• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What did Democrats do wrong?

What did Democrats do wrong?

  • Didn't fight inflation enough.

    Votes: 13 14.9%
  • Didn't fight illegal immigration enough.

    Votes: 24 27.6%
  • Too much focus on abortion.

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Too much transgender stuff.

    Votes: 31 35.6%
  • America not ready for Progressive women leader.

    Votes: 31 35.6%
  • Should have kept Joe.

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • Not enough focus on new jobs.

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Nothing, Trump cheated & played dirty!

    Votes: 16 18.4%
  • Didn't stop Gaza War.

    Votes: 9 10.3%
  • I can be Agent M.

    Votes: 6 6.9%

  • Total voters
    87
Its not as black and white as that. Plus, those things probably could use mroe central planning. At least to establish a base level.
"Central" and "distributed"are both relative. Of course "roads, universities, mains water and sewage, power generation" rely on central planning. What some people mean by "distributed" is just "central" at a somewhat smaller scale - the state highway system vs. the interstate highway system, for example. Saying road systems don't have central planning is horse manure. Saying such things don't truly have central planning is basically a variant on "no true Scotsman."
 
i guess the interesting thing about inflation is it seems when people say inflation, they really mean purchasing power
Was this a surprise to you? I would have thought it was pretty obvious that when the average person talks about inflation, they're not talking about an academic theory of the value of money. It's literally a reflection of "Holy ◊◊◊◊, I just spent $300 at the grocery store, and that's just barely enough to get us through one week!" closely followed by "When the ◊◊◊◊ did a Big Mac start costing $15?"
 
The fact that inflation is down didn't really help because the damage of high inflation was and is still taking place. Trump left behind a horrible economy that Biden had to fix but those repairs are just now being felt. If there was a way Biden could've cause a deflation, it may have helped with the price of goods, but then that has its own set of problems.

Biden stopped the bleeding, but Trump's economic wound is still there.
 
Sure it does.
You did not provide an example of how it does; the values you mentioned (e.g. bodily autonomy for people of ovulation) do not follow from logic or reason, they are just something you value (or not) depending on what sort of world you desire to live in.
 
Was this a surprise to you? I would have thought it was pretty obvious that when the average person talks about inflation, they're not talking about an academic theory of the value of money. It's literally a reflection of "Holy ◊◊◊◊, I just spent $300 at the grocery store, and that's just barely enough to get us through one week!" closely followed by "When the ◊◊◊◊ did a Big Mac start costing $15?"
I admit it's kind of hilarious to me that the Democrats may well have lost the election on the strength of a "well ackshully" message.
 
Was this a surprise to you? I would have thought it was pretty obvious that when the average person talks about inflation, they're not talking about an academic theory of the value of money. It's literally a reflection of "Holy ◊◊◊◊, I just spent $300 at the grocery store, and that's just barely enough to get us through one week!" closely followed by "When the ◊◊◊◊ did a Big Mac start costing $15?"
And that's why folks voted for a guy who's promised to put 10-25% tariffs on half the stuff sold at Walmart or Target.
 
This morning, I read an op-ed that I can not find right now in which the author opined that it was the perception of the attitudes of rank-and-file Democrats rather than the platforms of the candidates for major offices (President and Senate) that cost the election. The author's position was that while the Democratic candidates ran on center or center-left platforms (Harris was certainly closer to the center than Trump was), many voters believed that the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party was overly woke and overly fixated on transgendered rights.

I'm not necessarily endorsing the op-ed, but I do think that it is worth considering.
Except exit polls show that's not what most swing voters who chose Trump were primarily concerned about. It was 'the economy, stupid' and illegal immigrants taking our jobs. Most were far more concerned about their pockets than abortion, or 'wokeness', or all the other things staunch conservatives bleat about. Which is actually quite rational of them. The only irrational part is thinking Trump would be better for their pockets. So the Democrat's real failure was in not convincing those people that Harris's economic policies would be better for them.

