So many of the Dems' biggest problems are downstream of them embracing their new role as the official party of America's sneering, out-of-touch Brahmins who cannot, not even for just five goddamn minutes, conceal the fact that they feel superior to all the proles because they've undergone the ritual cleansing process that is college education, which in their view rids the soul of racism, homophobia, and sexism, and which the proles are too inferior and/or poor to have undergone. Not since 18th century France has the Western world seen such a completely delusional ruling class. Never before have so few Americans wielded so much power to such quixotic, demented ends.
Just before the election Glenn Kessler gave Donald Trump 4 Pinocchio’s for claiming that Imane Khelif was/is a man. So much for fact checking. How about runaway media/elite bias?
In real life, D. Trump was right and G. Kessler was wrong. The French endocrinologists who examined Imane Khelif found that he was/is male. The Bicetre hospital report leaked.
I especially loved the rationale provided: "It says FEMALE on her passport you BIGOT!" Never mind the fact that it wasn't even our kind of government i.e. a liberal-democratic Western state, which issued the passport in question. In some people, the desire to Obey Authority is officially so strong that any authority, it seems, will do in a pinch.
In all countries, presumed sex is observed at birth. Sex observed at birth is roughly 99.9% right (but not 100.0%). However, rare exceptions exist. CAIS persons are thought to be female at birth. However, they are actually male. They (CAIS persons) think of themselves as women, and should be considered to be women, for most purposes (that includes sports), in my opinion. 5-ARD is another rare exception. In one part of the Dominican Republic, this condition is actually quite common. Caster Semenya and Imane Khelif are modern examples of this condition. Both are thought to be 5-ARD. See “The extraordinary case of the Guevedoces” over on the BBC web site. 5-ARD persons should not be treated as women for many purposes (including sports), in my opinion.
46-XY (Swyer’s syndrome) women are considered to be ‘intersex’ because they lack ovaries (they typically have a vagina, a uterus, and fallopian tubes). Note that with medical help (donated fertilized eggs / IVF) they can have children. In my opinion, they should be treated as women for most purposes (including sports).
I do think that rejection of trangender idiotology played a role in the Harris defeat. Issue polling confirms that most people feel it has gone too far. What kills me is the use of the term "gender affirming care" even in the WSJ. Because the moment a girl decides she is really a boy, she transforms into a boy, really. Really!!! Internal thoughts promptly trump biology. And honoring that self-assessment promptly trumps every other consideration, including female safety. In ten years we will look back and laugh through our tears at the absurdity and the damage done.
Sneer, duly noted. See, I can be pithy and condescending pretty easily, too! (C'mon. Maybe a substantive objection or reply would be more in line with the spirit of this group. Give it a shot. Engage.)
One problem with Harris' campaign (aside from the obvious fact that it lost decisively) is that she didn't stand for anything, so it's impossible to know what to fix. Progressives will say the problem was that she ran to the center. Centrists will say the problem was that no one could forget the Harris of 2019. Everyone can say that this loss proves their particular theory of the case, making it really hard to know where the party should go from here. It seems to me that "less smug, more curious" would be a good starting point, but it's hard to get there from "most Americans are idiots who want fascism," which I fear is what we're going to be stuck with because many on the left refuse to believe that condescension isn't particularly persuasive.
Her best bet was abortion, and she did bring it up.
Maybe, though, the general populace isn't *that* worried about it. It seems that the general populace doesn't like the more restrictive laws that the Republicans want, but it doesn't bother them *that* much. Most countries place restrictions on abortion, right? Anyway. "Bring down inflation and I can afford condoms again."
The fact they're melted into the mainstream media means they never have to hear facts they don't like.
"Maybe, though, the general populace isn't *that* worried about it. "
If you google image search "pro-life protest", you will see photo after photo - a collective sea of women - loudly voicing their pro-life stance.
Yet my social media bubble consists of nothing but otherwise intelligent people framing the issue as something "old white men" do in the name of "oppressing women".
In Montana, we voted for a constitutional amendment to specifically protect abortion to the tune of 57%, which is 4 points above what anti-abortion candidate Tim Sheehy got (winning with 53% of the vote). It does matter to people, but they have conflicting feelings about policy vs. the candidates they vote for. Sheehy is also not great for public lands and stream access, which is probably one of the top issues for Montana voters. Neither is Ryan Zinke, who is also terrible for home affordability in Montana, which is a huge issue. And he beat out Monica Tranel, again, who is explicit about her desire to protect public lands and bring down housing prices.
I think so much of this comes with the stink that hangs around the Democrats, particularly with their ignoring of working class and rural voters rather than what voters want for policy. You don't want to vote for someone who looks down their nose at you. It doesn't matter if they support things that will help you if they aren't interested in communicating with you as an individual.
I'm also from Montana. I did not vote all 'red' yesterday. A couple points.
First, this statement from Jesse really resonated with me: "They — okay, back to we — consist disproportionately of highly educated, intellectually self-satisfied individuals who are confident in the moral and intellectual rectitude of our worldviews." While I make a decent living here in Montana, I'm much more 'normie' than 'elite,' although I fully recognize that my income probably differentiates me from a lot of the friends I have a beer with on Friday night.
But I've practiced law for over 30 years (yes, in backwards Montana, but I've been relatively successful). I stay reasonably well informed. I obviously have a college degree, and I've run several businesses.
So when someone from a larger area looks down on me because I went to a 'state school' (Go Griz!), it really doesn't do much for me. To all of the so-called coastal elites, let me just tell you something. You're not that smart. Great, you can discuss literature, and you can liberal arts me to death, but when a 35 year old pundit on a news station sounds like he's talking down to me, it doesn't have the same effect he THINKS it has.
And, the so-called elite in this country isn't doing all that great of a job. Let's see, we've got a migrant crisis, we're 35 TRILLION in debt, a lot of my friends work their asses off to make ends meet and one half of the country hates the other half. That's not exactly hitting it out of the park, so please forgive me if I do not genuflect to your Ivy League degrees.
And yeah, Trump is an ass. But, in some respects, that's a feature not a bug. In my many years of practicing law, I've had the opportunity to deal with countless government employees at the local, state, and federal level. I've met many, many wonderful, hard-working people in government, and I almost always make sure to make their bosses know it.
But I challenge you to try to resolve some stupid-ass federal regulatory matter for your 70 year old client without breaking the bank (hell, I challenge you to get a call back!). Then, maybe after that, you can explain to me how there is no "deep state" and "government is just another word for you and me."
Sometimes you need an ass, a wrecking ball, to get things done.
I apologize for the rant. Now, here's a feel good angle: I volunteered at our local polls last night. Montana has same-day registration. The lines were horrendous. People were waiting 6, 7, even 8 hours to vote yesterday. And even so, they all smiled and got along, and in a whole day, I did not hear ONE PERSON argue or grouse about who the next person in line might be voting for. That's America, not the bullshit that the elite media feeds us.
I'm attending the U for grad school. It's a great school and it's even better that it's a state institution (and affordable comparatively to others). I commute quite a distance to attend, too.
I think we agree on quite a bit, but not everything. My point was largely focused around how people do care about abortion, but may vote for reps who don't support abortion, and thus intending to illustrate that peoples wants may not be reflected in their votes. And if the argument is an anti-elite one, the Montana election negates that point. Zinke, Sheehy, and Gianforte are all elites and they came baked that way. I know you noted you didn't vote all red down the ticket, so I'm not sure which of them, if any, you voted for, but given the way you speak about Trump, I am going to assume you voted for him, as well (do correct me if I'm wrong). Just because Trump engages in crass language and goes on Joe Rogan doesn't make him less of an elite.
I came from a working class background, put myself through college, and now have the privilege of going to grad school at a state institution, all the while my fiance's friends are shocked when the word "fuck" comes out of my mouth. That doesn't make me an elite just because I went to college and prefer a skirt and a pair of kitten heels (okay, boots are growing on me...) and save my swearing for moments when it packs the most punch.
I love Montana. I love the way that people of different political opinions can all sit at a bar together and have a beer and bullshit together. I think that a lot of America is like that. However, I also believe there is a ton of division that pops up, some manufactured for outrage bait in both established and "subversive" media, while some of it is an outgrowth of that. And I think that division, placed between Republicans and Democrats, has caused damage within our electoral politics. That division has hurt Montana and the way we vote. We unseated a third generation Montana farmer, a self-proclaimed "C" student, in favor of a wealthy dude in the name of "subverting the elites." And I think that's a failure of branding and, as I noted in another response, a problem of localizing national narratives.
Your post made me think. I guess a more refined way to say what I said is that it is not the 'elites' that drive me crazy, but the 'elitist attitude.' I mean, I guess when I am compared to some of my friends, I am 'elite,' at least based on education, income, etc.
But I don't look down on people who make less than I do or are different from me.
I can't say for sure, since I don't know 'em, but I sure feel like there are a lot of people in media and politics who look at what some might call "flyover company" with a certain amount of disrespect or even disdain. I think the term "public servant" is a joke, as applied to many government employees.
I'm sure this has always existed in our country. As you are no doubt aware, Montana has never been "cosmopolitan!" :D But watching the reaction of one side when the other side wins an election (breakdown => outrage => insult => even some threats) tells me that there are people in this country at the upper echelons who have zero respect for the rest of us.
Absolutely. A lot of politicians don't care about flyover country. In fact, despite the fact people in my little town might think of me as an "elite" to some extent, being a transplant from a Metropolitan area (a poor one at that), any real elite would look down their nose at me and know I'm not one of them.
There is something fundamentally broken in our system and I don't think we can vote our way out of it. Not unless people are able to run for office in a way that isn't so deeply influenced by elitism and greed.
Thank you for engaging in this discussion respectfully. It's so rare to find on the internet (though this thread has had more of that than average)
They make it clear as crystal that they want to take down white males a peg or three. Any white male who votes for Democrats is objectively voting against his own interests.
