2024 Elections Thread

[spork]

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.
[...]

Not incumbents being booted, but authoritarians being elected, then re-elected.

Ece Temelkuran, How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship.

[ciao_yall]

Now one more question, an esp valid one in a forum full of educators: how would you go about (or how *are you going about*) explaining to students/ answering their questions, etc., wrt how it came to pass that Trump just overcame everything he did and said, his uniquely corrupt, incompetent, and overtly criminal resume, etc, and pulled this off, and did so not as the squeaker win-the-electoral-whilst-losing-the-popular, election, but rather with this decisive and perhaps outright popular vote majority win?  What do you say, and how would you run a seminar discussion on this topic?

I would probably start with a look at the history of cults and cult leaders.

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.

I don't like Trump, and wouldn't have voted for him either time if I were in the U.S., but it drives me crazy how unwilling people are on the left to consider what they were pushing that was so offensive that people would vote for Trump to avoid. It didn't happen after Clinton lost in 2016, and it looks like it won't happen this time either.

The people who switched to Trump from Biden in 2020 clearly weren't Trump fans all along, so there's more going on that that. (And there were Obama voters who switched to Trump, so you can't play the race card there. I suppose there's always the misogynist card to fall back on.)

Rage and fear are addicting.

[marshwiggle]

Now one more question, an esp valid one in a forum full of educators: how would you go about (or how *are you going about*) explaining to students/ answering their questions, etc., wrt how it came to pass that Trump just overcame everything he did and said, his uniquely corrupt, incompetent, and overtly criminal resume, etc, and pulled this off, and did so not as the squeaker win-the-electoral-whilst-losing-the-popular, election, but rather with this decisive and perhaps outright popular vote majority win?  What do you say, and how would you run a seminar discussion on this topic?

I would probably start with a look at the history of cults and cult leaders.

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.

I don't like Trump, and wouldn't have voted for him either time if I were in the U.S., but it drives me crazy how unwilling people are on the left to consider what they were pushing that was so offensive that people would vote for Trump to avoid. It didn't happen after Clinton lost in 2016, and it looks like it won't happen this time either.

The people who switched to Trump from Biden in 2020 clearly weren't Trump fans all along, so there's more going on that that. (And there were Obama voters who switched to Trump, so you can't play the race card there. I suppose there's always the misogynist card to fall back on.)

Rage and fear are addicting.

This is like the person who whines "WHY WON'T ANYONE GO OUT WITH ME?" The person's friends, wanting to be "supportive", tell the person, "It's not you; it's them." That may assuage the person's ego, but it isn't going to improve their future prospects. On the other hand, being honest enough to tell that what things about them may be off-putting gives them a chance at making some changes which will improve their long term prospects.

Being humble enough to confront one's own flaws is the only way to have a chance at self-improvement.

[ciao_yall]

Now one more question, an esp valid one in a forum full of educators: how would you go about (or how *are you going about*) explaining to students/ answering their questions, etc., wrt how it came to pass that Trump just overcame everything he did and said, his uniquely corrupt, incompetent, and overtly criminal resume, etc, and pulled this off, and did so not as the squeaker win-the-electoral-whilst-losing-the-popular, election, but rather with this decisive and perhaps outright popular vote majority win?  What do you say, and how would you run a seminar discussion on this topic?

I would probably start with a look at the history of cults and cult leaders.

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.

I don't like Trump, and wouldn't have voted for him either time if I were in the U.S., but it drives me crazy how unwilling people are on the left to consider what they were pushing that was so offensive that people would vote for Trump to avoid. It didn't happen after Clinton lost in 2016, and it looks like it won't happen this time either.

The people who switched to Trump from Biden in 2020 clearly weren't Trump fans all along, so there's more going on that that. (And there were Obama voters who switched to Trump, so you can't play the race card there. I suppose there's always the misogynist card to fall back on.)

Rage and fear are addicting.

