Well here in the UK in 2019, the Tories won big with an unscrupulous, lying, crooked narcissist as a leader. Pundits punditted, 2 terms, maybe 3. They blew themselves up, and lost catastrophically in one term
What’s most telling about the actual vote split is that Trump got about the same number of votes he did in 2020 ( at this moment in the count, actually fewer than in 2020). But Harris got 13 million fewer than Biden. What that doesn’t mean is that Trumpism more popular now than when he lost in 2020. What is does mean is something I can’t figure out.
All very interesting. I think misogyny has a lot to do with it. Perhaps giving people too much credit that it was issues and economy. Trump ran on a negative & hateful agenda. I was hopeful the American people as a whole would wake up and so no to this hate. Sadly, it’s devastating and it played into people’s fears. Maybe those are the non voters. Kamala offered honestly and care. I heard her address the issues. Too many only pay attention to the hate and fear.
Karen, I agree. As I wrote in my last post, Trump/Vance ran an overtly misogynist campaign. I was just trying to think through one element of what happened, in this post. But no question what you describe was consequential.
What I think it means is that Harris was not a strong candidate and did not put forward a coherent political argument. But I don't mean to focus the blame on her. The Democratic party put her in the position she was in because they allowed Biden to run for a second term without putting their thumb on the scale to discourage any meaningful opposition. When Biden's fragility was exposed during his debate with Trump, a fact that must have been well known to elites, Harris was the easy choice for a relpacement, not the best.
Biden was a historically unpopular incumbent president without any real constituancy besides Democratic elites. Always, at best, a mediocre political entity he was given a platform by Obama choosing him as vice president. he was useful in that role but ill equipped for anything greater. How was Harris any different? Why would Democratic voters be motivated to get out to support another candidate with limited politcal appeal and no apparent agenda other than not Trump and promising to continue the agenda of an unpopular incumbet?
I agree. Among other things, Biden and the people around him were sure that his popularity would snap back once the campaign was on for real. That was a profound misjudgement.
I don't know how much money the Harris campaign has left over from that billion dollars it raised. But if it wants to spend that money well going forward, I suggest the Democrats take a cue from the LGBTQ LAB in LA, which took the innovative step of trying to find out why Californians voted against gay marriage in 2008 by actually going out and asking the voters. Any explanation we come up with without asking millions of voters why they either switched from Biden to Harris or from Biden to not voting at all is just motivated reasoning. We may all have our hypotheses (I heard from a friend that in focus groups the ad in which Harris defended providing transgender care to prisoners and undocumented immigrants led to a 3% shift in Trump's direction, which is statistically huge), but we have to test them out and eliminate the incorrect ones. Misogyny played some role but can't be the whole story as millions of women stayed home and Harris outperformed male candidates by far in places like Washington state.
What makes you think that people voted due to policy statements of the parties? Everyone knows that many of these statements are insincere and will be forgotten about by the ruling party, so many of the votes are cast for the personalities and not for their proudly proclaimed aims!
3) My thinking is that there's *a lot* of people who won't even open their ears to Democrats on economic issues (to which they would be receptive if they tried), because they are *so* alienated on social/cultural issues.
4) I think about Prius or Pickup all the time and how these questions are so predictive for *white voters*. I strongly suspect that these questions have become increasingly predictive for non-white voters (why, is a great question to study) and that's a lot of what we are seeing with
I guess the question is what to do about that now. Whatever Dem politicians were saying in 2020-21 - the stuff I think you're referring to - almost none are saying now, unless I am missing something.
I think you are right and Democrat *politicians* have largely learned (as clearly evidence in Harris' campaign), but it takes quite a while for this stuff to work it's way through and the people who need to win competitive races don't talk/think this way any more, but the activist class sure does.
I think Ruy Teixera can go a little far with his takes, but I think he's basically onto something with his critiques. (And I think especially compelling from a co-author of Emerging Democratic Majority).
The transgender community is indeed tiny and deserves protection and support. Yer most people know, for example, that it's not fair to put someone born biologically male in a sporting competition with those born female, if only for health and safety reasons. Likewise, that children aren't necessarily ready to make irrevocable medical decisions.