I think that takes it too far, especially in a state like Montana. Voting for a Tester or a Tranel over a Zinke or Sheehy isn't "voting against the interests of white men" or "taking them down a peg or three." Tester is literally a third generation Montana farmer and notorious average white man. Tester and Tranel are actively for the interests of the average white man in Montana. White men want to be able to afford homes here (they can't at the moment, not on average Montana salaries) and access public lands and streams (Zinke and Sheehy are not public lands supporters).
While I'm sympathetic to the fact that national Democratic politics has a specific message that is identitarian and hostile towards average people, my point was that taking that national message local prevents people from voting for their interests. "Voting for Democrats" being labeled as hurting the interests of white men rings hollow when your Republican senators and governors don't care about making sure there are the same kinds of logging, construction, and service jobs that hold up your community, or that those jobs pay enough so that you and your family can afford housing (as in renting), let alone being able to afford to own a home.
Gianforte (R Governor) wants to overturn access to public lands and streams, making it more difficult to hunt, hike, and fish. He doesn't care about housing prices. He doesn't care about keeping clean air and water. These all matter to the average Montanan. The national politics of whateverthefuckelse shouldn't matter when filling in a bubble next to (D) Ryan Busse, other notorious white man, whatever number generation Montana rancher, and safe gun advocate and hunter who wants average people to be able to afford to live here. Otherwise, Montana becomes a playground for people who want second homes in a California with snow and the rest of us get shafted.
Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. Indeed, I should have specified that exceptions exist and when those exceptions make it clear that they are exceptions it improves their electoral chances.
Tester may be from Montana, and he’s a bit porky and looks natural in the obligatory hat. But he’s kind of a political cross-dresser; he votes down the line with the left. He’s no heterodox Joe Mancin type. In terms of votes, he might as well have a degree in Women’s Studies from Mount Holyoke.
Now, hear me out, he might feel those policies are better for his state rather than anything else. He does not always vote the party line, nor has he always voted with the Biden administration. Just because someone is a democrat does not mean they "may as well have a degree in Women's Studies from Mount Holyoke" or considering him a "political cross-dresser." Believe it or not, there are working class people who support those policies. That doesn't make them not working class. I really feel like people misunderstand the concept of what an elite is, because it's not "someone who thinks differently than you."
This: "He doesn't care about housing prices. He doesn't care about keeping clean air and water."
That is extremely divisive language, and I don't think you mean it that way. But whenever we start to frame differences of opinion this way, it leads to conflict. I think if you spoke with Gianforte, he would tell you he absolutely DOES care about those things, but that he has different ideas about how to accomplish the same or similar ends. You and I can agree or disagree about those ideas and what they will accomplish, but that kind of accusatory language just turns people off. (At least you didn't call him a "fascist!")
I'm not going to debate specific policies, because I probably agree with you about some of them. But if one person thinks the best way to solve the housing crisis is to loosen regulation and build more homes, while the other one thinks it is more important to subsidize low income purchasers, I think I would be hard-pressed to say either one "doesn't care" about it.
I can see how that language is divisive. You're right, I didnt mean it that way. However, his prioritization is on the privitizing of land and preventing people from accessing the rivers and streams and public lands that are the right of every Montanan to access by our state constitution. That is a problem, and one that people care about. I dont think he cares about prioritizing that over business and personal interests and i don't think it's accurate to state that he has different ideas about accomplishing those goals. He may say he does, but actions speak louder, and his actions include limiting access.
In terms of home affordability, government’s main levers make homes less affordable by restricting the amount of homes -- zoning in much of America. It can’t beat the laws of supply and demand. I’d like to know the policies that allegedly would make homes more affordable. If they include price controls of any sort, it won’t work.
Montana has an issue with Air BnB's. If those were restricted or reduced through second home taxes, especially for people who's primary resdence is outside of the state, there would be more options. My fiance and I are having trouble even finding year long rentals, let alone affordable purchasable homes, because every lease ends in May in order to be available for tourist season.
Zoning isn't an issue in Montana in the same way it is other areas. At most, you have issue with wanting to have more than 5 chickens or a goat when you live in town rather than the lack of ability to build. I live in a place that is very desirable right now and has the third highest increase in home pricing while having lower than average wages.
I beg to differ. Zoning is absolutely an issue in Montana. Try to do anything, and the local governments will pick you a part for months, if not years. And I've handled those cases. I've seen people who try to build developments, and spend six figures and ultimately give up. Is it the only reason we have high housing costs? Absolutely not, but it is definitely one reason.
I didn't say zoning isn't an issue, I said it's not an issue in the same way it is in other areas. Montana has a lot more mixed zoning than the rest of the country. Im sure regulation plays an issue in expansion and whatnot, but as someone who literally can't find a place to live at the moment, but can find a short term, super expensive rental,OR a super expensive new-build home, I feel the issue has much more to do with Air BnBs than zoning. There's a ton of new building going on. There are even more second homes and vacation rentals.
In a rare moment of honesty and coherence from Trump, during the debate he was pretty much dead-on that Harris wouldn't be able to do anything about abortion.
Abortion is clearly an issue that gives Democrats an advantage. By returning the issue to the political process, Dobbs helped the Democrats. But Trump managed to sidestep the issue by taking the position that it’s up to the states. Kamala loudly insisted that Trump wanted a nationwide abortion ban, but the fact that he obviously does not, and that he sidelined the Mike Pence wing of the party made the issue far less salient.
I don't think that sidestep worked, and it has never really worked for Republicans. (I'm old enough to remember 90s politicians trying that let-the-states-decide thing, and it always fell flat.) I think the issue just wasn't as important in 2024 as was hoped.
Everyone (except entertainers like Trump and state level politicians who have not yet entered DC) forgets how to campaign, it's like a lost technology. It usually involves endless physical interaction with crowds of non-pre-approved potential voters.
The dem poli class will do a true analysis, because winning is so important in politics. Unless your side wins you do not get a job in government. They will retreat on some issues. Biden thought he had a big mandate, but he won not because of support for DEI or trans, but because folks did not want T taking over. Then in '22 GOP got caught with extreme abortion positions that suddenly mattered.
We have been writing and writing in every message board available that we were going to lose. Been doing this for a year and a half.
The reason why isn't wrapped up in political science or economic jargon, but is wrapped up in psychology.
And here is one, of many psychological observations: "Progressives" are not interested in winning. Instead they are interested in the self-serving feeling of being right.
So, they got what they wanted. Article after article this morning about how they were 'right" about Trump and Trump supporters. "Sexists" and "misogynists." "low information" "voting against their own interests (because they are stupid)" etc. etc.
Thich Nhat Hanh, the great Vietnamese Buddhist monk: our greatest attachment tends to be to our opinions.
.....and we old time Democrats were more attached to the vulnerable who we protected, including to blue collar workers who were at the mercy of corporation owners.....i.e., Trump voters, to minorities, to women's rights, etc. We want our old beloved party back
The "low information voter" thing is especially galling. It's usually coming from media personalities who fly in a triangle from NYC, to DC, to LA and back. There's a whole country with a whole range of interests that is missed by national media figures.
"Article after article this morning about how they were 'right" about Trump and Trump supporters. "Sexists" and "misogynists." "low information" "voting against their own interests (because they are stupid)" etc. etc."
Only time will tell. If Trump follows through on his campaign promises, Democrats will have been proven correct.
What if, and I know this is going to blow your mind, most people don't want to live in a country overrun with foreigners on welfare and with drag queens teaching kindergarteners about how they like to fuck.
"... immigrants and their children are projected to add about 18 million people of working age between 2015 and 2035. This would offset an expected decline in the working-age population from retiring Baby Boomers.... immigrants today account for 14.3% of the U.S. population, a roughly threefold increase from 4.7% in 1970. The immigrant share of the population today is the highest since 1910 but remains below the record 14.8% in 1890." (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/).
As for drag queens teaching kindergartners about how they like to fuck: I'm no fan of drag queen reading hours in libraries, but I don't believe there have been any instances of them teaching children about fucking. If there have been, please share a link with the information. I'd be very interested in seeing where this happened.
I'd rather the population of the USA decline then for our country to become a dumping ground for the world's refuse, and I'm not alone. Don't bother with the Ellis Island crap you're about to type. You know, I know and everybody knows that they are not coming here for the American Dream, they are coming for EBT cards.
They were highlighting the endorsement of people who said, "Look, we disagree with you completely on policy, but protecting the rule of law/voting against the lawless felon who tried to steal an election takes precedence, so we're with you." Made sense to me!
I don't know...Kamala Harris really did not run an identitarian campaign, nor did she spend the majority of her time telling people how racist Trump is. Sure, she said he is unfit for office, but she also focused on the policies the man would bring with him: cutting Medicaid, fucking with the Affordable Care Act, raising prices by implementing tariffs, etc.
I don't want to speculate too much on the day after the election--there's so much we just do not know--but I have a feeling this election wasn't about Harris or even Trump. Incumbent governments all over the world seem to be suffering at the hands of voters, and the United States now joins that luckless company. I'm thinking this is pandemic aftershock mixed with populism, getting voters to make foolish choices. (My thoughts on this are still a bit vague, admittedly.)
And, make no mistake, putting a convicted felon in the White House is a foolish choice. No amount of voter anxiety or anger makes it otherwise. Blaming Democrats, or crediting Republicans, isn't a good way forward, either. Sometimes the voters just get it wrong. Like yesterday.
TrackerNeil, Harris didn't need to run an identitarian campaign because those dedicated to Democrat Party loyalty became surrogates. The surrogates' insufferable insistence (for at least the past 4 years) that Western values are the cause of all that ails the world turned life-long, left-leaning voters like me away. I didn't vote for Trump, but I also could not vote for Harris. The left's overreach did that to me.
> The surrogates' insufferable insistence (for at least the past 4 years) that Western values are the cause of all that ails the world
The Biden administration has spent copious amount of capital, monetary and political, trying to keep Ukraine in the western sphere, so that's obvious crackpot bullshit from you.
He's not explaining how the world is. He's explaining what Trump voters see in the world. And what they see, indeed what we all see, is a lot of self-appointed arbiters of culture on the left in institutions with real power who have endlessly denigrated America and Western values, including our most important one(hate speech is free speech).
Inflation the whole world over does a number on incumbent governments. I have a lot of criticisms of the way the Democratic Party comported themselves over the past 2 or so years, but it's probably that simple.
"Convicted felon" leads me to one of those criticisms. Every time you do that to someone who looked into that court case, you risk making another Trump voter.
Yes, Trump has been doing scummy, gray-area, and illegal things for decades. But (1) so do thousands of other scummy business people and (2) it wasn't a coincidence that he was finally prosecuted as he prepared to run for President in 2024. This was a perfect example of the term "lawfare" and the use of that term to describe the coordinated and selective legal attacks on Trump certainly resonated with me.
Judicial and prosecutorial independence are so valuable and I absolutely despise their politicization. I am hoping that the Trump administration doesn't do the same (with law, but also the IRS and finance), because an escalating tit-for-tat lawfare/IRS/finance war would be the most corrosive thing I can imagine for what's left of our republic.
And all you can do is hope at this point, right? 2016-2020, Trump threatened and didn't do anything. 2020-2024, filled with lawfare of varying legitimacy. (Some of the more legitimate ones were turned away, which his conviction was pretty convincingly horseshit and will probably be overturned on appeal)
Now you just have to hope Trump doesn't take 2020-2024 and turn it back on his enemies. G'faw!
Although it was a "bad idea" in that future negative externalities could be substantial, I can see the incentives that would drive an ambitious prosecutor or judge in a deep blue area/social milieu to pursue all the prosecutions (even the ones that were obviously BS or inflated to felonies). If a prosecutor/judge values fame, adulation, praise, romantic/sexual opportunities, etc. more than the possible future adverse expected value to the stability of our republic...
I agree, I think the whole lawfare argument made by left wing media seriously, seriously did some heavy lifting in terms of converting on the fence voters in Trumps direction. The blatant hypocrisy of conducting extensive lawfare against Trump while decrying that "if he gets elected, he will use the DOJ/other 3 letter agencies to go after his political opponents" was just the final nudge that a lot of voters needed to say "fuck these people."
It wasn't a novel theory. This gets repeated endlessly by the apologists, but it is not true. It was a unique fact pattern, but the legal theory is well established.
This is a good breakdown of the case, but doesn’t go into the novelty of charging someone with a felony when he hasn’t been convicted of any specific underlying crimes- crimes that were unspecified until closing arguments, BTW:
A PBS Q&A that demonstrates the legal novelty of the case, and presumes the need for arguing that Trump was guilty of a specific underlying crime, which the prosecution never did.
What’s very weird about this, is the hush money payments had to be in service of another crime to be a felony. What’s the other crime? Who cares? Probably something though, right? It’s hush money, so Michael Cohen said it was to protect his chances of winning the 2016 election (forget that the payments were made in 2017, after the election was over.) Maybe it was an unlawful campaign contribution to… someone? Maybe tax evasion? Who cares. But there were 34 hush money payments, and that was probably in service of some other unnamed crime.
There were 11 hush money payments. But there were also invoices (11) and ledger entries (12). Yes, that's right. Donald Trump was convicted of falsifying invoices his business *received* from Michael Cohen. Anyone defending this case is either bad faith or doesn't actually know that much about it.
There's a huge difference between being convicted for helping striking workers and being convicted for falsifying financial records to hide hush money payments.
With respect, the amount of "official" campaign messages were drowned out (read: screamed out) by surrogates, pundits and general public rhetoric shouted by blue-robed icons. That's exactly the issue Jesse is pointing at here... Not official campaign messaging. "Team Blue" gleefully helped the campaign lose.
You're right, they ran decently on-message (what that message was, I don't know) and kept their noses fairly clean from culture war stank. Maybe too much as it ended in a vacuum of memorable, viral moments. She was not even a little bit likeable by swing voters. "Team Blue" shoved the rest off the popular cliff.
Yeah, the instinct to say “the democrats just don’t understand people” is missing a big part of the problem. A huge segment of society is economically illiterate, sucked into a right wing conspiracy rabbit hole, and take their political views primarily from comedians.
“It’s the elites’ fault” is super frustrating to hear as a blue collar guy who grew up poor. Yes, the elites are fucking up, but the electorate they’re dealing with is legitimately fucking insane.
Right. But where I will give Dems blame here is, like it or not, that’s your electorate, and they’ve totally failed to adapt to the changing media landscape in the way they need to to communicate with them. They still campaign like it’s 2008.
I think that was one sign that someone got a picture of that has been blown way the hell out of proportion, I worked in Republican/Republican-adjacent politics for 15 years and have never heard that sentiment expressed.
Excellent article, and hard agree. One issue the Democrats really need to work on is the very strong anti-American vibes that a lot of the contemporary progressive movement gives off. It's one thing to say that America isn't perfect, there are issues and injustices we need to address, etc. It's quite another to describe America is irredeemably and irreparably flawed by its origin in the original sins of "settler colonialism" and slavery; to describe its economy as a "capitalist hellscape"; and to act as though we're only ever one election away from concentration camps for various minorities. It's very easy to imagine that the Democratic Party doesn't actually like America, or Americans, all that much, because a lot of its voters don't seem to do so.
I'm old enough to remember (but not have voted in) the 1980 election in which Reagan crushed Carter. The vibes that the Democratic Party was giving off then--shame, malaise, weakness--are very similar to the vibes it's giving off now. It took more than a decade before the Democrats recovered from that debacle and regained competitiveness in Presidential politics; hopefully there won't be such a long sojourn in the wilderness this time.
This is one of the very few times I'm going to largely disagree with you, Jesse. To be clear, I mostly agree with your overall thesis that the anti-Trump movement is an utter failure; I think it's hard to conclude anything else if you're at all thoughtful and observant. What I'm going to disagree with is the idea that this election specifically proved that in any meaningful way.
What the results of this election proved are that Kamala Harris never had a decent chance in the first place. That was ensured when:
1) President Biden announced to the world that his running mate would be a woman of color. Many much smarter people than I have pointed out just how badly this set up whomever was to be chosen in terms of public perception. There was no way anyone was going to know for sure that whoever he chose wasn't a DEI hire once he said that.
2) President Biden and his closest advisors clung to the fantasy that he could somehow win and chose to have him run again. The fact that he and they allowed him to string that out as long as possible only to eventually be embarrassed on the debate stage ensured Harris wouldn't have one of the most valuable resources in a campaign: time. She had virtually no time to tinker with her messaging, to gather data and adjust accordingly.
3) President Biden endorsed her. This undermined her even further, as not only was she now a DEI hire, she was also handed the nomination without anything faintly resembling a competitive primary. There was no reason for anyone to think she earned anything at all.
I suspect Harris wouldn't have had a good shot under the best of circumstances, as she's transparently fake and unappealing. But this election didn't prove anything about the anti-Trump movement broadly; it just proved that Biden royally fucked over her and anyone who doesn't like Trump.
Fwiw, I actually have mostly liked the Biden presidency from a governance standpoint. I'm bitterly disappointed that nobody seems to notice that he did most of the things us lefty types have been bitching for years that dems haven't done recently. Antitrust enforcement, labor solidarity, climate change legislation, the list goes on, and nobody seems to know it. What a sad waste this has all been.
I think the DEI hire thing only remains salient if it becomes clear that she wasn't otherwise a good choice or a talented politician.
Nobody really talks about KBJ being a DEI appointment to the supreme court anymore, even though Biden did the same bullshit to her, because she's been a very competent, impressive and thoughtful supreme court justice.
Agreed on all your points. It was practically a campaign promise of Biden's that he would only serve 1 term and would spend a good amount of that promoting and strengthening the next generation of Democratic leaders. Kamala Harris didn't convince people that she could lead on her own because she was never given a chance to lead on her own.
“Antitrust enforcement, labor solidarity, climate change legislation, the list goes on, and nobody seems to know it.” Exactly. There was a serious messaging problem — and you can’t overestimate how damaging that was for the party.
I couldn’t make it all the way through this article. The “anti-Trump movement?” Really? Go cry with Dick Cheney. The rest of us are interested in dealing with reality. Let’s forget for a moment what side the war mongers were on, and contemplate all those poor kids gaslit into thinking they are the other sex, and then being permanently mutilated for fun and profit. There’s an entire NGO complex devoted to this and other manifestly unscientific ideas, ready and willing to shut down any dissent. That doesn’t even begin to touch the obvious hatred the blue blob has for ordinary Americans, so much so that they are willing to help millions of unvetted military men cross our borders. But let’s not forget that by electing Harris, the unelected bureaucrats behind the scenes would have a free hand to crush anyone who objected to whatever the hell they wanted to do. The administrative state and its covert directors are a cancer on this country, with Harris as their willing figurehead.
The best possible face I can put on last night is that Trump was the reason it was even as close as it was. In a year where incumbent leaders have been knocked on their asses all over the world and right-wing populists are in the ascendency, a "normal" Republican - assuming any still exist - would likely have won by much more.
Inflation and immigration had Democrats on the back foot, and unfortunately there was undoubtedly racism and sexism working against Harris. (What Democrats must come to terms with is that this racism and sexism came not only from white voters but also from minorities, among whom Trump did shockingly well for a Republican.)
I think the first woman of color President will be a conservative Republican. (Mind you, I used to say the same about the first Black man elected President. Colin Powell could have won in 1996 or 2000 had he gone for it.)