This is like the person who whines "WHY WON'T ANYONE GO OUT WITH ME?" The person's friends, wanting to be "supportive", tell the person, "It's not you; it's them." That may assuage the person's ego, but it isn't going to improve their future prospects. On the other hand, being honest enough to tell that what things about them may be off-putting gives them a chance at making some changes which will improve their long term prospects.

Being humble enough to confront one's own flaws is the only way to have a chance at self-improvement.

Half the country enthusiastically voted for Harris and she raised over $1 billion, at last check.

So someone bought what the D's were selling.

[methodsman]

Now one more question, an esp valid one in a forum full of educators: how would you go about (or how *are you going about*) explaining to students/ answering their questions, etc., wrt how it came to pass that Trump just overcame everything he did and said, his uniquely corrupt, incompetent, and overtly criminal resume, etc, and pulled this off, and did so not as the squeaker win-the-electoral-whilst-losing-the-popular, election, but rather with this decisive and perhaps outright popular vote majority win?  What do you say, and how would you run a seminar discussion on this topic?

I would probably start with a look at the history of cults and cult leaders.

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.

I don't like Trump, and wouldn't have voted for him either time if I were in the U.S., but it drives me crazy how unwilling people are on the left to consider what they were pushing that was so offensive that people would vote for Trump to avoid. It didn't happen after Clinton lost in 2016, and it looks like it won't happen this time either.

The people who switched to Trump from Biden in 2020 clearly weren't Trump fans all along, so there's more going on that that. (And there were Obama voters who switched to Trump, so you can't play the race card there. I suppose there's always the misogynist card to fall back on.)

It's very simple. A huge % of Americans do not want Negros on their television unless they are playing sports ball or in supporting roles in buddy action movies, and absolutely do not want a woman as president.  It's a miracle that Obama won--twice!  However, in 2008 and 2012 Republicans put up candidates weaker than the 43 day-old celery in the bottom crisper drawer of my fridge.  Trump is on another level.

The only way for democrats to win against Trump on the national stage is to put up a straight white male. Even being the corpse as he is, Biden would have gotten more votes than Harris.

mm

P.S. If you can't detect the sarcasm and satire in my language, you do not qualify to be a real academic and should look for other work.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Now one more question, an esp valid one in a forum full of educators: how would you go about (or how *are you going about*) explaining to students/ answering their questions, etc., wrt how it came to pass that Trump just overcame everything he did and said, his uniquely corrupt, incompetent, and overtly criminal resume, etc, and pulled this off, and did so not as the squeaker win-the-electoral-whilst-losing-the-popular, election, but rather with this decisive and perhaps outright popular vote majority win?  What do you say, and how would you run a seminar discussion on this topic?

I would probably start with a look at the history of cults and cult leaders.

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.

I don't like Trump, and wouldn't have voted for him either time if I were in the U.S., but it drives me crazy how unwilling people are on the left to consider what they were pushing that was so offensive that people would vote for Trump to avoid. It didn't happen after Clinton lost in 2016, and it looks like it won't happen this time either.

The people who switched to Trump from Biden in 2020 clearly weren't Trump fans all along, so there's more going on that that. (And there were Obama voters who switched to Trump, so you can't play the race card there. I suppose there's always the misogynist card to fall back on.)

Calm down bro, I'm not saying the Dems don't have any fault, just saying how I would begin to put this in a wider context for students.

That said, I don't particularly think it was left policies that led to Trump 2.0. People are pissed off about inflation and CoL and they think Trump will do a better job than Kamala to fix it. 

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.
[...]

Not incumbents being booted, but authoritarians being elected, then re-elected.

Ece Temelkuran, How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship.

I certainly think Trump has authoritarian tendencies, but this is part of a wider global pattern (at least that's how I'd approach it with students).

[marshwiggle]

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.

I don't like Trump, and wouldn't have voted for him either time if I were in the U.S., but it drives me crazy how unwilling people are on the left to consider what they were pushing that was so offensive that people would vote for Trump to avoid. It didn't happen after Clinton lost in 2016, and it looks like it won't happen this time either.

