I think Michelle Obama could have.
Maybe, but there would have been so much of that vile "Big Mike" misinformation thrown at her, that it might overshadow her campaign. Demanding she releases her birth certificate, medical records etc to prove she was a woman, then claiming they were faked.
LBC are interviewing blue collar people in the rust belts etc and most say they voted for Trump due to the hike in prices compared to when he was last in power and also immigration. They don't factor in the Covid variable and care little that he's a criminal.
Well my work colleague sent me a message to see how the UK was taking the news, she voted for trump.
I asked her if she would lend him 100$$
"Hell no he's a criminal" came the reply.
I mean at this point (shrugs shoulders in a galic style)
Meh
There is a lot of suggestion that accusing Trump supporters of being racists, xenophobes, and garbage, backfired on the Democrats. Insulting people isn’t a good way to win them over, it turns out.
I think that's balls - the Dem campaign didn't do that, and were I an American citizen, my vote would not have been swayed by one set of voters thinking me a "libtard". As noted above, what campaign can beat a campaign built on lies?
roughly half the electorate is of below average intelligence.
Oh god, no. Let's not do that again.
Anyway - 14th amendment anyone?
America is still a deeply racist country.
And misogynistic. A sizeable proportion of people will have refused to vote for her simply because she is a woman.
The USA is still - outside of some slightly more developed east-coast cities - a backwards and largely third-world country.
“Hell no he’s a criminal” came the reply.
But he's not a black woman.
The democrats should never of put her up as a candidate.
The last election was really close, they should of planned for proper succession.
Harris was not a popular VP, everyone knew that. She was never going to win.
It's not just a rust belt thing though. My SiL is solid American middle class in Maryland and steadfastly against Trump but she said "inflation has been really bad my grocery bill went from 200 to 450 for 2 weeks so that is real) it has been easing this past year but it has impacted people significantly and interest rates have killed the housing market so my guess is people voted about $$". People often take a fairly limited view of matters when they're being squeezed
The last election was really close, they should of planned for proper succession.
That succession plan would’ve been for 4 years time. A second term is the norm, nobody had a plan for what to do when the sitting President starts malfunctioning on TV.
There were certainly weaknesses all over the place, but not sure who would’ve done better?
Does anyone really believe that Trump is going to do anything to help "ordinary" people in the USA?
He's got 4 years to tear up as much stuff as possible and give tax cuts to the rich.
It's a disaster for the US and hopefully it will make Europe sit up and realise that we have to sort our own defense out. Putin's Russia is a real threat to European security.
As Kilo says above, if people see their cost of living getting better then that’ll be a good thing in their eyes. That the rich are managing to absolutely coin it in is a world away
From the various post mortems I've read or listened to in the last day, the common theme seems to be it's angry, young, predominantly white men, although he definitely gained traction with younger African American and Hispanic males.
This group feels it's being left behind. They feel diversity and inclusion is limiting their opportunities. They feel marginalised and isolated. They see women becoming more independently successful. Go and read some of the vitriol these men post about women earning huge sums of money from Only Fans and similar. It's horrific misogyny. Look at their hatred for the likes of Taylor Swift, a strong, successful young woman, and similar female stars.
They feel bombarded by gender politics, despite the actual number of people who fall into these categories being a fraction of a percent, but the media makes them think it's on every corner of every street of every town, and it threatens them.
So they see what they perceive as strong role models in Trump and Vance. Hugely financially successful, boastful sexual exploits, ones a former marine etc. it resonates with them. A female, minority former prosecutor absolutely does not resonate with them.
Oh god, no. Let’s not do that again.
Sorry.
It’s a ridiculous statement that I made really, as given the particular average you choose, it is simply a statement of fact.
But it’s real in this debate, because people are making the “surely people thought about…” or “clearly this was never going to happen…” class of statement.
And the reality is that most people don’t think long and hard in sophisticated ways.
They go with one or two factors that resonate with them.
And most often that’s cash in pocket today, direction of travel of their standard of living.
As the saying goes - "It’s the economy, stupid." - Jim Carville strategist in Bill Clinton's 1992 U.S. presidential election. (Stupid referring to election workers / pundits not voters)
Sure Remainers indulged in a lot of insulting of Leavers but, however gratuitous the delivery and associated decoration, one main thing stood out.
Whilst a lot of stereotyping and insulting was simply gratuitous, I don't ever recall seeing a Remain voter resort to threats of physical/sexual violence against someone or their family. I recall several social media interactions with Leave voters escalating to actual threats within about three posts.
A quick dig into many Leave voters' profiles revealed some pretty disturbing racism, misogyny, and general hate - on open display.
Then, of course, there was the spelling, punctuation, and resorting to block capitals.
In any case - it's been done a million times already, so "meh".
I presume this has also been done on here, but Jonathan Pie gets it pretty much spot on. I watched supertanski's assessment too - a bit too hysterical for me, but not far off either.
It is a sad time for decency, joy and outward-looking optimism.
it is not a reliable way of winning them over to reconsider their lived experience influencing their vote in the future.