I'd actually really love that, if just for the mental knots progressives would have to tie themselves into. Given my druthers, this race would have been Shapiro v Haley.
That's my general feeling, but it's hard to tell. I don't doubt that essentially all Trump voters would back him over Harris. But I wonder about the ability of a normie Republican to motivate turnout. Trump does seem to motivate low propensity voters much more than other candidates (I assume we will see more content on this in the coming weeks).
A lot of us sexist Republicans were lining up behind Sarah Palin back when the people who are lecturing us about our misogyny now were calling her "Caribou Barbie".
The Dems problem is that we aren't a party of ideas. We are a party of "The other guy fucking sucks so vote for me instead." We need to be a party who tries to do concrete things to make people's lives better. It starts at the local level. Lower someone's tax or energy bill. Fix a pothole. Politicians who do that get elected.
That attitude was embodied in Clinton's retort to "Make America Great Again": "America is already great!" This from the party that was swept into power in 2008 with the slogan "CHANGE".
I think the crazy-making on the left has just been too much for normies over the last four years, and all those red arrows just indicate a flee from the woko-locos to something voters can understand (build the wall, use tariffs, it's the mexicans).
If it takes an hour and a half to explain what a woman is, you're probably going to lose voters. But somehow the Dems think it's all good. Now we get Trump... gg
"There has been a lot of strategic investment in a deliberate project of narrowing the progressive tent both by purging a few and by intimidating others out of speaking their minds and it’s basically worked."
And also shaming, constantly, many people based upon their sex, ethnicity, etc., with their only accepted route forward in the world being to constantly admit guilt and try to atone for it (but never successfully, because...one can't change these things). Unless one is born the right way, one is just a second class somewhat tolerated person whose thoughts are not considered to have much value...as the value of ideas depends primarily upon the identity of the person who has them, of course...sigh.
This is not supporting those having a bad time and/or suffering from racism, sexism...or liberal democracy.
The problem is that if you run on "Orange Man is Hitler," in a closely politically divided country, the only way you win is by enough Republicans having a "Road to Damascus" conversion experience a la the Cheneys. But die-hard Republicans or not, the Cheneys and other well-educated political insiders who turned on Trump weren't representative of the average swing voter and there weren't enough of them to matter.
Almost by definition, if you were a swing voter in this election you didn't see Trump as evil, fascist, or a clear and present threat to Democracy; if you did, you would have been committed to whoever the Democratic nominee was from the start. You may, in fact, have voted for Trump in previous elections, and almost certainly have friends and family who are supporting him. You are also unlikely to treat most issues as profound moral positions--again, if you did, you'd presumably be voting for the person who was with you on that issue.
For that voter, "Trump is a racist and a fascist" is a lot less likely to be successful messaging than "Trump lacks the temperament and maturity to be a good president and the people who restrained his worst impulses during his first term will not be there this time around--and have largely repudiated him." Similarly, treating it as self-evident that any number of policy position could only be held by the sexist/cruel/racist/ignorant is the last thing likely to win over the swing voter--you actually need to convince him that what you propose is better.
It's funny when the spokesman for "Trump is a fascist" is Dick Cheney, of all people. Really? That's who you want delivering that message? A fucking war criminal? I guarantee that courting that endorsement (and Karl Rove and Bill Kristol) cost Harris more Democratic votes than it got "well-educated political insider" votes.
Harris-voting liberal here: Many things can be true at once, and there is not necessarily one thing that is the dominant reason for election results, but I do want to suggest that the trans issue is unlike any other. Have we ever had an issue in which we were voting for how safe our children are from being mutilated? Anyone who know children of any age (their own child, their grandchildren, their friends' children, observes children on social media) knows what is going on with gender and is aware of the bodily harm and psychological harm that is now a ubiquitous threat to minors. Once one notices this and googles a bit on it, they become aware of the extremes of manipulation coming from trans influencers, teachers, scientists, the media, Jeffrey Marsh. (Seeing Marsh alone and noticing his millions of views could turn someone completely.) The one thing that may override a person's instincts to vote against someone as abhorrent, immoral, and threatening as Trump is that they want to protect their own child from bodily harm. And Trump had powerful ads about this topic.
I missed these b/c I’m in California but I heard that something like $100 million worth of specifically anti-trans ads were run in the swing states, and it’s hard not to think that that had some impact. I’m not sure what the right response to those ads would have been. But ignoring them was not a good idea.
Yes. They/them pronouns seem to make a lot of heads explode. I am completely opposed to using a singular they, and never do it, and so far so good. It’s mind-boggling, though, that some people get so bent out of shape over it that they’ll ditch decency and principles to vote their emotions. It raises the question: just who is it that has an unhealthy obsession with sex and gender?
I would add: the “they” of the MAGA ads conflates the nonbinaries and the general forces of evil so frequently mentioned by conspiracy theorists: “they” are coming for your guns, “they” are indoctrinating your children, “they” want to see you replaced. I heard a scholar of political propaganda talking about Trump’s messaging, and she said that he is the most talented and effective propagandist in American history. This ad you cite is a perfect example of the nefarious genius who could never define metonymy or synecdoche yet can employ the devices as effectively as the finest poet.
It may have been a winnable election against *Trump*, considering how disliked he is. The math suggests many of the people who voted for him held their notes while doing so.
Against any normie Republican, assuming any still exist,I think it would have been a total wipeout.
I usually agree with Jesse but this time I really think this is on Trump voters and not the Democratic establishment. You shouldn't have to have a flawless campaign to win over someone who tried to steal the last election. Besides, I think if you go back to the speeches/campaign messaging of both candidates you'll find that the Trump side was far more sneering, judgmental, and race/gender obsessed than Harris was. Democrats have to work more on their messaging for sure, but people gave up on democracy and common sense for cheaper groceries yesterday.
Thank you -- I feel like I'm going crazy seeing all of these comments berating the Dems for scaring away normies by being too sneering and demeaning of the other side. Like have you listened to a damn thing Trump and his campaign surrogates have said for the last 9 years?
It's fair to critique the Democrats for their rhetoric (and I do, constantly). I get it. People find the holier-than-thou shit off-putting, and that factors into the way they just lost, and for me personally at least I find myself more often criticizing people I'm more ideologically aligned with because, rational or not, their behavior feels more like a reflection on me by association. But to imply that they are somehow more guilty of demonizing their opposition than Trump and co? Be so for real! People have been hearing Trump & Vance call the people they disagree with vermin and crazy and evil and deranged, and voted for them anyway. So something tells me it's not just that using harsh or judgmental language toward your political opponent in general puts voters off.
This is not analogous. We are criticizing Dems because people didn't vote for them, and we have reasons why. Criticizing Trump because people *did* vote for him is a very different thing. What you want to do here is blame the people for voting for Trump, and that is exactly what makes you guys such losers. Stop blaming the electorate for not voting how you'd prefer, and start blaming your leadership for being so goddamn unelectable.
But Trump's criticisms were often directed at elites or those, like Adam Schiff, he perceived as "radical leftists." Not as much at democratic voters per se. And Trump's criticisms aren't necessarily condescending. Mean, insensitive, sure. But not condescending in the way democrats come off when they accuse everyone but themselves of falling for misinformation, or use terms like "low information voters."
I agree. The Trump campaign definitely was all identity and almost no policy, and what little policy was proposed contradicted itself. Complaining about high costs but saying tariffs will lower prices? I fear that we’re about to learn economics in the same way as teaching the trolley problem with actual trolleys and people.
So many of the Dems' biggest problems are downstream of them embracing their new role as the official party of America's sneering, out-of-touch Brahmins who cannot, not even for just five goddamn minutes, conceal the fact that they feel superior to all the proles because they've undergone the ritual cleansing process that is college education, which in their view rids the soul of racism, homophobia, and sexism, and which the proles are too inferior and/or poor to have undergone. Not since 18th century France has the Western world seen such a completely delusional ruling class. Never before have so few Americans wielded so much power to such quixotic, demented ends.
Red pilled. Duly noted.
How about reality pilled?
Just before the election Glenn Kessler gave Donald Trump 4 Pinocchio’s for claiming that Imane Khelif was/is a man. So much for fact checking. How about runaway media/elite bias?
In real life, D. Trump was right and G. Kessler was wrong. The French endocrinologists who examined Imane Khelif found that he was/is male. The Bicetre hospital report leaked.
I especially loved the rationale provided: "It says FEMALE on her passport you BIGOT!" Never mind the fact that it wasn't even our kind of government i.e. a liberal-democratic Western state, which issued the passport in question. In some people, the desire to Obey Authority is officially so strong that any authority, it seems, will do in a pinch.
In all countries, presumed sex is observed at birth. Sex observed at birth is roughly 99.9% right (but not 100.0%). However, rare exceptions exist. CAIS persons are thought to be female at birth. However, they are actually male. They (CAIS persons) think of themselves as women, and should be considered to be women, for most purposes (that includes sports), in my opinion. 5-ARD is another rare exception. In one part of the Dominican Republic, this condition is actually quite common. Caster Semenya and Imane Khelif are modern examples of this condition. Both are thought to be 5-ARD. See “The extraordinary case of the Guevedoces” over on the BBC web site. 5-ARD persons should not be treated as women for many purposes (including sports), in my opinion.
46-XY (Swyer’s syndrome) women are considered to be ‘intersex’ because they lack ovaries (they typically have a vagina, a uterus, and fallopian tubes). Note that with medical help (donated fertilized eggs / IVF) they can have children. In my opinion, they should be treated as women for most purposes (including sports).
Fact checks don't actually check facts, silly. They are a verbal finger wag from the left wing media elite to DJT.