What's interesting is that Rebublicans were also concerned that Trump was going off message, and they tried hard to get him to talk about how conservative policies would help the economy and put more money in the pockets of the middle class - which of course we all know is true just because it is (trust me, don't look at the numbers!). And it worked, because most 'rational' people don't care much about politics. What they do care about is financial security. The immigrant problem is related to this. Most people aren't xenophobic, they just don't want to compete for resources. Liberal economists might tell you that immigrants are good for the economy, but we all know the 'truth' - if an immigrant will work for less then you are the loser.

That's why in countries around the world the incumbents are losing. Covid severely strained economies globally and locally, and wars in Ukraine and Israel are making it worse. Unfortunately most people have very short memories and aren't rational thinkers. All they see is the price of eggs going up while billions of dollars in aid are going out of the country. Trump then tells them that government waste (not low production due to Covid) is causing inflation, and he has a plan to get it down (never mind that it's already back to where it was when he was last president before Covid). Trump tells them he will stop all those wars and not pay a red cent in military aid, which obviously means more money for us (nevermind that we would have no use for all those tanks and munitions we sent to Ukraine - we weren't giving them cash!). Trump says he will boost domestic oil production and not export it (nevermind that oil is fungable and the government was making money out of selling what we didn't need and couldn't use). Trump says he will eliminate income taxes and replace them with tariffs, which obviously is a net positive becuse you don't buy stuff made in China, right?

Trump made all these claims about how his policies would make the economy better for the average joe, and Democrats didn't have anything to counter it because their agument was that Biden was doing a great job - when we could all see he wasn't (except he was, but nobody managed to explain it to them). Harris was furthering those policies, so voters realized that she wasn't going to break with Biden and make the changes they believed were necessary to get inflation under control etc. That's why her popularity waned, and it wasn't Trump who did that - it was conservatives managing to get him back 'on message' on the economy - their message.

This is typically how it goes for the incumbent after dealing with a crisis. No matter how well they do, any residual effect is blamed on them. Covid would have crashed the global economy and killed billions if action wasn't taken, but even the best response wouldn't completely eliminate the damage. Even countries that did very well domestically were still hit by the global effects. Every country suffered inflation, some much more than the US. But voters didn't look at that - all they saw was the price of eggs going up. That made them ripe for swallowing Trump's (actually conservatives') lies - and Democrats didn't do enough to counter it by showing how their own policies were better.
 
ahhell's priorities aren't any more or less irrational than yours. They are simply different. And if you would like democrats to win back some control... perhaps you should consider making it your problem to start understanding why people have different priorities, and which of those are the best place to start building common cause.
i was using the royal you, but i'm sure my priorities and how to achieve them are much more rational than anyone who listened to trump's economic policy and thought it would be good for the country. maybe some of you self identifying centrists could have chimed it, they'll drag you down with them same as me.
Was this a surprise to you? I would have thought it was pretty obvious that when the average person talks about inflation, they're not talking about an academic theory of the value of money. It's literally a reflection of "Holy ◊◊◊◊, I just spent $300 at the grocery store, and that's just barely enough to get us through one week!" closely followed by "When the ◊◊◊◊ did a Big Mac start costing $15?"
no, the thing i was explaining is not a surprise to me.
 
And that's why folks voted for a guy who's promised to put 10-25% tariffs on half the stuff sold at Walmart or Target.
tariffs on things we don't even produce domestically lowering prices is magical thinking

but trump won on the belief in him being able to magically fix things.
 