I don't want this to be lost in the noise, as I think it's a very pertinent point for the US and UK.
Quite how we get people to see the bigger picture and what has been delivered for society rather than simply believe the same old slogans, I don't know.
And to add some caveats - it's really hard to see a bigger picture when inflation is crippling your living standards, no one cares that inflation is a global issue as much as a government issue, and it seems a significant chunk of Americans, however much we don't understand or agree, really don't want their government to get involved in doing things to improve society as a whole, merely to get rid of the perceived problems of the society, so "stop immigration" but not "provide affordable healthcare".
It's very odd.
I think that’s balls – the Dem campaign didn’t do that, and were I an American citizen, my vote would not have been swayed by one set of voters thinking me a “libtard”
Biden was caught on camera referring to Trump supporters as garbage. That won't change anybody's mind, but is an enormously effective way to motivate casual Trump supporters to bother to get out and vote for Trump and so stick it to that nasty Dem who insulted them.
You are right it doesn't sway anyone, but it definitely motivates them to bother voting!
One of the things that has become evident from the more detailed polling is people want change, society is not happy with the status quo, and the democrats didn't offer that.
IMO any government that is serious about protecting democracy has to change political funding to remove the billionaires and lobbyists from the system, The populists will continue to win if policy offerings from mainstream politicians are already decided by their backers before the public even get to vote. In the UK we need to realise that reforming the HOL or bringing in proportional representation will only be windows dressing if we don't remove the back end money that is directing politics.
In any case, what's the point of 4 years of navel-gazing now?
This has (again) knocked my faith in people to be fundamentally decent. I simply don't think that is true for a majority of folk anymore.
There is a meme of Dr Suess's The Cat In The Hat that sums things up for me pretty well. It's a good job I can't figure out how to embed it as it would get me a ban.
How? Why? We scream in incredulity at Brexit, Trump, Johnson, Farage, Braverman, Orban, Meloni, Le Pen, Wilders etc.
At the very top level. Right at the end when you step back from it all...
Most People Are...
If you call Dems marxist, communist, low IQ, stupid, nasty radicals – the Trumpists all cheer and lap it up.
There is a significant difference between insulting politicians, which every one loves doing, and insulting their voters.
That, and they cannot bear the thought of a woman in charge.
That was once the perceived wisdom with regards to Tory Party members and Tory voters. We have had 4 female Tory Party leaders and 3 female Tory prime ministers, whilst not one single female Labour leader/PM
Kamala Harris lost the presidential election first and foremost because she was the Democrat candidate and a leading figure in the current administration, trying to deny that and looking for other excuses won't help to learn the lessons that need to be learnt.
And those lessons are also relevant to the UK if it is to avoid a far-right government after the next general election.
is people want change, society is not happy with the status quo, and the democrats didn’t offer that
But there are two very different ideas of "change"... one is about deportations, tax breaks for the rich, cutting off from other countries, ostracising minorities, reducing state support for the needy, putting fossil fuel profits ahead of climate change issues etc... the other is about redistributing wealth, cooperation across borders, human rights, public health, and slowing and preparing for more climate change... and the USA, like elsewhere, is split pretty much down the middle about which changes we need... with the majority this time around choosing the changing tide that Trump is travelling on.
The democrats spent about 3 times what the republicans did on this campaign.
Wrong - they raised about twice what the Republicans did over the same period (August-Nov) but didn't spend all of it. The numbers I saw were $1.1bn combined split £440m Rep and $760m Dem. BUT, Republican Superpacs raised the same if not more than the Dems and spent more. That's Presidential. The Republicans spent more than the Democrats on the House and Senate races. I don't know about the Gubernatorial races.
In Georgia’s Baldwin County 40% of voters are African American, it voted Republican for the first time in 20 years.
Obvious maths is obvious.
What is the obvious maths? It is obvious that 100% of non African Americans voted Republican for the first time in 20 years?
Quite how we get people to see the bigger picture
I refer you to my previous post. When Corbyn lost in 2019 everyone was shouting that labour needed to listen to voters rather than lecture them. Yet now it’s the opposite and we should be teaching them how to vote properly?
it seems a significant chunk of Americans, however much we don’t understand or agree, really don’t want their government to get involved in doing things to improve society as a whole
Nope. They voted for Trump because he was offering to do exactly that. We may not like the things he is promising to do, but he is promising to do a lot. It was the Democrats who were pedalling the non-interventionist state approach.
The democrats spent about 3 times what the republicans did on this campaign.
Exactly, the democrats were unable to offer the change the voters wanted because their billionaire backers won't allow it. Democracy fails when an elite group are allowed to control politics through finance.
Although the current dems seem at least as wedded too neoliberalism as the GOP, that will never change when they are reliant on the super wealthy to finance them.
unable to offer the change the voters wanted
Which is...?
I can't be sure of the validity of the claim but I have heard it suggested that Kamala Harris's celebrity endorsements are likely to have backfired. The suggestion is that ordinary voters don't like to be lectured on how to vote by a wealthy privileged elite who have no real understanding of their lives, even if they enjoy their singing and acting skills.
