2024 Elections Thread

[Langue_doc]

Election Live Updates: Trump Says He Won't Do Another Debate as Harris Announces Cash Haul
Vice President Kamala Harris is said to have raised $47 million in the 24 hours after the debate on Tuesday. She pushed former President Donald J. Trump to participate in another debate after he said he was done with them.

[marshwiggle]

Lemme ask the question I have been thinkin' on, and trying to ask people whose knowledge I think makes them likely perhaps to be able to intelligently and knowledgeably answer it: how does one go about demonstrating to Trump voters why it is a bad choice to vote for him, why many of the things about him and about Harris that he and his acolytes and sycophants are saying are false, etc.?

This is extremely condescending. It's like Biden's "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black."  Or the message that women who voted for Trump in 2016 did it because of "internalized misogyny". Telling voters they're too stupid to recognize what's good for them, but that if they'll just listen to their betters they can be enlightened is a recipe for getting them to become even less likely to do what they are advised to do.

Respecting people requires allowing them to articulate their own values, and then perhaps seeing if something you are in favour of in some way aligns with their stated values.

[Langue_doc]

Respecting people requires allowing them to articulate their own values, and then perhaps seeing if something you are in favour of in some way aligns with their stated values.

Exactly. We are a democracy, after all. Much though we might loathe a candidate, as long as he/she is officially on the ballot, our only options are to vote for the other candidate or not vote at all. Arguing with people and/or trying to convince them of the folly of their decisions/choices has the same effect as proselytizing.

[marshwiggle]

Today I came across a fascinating paper on the Marginal Revolution website:

Latent Polarization

These guys claim that individuals are getting better at identifying who their favored groups are [and I might add that politicians have perhaps gotten better at recognizing how these are defined]. The important point is that 'favored' is defined across many, many issues. E.g., used to be [1980's] that religious affinities were poorly correlated with political parties, income did OK, but now its religion and other ideology, and nothing else. Thus, the median voter theorem does not hold. One would not expect politicians to move to the center.

If true, it's not the political or primary or first-past-the post system defeating us. These systemic elements are granting us our wishes. In the present election it looks like both parties are playing to their own crowds -- rationally so.

It's sufficient to read the introduction to get an idea of what is being done.

That paper is amazing!
A few fascinating points:

If individuals have a
preference for associating with other like-minded people, then using identity traits to determine
group membership is costly.
This suggests that political
parties and other social organizations can create more cohesive coalitions when focusing directly
on people's values, or viewpoints.


We also found that over the last four decades, values-based polarization in the U.S. has been
rather stable. In addition, the main values dimension along which people disagree the most has
not changed since the early 1980s. The culture war that has come to the fore in recent years has
been latent for a long time. However, the differences in values between voters of the two main
political parties have increased: partisan polarization between Democrats and Republicans was
relatively low and stable until the early 2000s, but has since then tripled in magnitude. During
this process, the mean positions of the Democrats and the Republicans have become increasingly
aligned with the endogenous values-based clusters that we identified. As such, the realignment
of political parties in the U.S. and the concurrent rise in political polarization do not stem from
an increasingly divided and polarized society, but rather from political affiliations becoming more
reflective of latent values-based clusters.

By 2017 (wave 7), the average respondent who aligned with the Republican Party has fully
converged to the mean position of cluster 1 - the majority cluster that makes up around two-thirds
of the U.S. population. The Democrats have moved closer to cluster 2, but continue to be more
centrist than the mean position of the second cluster. This is consistent with the vote share of the
two parties being close to 50-50, as cluster 2 only makes up only about one-third of the population:
if the mean values of supporters of the Democratic Party had fully moved to those of cluster 2, the
Democratic Party would only command a vote share of roughly one-third.

[kaysixteen]

Aw shucks ya gots me.   I DO WANT to proselytize these people, most especially my white evangelical coreligionists.   They have been sold an evil bill of goods by the worst man ever to be president, whose blatant, repeated slaughtering of the 9th commandment has done and continues to do immense and long-lasting damage to our faith.  I can hardly stomach it any more, and we are still almost two months out from election day.  Christians ought to stand for truth, not 'alternative facts', and it just no longer cuts the mustard to suggest that 'this is a free country, and everyone just ought to have the right to vote for whomever they choose'.

[dismalist]

Aw shucks ya gots me.   I DO WANT to proselytize these people, most especially my white evangelical coreligionists.   They have been sold an evil bill of goods by the worst man ever to be president, whose blatant, repeated slaughtering of the 9th commandment has done and continues to do immense and long-lasting damage to our faith.  I can hardly stomach it any more, and we are still almost two months out from election day.  Christians ought to stand for truth, not 'alternative facts', and it just no longer cuts the mustard to suggest that 'this is a free country, and everyone just ought to have the right to vote for whomever they choose'.

Would it not in that case be simpler
for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
--Bert Brecht, The Solution, 1953. Published 1959.

[Ruralguy]

I can respect that people *have* a choice without necessarily respecting their precise choices. I am not going to pretend that all choices are equal.

[histchick]

According to a Trumpist family member...

1) Pro-life!!!!!
2) What if it was true that even ONE immigrant ate ONE dog?
3) Harris was wearing a wireless mc disguised as an earring.
4) Did I mention the innocent unborn?

For my Trump-voting parents, it's the economy and illegal immigration.  They don't like him at all, but they will vote for him on those policies alone.

[Ruralguy]

You mean that they are "against" an economy that has the S&P 500 index up 25% on the year (15% the year before that)? I get it, they mean the accumulated inflation, most likely. Though inflation has been way off its peak for over 2 years and still decreasing, even if some categories of goods see *deflation*, many still have some accumulated inflation over 4 years, and in many categories it is 20% (5% ish pear year as opposed to a recently more typical 2 or 3% per year, so total inflation closer to 10% or less for 4 years).