I do think that rejection of trangender idiotology played a role in the Harris defeat. Issue polling confirms that most people feel it has gone too far. What kills me is the use of the term "gender affirming care" even in the WSJ. Because the moment a girl decides she is really a boy, she transforms into a boy, really. Really!!! Internal thoughts promptly trump biology. And honoring that self-assessment promptly trumps every other consideration, including female safety. In ten years we will look back and laugh through our tears at the absurdity and the damage done.
Sneer, duly noted. See, I can be pithy and condescending pretty easily, too! (C'mon. Maybe a substantive objection or reply would be more in line with the spirit of this group. Give it a shot. Engage.)
Your the problem, Ollie. So, so dumb.
At least I can spell "you're" correctly.
One problem with Harris' campaign (aside from the obvious fact that it lost decisively) is that she didn't stand for anything, so it's impossible to know what to fix. Progressives will say the problem was that she ran to the center. Centrists will say the problem was that no one could forget the Harris of 2019. Everyone can say that this loss proves their particular theory of the case, making it really hard to know where the party should go from here. It seems to me that "less smug, more curious" would be a good starting point, but it's hard to get there from "most Americans are idiots who want fascism," which I fear is what we're going to be stuck with because many on the left refuse to believe that condescension isn't particularly persuasive.
Her best bet was abortion, and she did bring it up.
Maybe, though, the general populace isn't *that* worried about it. It seems that the general populace doesn't like the more restrictive laws that the Republicans want, but it doesn't bother them *that* much. Most countries place restrictions on abortion, right? Anyway. "Bring down inflation and I can afford condoms again."
The fact they're melted into the mainstream media means they never have to hear facts they don't like.
"Maybe, though, the general populace isn't *that* worried about it. "
If you google image search "pro-life protest", you will see photo after photo - a collective sea of women - loudly voicing their pro-life stance.
Yet my social media bubble consists of nothing but otherwise intelligent people framing the issue as something "old white men" do in the name of "oppressing women".
If you’ve ever been around any pro-life movement people, the ground troops are middle aged to older women who love them some babies.
In Montana, we voted for a constitutional amendment to specifically protect abortion to the tune of 57%, which is 4 points above what anti-abortion candidate Tim Sheehy got (winning with 53% of the vote). It does matter to people, but they have conflicting feelings about policy vs. the candidates they vote for. Sheehy is also not great for public lands and stream access, which is probably one of the top issues for Montana voters. Neither is Ryan Zinke, who is also terrible for home affordability in Montana, which is a huge issue. And he beat out Monica Tranel, again, who is explicit about her desire to protect public lands and bring down housing prices.
I think so much of this comes with the stink that hangs around the Democrats, particularly with their ignoring of working class and rural voters rather than what voters want for policy. You don't want to vote for someone who looks down their nose at you. It doesn't matter if they support things that will help you if they aren't interested in communicating with you as an individual.
I'm also from Montana. I did not vote all 'red' yesterday. A couple points.
First, this statement from Jesse really resonated with me: "They — okay, back to we — consist disproportionately of highly educated, intellectually self-satisfied individuals who are confident in the moral and intellectual rectitude of our worldviews." While I make a decent living here in Montana, I'm much more 'normie' than 'elite,' although I fully recognize that my income probably differentiates me from a lot of the friends I have a beer with on Friday night.
But I've practiced law for over 30 years (yes, in backwards Montana, but I've been relatively successful). I stay reasonably well informed. I obviously have a college degree, and I've run several businesses.
So when someone from a larger area looks down on me because I went to a 'state school' (Go Griz!), it really doesn't do much for me. To all of the so-called coastal elites, let me just tell you something. You're not that smart. Great, you can discuss literature, and you can liberal arts me to death, but when a 35 year old pundit on a news station sounds like he's talking down to me, it doesn't have the same effect he THINKS it has.
And, the so-called elite in this country isn't doing all that great of a job. Let's see, we've got a migrant crisis, we're 35 TRILLION in debt, a lot of my friends work their asses off to make ends meet and one half of the country hates the other half. That's not exactly hitting it out of the park, so please forgive me if I do not genuflect to your Ivy League degrees.
And yeah, Trump is an ass. But, in some respects, that's a feature not a bug. In my many years of practicing law, I've had the opportunity to deal with countless government employees at the local, state, and federal level. I've met many, many wonderful, hard-working people in government, and I almost always make sure to make their bosses know it.
But I challenge you to try to resolve some stupid-ass federal regulatory matter for your 70 year old client without breaking the bank (hell, I challenge you to get a call back!). Then, maybe after that, you can explain to me how there is no "deep state" and "government is just another word for you and me."
Sometimes you need an ass, a wrecking ball, to get things done.
I apologize for the rant. Now, here's a feel good angle: I volunteered at our local polls last night. Montana has same-day registration. The lines were horrendous. People were waiting 6, 7, even 8 hours to vote yesterday. And even so, they all smiled and got along, and in a whole day, I did not hear ONE PERSON argue or grouse about who the next person in line might be voting for. That's America, not the bullshit that the elite media feeds us.
I'm attending the U for grad school. It's a great school and it's even better that it's a state institution (and affordable comparatively to others). I commute quite a distance to attend, too.
I think we agree on quite a bit, but not everything. My point was largely focused around how people do care about abortion, but may vote for reps who don't support abortion, and thus intending to illustrate that peoples wants may not be reflected in their votes. And if the argument is an anti-elite one, the Montana election negates that point. Zinke, Sheehy, and Gianforte are all elites and they came baked that way. I know you noted you didn't vote all red down the ticket, so I'm not sure which of them, if any, you voted for, but given the way you speak about Trump, I am going to assume you voted for him, as well (do correct me if I'm wrong). Just because Trump engages in crass language and goes on Joe Rogan doesn't make him less of an elite.
I came from a working class background, put myself through college, and now have the privilege of going to grad school at a state institution, all the while my fiance's friends are shocked when the word "fuck" comes out of my mouth. That doesn't make me an elite just because I went to college and prefer a skirt and a pair of kitten heels (okay, boots are growing on me...) and save my swearing for moments when it packs the most punch.
I love Montana. I love the way that people of different political opinions can all sit at a bar together and have a beer and bullshit together. I think that a lot of America is like that. However, I also believe there is a ton of division that pops up, some manufactured for outrage bait in both established and "subversive" media, while some of it is an outgrowth of that. And I think that division, placed between Republicans and Democrats, has caused damage within our electoral politics. That division has hurt Montana and the way we vote. We unseated a third generation Montana farmer, a self-proclaimed "C" student, in favor of a wealthy dude in the name of "subverting the elites." And I think that's a failure of branding and, as I noted in another response, a problem of localizing national narratives.
Your post made me think. I guess a more refined way to say what I said is that it is not the 'elites' that drive me crazy, but the 'elitist attitude.' I mean, I guess when I am compared to some of my friends, I am 'elite,' at least based on education, income, etc.
But I don't look down on people who make less than I do or are different from me.
I can't say for sure, since I don't know 'em, but I sure feel like there are a lot of people in media and politics who look at what some might call "flyover company" with a certain amount of disrespect or even disdain. I think the term "public servant" is a joke, as applied to many government employees.
I'm sure this has always existed in our country. As you are no doubt aware, Montana has never been "cosmopolitan!" :D But watching the reaction of one side when the other side wins an election (breakdown => outrage => insult => even some threats) tells me that there are people in this country at the upper echelons who have zero respect for the rest of us.
Absolutely. A lot of politicians don't care about flyover country. In fact, despite the fact people in my little town might think of me as an "elite" to some extent, being a transplant from a Metropolitan area (a poor one at that), any real elite would look down their nose at me and know I'm not one of them.
There is something fundamentally broken in our system and I don't think we can vote our way out of it. Not unless people are able to run for office in a way that isn't so deeply influenced by elitism and greed.
Thank you for engaging in this discussion respectfully. It's so rare to find on the internet (though this thread has had more of that than average)
They make it clear as crystal that they want to take down white males a peg or three. Any white male who votes for Democrats is objectively voting against his own interests.
I think that takes it too far, especially in a state like Montana. Voting for a Tester or a Tranel over a Zinke or Sheehy isn't "voting against the interests of white men" or "taking them down a peg or three." Tester is literally a third generation Montana farmer and notorious average white man. Tester and Tranel are actively for the interests of the average white man in Montana. White men want to be able to afford homes here (they can't at the moment, not on average Montana salaries) and access public lands and streams (Zinke and Sheehy are not public lands supporters).
While I'm sympathetic to the fact that national Democratic politics has a specific message that is identitarian and hostile towards average people, my point was that taking that national message local prevents people from voting for their interests. "Voting for Democrats" being labeled as hurting the interests of white men rings hollow when your Republican senators and governors don't care about making sure there are the same kinds of logging, construction, and service jobs that hold up your community, or that those jobs pay enough so that you and your family can afford housing (as in renting), let alone being able to afford to own a home.
Gianforte (R Governor) wants to overturn access to public lands and streams, making it more difficult to hunt, hike, and fish. He doesn't care about housing prices. He doesn't care about keeping clean air and water. These all matter to the average Montanan. The national politics of whateverthefuckelse shouldn't matter when filling in a bubble next to (D) Ryan Busse, other notorious white man, whatever number generation Montana rancher, and safe gun advocate and hunter who wants average people to be able to afford to live here. Otherwise, Montana becomes a playground for people who want second homes in a California with snow and the rest of us get shafted.
Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. Indeed, I should have specified that exceptions exist and when those exceptions make it clear that they are exceptions it improves their electoral chances.
Tester may be from Montana, and he’s a bit porky and looks natural in the obligatory hat. But he’s kind of a political cross-dresser; he votes down the line with the left. He’s no heterodox Joe Mancin type. In terms of votes, he might as well have a degree in Women’s Studies from Mount Holyoke.
Now, hear me out, he might feel those policies are better for his state rather than anything else. He does not always vote the party line, nor has he always voted with the Biden administration. Just because someone is a democrat does not mean they "may as well have a degree in Women's Studies from Mount Holyoke" or considering him a "political cross-dresser." Believe it or not, there are working class people who support those policies. That doesn't make them not working class. I really feel like people misunderstand the concept of what an elite is, because it's not "someone who thinks differently than you."
This: "He doesn't care about housing prices. He doesn't care about keeping clean air and water."
That is extremely divisive language, and I don't think you mean it that way. But whenever we start to frame differences of opinion this way, it leads to conflict. I think if you spoke with Gianforte, he would tell you he absolutely DOES care about those things, but that he has different ideas about how to accomplish the same or similar ends. You and I can agree or disagree about those ideas and what they will accomplish, but that kind of accusatory language just turns people off. (At least you didn't call him a "fascist!")
I'm not going to debate specific policies, because I probably agree with you about some of them. But if one person thinks the best way to solve the housing crisis is to loosen regulation and build more homes, while the other one thinks it is more important to subsidize low income purchasers, I think I would be hard-pressed to say either one "doesn't care" about it.
I can see how that language is divisive. You're right, I didnt mean it that way. However, his prioritization is on the privitizing of land and preventing people from accessing the rivers and streams and public lands that are the right of every Montanan to access by our state constitution. That is a problem, and one that people care about. I dont think he cares about prioritizing that over business and personal interests and i don't think it's accurate to state that he has different ideas about accomplishing those goals. He may say he does, but actions speak louder, and his actions include limiting access.
In terms of home affordability, government’s main levers make homes less affordable by restricting the amount of homes -- zoning in much of America. It can’t beat the laws of supply and demand. I’d like to know the policies that allegedly would make homes more affordable. If they include price controls of any sort, it won’t work.
Montana has an issue with Air BnB's. If those were restricted or reduced through second home taxes, especially for people who's primary resdence is outside of the state, there would be more options. My fiance and I are having trouble even finding year long rentals, let alone affordable purchasable homes, because every lease ends in May in order to be available for tourist season.
Zoning isn't an issue in Montana in the same way it is other areas. At most, you have issue with wanting to have more than 5 chickens or a goat when you live in town rather than the lack of ability to build. I live in a place that is very desirable right now and has the third highest increase in home pricing while having lower than average wages.
I beg to differ. Zoning is absolutely an issue in Montana. Try to do anything, and the local governments will pick you a part for months, if not years. And I've handled those cases. I've seen people who try to build developments, and spend six figures and ultimately give up. Is it the only reason we have high housing costs? Absolutely not, but it is definitely one reason.
I didn't say zoning isn't an issue, I said it's not an issue in the same way it is in other areas. Montana has a lot more mixed zoning than the rest of the country. Im sure regulation plays an issue in expansion and whatnot, but as someone who literally can't find a place to live at the moment, but can find a short term, super expensive rental,OR a super expensive new-build home, I feel the issue has much more to do with Air BnBs than zoning. There's a ton of new building going on. There are even more second homes and vacation rentals.
Seriously, I think much of this comes down to partisan branding.
In a rare moment of honesty and coherence from Trump, during the debate he was pretty much dead-on that Harris wouldn't be able to do anything about abortion.
Abortion is clearly an issue that gives Democrats an advantage. By returning the issue to the political process, Dobbs helped the Democrats. But Trump managed to sidestep the issue by taking the position that it’s up to the states. Kamala loudly insisted that Trump wanted a nationwide abortion ban, but the fact that he obviously does not, and that he sidelined the Mike Pence wing of the party made the issue far less salient.
I don't think that sidestep worked, and it has never really worked for Republicans. (I'm old enough to remember 90s politicians trying that let-the-states-decide thing, and it always fell flat.) I think the issue just wasn't as important in 2024 as was hoped.
Harris didn't bring up abortion? So the dead women whose stories Harris told time and again were just victims of high deductibles?
"Her best bet was abortion, and she did bring it up."
One problem with her campaign was that she really didn’t campaign. Not in any way that was recognizable to me, anyway
She ran the same sort of basement campaign that Biden ran in 2020. She just didn't have the "ground game" (cheating) that his team had.
Maybe her team had an over representation of Forever Maskers and that's why they "couldn't" campaign
Everyone (except entertainers like Trump and state level politicians who have not yet entered DC) forgets how to campaign, it's like a lost technology. It usually involves endless physical interaction with crowds of non-pre-approved potential voters.
"Because many on the left refuse to believe that condescension isn't particularly persuasive."
PREACH. Stitch that on a throw pillow and mail it to MSNBC headquarters....
The dem poli class will do a true analysis, because winning is so important in politics. Unless your side wins you do not get a job in government. They will retreat on some issues. Biden thought he had a big mandate, but he won not because of support for DEI or trans, but because folks did not want T taking over. Then in '22 GOP got caught with extreme abortion positions that suddenly mattered.
Agree.
We have been writing and writing in every message board available that we were going to lose. Been doing this for a year and a half.
The reason why isn't wrapped up in political science or economic jargon, but is wrapped up in psychology.
And here is one, of many psychological observations: "Progressives" are not interested in winning. Instead they are interested in the self-serving feeling of being right.
So, they got what they wanted. Article after article this morning about how they were 'right" about Trump and Trump supporters. "Sexists" and "misogynists." "low information" "voting against their own interests (because they are stupid)" etc. etc.
Thich Nhat Hanh, the great Vietnamese Buddhist monk: our greatest attachment tends to be to our opinions.
.....and we old time Democrats were more attached to the vulnerable who we protected, including to blue collar workers who were at the mercy of corporation owners.....i.e., Trump voters, to minorities, to women's rights, etc. We want our old beloved party back
The "low information voter" thing is especially galling. It's usually coming from media personalities who fly in a triangle from NYC, to DC, to LA and back. There's a whole country with a whole range of interests that is missed by national media figures.
(Mourns the death of robust local reporting)
iron law of institutions
"Article after article this morning about how they were 'right" about Trump and Trump supporters. "Sexists" and "misogynists." "low information" "voting against their own interests (because they are stupid)" etc. etc."
Only time will tell. If Trump follows through on his campaign promises, Democrats will have been proven correct.
What if, and I know this is going to blow your mind, most people don't want to live in a country overrun with foreigners on welfare and with drag queens teaching kindergarteners about how they like to fuck.
"... immigrants and their children are projected to add about 18 million people of working age between 2015 and 2035. This would offset an expected decline in the working-age population from retiring Baby Boomers.... immigrants today account for 14.3% of the U.S. population, a roughly threefold increase from 4.7% in 1970. The immigrant share of the population today is the highest since 1910 but remains below the record 14.8% in 1890." (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/).
As for drag queens teaching kindergartners about how they like to fuck: I'm no fan of drag queen reading hours in libraries, but I don't believe there have been any instances of them teaching children about fucking. If there have been, please share a link with the information. I'd be very interested in seeing where this happened.
I'd rather the population of the USA decline then for our country to become a dumping ground for the world's refuse, and I'm not alone. Don't bother with the Ellis Island crap you're about to type. You know, I know and everybody knows that they are not coming here for the American Dream, they are coming for EBT cards.
A declining population will mean a decline in standards of living.
Baseless conjecture. More and cheaper housing, higher wages, less strain on infrastructure would also be aspects of population decline.
Assuming it's even happening and the "experts" aren't just lying their asses off again.
You still aren't listening to the people. They have resoundingly said they do not want a "progressive" country.
You are hopeful for a late 4th quarter come back. It's better to have had a great game plan by disavowing ALL "progressive" nonsense.
No, it's the voters who are wrong.
voters.....who......are.....wrong.
Wow. What superiority.
https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/308356003/No-its-the-children-who-are-wrong
It's too bad I can't put you on ignore. You are making no sense
Time for addition through subtraction; kick out the wokes, the Hamas simps, the "fascist" shouters, etc, and make a positive case for the party.
Don't forget the neocons like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. What were they thinking, courting those endorsements?
“Look, even Republicans that everyone hates are voting for us!”
Touting the "Satan" endorsement was... a choice.
They were highlighting the endorsement of people who said, "Look, we disagree with you completely on policy, but protecting the rule of law/voting against the lawless felon who tried to steal an election takes precedence, so we're with you." Made sense to me!
It really would be that simple, and yet it still seems like an unlikely outcome
I don't know...Kamala Harris really did not run an identitarian campaign, nor did she spend the majority of her time telling people how racist Trump is. Sure, she said he is unfit for office, but she also focused on the policies the man would bring with him: cutting Medicaid, fucking with the Affordable Care Act, raising prices by implementing tariffs, etc.
I don't want to speculate too much on the day after the election--there's so much we just do not know--but I have a feeling this election wasn't about Harris or even Trump. Incumbent governments all over the world seem to be suffering at the hands of voters, and the United States now joins that luckless company. I'm thinking this is pandemic aftershock mixed with populism, getting voters to make foolish choices. (My thoughts on this are still a bit vague, admittedly.)
And, make no mistake, putting a convicted felon in the White House is a foolish choice. No amount of voter anxiety or anger makes it otherwise. Blaming Democrats, or crediting Republicans, isn't a good way forward, either. Sometimes the voters just get it wrong. Like yesterday.
TrackerNeil, Harris didn't need to run an identitarian campaign because those dedicated to Democrat Party loyalty became surrogates. The surrogates' insufferable insistence (for at least the past 4 years) that Western values are the cause of all that ails the world turned life-long, left-leaning voters like me away. I didn't vote for Trump, but I also could not vote for Harris. The left's overreach did that to me.
Agreed. For the first time in decades, I abstained on principle.
> The surrogates' insufferable insistence (for at least the past 4 years) that Western values are the cause of all that ails the world
The Biden administration has spent copious amount of capital, monetary and political, trying to keep Ukraine in the western sphere, so that's obvious crackpot bullshit from you.
