I think @tonyg2003 nailed it. A New York Times poll recently suggested that as much as 60% of those polled think that they system needs change and Trump was the change candidate and Harris was the continuation candidate.
I think most voters know what they're getting voting for Trump, and TBH, I think the folks that voted for Trump care more about their own finances more than they worry about other things, and they think Trump will make them better off.
We all know that Donald Trump is a flawed individual who is an egomaniac but, and it's a big but, if he gets peace in Ukraine and saves lives then he would have done a great act and should be applauded for it (estimates on deaths from the war are contentious but are believed to be in the hundreds of thousands or could be over a million).
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/16/russia-ukraine-wartime-deaths
Sorry if this has been done, this thread is sufficiently painful reading that I'm not going to spend too long checking, but Marina Hyde makes the points in her usual style:
the Democratic party should be looking back at the past few months and wondering how a lot of stuff slipped their minds. Picture their trip down memory lane. “We should definitely run a coastal elite woman against Trump and call his supporters weird. I forget how that goes for us. We should definitely go heavy on the culture war stuff. I forget how that goes for us. We should definitely present the choice as being between darkness/fear/hate and moral superiority. I forget how that goes for us. We should definitely not present the choice as being between his economic plan and our clear and better one. I forget how that goes for us.”
And also
And they’re also sneering at some people for “voting against their economic interests”, as opposed to considering that valuing some things more than money isn’t actually sad and stupid, even if you think those particular things are the wrong things. Personally, I vote against my economic interests pretty much every time, but apparently in an approved way.
if he gets peace in Ukraine and saves lives then he would have done a great act
Sure but is that likely? All the evidence points to him having made an empty promise with no actual plan or unique insight. I'm fairly sure he's going to go in and tell or force Zelensky to give up the disputed territories. That's not necessarily the peace that anyone wants except for Russia, is it?
I don't think Trump has a plan at all, I think he's probably only now siting down with folks and telling them to get options together so he can go and 'close a deal' I don't think it matters to Trump if Putin withdraws or Zelensky agrees to give up territory, just as long as Trump can say he's sorted it.
present the choice as being between his economic plan and our clear and better one
And...
considering that valuing some things more than money isn’t actually sad and stupid
Is quite a conflict... concentrate on persuading people to vote for a better economic plan (when the details of said plan would be beyond most people)... and then sit back and watch them vote based on the other candidate blaming pet eating immigrants getting free gender reassignment treatment in prison, post birth abortions, and the rise of an enemy within (none of which is thing... but truth doesn't matter).
Whilst Ukraine has impacted us lots of ways, impacted inflation and is a terrible conflict, most Americans don't care, don't want to be part of it and I don't think impacted the election at all. Trump was clearly shooting from the lip with his "ending the way in a day" BS and he won't.
I don't think that I saw Ukraine mentioned in hardly any of the TV before the election in the two weeks I spent in the US before Nov 5th.
Forcing Ukraine to capitulate to Russia's terms by cutting off military aid is not achieving peace. Unless you also categorise Chamberlain as a peacemaker. Why would Russia voluntarily withdraw from Ukraine now it has an ally in the White House?
And 'peace in Gaza' is simply Netanyahu giving his mate the timing of the ceasefire that he asked for in all his pre-election chats, rather than doing it during the Biden administration.
I see Starmer is drip-feeding improved relations with EU nations by meeting Macron, as he should. We have a stark choice, either accept the unpleasant terms of a Trump trade agreement or look to our closest neighbours. It's time to start the reintegration process, bit by bit.
I have heard a few suggestions what Trump's plan for ending the Russia-Ukraine War might involve, including a 800-mile demilitarized zone manned by UK, French, and German troops, and a guarantee that Ukraine will remain neutral and not join NATO.
I have also heard it suggested that Ukraine is not quite as perplexed about a Trump presidency as some might have imagined would be the case.
Nice of him to volunteer our troops to form the buffer between two highly militarised states! It also depends where the proposed border falls - does it return to pre-2014 Ukraine? I can't see Putin presenting withdrawal from Crimea and Donbas etc as anything else but a complete failure, even when balanced by the return of Kursk.
Zelensky of all people knows that Trump is not to be trusted after he tried to make military aid conditional on digging up dirt on the Bidens in 2019.
I am prepared to be surprised, of course, but it will be interesting to see what happens in regard to sanctions. Trump has too many ties to Russia and too many personal debts to pay to make me confident that he will come up with an equitable solution.
EDIT: 800 miles also seems a touch on the low side since the border with Russia alone far exceeds 1,000, and the 2022 offensive towards Kyiv was launched primarily from Belarus.
Putting this here as we really don't want another politics thread. An excellent summary of where we've gone wrong over the past 30 years and why everything is f****.
And the most topical bit..
Those at the sharp end of economic failure looked to parties of the left for answers to their concerns: low pay, job insecurity, run-down public services, a fear of crime, the consequences of mass immigration. What they got instead were lectures about the need to eat better, smoke and drink less, and to stop being such bigots.
Trump’s victory last week shows what happens when the left first abandons its natural supporters and then tells them what to think and behave. That’s lesson No 3: populism will continue to flourish until the left comes up with a credible and deliverable economic plan.
I don’t think that I saw Ukraine mentioned in hardly any of the TV before the election in the two weeks I spent in the US before Nov 5th.
Most people don't watch TV anymore. It has definitely been a big talking point on other platforms, and the general narrative is that the US are sending 10s of billions of dollars to a country halfway across the world for a needless war, and that money could be in the pockets of Americans.
Remember that it is not money that is being sent, it's arms. As an example, Sweden has just earned itself a day's orth of DDoS attacks because our government have authorised a large amount of materiel help for UKR, including two maritime patrol vessels and money for missiles. The money will be effectively spent _at source_ getting the missiles to UKR: It's not that we are giving them cash to spend on an open market, the money is likely being spent by Sweden on stuff from Saab. UKR gets things that go bang, Saab gets cash.
The same with money for the war from the US. The artillery shells they are firing will be part of that package and come from a factory in Pennsylvania or something. That money won't leave the country, but UKR gets the stuff it wants and the factory gets it too.
And the most topical bit..
From a (further) left wing perspective certainly, but it presupposes that voters are turning to the left for answers in the first place (There's no evidence of that) and the view is reinforced by this comment further in his analysis
Brexit was to Britain what Trump’s victory was for the US: a revolt against the elites and a demand for change. It offers the chance for a party of the left to do things differently.
This is only true if the folks revolting against elites and demanding change are looking at left wing candidates for that, and they're clearly not - c.f Johnson and Farage Trump etc etc.
I have heard a few suggestions what Trump’s plan for ending the Russia-Ukraine War might involve, including a 800-mile demilitarized zone manned by UK, French, and German troops,
Which Putin will never accept, he invaded Ukraine to prevent it becoming closer to Europe, not so that NATO countries could station troops there. To Putin, "peace plan" means Russia gets to station troops on Ukrainian soil and has a veto over who runs the country.
I feel that we are revisiting the 'maybe he won't be that bad' sentiment which was expressed in between his first election and the start of his term.
'Maybe he will end the war in Afghanistan? Maybe he won't wreck the economy? Maybe he won't help roll back women's rights? Surely he wouldn't be so daft as to pull out of the Paris Agreement or the Iran Nuclear Deal?'
I admire the renewed optimism, honestly I do. But, as far as I can divine, he is going into his second term without any moderate voices to 'obstruct' him, as pretty much everyone who worked with him in his first administration was warning against re-electing him...
Even Putin is calling Trump a liar now.
I think Danny's job (Putin's spokesperson) is just saying the opposite of what's being reported isn't it?
This is only true if the folks revolting against elites and demanding change are looking at left wing candidates for that, and they’re clearly not – c.f Johnson and Farage Trump etc etc.