Trump made all these claims about how his policies would make the economy better for the average joe, and Democrats didn't have anything to counter it because their agument was that Biden was doing a great job - when we could all see he wasn't (except he was, but nobody managed to explain it to them). Harris was furthering those policies, so voters realized that she wasn't going to break with Biden and make the changes they believed were necessary to get inflation under control etc. That's why her popularity waned, and it wasn't Trump who did that - it was conservatives managing to get him back 'on message' on the economy - their message.
simple fact is the way the economy is structured prices don't drop, it's structured around wages lagging but catch up to inflation. it's been that way your whole life. in the meantime, trump says he will institute a bunch of inflationary measures that he promises will, with some magical thinking, lower prices. so the swing voters say they are concerned about inflation, which really means something else. trump says he'll fix it with some vague references to a bunch of incoherent policies that won't work, and i guess that's good enough to win them over. well ok, let's learn a lesson there.

so once again trump is lying and not making any sense, a bunch of gullibles fall for it again. the advice is don't dismiss these people as idiots and really listen to them. lie and tell them what they want to hear, use magical thinking and promise the impossible. is this the advice to me? i don't think so, you guys can do that.
 
tariffs on things we don't even produce domestically lowering prices is magical thinking

but trump won on the belief in him being able to magically fix things.
Even on things you do produce locally, tariffs don't lower prices. If anything they allow prices to rise on domestically produced goods because:

- Raw materials prices may increase if tariffs apply to them
- Labour costs may rise to keep up with rises in costs
- Domestic goods don't have cheaper, imported, goods to compete against

US produced goods will not be cheaper, and will most likely be more expensive which will also mean that they'll be less competitive internationally - especially if tariffs on US produced goods are implemented in response to US tariffs.

I can see a role for tariffs (or subsidies) to protect nationally strategically important industries (especially in the short term) but not as a general rule to enable less competitive industries to survive in the domestic market. The UK car industry is a case study in how to do it completely wrong.
 
Even on things you do produce locally, tariffs don't lower prices. If anything they allow prices to rise on domestically produced goods because:

- Raw materials prices may increase if tariffs apply to them
- Labour costs may rise to keep up with rises in costs
- Domestic goods don't have cheaper, imported, goods to compete against

US produced goods will not be cheaper, and will most likely be more expensive which will also mean that they'll be less competitive internationally - especially if tariffs on US produced goods are implemented in response to US tariffs.

I can see a role for tariffs (or subsidies) to protect nationally strategically important industries (especially in the short term) but not as a general rule to enable less competitive industries to survive in the domestic market. The UK car industry is a case study in how to do it completely wrong.
outside of some edge cases i agree. while it's inflationary in general to implement a tariff, there may be some reasoning that it gives american manufacturers a competitive edge to the point where producing domestically is more appealing instead of moving an operation overseas. it's purely inflationary to tariff products we don't produce at all in the hopes that we'll start. and then find a way to do it cheaper.

and at that point, we shouldn't even examine how restricting the labor pool and cutting spending will fit into that. probably not on the making things cheaper side.
 
Trump then tells them that government waste (not low production due to Covid) is causing inflation, and he has a plan to get it down (never mind that it's already back to where it was when he was last president before Covid).
I'm trying to figure out if "government waste" is effectively any different than "stimulus."
 
Instead of Trump, can we have Nikki Haley? Wind back the clock to 2020 and start again. But now that I know what's coming, I'll register as Republican and get her on the ticket.
 
The democrats did nothing wrong. We had Trump for 10 years. It was not possible to have a Democratic "Trump." There is no such thing.
 
So far it seems mostly the 21st century version of sabre-rattling. I note that the proposed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico come with an "unless."

“On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. “This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”
Until such time is the unless. Now don't get me wrong, the actual imposition of 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada would be incredibly stupid. Which is why it won't happen. Mexico and Canada will take some visible steps to reduce the flow of illegal aliens and redouble their efforts to interdict drugs. Trump will declare victory.

That said, if you are planning on guacamole for your Super Bowl party, you might want to stock up on avocados now and freeze them. If he's really serious about this tariff crap this is where he will show it.
 
it's 101 on how Fascists take de facto control of Industry and Commerce: threaten their commercial existence until they do what you want them to do.
Much less hassle than nationalizing them, but with the same effect for the government.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom