the effort to contain Covid-19. Hard to beat that... But some would argue that the recovery we've experienced since then would have been more significant had some states allowed their economies to open back up sooner, and had the government not printed so much money during that period to stem the inflationary pressures.

Immigration-wise, the administration presided over a period of record breaking illegal border crossings and opted not to do anything - even via executive order - until fairly recently. People not privy to the issue should look up what's happened in New York for the last couple of years since they tout sanctuary city policies, yet have barely succeeded in getting the majority of these immigrants on their feet, and are now moving immigrants to other areas of the country because - again in spite of their touting sanctuary status - their either don't want or can't handle the huge immigration influx. Their practices there and elsewhere have also contributed to the onset of gang violence from groups originating in Latin American countries which is adding to the issues. But the argument made, and continuing to falsely be made, is that any mention of deportations means a blanket deportation of everyone. As usual, rather than addressing the border to persuade people to go through the proper channels, people have been looking for reasons to avoid that.

Harris herself, was also not a particularly good candidate. Maybe better than Trump to many of you. But certainly not good enough to motivate the turnout she needed. When you tell the public you can't think of anything you can do differently than your predecessor to build upon your leadership, and when you don't even acknowledge the question when asked by someone that even friendly to you... That's definitely not helping ease your base about you being being able to perform.... This brought about several missed opportunities to cement her popularity boost at the convention when Trump's campaign honestly was at its weakest. This is the kind of argument that's currently playing out internally with the Party.
 
Last edited:
1.) Wasn't enough time to have a real primary, at least not one that would not have left the winner bruised and battered going into the general.

2.) Harris was never a "Border Czar". Please stop watching Fox News.

3.) The "transgender agenda" was mostly pushed by Republicans as a bigoted attack on a very small segment of society. If Harris had thrown them under the bus, the left-wing would have been pissed off, and Republicans would have just chosen another culture war target.

4.) Walz was a good, solid choice. No appreciable negatives, charming and likeable. Shapiro was way too pro-Isreal for the left. Given how many left-wingers did not vote Harris due to the ongoing war in Gaza, it's hard to see this as a mistake.

5.) A majority of Americans are not worse off today than four years ago (smack in the middle of the COVID downturn). They just think they are because Fox News tells them they are. A much different problem.
Your answer to point 3 suggests the democrats lose in 2028 with Gavin Newsom, who is the clear front runner for the nomination.
You could not have a more incorrect and misguided understanding of the subject.
 
Regarding the "Trans agenda" stuff. Most voters don't give a flying flip what kind of sex someone else is having or even if they like to play dress up as an adult. They just want those individuals to stop telling children about it and stop trying to recruit new members from the ranks of children.
 
Responding to the individual points raised in the OP:

1. I agree that Biden should not have run, but once he did and crashed and burned in the first debate, there was no way the Democrats could run a mini-primary; Kamala had to be the nominee at that point.

2. "I screwed up but I won't screw up again," is not a great argument.

3. Not much she could do on this; it's become a point where the liberal catechism is inflexible.

4. Agreed. Walz was a huge mistake.

5. Not going to happen in the real world.
 

Walz' wasn't a bad choice. Mature but not decrepid white guy ticks the safe ticket-balancing boxes. Plus he was, as he noted, the only one of the four of them that didn't wear makeup.
 
1) People are stupid. 2) People are really stupid 3) People are really really stupid 4) People are really really really stupid 5) You can't cure stupid.
You can't cure it, but you can work with it. The trouble with Democrats is that they don't. America is now officially an idiocracy. If you want idiots to vote for you, you have to tell them what they want to hear. Not facts or reality or what should be done and what is possible, but lies that resonate with their simplistic worldview. One presidential candidate did that, the other one didn't.

So here are the things Democrats did wrong:-

1. Biden dropped out too early. The result was exactly what I feared, Harris ran out of steam before election day - after people compared her policies to Trump's. If she had started later she could have promised the Moon in vague but confident terms and people would have remembered for the few days needed to get their vote.

2. Harris should have overstated the deportation numbers to make it look like she was being much tougher on 'illegal' immigrants. 1.1 million people were repatriated from the US in 2023. She should have claimed they were all deported, and said plans were in place to deport millions more next year "no matter what the cost".

