2024 Elections Thread

[Ruralguy]

How about :

1. don't trust psychopaths who have shown true colors a million times'
2. trust anyone, so long as you get something out of it. Now that could just mean that the person you trust has the same opinion on some important issue. Say, you both hate immigrants. Or, you both hate inflation and taxes
(that's like finding people who like puppies and pizza--almost everyone?).

[kaysixteen]

I  get that most Americans think the GOP is better on economic issues, but given the actual facts since the Reagan era, how is it that the GOP has continued to pull of this vastly inverted view of reality?

It is perhaps easier to see how many Americans still think Trump is a good businessman-- cults of personality and the sunk cost fallacy are real issues here.

[Langue_doc]

David Brooks

Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?

The article in its entirety:

We have entered a new political era. For the past 40 years or so, we lived in the information age. Those of us in the educated class decided, with some justification, that the postindustrial economy would be built by people like ourselves, so we tailored social policies to meet our needs.

Our education policy pushed people toward the course we followed — four-year colleges so that they would be qualified for the "jobs of the future." Meanwhile, vocational training withered. We embraced a free trade policy that moved industrial jobs to low-cost countries overseas so that we could focus our energies on knowledge economy enterprises run by people with advanced degrees. The financial and consulting sector mushroomed while manufacturing employment shriveled.

Geography was deemed unimportant — if capital and high-skill labor wanted to cluster in Austin, San Francisco and Washington, it didn't really matter what happened to all those other communities left behind. Immigration policies gave highly educated people access to low-wage labor while less-skilled workers faced new competition. We shifted toward green technologies favored by people who work in pixels, and we disfavored people in manufacturing and transportation whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels.

That great sucking sound you heard was the redistribution of respect. People who climbed the academic ladder were feted with accolades, while those who didn't were rendered invisible. The situation was particularly hard on boys. By high school two-thirds of the students in the top 10 percent of the class are girls, while about two-thirds of the students in the bottom decile are boys. Schools are not set up for male success; that has lifelong personal, and now national, consequences.

Society worked as a vast segregation system, elevating the academically gifted above everybody else. Before long, the diploma divide became the most important chasm in American life. High school graduates die nine years sooner than college-educated people. They die of opioid overdoses at six times the rate. They marry less and divorce more and are more likely to have a child out of wedlock. They are more likely to be obese. A recent American Enterprise Institute study found that 24 percent of people who graduated from high school at most have no close friends. They are less likely than college grads to visit public spaces or join community groups and sports leagues. They don't speak in the right social justice jargon or hold the sort of luxury beliefs that are markers of public virtue.

The chasms led to a loss of faith, a loss of trust, a sense of betrayal. Nine days before the elections, I visited a Christian nationalist church in Tennessee. The service was illuminated by genuine faith, it is true, but also a corrosive atmosphere of bitterness, aggression, betrayal. As the pastor went on about the Judases who seek to destroy us, the phrase "dark world" popped into my head — an image of a people who perceive themselves to be living under constant threat and in a culture of extreme distrust. These people, and many other Americans, weren't interested in the politics of joy that Kamala Harris and the other law school grads were offering.

The Democratic Party has one job: to combat inequality. Here was a great chasm of inequality right before their noses and somehow many Democrats didn't see it. Many on the left focused on racial inequality, gender inequality and L.G.B.T.Q. inequality. I guess it's hard to focus on class inequality when you went to a college with a multibillion-dollar endowment and do environmental greenwashing and diversity seminars for a major corporation. Donald Trump is a monstrous narcissist, but there's something off about an educated class that looks in the mirror of society and sees only itself.

As the left veered toward identitarian performance art, Donald Trump jumped into the class war with both feet. His Queens-born resentment of the Manhattan elites dovetailed magically with the class animosity being felt by rural people across the country. His message was simple: These people have betrayed you, and they are morons to boot.

In 2024, he built the very thing the Democratic Party once tried to build — a multiracial, working-class majority. His support surged among Black and Hispanic workers. He recorded astonishing gains in places like New Jersey, the Bronx, Chicago, Dallas and Houston. According to the NBC exit polls, he won a third of voters of color. He's the first Republican to win a majority of the votes in 20 years.

The Democrats obviously have to do some major rethinking. The Biden administration tried to woo the working class with subsidies and stimulus, but there is no economic solution to what is primarily a crisis of respect.

There will be some on the left who will say Trump won because of the inherent racism, sexism and authoritarianism of the American people. Apparently, those people love losing and want to do it again and again and again.

