By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 2024 US Presidential Election

Ryuu96 said:

Also it's fine to have fear, complacency is bad, but dooming that it's already lost helps nobody, it's exactly what Republicans want Democrats to feel like, so that it discourages others from even bothering cause "it's already lost" I've always taken the stance it'll be a close race which Trump can win, use that fear of him winning to keep up the fight until the end, don't just say "We've already lost!" and give up all hope, it's not ever yet.

Edit - Also, Democrats always do this, no offence but Democrats are the biggest doomers on the planet.

Sorry for being a downer. I hope I'm wrong. I just think that it's time to get realistic about this.



Around the Network
haxxiy said:
Jaicee said:

Honestly, I think it'd be in the Democratic Party's best interest to revive the so-called "blue dog" faction of their party in the future. Those people are the dying remnants of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal worker-farmer coalition and the modern Democratic brand simply sucks at reaching either end of that spectrum increasingly. There's too many goddamn Venture Capitalists for Kamala and Business Leaders for Harris, too many events with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and other assorted neocon militarists who've never heard of a war they didn't want us to fight and couldn't give a rat's ass if you starve or wind up homeless or die of a fentanyl overdose. I'm seeing way too much Mark Cuban on my screen and it's communicating the wrong message. It's time to get back to kitchen table issues. Where are those in this last stretch of the campaign? Wtf happened to that whole message?

This is also just simply a change election year worldwide. The world, and the working class in particular, is unhappy with the post-pandemic cost of living, housing shortages, and the mass migration that's opened up to add more strain to our resources in a context of what's often been real scarcity and already-strained government budgets. In America's case, that means people are also just simply looking for excuses to vote for Trump this year. Harris is stuck fighting against that tide and what it all means is that she has to basically be perfect to win and Trump can get away with pretty much anything at the moment. Is that fair? Hell no! Is it reality though? Yes.

You have a point there. What happened to the party that used to dominate small towns and urban centers alike by its connections to the working class? Trading non-college-educated Whites and now even PoCs for (some of) the Republican college-educated vote is a surefire manner of losing the EC for a long, long time. There could be no worse combo in that regard.

It'll be even worse after 2030, the blue wall will be destroyed (-16 or so ECs) by the next apportionment.

That being said, I think Trump can and will still lose because he's a deranged lunatic who is bleeding in the suburbs worse than Goldwater. But just.

Yeah...to your last statement, I haven't seen any downward movement in Trump's poll numbers this whole election cycle (in fact just the opposite of late), but I hope you're right.

Anyway, on the larger point, exactly. I view the Democratic Party's ideological coalition as a spectrum whose poles are the student movements on one end of the spectrum and the labor movement on the other. You need a healthy balance of both to win, but the balance of influence in the party's policy formation has been skewing more toward the student movement than it should in recent years, I believe, and it's starting to really drive away working class support.

The types of people I'm specifically thinking of as hopefully future presidential candidates include the same people I originally championed to be the party's nominee this year when it first started looking like Biden might drop out: people like Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear or Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (who definitely should've at least been the running mate, seriously). I've also taken notice of independent candidate Dan Osborne's impressive success so far in his bid for a Senate seat in deep-red Nebraska that some voices are rightly casting as a kind of model for challenging Republicans in heavily rural states and areas. In the Congress, I've quickly become huge fan of of Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in particular and yearn for a world in which she might have a bright political career ahead of her. I think that's possible. These are the sorts of Democrats (and other non-Republicans) I have the most favorable opinion of.

If you're looking for academic case for a more moderate brand of Democratic politics in the future, my go-to for that is The Liberal Patriot. It's a creation of the authors of the well-known 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority, which famously argued that the Democrats were demographically destined to become the majority party based on the changing demographic composition of the country. In more recent years, they've been warning about the Democratic Party's loss of support from the working class and prescribing solutions. They've provided some of the most compelling analysis of this political moment, IMO. (Recent example.)



Ryuu96 said:

If Trump wins it will come down to a few core factors.

1. Inflation, the average American will blame the incumbent government for their groceries being more expensive today than 4 years ago and believe that someone new can fix it where the incumbent government has failed to do so, these are low-educated voters because they don't understand how this works or how Trump would have little ability to fix it, not to mention his other economic policies are agreed upon by economists as being much worse than Harris policies. But the average voter will pin blame on Harris as part of the incumbent government and say lets try someone new.

I think these voters represents a large portion of Trump voters and will be the core reason why Harris may lose. For some reason, Conservatives across the world are often thought of as being the "financially savvy" party despite the fact that it's always this group of people that crash the economy and fuck things up and it's the left wing governments left to pick up the pieces and restore things. Left wing governments have a problem in dispelling this nonsense, likely because Conservatives are seen as being more friendly to the rich, whilst not understanding that Conservatives usually only benefit the top 1% and people still believing in trickle down economics.