3. Harris should have been a macho white male, married to a younger white woman who looked 'hot' (preferably an ex model). Several women should have accused him her of raping them with credible evidence, as proof of her manliness. Of course this would mean going transgender with major plastic surgery - perhaps even getting a hair transplant and platform soles to appear taller. To ensure nobody finds out she just had to do what so many gay Republicans do, pretend to be against what they are. So (s)he should have given the appearance of being staunchly anti-trans. (S)he should also have changed her name to one that was incontovertably masculine - eg. Kevin (which means 'handsome' or 'noble birth' in Irish).

4. (S)he should have picked a running mate who was wackadoodle but had a cult following on both sides - ie. RFK Jr.

5. Harris should have frankly acknowledged that a solid majority of Americans are worse off now because Biden eliminated Covid and reduced unemployment. Yes, that's right. If more people had died there would be more of their stuff left over for the survivors, and lowering uneployment fuels inflation because people have too much money! As Vice President, Harris should have scuppered all of Biden's initiatives, keeping people poor and sickly until just before the election - when (s)he would announce a permanent 100% tax cut funded by closing all federal departments except homeland security. With the money saved (s)he could have had a cheque for $1 million sent out to every bribed voter citizen who signed a petition upholding the whatever amendment, with a personal note from their next president - Kevin Harris.

I'm not some intellectually superior so-called 'economist', but I do know one thing - the goverment is to blame for all the economic pain we are suffering. If we just eliminated federal taxes inflation would drop to zero and nobody would go hungry. How do I know this? The Federal budget for 2024 is $6.8 trillion. There are ~132,508,000 household in the US, so that means every family could have another $5132.00 in their pockets every year - if it wasn't stolen from them by the jackbooted thugs in government. Imagine what you could do with all that money, and no inflation too! (y)

However you might be wondering how will we fund all those deportations wihout taxes? The answer is obvious, we'll make Mexico pay for it. But what about Chinese imports taking our jobs? Tariffs, that's the answer. And remember, China pays them, not you. That's why tariffs don't cause inflation - honest!

If only Kamala Kevin Harris had given us that message, (s)he could have been president now. But the stupid cow was too stuck on principle to lie her way into power.
 
Last edited:
1) Biden should have been pressured to not run much earlier. By the time he dropped (was pushed?) out, it was too late to hold an open race for the nomination (and it left whomever replaced him starting months behind Trump's campaign). Harris might have been the only viable choice given the small amount of time to campaign.

2) Immigration, even illegal immigration, is not an ecomonic threat. The US economy has become dependent on the labor of illegal immigrants. Trump's proposal to deport all illegal immigrants will most likely lead to a labor shortage.

3) Trans issues didn't play much of a role in the election. I generally don't listen to political speeches, but I don't recall Harris ever advocating biological males competing in women's sports.

4) Walz was a safe choice. He didn't add a lot, but he didn't subtract a lot either. Trump made a far worse choice with Vance than Harris made with Walz.

5) The key is that the majority of Americans THINK that they are worse off than they were 4 years ago. The reality is somewhat different: wages for non-supervisory workers have increased slightly more than prices have
 
You can't cure it, but you can work with it. The trouble with Democrats is that they don't. America is now officially an idiocracy. If you want idiots to vote for you, you have to tell them what they want to hear. Not facts or reality or what should be done and what is possible, but lies that resonate with their simplistic worldview. One presidential candidate did that, the other one didn't.

So here are the things Democrats did wrong:-

1. Biden dropped out too early. The result was exactly what I feared, Harris ran out of steam before election day - after people compared her policies to Trump's. If she had started later she could have promised the Moon in vague but confident terms and people would have remembered for the few days needed to get their vote.

2. Harris should have overstated the deportation numbers to make it look like she was being much tougher on 'illegal' immigrants. 1.1 million people were repatriated from the US in 2023. She should have claimed they were all deported, and said plans were in place to deport millions more next year "no matter what the cost".

3. Harris should have been a macho white male, married to a younger white woman who looked 'hot' (preferably an ex model). Several women should have accused him her of raping them with credible evidence, as proof of her manliness. Of course this would mean going transgender with major plastic surgery - perhaps even getting a hair transplant and platform soles to appear taller. To ensure nobody finds out she just had to do what so many gay Republicans do, pretend to be against what they are. So (s)he should have given the appearance of being staunchly anti-trans. (S)he should also have changed her name to one that was incontovertably masculine - eg. Kevin (which means 'handsome' or 'noble birth' in Irish).

4. (S)he should have picked a running mate who was wackadoodle but had a cult following on both sides - ie. RFK Jr.