The rest of us need to look at this result with humility. American voters are not always wise, but they are generally sensible, and they have something to teach us. My initial thought is that I have to re-examine my own priors. I'm a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn't work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.

Can the Democratic Party do this? Can the party of the universities, the affluent suburbs and the hipster urban cores do this? Well, Donald Trump hijacked a corporate party, which hardly seemed like a vehicle for proletarian revolt, and did exactly that. Those of us who condescend to Trump should feel humbled — he did something none of us could do.

But we are entering a period of white water. Trump is a sower of chaos, not fascism. Over the next few years, a plague of disorder will descend upon America, and maybe the world, shaking everything loose. If you hate polarization, just wait until we experience global disorder. But in chaos there's opportunity for a new society and a new response to the Trumpian political, economic and psychological assault. These are the times that try people's souls, and we'll see what we are made of.

[ciao_yall]

Some people like simple solutions that feed their desire for revenge (tariffs that the Chinese will pay) and power (deport all the bloodsucking illegals!)

Others fear taxing the wealthy means very little revenue and they might lose their jobs because the bosses will do layoffs.

Or that they will get hit with those taxes.

Or they they want everyone to think they will have to pay those taxes (including a guy I know who works the register at Trader Joe's).

[kaysixteen]

Brooks makes some good points, but fails to actually offer any significant solutions.   Also, the problem of lacking respect for these folks is perhaps at least somewhat engendered by, ahem, the actions of those folks.

[ciao_yall]

David Brooks

Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?

The article in its entirety:

We have entered a new political era. For the past 40 years or so, we lived in the information age. Those of us in the educated class decided, with some justification, that the postindustrial economy would be built by people like ourselves, so we tailored social policies to meet our needs.

Our education policy pushed people toward the course we followed — four-year colleges so that they would be qualified for the "jobs of the future." Meanwhile, vocational training withered. We embraced a free trade policy that moved industrial jobs to low-cost countries overseas so that we could focus our energies on knowledge economy enterprises run by people with advanced degrees. The financial and consulting sector mushroomed while manufacturing employment shriveled.

Geography was deemed unimportant — if capital and high-skill labor wanted to cluster in Austin, San Francisco and Washington, it didn't really matter what happened to all those other communities left behind. Immigration policies gave highly educated people access to low-wage labor while less-skilled workers faced new competition. We shifted toward green technologies favored by people who work in pixels, and we disfavored people in manufacturing and transportation whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels.

That great sucking sound you heard was the redistribution of respect. People who climbed the academic ladder were feted with accolades, while those who didn't were rendered invisible. The situation was particularly hard on boys. By high school two-thirds of the students in the top 10 percent of the class are girls, while about two-thirds of the students in the bottom decile are boys. Schools are not set up for male success; that has lifelong personal, and now national, consequences.

Society worked as a vast segregation system, elevating the academically gifted above everybody else. Before long, the diploma divide became the most important chasm in American life. High school graduates die nine years sooner than college-educated people. They die of opioid overdoses at six times the rate. They marry less and divorce more and are more likely to have a child out of wedlock. They are more likely to be obese. A recent American Enterprise Institute study found that 24 percent of people who graduated from high school at most have no close friends. They are less likely than college grads to visit public spaces or join community groups and sports leagues. They don't speak in the right social justice jargon or hold the sort of luxury beliefs that are markers of public virtue.

The chasms led to a loss of faith, a loss of trust, a sense of betrayal. Nine days before the elections, I visited a Christian nationalist church in Tennessee. The service was illuminated by genuine faith, it is true, but also a corrosive atmosphere of bitterness, aggression, betrayal. As the pastor went on about the Judases who seek to destroy us, the phrase "dark world" popped into my head — an image of a people who perceive themselves to be living under constant threat and in a culture of extreme distrust. These people, and many other Americans, weren't interested in the politics of joy that Kamala Harris and the other law school grads were offering.

The Democratic Party has one job: to combat inequality. Here was a great chasm of inequality right before their noses and somehow many Democrats didn't see it. Many on the left focused on racial inequality, gender inequality and L.G.B.T.Q. inequality. I guess it's hard to focus on class inequality when you went to a college with a multibillion-dollar endowment and do environmental greenwashing and diversity seminars for a major corporation. Donald Trump is a monstrous narcissist, but there's something off about an educated class that looks in the mirror of society and sees only itself.

As the left veered toward identitarian performance art, Donald Trump jumped into the class war with both feet. His Queens-born resentment of the Manhattan elites dovetailed magically with the class animosity being felt by rural people across the country. His message was simple: These people have betrayed you, and they are morons to boot.