This voting block represents a group of people who are largely selfish and only care about their own needs, so other policies won't matter to them, it doesn't matter that Trump is a fascist as long as their eggs are cheaper, it doesn't mean they "agree" with his fascism but they simply don't give a shit about it because they only care for themselves, that's quite a lot of humanity sadly. But they will turn on Trump the moment he can't get them cheaper groceries.

2. Millions of Americans that simply agree with Trump's fascism. They hear what Trump is saying, they understand what Trump is saying and they agree with it, they're full of hatred against anyone different from themselves. We ought to stop acting like Americans are special angels compared to other countries, that America is immune to this kind of stuff, if other countries can elect fascist because a large portion of the public agrees with their fascism then why can't America? America doesn't have the same experience of Nazism as Europe did, I don't know what the hell is taught about WW2 in American schools but as an outside observer, it doesn't look like it's good enough when Trump can praise Nazi Generals and say Hitler had some good ideas and still have millions of Americans voting for him or Americans feel confident waving Nazi flags around.

3. Immigrant scare tactics which has sadly probably worked on Arizona's voting block, just blame immigrants for all of the countries problems and give everyone a common enemy to be afraid of/hate then blame the left wing base as letting them "swarm" into the country and "letting immigrant murderers take over the country" These voters are a mix fear and low-education (no, I'm not an advocate for open borders, Lol).

The voters will 99% be average Americans, not "PHD Scientists" and I'd love for those PHD Scientist to explain how Trump's economic policies are better for the average American (not the super wealthy) than Harris policies (which dozens of economists have already said Harris policies are far better). I'd love for them to explain how Trump's foreign policy won't result in damage America's reputation with allies. I'd love them to tell me how well Trump's border wall went last time and his trade war with China. This leads me to believe they support Trump because they're already rich who stand to benefit while everyone else suffers (I.E. They do not represent the average American) or they agree with Trump's fascism.

This doesn't mean I underestimate them, or anyone underestimates them, Harris campaign has been banging on since the start that this will be a close election and they're the underdogs, I also am not labelling all Conservatives as stupid, I'm labelling the majority of Trump voters as a mixture of fascist, low-educated or simply selfish. I take fascists seriously and low-educated voters only help those fascists.

Some of Harris policies are meh, and some of her and Democrats stances are shit, but it's pretty fucking obvious that her economic policies are far superior to Trump's for the average American, who can only muster "drill baby drill" (when America is already drilling more oil than ever) and his utterly insane tariff idea. She is also not a fascist insistent on dismantling America's democratic institutions while Trump is and you'd have to either be an isolationist or insane to think Trump's foreign policy is better than Harris.

This would have always been a close race, no matter who was running, because firstly America is too divided as a country, Trump allowed people to express their hidden fascism and let that rot grow in the country. Secondly because of inflation and grocery bills and your average voter is selfish and low-educated on how much power a president has in dealing with their grocery bills. Nobody in Harris campaign has underestimated Trump, Harris has ran about as good of a campaign as she could, especially given the time constraints and attachment to Biden. Don't really think she could have done much more, if she loses then Democrats would have lost no matter what.

If your friend is voting for Trump then I'm sorry, I'm not going to spare their feelings and blame Harris, Lol.

PDF said:
Chrkeller said:

My post wasn't directed at you.  I never claimed you said all Republicans are stupid.  

And for the record I agree with you.  MAGA people are stupid.

We are good man.  

And I don't take personal offense.  I'm more than confident in my intelligence and have lead a very successful life.  I want Harris to win.  I point out the "deplorable" attitude as why liberals are struggling with elections more than they should.

Woah man. I wouldn't say MAGA people are stupid. you have "plenty of college educated friends and family who are perfectly smart and successful, and they are Trumpers."

Y'know, as someone with but a humble high school diploma myself, I take exception to all this belittling of the merely average human being. Most people on this forum may have a bachelor's degree (or whatever your country's equivalent is called), but most people in general don't and I really don't think my comparative lack of formal education makes me dumber than you. It just suggests that I'm from a poorer background.

It also doesn't make protectionism an "utterly insane idea". Harris's economic policy ideas poll far better than Trump's as a whole, including the proposed tax breaks for child care and first-time home buyers and introducing price caps on both medicines and groceries, but there's also a reason why imposing a 10% tariff on all imported goods ranks among Trump's more popular policy proposals, faring the best among the poorest Americans and underwater only among those making over $100,000 a year. Why do you think Rust Belt Democratic Senators like Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Ohio's Sherrod Brown are certifiable protectionists? Are they "utterly insane" or are they more attuned to the concerns of working people about the hollowing out of manufacturing through the outsourcing of local work to foreign countries with weaker labor protections like China and Mexico? Harris's affirmative opposition to protectionist policies (or what she calls a "national sales tax") might land her some support from billionaires and neocon Republicans, but it's also likely part of why she seems to be losing the Rust Belt. It ranks among the things I disagree with her on the most. Seriously, here's how Casey is running for re-election right now. Let's get back to that mindset.