Which if true is rather ironic considering that the wealthiest man in the world was urging them to vote for Trump.
And a similar level of hypocrisy applies in the UK with regards to the claim that Nigel Farage is some sort of a 'man of the people' politician.
I think the takeaway is that patronising and lecturing voters isn't quite a straightforward as some might imagine.
ordinary voters don’t like to be lectured on how to vote by a wealthy privileged elite who have no real understanding of their lives
That photo made me think Musk had taken a bullet for the Tangerine Palpatine.
Trump won the election because the majority of white Americans are racist to some degree or other.
That doesn't explain why he lost in 2020.
It was the Democrats who were pedalling the non-interventionist state approach.
Musk supposedly is going to be in charge of cutting Federal spending by a third. Proper austerity. Most definitely a promise of a smaller state doing less...
https://fortune.com/2024/10/28/elon-musk-cut-2-trillion-federal-budget-trump-rally/
“We’re going to get the government off your back and out of your pocket book.”
The suggestion is that ordinary voters don’t like to be lectured on how to vote by a wealthy privileged elite
We'll need to think of a collective term for
Elon Musk
Hulk Hogan
Dana White
Bryson DeChambeau
Joe Rogan
Russell Brand
Jake Paul
Mel Gibson
We’ll need to think of a collective term for
Elon Musk
Hulk Hogan
Dana White
Bryson DeChambeau
Joe Rogan
Russell Brand
Jake Paul
I'm pretty sure there are a couple already in use.
Mel Gibson
It’s a ridiculous statement that I made really, as given the particular average you choose, it is simply a statement of fact.
I'm on the Carlin side with you, I think - but don't set off the stats nerds.
is people want change, society is not happy with the status quo, and the democrats didn’t offer that
You will have to explain to me, using simple words, how getting the same guy back again, is 'change'
The only lesson the Dems can take is - don't run a woman against Trump.
The rest is all chaff
This has (again) knocked my faith in people to be fundamentally decent.
I'm afraid this, along with Brexit and the immigrant hysteria I hear from all sides has done the same for me.
The suggestion is that ordinary voters don’t like to be lectured on how to vote by a wealthy privileged elite
It's more a case of voters don't like to be lectured on how to vote by people who think differently to them.
Musk supposedly is going to be in charge of cutting Federal spending by a third
He could start that now by stopping taking all the various subsidies for his companies. I suspect though thats going to be a growth area in federal spending.
The only lesson the Dems can take is – don’t run a woman against Trump.
I'd say the message is more like: don't run a technocrat against a celebrity. I remember reading (way back then) that a lot of people voted for Bush over Gore, simply because they knew they'd be seeing them on the news everyday for the next 4 years, and the thought of that being Al Gore was enough to make them vote Bush...
You will have to explain to me, using simple words, how getting the same guy back again, is ‘change’
In simple words the "change" is replacing a Democrat President, who is considered to have failed, with someone who has no connections with the current administration.
A Democrat politician unconnected to the current Biden administration, and who offered something substantially different, might have energised voters to vote for them, Kamala Harris apparently didn't.
Some of it was just simply bad luck on the part of the Democrats, as this comment by Arjun Sengupta in the Indian Express points out, although a vision of change could still have been offered by a Democrat candidate.
Kamala Harris becoming the Democratic nominee did not change the fundamental dynamic of the race. As an article in The Telegraph put it: “incumbents don’t win when voters are miserable”. And the past four years under Joe Biden did make many Americans miserable — inflation ran rampant, unemployment was rife, and the economy witnessed a steep downturn.
Not that Biden could have prevented a global pandemic or stopped Russia from invading Ukraine, prime drivers of the United States’ economic downturn, he still copped the voters’ blame for their dwindling fortunes. Even though things are much better now — by some accounts, the Biden administration has actually been very successful in leading the US out of an economic crisis — this seems to not have registered in the average voter’s calculus, who still vividly remembers the difficulties faced during the pandemic and after.
Contrast this with the Trump presidency, during which the stock markets soared, unemployment fell to historically low levels, and inflation was manageable, it is not all too surprising why most voters favoured Trump over the incumbent vice president on economy. And pre-election polling had suggested that this was the single most important issue in this election.
Harris simply did not promise the transformative agenda that voters yearned for, and although Trump’s propositions have been far from definitive, positive, or even deliverable, his promise to bring change that voters so desperately want has propelled him to an unprecedented victory.
A Democrat politician unconnected to the current Biden administration, and who offered something substantially different, might have energised voters to vote for them, Kamala Harris apparently didn’t.
She was asked what she would do differently to Biden in a recent interview and replied that she wouldn't change a thing while Trump's last rally ended with him asking the crowd ' are you better off now than you were four years ago? I reckon that would've swayed a lot of undecided voters
We’ll need to think of a collective term for
Elon Musk
Hulk Hogan
Dana White
Bryson DeChambeau
Joe Rogan
Russell Brand
Jake Paul
Mel Gibson
Trumpets?