The people who switched to Trump from Biden in 2020 clearly weren't Trump fans all along, so there's more going on that that. (And there were Obama voters who switched to Trump, so you can't play the race card there. I suppose there's always the misogynist card to fall back on.)

Calm down bro, I'm not saying the Dems don't have any fault, just saying how I would begin to put this in a wider context for students.

That said, I don't particularly think it was left policies that led to Trump 2.0. People are pissed off about inflation and CoL and they think Trump will do a better job than Kamala to fix it. 

Fair enough. It still raises the question of what policies Harris *proposed that people felt were less effective than the policies Trump proposed. That's absolutely the kind of discussion that stands to be fruitful for the future.

(*Of course, it's also possible that policies were assumed, based on past experience; from Trump's former tenure on the one hand, and on Biden's tenure on the other.)

[secundem_artem]

There are dozens of reasons why Trump won, so looking for a single explanation is a fool's errand.  But if I had to choose 1........

As James Carville said in 1992 - "It's the economy stupid."

For good or for ill, the price of eggs and gasoline was a more compelling argument than democracy, abortion, Palestine, Project 2025, "they're weird" or trans women in sports. 

[Sun_Worshiper]

I'm not teaching at the moment, but I'd probably put it in the international context of incumbents being booted across countries.

I don't like Trump, and wouldn't have voted for him either time if I were in the U.S., but it drives me crazy how unwilling people are on the left to consider what they were pushing that was so offensive that people would vote for Trump to avoid. It didn't happen after Clinton lost in 2016, and it looks like it won't happen this time either.

The people who switched to Trump from Biden in 2020 clearly weren't Trump fans all along, so there's more going on that that. (And there were Obama voters who switched to Trump, so you can't play the race card there. I suppose there's always the misogynist card to fall back on.)

Calm down bro, I'm not saying the Dems don't have any fault, just saying how I would begin to put this in a wider context for students.

That said, I don't particularly think it was left policies that led to Trump 2.0. People are pissed off about inflation and CoL and they think Trump will do a better job than Kamala to fix it. 

Fair enough. It still raises the question of what policies Harris *proposed that people felt were less effective than the policies Trump proposed. That's absolutely the kind of discussion that stands to be fruitful for the future.

(*Of course, it's also possible that policies were assumed, based on past experience; from Trump's former tenure on the one hand, and on Biden's tenure on the other.)

Sure, no doubt. Dems need to rethink things and I'm sure there will be a lot of reflection within the party. Already we've gotten an autopsy from Bernie and more to come I'm sure.

[Sun_Worshiper]

There are dozens of reasons why Trump won, so looking for a single explanation is a fool's errand.  But if I had to choose 1........

As James Carville said in 1992 - "It's the economy stupid."

For good or for ill, the price of eggs and gasoline was a more compelling argument than democracy, abortion, Palestine, Project 2025, "they're weird" or trans women in sports.

Agree. This appears to have been an "its the economy" election.

[marshwiggle]

There are dozens of reasons why Trump won, so looking for a single explanation is a fool's errand.  But if I had to choose 1........

As James Carville said in 1992 - "It's the economy stupid."

For good or for ill, the price of eggs and gasoline was a more compelling argument than democracy, abortion, Palestine, Project 2025, "they're weird" or trans women in sports.

Agree. This appears to have been an "its the economy" election.

Serious question : Does anyone know if there's any perceived correlation here in the absence of stated policies? In other words, do voters assume who will best handle the economy based on other things they've said?

To put it another way, if people perceive a party to have silly policies on some issues, does that make them distrust them on issues which they haven't said much about? If so, those "other" issues may still have an indirect effect.

[spork]

[...]

Not incumbents being booted, but authoritarians being elected, then re-elected.

Ece Temelkuran, How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship.

I certainly think Trump has authoritarian tendencies, but this is part of a wider global pattern (at least that's how I'd approach it with students).

The subject of the book, which I guess isn't obvious from its title.

[...]

do voters assume who will best handle the economy based on other things they've said?

[...]