He's not explaining how the world is. He's explaining what Trump voters see in the world. And what they see, indeed what we all see, is a lot of self-appointed arbiters of culture on the left in institutions with real power who have endlessly denigrated America and Western values, including our most important one(hate speech is free speech).
Inflation the whole world over does a number on incumbent governments. I have a lot of criticisms of the way the Democratic Party comported themselves over the past 2 or so years, but it's probably that simple.
"Convicted felon" leads me to one of those criticisms. Every time you do that to someone who looked into that court case, you risk making another Trump voter.
Yes, Trump has been doing scummy, gray-area, and illegal things for decades. But (1) so do thousands of other scummy business people and (2) it wasn't a coincidence that he was finally prosecuted as he prepared to run for President in 2024. This was a perfect example of the term "lawfare" and the use of that term to describe the coordinated and selective legal attacks on Trump certainly resonated with me.
Judicial and prosecutorial independence are so valuable and I absolutely despise their politicization. I am hoping that the Trump administration doesn't do the same (with law, but also the IRS and finance), because an escalating tit-for-tat lawfare/IRS/finance war would be the most corrosive thing I can imagine for what's left of our republic.
And all you can do is hope at this point, right? 2016-2020, Trump threatened and didn't do anything. 2020-2024, filled with lawfare of varying legitimacy. (Some of the more legitimate ones were turned away, which his conviction was pretty convincingly horseshit and will probably be overturned on appeal)
Now you just have to hope Trump doesn't take 2020-2024 and turn it back on his enemies. G'faw!
Maybe it was a bad idea to do that, guys.
Although it was a "bad idea" in that future negative externalities could be substantial, I can see the incentives that would drive an ambitious prosecutor or judge in a deep blue area/social milieu to pursue all the prosecutions (even the ones that were obviously BS or inflated to felonies). If a prosecutor/judge values fame, adulation, praise, romantic/sexual opportunities, etc. more than the possible future adverse expected value to the stability of our republic...
LOL, true. Good idea for an individual, maybe.
I agree, I think the whole lawfare argument made by left wing media seriously, seriously did some heavy lifting in terms of converting on the fence voters in Trumps direction. The blatant hypocrisy of conducting extensive lawfare against Trump while decrying that "if he gets elected, he will use the DOJ/other 3 letter agencies to go after his political opponents" was just the final nudge that a lot of voters needed to say "fuck these people."
Eugene Debs was a convicted felon, too.
It's not hard to tell yourself that the conviction was politically motivated. Especially when the prosector politically campaigned on doing it.
And charged him using a "novel" legal approach in order to turn a misdemeanor into a felony.
It wasn't a novel theory. This gets repeated endlessly by the apologists, but it is not true. It was a unique fact pattern, but the legal theory is well established.
It was, in fact, a novel case.
Here’s an argument from someone who likes the outcome but still admits the novelty of the case. (Prosecutorial discretion be damned)
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4702835-alvin-braggs-prosecution-of-trump-was-novel-and-correct/amp/
This is a good breakdown of the case, but doesn’t go into the novelty of charging someone with a felony when he hasn’t been convicted of any specific underlying crimes- crimes that were unspecified until closing arguments, BTW:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-people-v.-trump
Here’s a Syracuse law professor who’s written a few pieces about it:
https://law.syracuse.edu/news/proferssor-gregory-germain-writes-the-manhattan-district-attorneys-convoluted-legal-case-against-donald-trump-gets-more-convoluted/
A PBS Q&A that demonstrates the legal novelty of the case, and presumes the need for arguing that Trump was guilty of a specific underlying crime, which the prosecution never did.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/how-trumps-alleged-hush-money-payments-led-to-his-charges-in-new-york
What’s very weird about this, is the hush money payments had to be in service of another crime to be a felony. What’s the other crime? Who cares? Probably something though, right? It’s hush money, so Michael Cohen said it was to protect his chances of winning the 2016 election (forget that the payments were made in 2017, after the election was over.) Maybe it was an unlawful campaign contribution to… someone? Maybe tax evasion? Who cares. But there were 34 hush money payments, and that was probably in service of some other unnamed crime.
There were 11 hush money payments. But there were also invoices (11) and ledger entries (12). Yes, that's right. Donald Trump was convicted of falsifying invoices his business *received* from Michael Cohen. Anyone defending this case is either bad faith or doesn't actually know that much about it.
There's a huge difference between being convicted for helping striking workers and being convicted for falsifying financial records to hide hush money payments.
Correct, one of them gets you elected President of the United States
With respect, the amount of "official" campaign messages were drowned out (read: screamed out) by surrogates, pundits and general public rhetoric shouted by blue-robed icons. That's exactly the issue Jesse is pointing at here... Not official campaign messaging. "Team Blue" gleefully helped the campaign lose.
You're right, they ran decently on-message (what that message was, I don't know) and kept their noses fairly clean from culture war stank. Maybe too much as it ended in a vacuum of memorable, viral moments. She was not even a little bit likeable by swing voters. "Team Blue" shoved the rest off the popular cliff.
Yeah, the instinct to say “the democrats just don’t understand people” is missing a big part of the problem. A huge segment of society is economically illiterate, sucked into a right wing conspiracy rabbit hole, and take their political views primarily from comedians.
“It’s the elites’ fault” is super frustrating to hear as a blue collar guy who grew up poor. Yes, the elites are fucking up, but the electorate they’re dealing with is legitimately fucking insane.
Good gods, yes. Remember back in 2010, "Get the government out of my Medicare"?
As has been said, the best argument against democracy is ten minutes with the average voter.
Right. But where I will give Dems blame here is, like it or not, that’s your electorate, and they’ve totally failed to adapt to the changing media landscape in the way they need to to communicate with them. They still campaign like it’s 2008.
I think that was one sign that someone got a picture of that has been blown way the hell out of proportion, I worked in Republican/Republican-adjacent politics for 15 years and have never heard that sentiment expressed.
This thinking is so insanely backwards and exactly why Harris was outperformed by Trump in EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN AMERICA....
Excellent article, and hard agree. One issue the Democrats really need to work on is the very strong anti-American vibes that a lot of the contemporary progressive movement gives off. It's one thing to say that America isn't perfect, there are issues and injustices we need to address, etc. It's quite another to describe America is irredeemably and irreparably flawed by its origin in the original sins of "settler colonialism" and slavery; to describe its economy as a "capitalist hellscape"; and to act as though we're only ever one election away from concentration camps for various minorities. It's very easy to imagine that the Democratic Party doesn't actually like America, or Americans, all that much, because a lot of its voters don't seem to do so.
I'm old enough to remember (but not have voted in) the 1980 election in which Reagan crushed Carter. The vibes that the Democratic Party was giving off then--shame, malaise, weakness--are very similar to the vibes it's giving off now. It took more than a decade before the Democrats recovered from that debacle and regained competitiveness in Presidential politics; hopefully there won't be such a long sojourn in the wilderness this time.
This is one of the very few times I'm going to largely disagree with you, Jesse. To be clear, I mostly agree with your overall thesis that the anti-Trump movement is an utter failure; I think it's hard to conclude anything else if you're at all thoughtful and observant. What I'm going to disagree with is the idea that this election specifically proved that in any meaningful way.
What the results of this election proved are that Kamala Harris never had a decent chance in the first place. That was ensured when:
1) President Biden announced to the world that his running mate would be a woman of color. Many much smarter people than I have pointed out just how badly this set up whomever was to be chosen in terms of public perception. There was no way anyone was going to know for sure that whoever he chose wasn't a DEI hire once he said that.
2) President Biden and his closest advisors clung to the fantasy that he could somehow win and chose to have him run again. The fact that he and they allowed him to string that out as long as possible only to eventually be embarrassed on the debate stage ensured Harris wouldn't have one of the most valuable resources in a campaign: time. She had virtually no time to tinker with her messaging, to gather data and adjust accordingly.
3) President Biden endorsed her. This undermined her even further, as not only was she now a DEI hire, she was also handed the nomination without anything faintly resembling a competitive primary. There was no reason for anyone to think she earned anything at all.
I suspect Harris wouldn't have had a good shot under the best of circumstances, as she's transparently fake and unappealing. But this election didn't prove anything about the anti-Trump movement broadly; it just proved that Biden royally fucked over her and anyone who doesn't like Trump.
Fwiw, I actually have mostly liked the Biden presidency from a governance standpoint. I'm bitterly disappointed that nobody seems to notice that he did most of the things us lefty types have been bitching for years that dems haven't done recently. Antitrust enforcement, labor solidarity, climate change legislation, the list goes on, and nobody seems to know it. What a sad waste this has all been.
I think the DEI hire thing only remains salient if it becomes clear that she wasn't otherwise a good choice or a talented politician.
Nobody really talks about KBJ being a DEI appointment to the supreme court anymore, even though Biden did the same bullshit to her, because she's been a very competent, impressive and thoughtful supreme court justice.
Harris' poor results in her presidential bid in 2019 made it salient.
Agreed on all your points. It was practically a campaign promise of Biden's that he would only serve 1 term and would spend a good amount of that promoting and strengthening the next generation of Democratic leaders. Kamala Harris didn't convince people that she could lead on her own because she was never given a chance to lead on her own.
“Antitrust enforcement, labor solidarity, climate change legislation, the list goes on, and nobody seems to know it.” Exactly. There was a serious messaging problem — and you can’t overestimate how damaging that was for the party.
I couldn’t make it all the way through this article. The “anti-Trump movement?” Really? Go cry with Dick Cheney. The rest of us are interested in dealing with reality. Let’s forget for a moment what side the war mongers were on, and contemplate all those poor kids gaslit into thinking they are the other sex, and then being permanently mutilated for fun and profit. There’s an entire NGO complex devoted to this and other manifestly unscientific ideas, ready and willing to shut down any dissent. That doesn’t even begin to touch the obvious hatred the blue blob has for ordinary Americans, so much so that they are willing to help millions of unvetted military men cross our borders. But let’s not forget that by electing Harris, the unelected bureaucrats behind the scenes would have a free hand to crush anyone who objected to whatever the hell they wanted to do. The administrative state and its covert directors are a cancer on this country, with Harris as their willing figurehead.