5. Harris should have frankly acknowledged that a solid majority of Americans are worse off now because Biden eliminated Covid and reduced unemployment. Yes, that's right. If more people had died there would be more of their stuff left over for the survivors, and lowering uneployment fuels inflation because people have too much money! As Vice President, Harris should have scuppered all of Biden's initiatives, keeping people poor and sickly until just before the election - when (s)he would announce a permanent 100% tax cut funded by closing all federal departments except homeland security. With the money saved (s)he could have had a cheque for $1 million sent out to every bribed voter citizen who signed a petition upholding the whatever amendment, with a personal note from their next president - Kevin Harris.

I'm not some intellectually superior so-called 'economist', but I do know one thing - the goverment is to blame for all the economic pain we are suffering. If we just eliminated federal taxes inflation would drop to zero and nobody would go hungry. How do I know this? The Federal budget for 2024 is $6.8 trillion. There are ~132,508,000 household in the US, so that means every family could have another $5132.00 in their pockets every year - if it wasn't stolen from them by the jackbooted thugs in government. Imagine what you could do with all that money, and no inflation too! (y)

However you might be wondering how will we fund all those deportations wihout taxes? The answer is obvious, we'll make Mexico pay for it. But what about Chinese imports taking our jobs? Tariffs, that's the answer. And remember, China pays them, not you. That's why tariffs don't cause inflation - honest!

If only Kamala Kevin Harris had given us that message, (s)he could have been president now. But the stupid cow was too stuck on principle to lie her way into power.
Nah, it would have been much simpler than all those moves. All the Dems had to do was, after JD got Trump's VP pick, parade out the article I have linked below and offer to make JD their nominee for President. JD would have crushed Trump, his message in this article would have had broad cross party appeal:
Atlantic
 
You can't cure it, but you can work with it. The trouble with Democrats is that they don't. America is now officially an idiocracy. If you want idiots to vote for you, you have to tell them what they want to hear. Not facts or reality or what should be done and what is possible, but lies that resonate with their simplistic worldview. One presidential candidate did that, the other one didn't.

So here are the things Democrats did wrong:-

1. Biden dropped out too early. The result was exactly what I feared, Harris ran out of steam before election day - after people compared her policies to Trump's. If she had started later she could have promised the Moon in vague but confident terms and people would have remembered for the few days needed to get their vote.

2. Harris should have overstated the deportation numbers to make it look like she was being much tougher on 'illegal' immigrants. 1.1 million people were repatriated from the US in 2023. She should have claimed they were all deported, and said plans were in place to deport millions more next year "no matter what the cost".

3. Harris should have been a macho white male, married to a younger white woman who looked 'hot' (preferably an ex model). Several women should have accused him her of raping them with credible evidence, as proof of her manliness. Of course this would mean going transgender with major plastic surgery - perhaps even getting a hair transplant and platform soles to appear taller. To ensure nobody finds out she just had to do what so many gay Republicans do, pretend to be against what they are. So (s)he should have given the appearance of being staunchly anti-trans. (S)he should also have changed her name to one that was incontovertably masculine - eg. Kevin (which means 'handsome' or 'noble birth' in Irish).

4. (S)he should have picked a running mate who was wackadoodle but had a cult following on both sides - ie. RFK Jr.

5. Harris should have frankly acknowledged that a solid majority of Americans are worse off now because Biden eliminated Covid and reduced unemployment. Yes, that's right. If more people had died there would be more of their stuff left over for the survivors, and lowering uneployment fuels inflation because people have too much money! As Vice President, Harris should have scuppered all of Biden's initiatives, keeping people poor and sickly until just before the election - when (s)he would announce a permanent 100% tax cut funded by closing all federal departments except homeland security. With the money saved (s)he could have had a cheque for $1 million sent out to every bribed voter citizen who signed a petition upholding the whatever amendment, with a personal note from their next president - Kevin Harris.

I'm not some intellectually superior so-called 'economist', but I do know one thing - the goverment is to blame for all the economic pain we are suffering. If we just eliminated federal taxes inflation would drop to zero and nobody would go hungry. How do I know this? The Federal budget for 2024 is $6.8 trillion. There are ~132,508,000 household in the US, so that means every family could have another $5132.00 in their pockets every year - if it wasn't stolen from them by the jackbooted thugs in government. Imagine what you could do with all that money, and no inflation too! (y)

However you might be wondering how will we fund all those deportations wihout taxes? The answer is obvious, we'll make Mexico pay for it. But what about Chinese imports taking our jobs? Tariffs, that's the answer. And remember, China pays them, not you. That's why tariffs don't cause inflation - honest!