In 2024, he built the very thing the Democratic Party once tried to build — a multiracial, working-class majority. His support surged among Black and Hispanic workers. He recorded astonishing gains in places like New Jersey, the Bronx, Chicago, Dallas and Houston. According to the NBC exit polls, he won a third of voters of color. He's the first Republican to win a majority of the votes in 20 years.

The Democrats obviously have to do some major rethinking. The Biden administration tried to woo the working class with subsidies and stimulus, but there is no economic solution to what is primarily a crisis of respect.

There will be some on the left who will say Trump won because of the inherent racism, sexism and authoritarianism of the American people. Apparently, those people love losing and want to do it again and again and again.

The rest of us need to look at this result with humility. American voters are not always wise, but they are generally sensible, and they have something to teach us. My initial thought is that I have to re-examine my own priors. I'm a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn't work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.

Can the Democratic Party do this? Can the party of the universities, the affluent suburbs and the hipster urban cores do this? Well, Donald Trump hijacked a corporate party, which hardly seemed like a vehicle for proletarian revolt, and did exactly that. Those of us who condescend to Trump should feel humbled — he did something none of us could do.

But we are entering a period of white water. Trump is a sower of chaos, not fascism. Over the next few years, a plague of disorder will descend upon America, and maybe the world, shaking everything loose. If you hate polarization, just wait until we experience global disorder. But in chaos there's opportunity for a new society and a new response to the Trumpian political, economic and psychological assault. These are the times that try people's souls, and we'll see what we are made of.

So it's The Left's fault that The Right  got co-opted by an angry con man instead of coming up with constructive ideas to help people?

[Kron3007]

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.

You think these results had anything to do with policy?

Do you think Trump voters took a deep dive into the impacts of his tariff plans and decided that it is indeed good economic policy?  Or that deporting millions of people will benefit the labour market?  The results of this election are not based on facts or policy.  Trump was somehow able to tap I to something deeper and exploit peoples deeper worries, hatred, and the American superiority complex. 

[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.

You think these results had anything to do with policy?

Do you think Trump voters took a deep dive into the impacts of his tariff plans and decided that it is indeed good economic policy?  Or that deporting millions of people will benefit the labour market?  The results of this election are not based on facts or policy.  Trump was somehow able to tap I to something deeper and exploit peoples deeper worries, hatred, and the American superiority complex. 

As it said in the article mentioned above:

These people, and many other Americans, weren't interested in the politics of joy that Kamala Harris and the other law school grads were offering.

As it says in James 2:16.

If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

It's unfortunately not a new phenomenon.

[waterboy]

At this point in time, I'm feeling not anxious nor worried but more sadly resigned to the fact that we are in for some massive chaos.

[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.

You think these results had anything to do with policy?

Do you think Trump voters took a deep dive into the impacts of his tariff plans and decided that it is indeed good economic policy?  Or that deporting millions of people will benefit the labour market?  The results of this election are not based on facts or policy.  Trump was somehow able to tap I to something deeper and exploit peoples deeper worries, hatred, and the American superiority complex. 

Sure that's part of it, but swingy voters were also mad at the incumbent because of high prices. They think Trump will do a better job to bring them down because he is (in their eyes) a good businessman and the Rs are (in their eyes) better at managing the economy.

It isn't really about policy. It's about outcomes - or perceived outcomes. The truth is that Biden's stimulus spending probably kept the economy from tanking, even as it worked with supply chain issues to increase inflation. The truth is also that Trump gave out stimulus checks and that his signature policies (tariffs and deportations) will lead to higher prices if he carries them out. But mostly people just saw the price of eggs at the store or the price of a house they can't afford and decided to punish Biden/Harris and bring back the "you're fired" guy.

[mythbuster]

Based on comments here in our local paper (in deep MAGA country)- people really remember the stimulus check that had his signature on it. Apparently that silly stunt really worked, since many seem to think the $$ came from him rather than the government. There seems to be no understanding of how much of the economy is beyond the control of even the President.

We will have to see if he sticks to his likely disastrous Tariff plans, or modifies these given all the dire predictions of their impact on inflation. I wish him luck (ha!) bringing down the prices of breakfast cereal- which is my personal price index item.

[Kron3007]

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.

You think these results had anything to do with policy?

Do you think Trump voters took a deep dive into the impacts of his tariff plans and decided that it is indeed good economic policy?  Or that deporting millions of people will benefit the labour market?  The results of this election are not based on facts or policy.  Trump was somehow able to tap I to something deeper and exploit peoples deeper worries, hatred, and the American superiority complex. 