Trump's gonna start a war with Iran. He already tried!
Right on and well—said!
The best possible face I can put on last night is that Trump was the reason it was even as close as it was. In a year where incumbent leaders have been knocked on their asses all over the world and right-wing populists are in the ascendency, a "normal" Republican - assuming any still exist - would likely have won by much more.
Inflation and immigration had Democrats on the back foot, and unfortunately there was undoubtedly racism and sexism working against Harris. (What Democrats must come to terms with is that this racism and sexism came not only from white voters but also from minorities, among whom Trump did shockingly well for a Republican.)
I think Nikki Haley, woman of color, would be picking Kamala Harris out of her teeth this morning if she had been the nominee.
No way to prove that, though.
I think the first woman of color President will be a conservative Republican. (Mind you, I used to say the same about the first Black man elected President. Colin Powell could have won in 1996 or 2000 had he gone for it.)
I'd actually really love that, if just for the mental knots progressives would have to tie themselves into. Given my druthers, this race would have been Shapiro v Haley.
For a preview check out some of the things lefties are saying about Kami Badenoch across the pond.
I don't want to, lol. I like her, she seems very smart and competent. I'm jealous for America's conservatives.
Somebody's probably going to drop in and tell me something horrible I didn't know about her.
She’s very socially conservative.
She knows what a woman is.
Sorry to necro but just look at how Clarence Thomas has been treated over the last few years. They've already been busy with the gymnastics.
That's my general feeling, but it's hard to tell. I don't doubt that essentially all Trump voters would back him over Harris. But I wonder about the ability of a normie Republican to motivate turnout. Trump does seem to motivate low propensity voters much more than other candidates (I assume we will see more content on this in the coming weeks).
The pocketbook is also a motivation for low propensity voters.
A lot of us sexist Republicans were lining up behind Sarah Palin back when the people who are lecturing us about our misogyny now were calling her "Caribou Barbie".
What's your evidence that there was undoubtedly racism and sexism? No snark, genuine question.
The Dems problem is that we aren't a party of ideas. We are a party of "The other guy fucking sucks so vote for me instead." We need to be a party who tries to do concrete things to make people's lives better. It starts at the local level. Lower someone's tax or energy bill. Fix a pothole. Politicians who do that get elected.
I don't think there have been too many ideas from either side.
I guess tariffs are technically an idea...
That attitude was embodied in Clinton's retort to "Make America Great Again": "America is already great!" This from the party that was swept into power in 2008 with the slogan "CHANGE".
I think the crazy-making on the left has just been too much for normies over the last four years, and all those red arrows just indicate a flee from the woko-locos to something voters can understand (build the wall, use tariffs, it's the mexicans).
“Understand” in a very generous sense.
Understand the reason for and the need for. As opposed to trans insanity, DEI racism, etc.
If it takes an hour and a half to explain what a woman is, you're probably going to lose voters. But somehow the Dems think it's all good. Now we get Trump... gg
"There has been a lot of strategic investment in a deliberate project of narrowing the progressive tent both by purging a few and by intimidating others out of speaking their minds and it’s basically worked."
And also shaming, constantly, many people based upon their sex, ethnicity, etc., with their only accepted route forward in the world being to constantly admit guilt and try to atone for it (but never successfully, because...one can't change these things). Unless one is born the right way, one is just a second class somewhat tolerated person whose thoughts are not considered to have much value...as the value of ideas depends primarily upon the identity of the person who has them, of course...sigh.
This is not supporting those having a bad time and/or suffering from racism, sexism...or liberal democracy.
The problem is that if you run on "Orange Man is Hitler," in a closely politically divided country, the only way you win is by enough Republicans having a "Road to Damascus" conversion experience a la the Cheneys. But die-hard Republicans or not, the Cheneys and other well-educated political insiders who turned on Trump weren't representative of the average swing voter and there weren't enough of them to matter.
Almost by definition, if you were a swing voter in this election you didn't see Trump as evil, fascist, or a clear and present threat to Democracy; if you did, you would have been committed to whoever the Democratic nominee was from the start. You may, in fact, have voted for Trump in previous elections, and almost certainly have friends and family who are supporting him. You are also unlikely to treat most issues as profound moral positions--again, if you did, you'd presumably be voting for the person who was with you on that issue.
For that voter, "Trump is a racist and a fascist" is a lot less likely to be successful messaging than "Trump lacks the temperament and maturity to be a good president and the people who restrained his worst impulses during his first term will not be there this time around--and have largely repudiated him." Similarly, treating it as self-evident that any number of policy position could only be held by the sexist/cruel/racist/ignorant is the last thing likely to win over the swing voter--you actually need to convince him that what you propose is better.
It's funny when the spokesman for "Trump is a fascist" is Dick Cheney, of all people. Really? That's who you want delivering that message? A fucking war criminal? I guarantee that courting that endorsement (and Karl Rove and Bill Kristol) cost Harris more Democratic votes than it got "well-educated political insider" votes.
Your point is well -taken. My facetious take on your idea was that if only the Washington Post had endorsed Harris, she would have won.
Harris-voting liberal here: Many things can be true at once, and there is not necessarily one thing that is the dominant reason for election results, but I do want to suggest that the trans issue is unlike any other. Have we ever had an issue in which we were voting for how safe our children are from being mutilated? Anyone who know children of any age (their own child, their grandchildren, their friends' children, observes children on social media) knows what is going on with gender and is aware of the bodily harm and psychological harm that is now a ubiquitous threat to minors. Once one notices this and googles a bit on it, they become aware of the extremes of manipulation coming from trans influencers, teachers, scientists, the media, Jeffrey Marsh. (Seeing Marsh alone and noticing his millions of views could turn someone completely.) The one thing that may override a person's instincts to vote against someone as abhorrent, immoral, and threatening as Trump is that they want to protect their own child from bodily harm. And Trump had powerful ads about this topic.
I missed these b/c I’m in California but I heard that something like $100 million worth of specifically anti-trans ads were run in the swing states, and it’s hard not to think that that had some impact. I’m not sure what the right response to those ads would have been. But ignoring them was not a good idea.
Some version of “Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you” apparently blanked social media and TV in swing states, and was effective.
Yes. They/them pronouns seem to make a lot of heads explode. I am completely opposed to using a singular they, and never do it, and so far so good. It’s mind-boggling, though, that some people get so bent out of shape over it that they’ll ditch decency and principles to vote their emotions. It raises the question: just who is it that has an unhealthy obsession with sex and gender?
I would add: the “they” of the MAGA ads conflates the nonbinaries and the general forces of evil so frequently mentioned by conspiracy theorists: “they” are coming for your guns, “they” are indoctrinating your children, “they” want to see you replaced. I heard a scholar of political propaganda talking about Trump’s messaging, and she said that he is the most talented and effective propagandist in American history. This ad you cite is a perfect example of the nefarious genius who could never define metonymy or synecdoche yet can employ the devices as effectively as the finest poet.
Hubris has a huge cost. The Democrats made the wrong choice at almost every turn, from Biden's election to last night. Losing policies. Losing people.
This was as winnable an election as you will ever see. And they lost in an historically decisive manner.
It may have been a winnable election against *Trump*, considering how disliked he is. The math suggests many of the people who voted for him held their notes while doing so.
Against any normie Republican, assuming any still exist,I think it would have been a total wipeout.
I usually agree with Jesse but this time I really think this is on Trump voters and not the Democratic establishment. You shouldn't have to have a flawless campaign to win over someone who tried to steal the last election. Besides, I think if you go back to the speeches/campaign messaging of both candidates you'll find that the Trump side was far more sneering, judgmental, and race/gender obsessed than Harris was. Democrats have to work more on their messaging for sure, but people gave up on democracy and common sense for cheaper groceries yesterday.
Thank you -- I feel like I'm going crazy seeing all of these comments berating the Dems for scaring away normies by being too sneering and demeaning of the other side. Like have you listened to a damn thing Trump and his campaign surrogates have said for the last 9 years?
It's fair to critique the Democrats for their rhetoric (and I do, constantly). I get it. People find the holier-than-thou shit off-putting, and that factors into the way they just lost, and for me personally at least I find myself more often criticizing people I'm more ideologically aligned with because, rational or not, their behavior feels more like a reflection on me by association. But to imply that they are somehow more guilty of demonizing their opposition than Trump and co? Be so for real! People have been hearing Trump & Vance call the people they disagree with vermin and crazy and evil and deranged, and voted for them anyway. So something tells me it's not just that using harsh or judgmental language toward your political opponent in general puts voters off.
This is not analogous. We are criticizing Dems because people didn't vote for them, and we have reasons why. Criticizing Trump because people *did* vote for him is a very different thing. What you want to do here is blame the people for voting for Trump, and that is exactly what makes you guys such losers. Stop blaming the electorate for not voting how you'd prefer, and start blaming your leadership for being so goddamn unelectable.
But Trump's criticisms were often directed at elites or those, like Adam Schiff, he perceived as "radical leftists." Not as much at democratic voters per se. And Trump's criticisms aren't necessarily condescending. Mean, insensitive, sure. But not condescending in the way democrats come off when they accuse everyone but themselves of falling for misinformation, or use terms like "low information voters."
I agree. The Trump campaign definitely was all identity and almost no policy, and what little policy was proposed contradicted itself. Complaining about high costs but saying tariffs will lower prices? I fear that we’re about to learn economics in the same way as teaching the trolley problem with actual trolleys and people.
¿Porque no los dos?