If only Kamala Kevin Harris had given us that message, (s)he could have been president now. But the stupid cow was too stuck on principle to lie her way into power.

Kevin Harris - masterpiece! :ROFLMAO:
 
Sorry but I don't buy this idea that the Democrats lost because of some set of mistakes. When tens of millions of Americans could look at Donald Trump and conclude that he was a credible candidate they wanted to vote for or just decided they couldn't really see much to choose between the two candidates and stayed home that is beyond the power of any campaign to change. Donald Trump reached out to something deeply broken in US politics and culture and told people things they wanted to hear, without regard for truth or facts, how could anyone compete with that especially when people are comparing the pre-COVID pre-Ukraine invasion world to the post-COVID world and its sudden surge in inflation that was beyond the power of any western government to avoid?
 
Sorry but I don't buy this idea that the Democrats lost because of some set of mistakes. When tens of millions of Americans could look at Donald Trump and conclude that he was a credible candidate they wanted to vote for or just decided they couldn't really see much to choose between the two candidates and stayed home that is beyond the power of any campaign to change. Donald Trump reached out to something deeply broken in US politics and culture and told people things they wanted to hear, without regard for truth or facts, how could anyone compete with that especially when people are comparing the pre-COVID pre-Ukraine invasion world to the post-COVID world and its sudden surge in inflation that was beyond the power of any western government to avoid?
he was born with a gold painted horseshoe up his ass but ate too many of it's paint chips
 
Responding to the individual points raised in the OP:

1. I agree that Biden should not have run, but once he did and crashed and burned in the first debate, there was no way the Democrats could run a mini-primary; Kamala had to be the nominee at that point.

2. "I screwed up but I won't screw up again," is not a great argument.

3. Not much she could do on this; it's become a point where the liberal catechism is inflexible.

4. Agreed. Walz was a huge mistake.

5. Not going to happen in the real world.
Agree with these, but I think for 2, it would be better than "I can't think of anything I'd do differently". For 3, I think she could have taken baby steps in that direction (we need to examine the sports issue , carefully get data on "gender affirming care"). On that note, I heard a guest on Bill Maher's show note that the ad that said "She's for they/them, Trump is for you!" also touched on the forced language issue, that some detest. For 5, maybe she could have acknowledged that the income gap has continued to grow - even under Dems - and note that we need more corporate regulation. But I also wish Biden had not run again, and there'd been a full Dem primary. Maybe Mayor Pete?
 
3) Trans issues didn't play much of a role in the election. I generally don't listen to political speeches, but I don't recall Harris ever advocating biological males competing in women's sports.
On the contrary, "trans issues" were, arguably, the decisive factor in the election. According to a post-election survey of voters conducted by a Democratic polling firm, the statement "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class" was ranked the most important reason for rejecting Harris among swing voters who voted for Trump.

Edited by jimbob: 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the contrary, "trans issues" were, arguably, the decisive factor in the election. According to a post-election survey of voters conducted by a Democratic polling firm, the statement "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class" was ranked the most important reason for rejecting Harris among swing voters who voted for Trump.
I see you have fallen for the anti trans BS ads that Trump spent a million on.
 
On the contrary, "trans issues" were, arguably, the decisive factor in the election. According to a post-election survey of voters conducted by a Democratic polling firm, the statement "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class" was ranked the most important reason for rejecting Harris among swing voters who voted for Trump.

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F58c180ed-98a3-45a5-a8b5-cee9e3bd9ca9_1103x1600.png
Imagine thinking that something a Trump voter believes has anything to do with reality.
 
How did you manage to get from me posting the results of a survey to me falling for an ad campaign?

It was a survey of what Trump voters believe. You should have just posted a video of a water skiing squirrel. It would have given us exactly as much insight into reality and at least been entertaining.
 
Let us be clear:

Harris was at no point a Trans Right advocate, she just failed to defang this accusation coming from Trump and the Media. The "trans agenda" BS was a complete fabrication from the Right, and they hammered it home until it stuck.

Harris failed not because she supported unpopular policies, but because her opponent made people believe she did.
 
On the contrary, "trans issues" were, arguably, the decisive factor in the election. According to a post-election survey of voters conducted by a Democratic polling firm, the statement "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class" was ranked the most important reason for rejecting Harris among swing voters who voted for Trump.