Sure that's part of it, but swingy voters were also mad at the incumbent because of high prices. They think Trump will do a better job to bring them down because he is (in their eyes) a good businessman and the Rs are (in their eyes) better at managing the economy.

It isn't really about policy. It's about outcomes - or perceived outcomes. The truth is that Biden's stimulus spending probably kept the economy from tanking, even as it worked with supply chain issues to increase inflation. The truth is also that Trump gave out stimulus checks and that his signature policies (tariffs and deportations) will lead to higher prices if he carries them out. But mostly people just saw the price of eggs at the store or the price of a house they can't afford and decided to punish Biden/Harris and bring back the "you're fired" guy.

Yeah, but again that isn't about policies or facts, it is about him tapping into their underlying worries/concenrs.  People think he will be better for the economy not because of his policies, but because he says so.  Why they believe him I dont know, but his main pitch is about kicking people out, putting up tariffs, and relying on American exceptionalism.   

I think one of the biggest miss-steps Kamala made was to say she wouldn't have done anything different over the last 4 years if she were president.  Logically that may make sense (I think the Biden gov has been pretty good and inflation is a global issue out of his control), but I dont think it sold well.

[spork]

[...]

Yeah, but again that isn't about policies or facts

[...]

I read an anecdote in an interwebz discussion: blue-collar employees of a small company in Pennsylvania were shocked by the owner announcing that they would not receive any Christmas bonuses this year, because he has to quickly buy a stockpile of imported materials to try to minimize the damage from expected tariffs. The employees thought that increased costs from tariffs would somehow magically be borne by the Chinese.

[ciao_yall]

Why are we blaming Harrid and the D's?

Why aren't we blaming the Americans who were so foolish as to vote for someone who was obviously deranged, ranting about immigrants eating pets, deporting 20 million people, and dancing to Ave Maria?

Those Americans were warned by their own party members that he was unhinged. They were presented with the few people who were willing to get on stage with him - Musk and Kennedy - also certifiable nutjobs.

Not to mention his 34 felony convictions plus the convictions, jail time and seized assets of many of his other compares.

And they trusted him with... the economy? Because... ???

[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.

You think these results had anything to do with policy?

Do you think Trump voters took a deep dive into the impacts of his tariff plans and decided that it is indeed good economic policy?  Or that deporting millions of people will benefit the labour market?  The results of this election are not based on facts or policy.  Trump was somehow able to tap I to something deeper and exploit peoples deeper worries, hatred, and the American superiority complex. 

Sure that's part of it, but swingy voters were also mad at the incumbent because of high prices. They think Trump will do a better job to bring them down because he is (in their eyes) a good businessman and the Rs are (in their eyes) better at managing the economy.

It isn't really about policy. It's about outcomes - or perceived outcomes. The truth is that Biden's stimulus spending probably kept the economy from tanking, even as it worked with supply chain issues to increase inflation. The truth is also that Trump gave out stimulus checks and that his signature policies (tariffs and deportations) will lead to higher prices if he carries them out. But mostly people just saw the price of eggs at the store or the price of a house they can't afford and decided to punish Biden/Harris and bring back the "you're fired" guy.

Yeah, but again that isn't about policies or facts, it is about him tapping into their underlying worries/concenrs.  People think he will be better for the economy not because of his policies, but because he says so.  Why they believe him I dont know, but his main pitch is about kicking people out, putting up tariffs, and relying on American exceptionalism.   

I think one of the biggest miss-steps Kamala made was to say she wouldn't have done anything different over the last 4 years if she were president.  Logically that may make sense (I think the Biden gov has been pretty good and inflation is a global issue out of his control), but I dont think it sold well.

I largely agree. People are pissed about CoL and they decided to kick the bums out (so to speak), regardless of whether inflation rates have come down or Trump's policy promises would make things worse. Are many of them ignorant or misinformed about policy and facts? Are they too easily swayed by a charismatic, scapegoating conman? Sure, but that's life in a democracy.

As for the Dems, I'd first say that Harris did a pretty good job with the crappy hand she was dealt, but she was doomed because 60+% of the electorate thinks the country is on the wrong track. With 20/20 hindsight, we can also see that her messaging strategy was all wrong. Swingy swing state voters didn't care enough about threats to democracy, fascism, or Ukraine to overcome their economic concerns. They weren't moved by neocon never-Trumpers like the Cheneys (who everyone rightly hates anyway). Maybe she should have leaned more heavily into things like child tax credit, housing policy, minimum wage, and healthcare - although that probably would not have worked either in this environment.