Go to 2:55 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9R6vtcD09I&ab_channel=TheLateShowwithStephenColbert

[secundem_artem]

There are dozens of reasons why Trump won, so looking for a single explanation is a fool's errand.  But if I had to choose 1........

As James Carville said in 1992 - "It's the economy stupid."

For good or for ill, the price of eggs and gasoline was a more compelling argument than democracy, abortion, Palestine, Project 2025, "they're weird" or trans women in sports.

Agree. This appears to have been an "its the economy" election.

Serious question : Does anyone know if there's any perceived correlation here in the absence of stated policies? In other words, do voters assume who will best handle the economy based on other things they've said?

To put it another way, if people perceive a party to have silly policies on some issues, does that make them distrust them on issues which they haven't said much about? If so, those "other" issues may still have an indirect effect.

For whatever reason, "borrow and spend" Republicans have generally been more trusted on the economy than "tax and spend" Democrats.  Americans are utterly obsessed with taxes and nobody ever lost an election by saying they would cut them.  So some of the trust probably comes from that perspective.

Besides that, we've spent the last year watching college students occupy campuses on behalf of Palestine.  We've had the Olympics and could watch what some claimed as a woman boxer beat the brakes off people half her size.  We've seen the "just stop oil" crowd throwing paint at artwork or blocking roads so others cannot get to the airport.

These were not so much Democratic policies as they were a visual reminder of what a lot of folks believe Democrats supported. 

I still think the economy was a bigger issue, but all in all, the impression progressives left was that they were crazier than shit house rats. 

[Sun_Worshiper]

There are dozens of reasons why Trump won, so looking for a single explanation is a fool's errand.  But if I had to choose 1........

As James Carville said in 1992 - "It's the economy stupid."

For good or for ill, the price of eggs and gasoline was a more compelling argument than democracy, abortion, Palestine, Project 2025, "they're weird" or trans women in sports.

Agree. This appears to have been an "its the economy" election.

Serious question : Does anyone know if there's any perceived correlation here in the absence of stated policies? In other words, do voters assume who will best handle the economy based on other things they've said?

To put it another way, if people perceive a party to have silly policies on some issues, does that make them distrust them on issues which they haven't said much about? If so, those "other" issues may still have an indirect effect.

Interesting question. If you live in a swing state you probably saw the "she's for they/them, he's for you" add from the Trump campaign, which was based largely on this idea (Kamala is going to spend her presidency catering to the trans community, while Trump is going to concentrate on the economy). Of course, Harris tried to do the same with "I've got a to do list, he's got an enemies list." More generally, people think Trump is a good businessman and while they don't particularly like him as a person they think he'll do good things for the economy (and Rs tend to be more trusted on the economy anyway, as secundem said).

The irony is that both Trump and Harris policies would probably produce more-or-less the same economic outcomes. The macros outside inflation/CoL are all pretty good and inflation is cooling off. Kamala would probably stay on that path, with a few spending projects added that end up getting cut significantly or axed altogether in an effort to get through congress. Trump says he'll increase tariffs and deport undocumented immigrants, which would both be inflationary, but if he cuts some red tape then maybe its a wash (and who really knows what Trump will do with tariffs and immigration).

[...]

Not incumbents being booted, but authoritarians being elected, then re-elected.

Ece Temelkuran, How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship.

I certainly think Trump has authoritarian tendencies, but this is part of a wider global pattern (at least that's how I'd approach it with students).

The subject of the book, which I guess isn't obvious from its title.

I see. Maybe I'll read it sometime in the future, but for now I'm trying to lean into things that make me happy, not things that raise my blood pressure.

[marshwiggle]

Go to 2:55 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9R6vtcD09I&ab_channel=TheLateShowwithStephenColbert

Fascinating. "Every 3rd thing Trump says is true!"

I wonder if voters fall into 2 categories:

• Don't trust anyone who says things that offend me
• Trust someone even if they say things that offend me, as long as they are willing to tell the truth which may offend anyone

If so, that would explain a lot.