No they're not, for obvious reasons. For the past 10 years the centre left have sent out the clear message along the lines of 'we can't help you with your day-to-day problems, but we can show you how not to be racist and transphobic'*. Hardly a suprise that voters aren't massively keen on them. :-/
*Starmer only got away with it by clearly distancing himself from the woke identity stuff and being harder on immigration.
Remember that it is not money that is being sent, it’s arms. ... That money won’t leave the country...
I think most people here know that. But this is the narrative, which is clearly being weaponised for political gain, and one I have been hearing a lot.
I feel that we are revisiting the ‘maybe he won’t be that bad’ sentiment which was expressed in between his first election and the start of his term.
Even if you believe this to be true, I fear the butterfly effect and the long term consequences that may not be immediately obvious or quantifiable.
However, my optimistic view is that this is an opportunity for everybody to step back, think Holy ****, and work on figuring this shit out. If we're to believe in humanity, then surely we can make good of it and improve ourselves in response to undesirable events such as these.
There's a less optimistic view as well of course, but I hold hope in that one
We should definitely present the choice as being between darkness/fear/hate and moral superiority.
Hyde might have style but that's just not true.
One side talked about the US being a failed nation, 3rd world garbage can, where murderers and criminals from even worse countries are sent.
The other side talked of hope and how to make things better.
But when you have posters saying that Harris is neo-con, you know the best messages are going to be lost.
It always used to be a “cheap” country to buy food/clothes/cars to run mortgages.
From my personal, limited observations, one thing the US got right was it was always a "cheap" country in which to buy domestic goods. It wouldn't be wildly strange to go to a bar and find draught Budweiser at half the price of imported beers. "Buy American" is (was?) an attractive proposition for more than just naked patriotism reasons. Compare that with "buy British" where we typically pay a premium for local goods over imports.
I don’t think it matters to Trump if Putin withdraws or Zelensky agrees to give up territory, just as long as Trump can say he’s sorted it.
Oh, absolutely. "Get brexit done," anyone?
Someone mentioned "Trump's plan" a few posts back. Don't make I larf. Trump doesn't have a plan. Trump's plan is to talk alphabetti spaghetti to misdirect people for as long as he can get away with and then change the subject, hoping the adults in the room will do the actual work for him whilst he basks in the glory of how well he's doing. The man is a walking filibuster.
Trump doesn’t have a plan.
I believe that Trump can scarcely assemble a cogent thought these days, let alone come up with something that resembles diplomacy. His plan is a promise made at the same rallies where he praised Hannibal Lecter, promised to use the military to harass his opponents, and ranted about windmills. The 'plan' will be presented to him by the likes of Miller, Flynn, Bannon, or, based on his use of back-channels last time around, directly from the Kremlin.
For the past 10 years the centre left have sent out the clear message along the lines of ‘we can’t help you with your day-to-day problems, but we can show you how not to be racist and transphobic’*
No the hard right press have spent the last ten years shouting loudly thats what the "left" is about. After all they do need to distinguish themselves from the centre left and economics wont work.
Amplifying the hard rights attack lines though really isnt helpful.
Nice of him to volunteer our troops to form the buffer between two highly militarised states!
Well I think that's his attitude, it is a European issue which has very little to do with the United States and one which he feels Europeans need to be more proactively involved in, rather than leaving it to the United States.
It is an attitude which I believe has received some traction among American voters and to be fair imo is a fairly reasonable one.
Nice of him to volunteer our troops to form the buffer between two highly militarised states!
Well I think that's his attitude, it is a European issue which has very little to do with the United States and one which he feels Europeans need to be more proactively involved in, rather than leaving it to the United States.
It is an attitude which I believe has received some traction among American voters and to be fair imo is a fairly reasonable one.
For the past 10 years the centre left have sent out the clear message along the lines of ‘we can’t help you with your day-to-day problems, but we can show you how not to be racist and transphobic’
The left's offer has been rejected 3 times in recent voting, once prior to Brexit, just after Brexit and then during the biggest economic down-turn since the great depression. I don't think you could accuse either Milliband or Corbyn of being cultural-policy-centric candidates, in fact both had credible alternative economic plans.