And voters are automatically suspicious of people who deny an obvious and non-controversial views like that. The British Labour Party had to make that accomodation with material reality and I imagine the Dems will too. Good luck, it's going to be awful.
I agree with you Karen. Thirty years ago I predicted the US would have a black President before a female one (despite the strong racism present at the time, and indeed since). I'm old enough to remember how one nominee for Vice Presidential candidate (Geraldine Ferraro in 1984) was brutally hounded - as far as I could see, mainly because she was female. We've now had two extremely well qualified women beaten by Trump. It's a complex issue - it's not just due to misogyny, and I'm not saying a male candidate would have won (I'm sure Biden wouldn't have done). But I do think it needs to be acknowledged as being a major factor, uncomfortable as it is to admit this. My own country - the UK - has in contrast (despite its many many problems) had for many centuries a tradition of strong female leaders. To list just a few - Boadicea (Celtic war leader fighting against the Romans); Queen Elizabeth I; Queen Victoria; and for my entire lifetime until recently the head of state was female (Elizabeth II). We've had three female Prime Ministers in recent decades (Margaret Thatcher being the first one of course) and the current Conservative leader is a (black) female. The US has no such tradition, and I think misogyny is an elephant in the room that needs to be acknowledged (along with the other important factors). What you do about it I don't know - there are no easy solutions. But the beginning of addressing any problem begins by acknowledging its reality.
Constructively offered: I find your pieces very difficult to read. I always read them by paragraph, retrograde. I just humbly wish you would watch this proffered podcast and really soak in the ethos of a very different point of view, one I find compelling, as expressed by these gentlemen. Walter Kern is a creative writer and Matt Taibbi is a reporter/journalist and your colleague at substack. They really seem to have a lot of fun on the show and Walter is here driven nuts by the election results. We have to come together. This is some of the influential new media millions thrive on.
Well here in the UK in 2019, the Tories won big with an unscrupulous, lying, crooked narcissist as a leader. Pundits punditted, 2 terms, maybe 3. They blew themselves up, and lost catastrophically in one term
What’s most telling about the actual vote split is that Trump got about the same number of votes he did in 2020 ( at this moment in the count, actually fewer than in 2020). But Harris got 13 million fewer than Biden. What that doesn’t mean is that Trumpism more popular now than when he lost in 2020. What is does mean is something I can’t figure out.
All very interesting. I think misogyny has a lot to do with it. Perhaps giving people too much credit that it was issues and economy. Trump ran on a negative & hateful agenda. I was hopeful the American people as a whole would wake up and so no to this hate. Sadly, it’s devastating and it played into people’s fears. Maybe those are the non voters. Kamala offered honestly and care. I heard her address the issues. Too many only pay attention to the hate and fear.
Karen, I agree. As I wrote in my last post, Trump/Vance ran an overtly misogynist campaign. I was just trying to think through one element of what happened, in this post. But no question what you describe was consequential.
Ah, I see. I missed the earlier post.
What I think it means is that Harris was not a strong candidate and did not put forward a coherent political argument. But I don't mean to focus the blame on her. The Democratic party put her in the position she was in because they allowed Biden to run for a second term without putting their thumb on the scale to discourage any meaningful opposition. When Biden's fragility was exposed during his debate with Trump, a fact that must have been well known to elites, Harris was the easy choice for a relpacement, not the best.
Biden was a historically unpopular incumbent president without any real constituancy besides Democratic elites. Always, at best, a mediocre political entity he was given a platform by Obama choosing him as vice president. he was useful in that role but ill equipped for anything greater. How was Harris any different? Why would Democratic voters be motivated to get out to support another candidate with limited politcal appeal and no apparent agenda other than not Trump and promising to continue the agenda of an unpopular incumbet?
I agree. Among other things, Biden and the people around him were sure that his popularity would snap back once the campaign was on for real. That was a profound misjudgement.
Yes, that's going to bear serious examination.