Its impossible to say the economy is good, even if it is, when orange juice and bacon still have increasing prices (even if milk and bread are fairly stable).
Oh well.

[marshwiggle]

According to a Trumpist family member...

1) Pro-life!!!!!
2) What if it was true that even ONE immigrant ate ONE dog?
3) Harris was wearing a wireless mc disguised as an earring.
4) Did I mention the innocent unborn?

For my Trump-voting parents, it's the economy and illegal immigration.  They don't like him at all, but they will vote for him on those policies alone.

Illegal immigration is a fascinating example. The Democrats are in the awkward position of knowing that illegal immigration is a real problem, but having to say little so as to not antagonize the far left "open borders" and "sanctuary cities" fringe. That awkward silence is something voters can clearly pick up on. Trump says a lot of crazy stuff, but that distinct lack of awkward silence appeals to people tired of politicians trying to avoid saying anything definitive.

[dismalist]

You mean that they are "against" an economy that has the S&P 500 index up 25% on the year (15% the year before that)? I get it, they mean the accumulated inflation, most likely. Though inflation has been way off its peak for over 2 years and still decreasing, even if some categories of goods see *deflation*, many still have some accumulated inflation over 4 years, and in many categories it is 20% (5% ish pear year as opposed to a recently more typical 2 or 3% per year, so total inflation closer to 10% or less for 4 years).

Its impossible to say the economy is good, even if it is, when orange juice and bacon still have increasing prices (even if milk and bread are fairly stable).
Oh well.

The relevant comparison is nominal wage growth to price inflation. On average, real wages fell from about April 2021 to Feb 2023, but have risen again since then. I haven't bothered to figure out how much. The difficulty lies in the distribution of those gains or losses. I don't know how the wages of each individual evolved, of course. We can say something more useful about prices. Lower income people tend to spend a larger share of their income on food, and the relative price of food has risen, amidst declines in overall inflation. Think avian flu for eggs! There are fewer eggs around. So, I'm thinking the bottom of the income distribution has been hit hardest by past supply shocks.

These are your Trump voters. They are indeed likely worse off than before the pandemic.

[ciao_yall]

According to a Trumpist family member...

1) Pro-life!!!!!
2) What if it was true that even ONE immigrant ate ONE dog?
3) Harris was wearing a wireless mc disguised as an earring.
4) Did I mention the innocent unborn?

For my Trump-voting parents, it's the economy and illegal immigration.  They don't like him at all, but they will vote for him on those policies alone.

The concept of "illegal immigration" is weird to me.

We have more plenty of people who want to enter this country, and plenty of jobs for them.

So why don't we make it easy? Show up, register, fingerprints, get a taxpayer ID and start your path to citizenship?

They would have jobs, reduce their poverty, reduce/eliminate the need for an underground economy, and it would be easier to track/deal with criminals.

Why do we have this definition of "illegal?" Whom does it serve?

[dismalist]

According to a Trumpist family member...

1) Pro-life!!!!!
2) What if it was true that even ONE immigrant ate ONE dog?
3) Harris was wearing a wireless mc disguised as an earring.
4) Did I mention the innocent unborn?

For my Trump-voting parents, it's the economy and illegal immigration.  They don't like him at all, but they will vote for him on those policies alone.

The concept of "illegal immigration" is weird to me.

We have more plenty of people who want to enter this country, and plenty of jobs for them.

So why don't we make it easy? Show up, register, fingerprints, get a taxpayer ID and start your path to citizenship?

They would have jobs, reduce their poverty, reduce/eliminate the need for an underground economy, and it would be easier to track/deal with criminals.

Why do we have this definition of "illegal?" Whom does it serve?

The US had free immigration, communicable diseases and the Chinese Exclusion Act aside, until 1922. Everything worked fine.

The contemporary complication is the Welfare State. You can have a Welfare State or you can have free immigration. You can't have both.

[marshwiggle]

According to a Trumpist family member...

1) Pro-life!!!!!
2) What if it was true that even ONE immigrant ate ONE dog?
3) Harris was wearing a wireless mc disguised as an earring.
4) Did I mention the innocent unborn?

For my Trump-voting parents, it's the economy and illegal immigration.  They don't like him at all, but they will vote for him on those policies alone.

The concept of "illegal immigration" is weird to me.

We have more plenty of people who want to enter this country, and plenty of jobs for them.

Are you suggesting that there is some serendipity in the universe so that there is a one-to-one relationship between jobs needing to be filled and migrants wanting to enter the country?

Many migrants (trying to enter various countries) are poor. Many have limited education. Many will have little or no fluency in the language of the country they wish to enter. The only jobs those people will be easily able to have are ones where they will be targets for exploitation.

So why don't we make it easy? Show up, register, fingerprints, get a taxpayer ID and start your path to citizenship?

They would have jobs, reduce their poverty, reduce/eliminate the need for an underground economy, and it would be easier to track/deal with criminals.

Why not do background checks before letting people enter so the criminals don't have to be removed after the fact (and after they have engaged in all kinds of criminal behaviour in their new country)?

Why do we have this definition of "illegal?" Whom does it serve?

Among others, all of the people who worked hard to go through the proper channels to immigrate who get a bad name from all of the unrestricted masses.

[dismalist]

There is always and everywhere a one-to-one relationship between jobs to be filled and workers seeking jobs under a relatively stable macroeconomic environment: A flexible wage rate sees to that!

Another reason for those at the bottom to vote for Trump on immigration. Immigrants push down unskilled workers' wages.

Targets for exploitation? Put differently, nothing better than to get exploited in the US rather than in Guatemala.