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F58c180ed-98a3-45a5-a8b5-cee9e3bd9ca9_1103x1600.png
Interesting survey. The first thing that caught my eye is that being too pro-Israel, supporting Covid lockdowns and allowing too many abortions were way down the list across the board, and other issues such as crime and taxes were also relatively unimportant. It was all about the government not doing enough to 'help' the middle and lower classes. Immigrants are apparently bad for the economy, and 'cultural issues' are a distraction from what Harris should have been promising, even lower inflation and more jobs for real Americans.

They chose Trump because he promised to do more. And as every swing voter knows, the policitan who promises the most will always deliver on those promises - even if common sense and his previous record says he won't.

When you look at the actual numbers, you have to wonder why so many think the Biden/Harris adminstration wasn't doing enough. Inflation in October this year was practically the same as it was under Trump in 2018 (2.6% vs 2.5%), and is still on a downward slope. So why do they think Trump will do better? It's almost as if they don't know the facts, and are just going by what Trump tells them.

On immigration there seems to be a similar disconnect with reality - which is that Biden has deported more immigrants in a single term than any other president since George W. Bush. The difference between Biden and Trump is that Biden has been turning more away at the border rather than expelling them after they enter the US - despite Trump's failed promise to build a wall to keep them out. Once again, it's like these swing voters don't know the facts, and are just assuming that when Trump says something it must be true.

On cultural issues, I see no evidence that Biden and Harris have focussed on them to the detriment of helping the middle class - unless you consider that eg. transgender people are somehow separate from the middle class and so don't deserve help. Such thinking comes off as rather seflish and possibly even bigoted, which I'm sure doesn't apply to swing voters. The logical conclusion is that once again they have fallen for a narrative that doesn't match reality.

So what this survey is really telling us is that swing voters are inclined to believe a serial liar and convicted criminal over the truth. Knowing what we do about humans in general, this is unsurprising. How many of us ever bothered to invest a few seconds of our precious time researching the facts? Whether liberal, conservative or 'independent', few of us are willing to be guided by the actual numbers - lest it clash with our ideological preconceptions.
 
Harris should have taken the border crisis seriously

Harris should have frankly acknowledged that a solid majority of Americans are worse off now than they were four years ago
Are these issues really that serious? I'm not a US citizen, politician or economist, so I might be not aware of the real problems that the Americans have, however according to many sources these problems are somewhat exaggerated, and complete elimination of these things might cause far more damage than good.

For example, illegal immigrants are good for the economy and they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Also Illegal border crossings have declined on average in recent times.

Inflation has been largely decreased and stabilized recently. Also a small amount of inflation is actually sign of healthy growing economy. Deflation is more dangerous than inflation.

After all, the US president isn't a magician with a magic wand. He can't just do miracles, these things require trade-offs and a lot of time.
 
They chose Trump because he promised to do more. And as every swing voter knows, the policitan who promises the most will always deliver on those promises - even if common sense and his previous record says he won't.
Yes, that's the issue, the US president isn't a magician with a magic wand. He can't just do miracles, these things require a lot trade-offs, a lot of time and a lot of work. Unfortunately, people want to hear sweet lies or exaggerations.
 
When you look at the actual numbers, you have to wonder why so many think the Biden/Harris adminstration wasn't doing enough. Inflation in October this year was practically the same as it was under Trump in 2018 (2.6% vs 2.5%), and is still on a downward slope. So why do they think Trump will do better? It's almost as if they don't know the facts, and are just going by what Trump tells them.

IMO there are a few elements to this.

The headlines were full of stories about how quickly prices were rising when inflation peaked a couple of years ago. People remember this and so they think that inflation is still high. They also misremember how much things cost before the inflation blip. They may remember that eggs were $2 a dozen and gas was $2 a gallon but that may have been years or decades ago.

People remember that prices have gone up, but they forget that their wages have also risen. That's because they deserved the pay rise but the price rises were beyond their control. Even though they are no worse off in real terms (or perhaps even better off), they feel worse off.

A lot of people are worse off because the economic benefits have come very unequally. A significant proportion of people, typically those who were already poorly off, have seen their standard living fall due to their wages not keeping pace with inflation.

So even if 60% of people are better off, a significant proportion of them either don't feel better off and/or blame the government for the increased prices whilst congratulating themselves for their increased income.
 