I don't know how much money the Harris campaign has left over from that billion dollars it raised. But if it wants to spend that money well going forward, I suggest the Democrats take a cue from the LGBTQ LAB in LA, which took the innovative step of trying to find out why Californians voted against gay marriage in 2008 by actually going out and asking the voters. Any explanation we come up with without asking millions of voters why they either switched from Biden to Harris or from Biden to not voting at all is just motivated reasoning. We may all have our hypotheses (I heard from a friend that in focus groups the ad in which Harris defended providing transgender care to prisoners and undocumented immigrants led to a 3% shift in Trump's direction, which is statistically huge), but we have to test them out and eliminate the incorrect ones. Misogyny played some role but can't be the whole story as millions of women stayed home and Harris outperformed male candidates by far in places like Washington state.
Talking to people and building a media infrastructure appropriate to the time in which we live would be advisable.
What makes you think that people voted due to policy statements of the parties? Everyone knows that many of these statements are insincere and will be forgotten about by the ruling party, so many of the votes are cast for the personalities and not for their proudly proclaimed aims!
1) Great stuff!
2) Loved Ezra's essay today.
3) My thinking is that there's *a lot* of people who won't even open their ears to Democrats on economic issues (to which they would be receptive if they tried), because they are *so* alienated on social/cultural issues.
4) I think about Prius or Pickup all the time and how these questions are so predictive for *white voters*. I strongly suspect that these questions have become increasingly predictive for non-white voters (why, is a great question to study) and that's a lot of what we are seeing with
I guess the question is what to do about that now. Whatever Dem politicians were saying in 2020-21 - the stuff I think you're referring to - almost none are saying now, unless I am missing something.
I think you are right and Democrat *politicians* have largely learned (as clearly evidence in Harris' campaign), but it takes quite a while for this stuff to work it's way through and the people who need to win competitive races don't talk/think this way any more, but the activist class sure does.
I think Ruy Teixera can go a little far with his takes, but I think he's basically onto something with his critiques. (And I think especially compelling from a co-author of Emerging Democratic Majority).
Also pretty on-board with Fukayama's diagnosis and remedies.
https://yaschamounk.substack.com/p/fukuyama
The transgender community is indeed tiny and deserves protection and support. Yer most people know, for example, that it's not fair to put someone born biologically male in a sporting competition with those born female, if only for health and safety reasons. Likewise, that children aren't necessarily ready to make irrevocable medical decisions.
And voters are automatically suspicious of people who deny an obvious and non-controversial views like that. The British Labour Party had to make that accomodation with material reality and I imagine the Dems will too. Good luck, it's going to be awful.
I agree with you Karen. Thirty years ago I predicted the US would have a black President before a female one (despite the strong racism present at the time, and indeed since). I'm old enough to remember how one nominee for Vice Presidential candidate (Geraldine Ferraro in 1984) was brutally hounded - as far as I could see, mainly because she was female. We've now had two extremely well qualified women beaten by Trump. It's a complex issue - it's not just due to misogyny, and I'm not saying a male candidate would have won (I'm sure Biden wouldn't have done). But I do think it needs to be acknowledged as being a major factor, uncomfortable as it is to admit this. My own country - the UK - has in contrast (despite its many many problems) had for many centuries a tradition of strong female leaders. To list just a few - Boadicea (Celtic war leader fighting against the Romans); Queen Elizabeth I; Queen Victoria; and for my entire lifetime until recently the head of state was female (Elizabeth II). We've had three female Prime Ministers in recent decades (Margaret Thatcher being the first one of course) and the current Conservative leader is a (black) female. The US has no such tradition, and I think misogyny is an elephant in the room that needs to be acknowledged (along with the other important factors). What you do about it I don't know - there are no easy solutions. But the beginning of addressing any problem begins by acknowledging its reality.
Constructively offered: I find your pieces very difficult to read. I always read them by paragraph, retrograde. I just humbly wish you would watch this proffered podcast and really soak in the ethos of a very different point of view, one I find compelling, as expressed by these gentlemen. Walter Kern is a creative writer and Matt Taibbi is a reporter/journalist and your colleague at substack. They really seem to have a lot of fun on the show and Walter is here driven nuts by the election results. We have to come together. This is some of the influential new media millions thrive on.
https://rumble.com/v5mgvoh-atw-live-election-recap.html