The Trump people I know aren't ideological fascists or typically especially mean people, it might be added. If you can get them talking about anything other than politics, their better angels will often prevail. They just buy his shit is all. They really believe the last election was stolen and that they're the real defenders of democracy here, that the various  trials and convictions against him are a form of politically motivated persecution, all this sorta thing. They believe this not because there are real facts to back up their case, but because they want to. The next question though is "Why do they want to?" Here are some clues when it comes to some of Trump's strongest backers. That's what needs to be addressed here in the longer run.

Last edited by Jaicee - 3 days ago

haxxiy said:
Jaicee said:

Honestly, I think it'd be in the Democratic Party's best interest to revive the so-called "blue dog" faction of their party in the future. Those people are the dying remnants of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal worker-farmer coalition and the modern Democratic brand simply sucks at reaching either end of that spectrum increasingly.

You have a point there. What happened to the party that used to dominate small towns and urban centers alike by its connections to the working class?

You guys are getting it backwards. The Democratic Party didn’t abandon the rural/working class demographics, those demographics abandoned the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has never turned away from the programs created by the New Deal coalition in the 1930s-early 70s. This was a period of high taxes & regulations that saw massive investments in worker protections, healthcare, housing, manufacturing, small businesses, agriculture, education, infrastructure, research & development, environmental protections & safety net programs. Things that the Democratic Party still largely supports.

What caused these demographics to realign? The 60s-70s was an era of counterculture movements fighting for the rights of minorities, women & LGBT people and it just so happens that a lot of rural/working class whites are racist, sexist & homophobic so the Republican Party began to use the Southern Strategy to cozy up to racists and later the Christian Right.

It’s like the LBJ quote: “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Basically, there are a shit load of people out there who are fighting against things that will help them because those things will also help people that they think are beneath them so as the Democratic Party began to be a party of inclusiveness, the people who didn’t want to include others left the party.

On top of that, the poor economy & stagflation of the 1970s paved the way for Reagan’s “trickle down” policies of tax cuts and deregulation to take off.

Last edited by zorg1000 - 3 days ago

When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Ryuu96 said:

I'm more and more convinced that pollsters don't know what's happening either, that's why they're all practically merging on the same thing, if Harris wins then they're right because of MoE, if Trump wins then they're right because of MoE. It's only a landslide victory which will make pollsters wrong this time around, which makes me a little suspicious.

good to hear, ryuu



Around the Network

Fun fact: the most successful third party candidate of the past 100 years, by far, was George Wallace. A campaign fueled on pure anger captured 45 electoral votes in the South in 1968. That’s honestly who Trump reminds me of. 



SanAndreasX said:

Fun fact: the most successful third party candidate of the past 100 years, by far, was George Wallace. A campaign fueled on pure anger captured 45 electoral votes in the South in 1968. That’s honestly who Trump reminds me of. 

Another fun fact: after surviving an assassination attempt, Wallace became a changed man who apologized for his support for segregation and asked for forgiveness from black Americans. Trump survived an assassination attempt and tripled down on anti-immigrant/anti-trans rhetoric.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Trump was the most recent guest on Joe Rogan's long-form podcast and surprisingly, i actually dislike him a little less after watching this.  Trump is acting like a normal human, not unhinged at all.  And Joe is buying it all, and compliments Donald several times.  

Anyway, i left this here for anybody that is intrigued.  



zorg1000 said:
SanAndreasX said:

Fun fact: the most successful third party candidate of the past 100 years, by far, was George Wallace. A campaign fueled on pure anger captured 45 electoral votes in the South in 1968. That’s honestly who Trump reminds me of. 

Another fun fact: after surviving an assassination attempt, Wallace became a changed man who apologized for his support for segregation and asked for forgiveness from black Americans. Trump survived an assassination attempt and tripled down on anti-immigrant/anti-trans rhetoric.

Wallace wasn’t grazed by shrapnel. He ended up becoming paraplegic. He also used his wife Lurleen as his proxy due to term limits (at the time, Alabama did not allow more than one consecutive term as governor. She died of cancer. Her husband and her doctor both knew about the cancer but didn’t tell her about it until it was too late to do anything about it. 

Last edited by SanAndreasX - 2 days ago

shavenferret said:

Trump was the most recent guest on Joe Rogan's long-form podcast and surprisingly, i actually dislike him a little less after watching this.  Trump is acting like a normal human, not unhinged at all.  And Joe is buying it all, and compliments Donald several times.  

Anyway, i left this here for anybody that is intrigued.  

Watched like 20 minutes but it was making me feel ill.

I do wish they put Kamala on here though. They let her go on FOX and Joe Rogan is not going to get one over on her any better than Brett Baier could have. This would have been a remarkable chance to talk to an audience that doesn't normally get to hear from her directly. I have friends I know listen to this podcast and are not strong Trump supporters but they hear all these bad things about Kamala. They think it's choosing Trump is the less of two evils.

Reminds me of Hillary not going on with Howard Stern. Also, Bernie Sanders was on Theo Von's show and killed it. Democrats, do more of this!



 

My Real Redneck friends