It's a 101 distraction move: the problem is not that prices rise and fall, it's that most people get poorer while it happens while others double their net worth in the process.

what we need is actual market competition, which means atomizing the big players in any market until their shares is so tiny that they can no longer set prices.
 
On the contrary, "trans issues" were, arguably, the decisive factor in the election. According to a post-election survey of voters conducted by a Democratic polling firm, the statement "Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class" was ranked the most important reason for rejecting Harris among swing voters who voted for Trump.
Given that transgender issues affect a small minority of the population, it's difficult to believe that large numbers of people based their voting decisions on them. Did they otherwise believe that there was little difference between the candidates? Or that Harris was superior on most issues but that this one issue over-rode that?
 
Given that transgender issues affect a small minority of the population, it's difficult to believe that large numbers of people based their voting decisions on them. Did they otherwise believe that there was little difference between the candidates? Or that Harris was superior on most issues but that this one issue over-rode that?

I fear it is entirely possible that large number of people decided to pick this tiny issue as the excuse for placing their vote.
Most voters are extreme egoists when Election time comes, and a weak signal that you might support a tiny minority is a strong signal that you won't support the vast majority, at least in the minds of way too many:
pure Availability Bias makes it feel like the Trans Community has just appeared out of nowhere, and suddenly they get to go the the front of the queue?!? Not on MY watch !!!

never mind that the goal was to just let the Trans Community join the queue openly, nothing more. But sharing a privilege feels for a majority of Americans like losing a privilege.
 
Given that transgender issues affect a small minority of the population, it's difficult to believe that large numbers of people based their voting decisions on them.
The loss of female safe spaces would affect 50% of the population. You may not believe that would be the inevitable result of self ID, but for those that do it is a significant issue.
 
The headlines were full of stories about how quickly prices were rising when inflation peaked a couple of years ago. People remember this and so they think that inflation is still high. They also misremember how much things cost before the inflation blip. They may remember that eggs were $2 a dozen and gas was $2 a gallon but that may have been years or decades ago.
I think people also have some psychological expectations about what the remedies ought to look like here. Lots of peoples are thinking "When are prices going to come back down?!" and the distant technocrat says "Never, that's not how this works."

I mean, I still feel like the bill is too high when I go grocery shopping, and I will probably still think so even if/when my real wages catch up to inflation. That will only change after I become accustomed to paying more, which is probably just down to repeated exposure. Or maybe my brain is too old and that will never change. Every time I saw my step-mother's mother, she'd ask me "Do you know how much a subway ride cost when I was young? A NICKEL," and then kind of shake her head in a way that suggested that she thought the whole world had gone crazy. Number too big.
 
I think people also have some psychological expectations about what the remedies ought to look like here. Lots of peoples are thinking "When are prices going to come back down?!" and the distant technocrat says "Never, that's not how this works."

I mean, I still feel like the bill is too high when I go grocery shopping, and I will probably still think so even if/when my real wages catch up to inflation. That will only change after I become accustomed to paying more, which is probably just down to repeated exposure. Or maybe my brain is too old and that will never change. Every time I saw my step-mother's mother, she'd ask me "Do you know how much a subway ride cost when I was young? A NICKEL," and then kind of shake her head in a way that suggested that she thought the whole world had gone crazy. Number too big.
Fun fact: Reagan won a landslide re-election in 1984 with an inflation rate almost double what it is now. Somehow, the electorate 40 years ago was able to take a rational look had how things had improved from four years previous, and even though they weren’t perfect, didn’t punish the incumbent for it.

Probably the biggest change between now and then is a media landscape dominated by right wing propaganda and a general desire for generating clickbait vs reporting the facts.
 
I'm not some intellectually superior so-called 'economist', but I do know one thing - the goverment is to blame for all the economic pain we are suffering. If we just eliminated federal taxes inflation would drop to zero and nobody would go hungry. How do I know this? The Federal budget for 2024 is $6.8 trillion. There are ~132,508,000 household in the US, so that means every family could have another $5132.00 in their pockets every year - if it wasn't stolen from them by the jackbooted thugs in government. Imagine what you could do with all that money, and no inflation too! (y)
Yes the government is to blame, because it spends more money than it takes in, since Bill balanced the budget.
Trumps tax cuts are an important factor in the inflation we have seen lately. So are Bushes tax cuts.
Where will we get the money to provide for defense and seal the border, if those are things we actually want to do.
Also the governement owes me about 40K per year as well as medical insurance, things I have already paid for.
 
Back
Top Bottom