The left has offered plans to help the public, they're just not paying attention to it when the alternative candidates either look more entertaining, selling them a fantasy, or telling them who to blame.
a 800-mile demilitarized zone manned by UK, French, and German troops
Er... a border inside Ukraine manned with troops from NATO countries ... really? Why the hell would Putin agree to that? And what happens when other countries, like say Georgia, are destabilised by Russia... we send in troops from NATO countries there? A ring of troops from the big European countries all around Russia's Western borders? All while they try and turn the inhabitants of those border regions against the countries supplying the troops with their increasingly successful disinformation and propaganda. Sounds like a very poor result for everyone (apart from Trump)... if it wasn't just fantastical nonsense.
Wait until folk figure out what making up the US shortfall in Ukraine's defence will do to standards of living in Europe.
And we supposedly attribute the march of the far-right in Europe to declining living standards.
Trump will end up doing to Europe what the west effectively did to the USSR via Afghanistan.
The left’s offer has been rejected 3 times in recent voting, once prior to Brexit, just after Brexit and then during the biggest economic down-turn since the great depression.
Seeing as this is the Trump thread I'm talking mostly about America, but the lessons are the same for the rest of the West. In 2019 labour were punished because they slipped on their pro-brexit agenda that served them well in 2017. The tories were punished this year for largely the same reasons as the democrats have been, they had no economic answer to high prices and falling wages, and instead focused on identity politics. Economic factors always trump identity stuff, whether parties are against identity politics or for it. Trump managed to combine the two and now we see the results. If Labour don't learn this lesson in govt we'll see the same thing happening here in 4 years time. Delivering on the cost of living (which most people call 'the economy'), decently paying jobs, and functioning public services is Starmer's only hope of staying in power. He should forget everything else.
In funnier news; Stephen King has been thrown off X for calling Elon the "First Lady"
It is funny but apparently satire.
All too believable, even if it's a joke.
A large part of the voting populations of democracies don't care about policy as such. They want easy to understand headlines of supposed policy that appeal to their pockets and chosen prejudice. About the detail level you get in a pub with your mates at most.
It's nothing new really, Trump is just very good at making contradicting prejudices overlap to the point that he entices latinos (for instance) to vote for him even though he demonises them in another tweet or speech to gain the white, middle aged male vote.
Trump has found a way of seemingly turning people's selective hearing on and off at will.
Personally, I don't think it will be till after a good few countries have endured Trump style governments for a few terms that people might begin to question populist leaders.
No, I dont think the UK is done with populism yet, we've had a taste of it but there's still a large appetite for more.
What are the odds there will be more assassination attempts before inauguration?
It won't matter how many assassination attempts there are. God spared Trump's life for a reason. And that reason was to save American.
He's on a divine mission. Nothing can stop him.
God has the opportunity to do the funniest thing.
It won’t matter how many assassination attempts there are.
But it will. It will prove how radical and violent all the left-wing wokecenti are!
i still don't understand how that orange sack of clown shit is actually president, the last few times i've watched any clips of him the cringe level is off the scale,
"i still don’t understand how that orange sack of clown shit is actually president, the last few times i’ve watched any clips of him the cringe level is off the scale,"
If it's cringe you're after then take a look at some of the footage from the Kamala Harris rallies. It was basically a bunga-bunga party with Megan the Stallion, Cardi B and others shaking their booties, bouncing their titties and flashing their camel toes. They didn't play their biggest tune "Wet Ass Pussy' but you get the general idea.
I can't remember Obama or coming out to the Chippendales? It was utterly insane and degrading to women in the extreme. Probably contributing to her poor showing amongst women voters along with all the other demographics.
Her whole campaign was about girl power and she couldn't even increase her share on the women's vote.
Jeezus the Guardian are milking the Trump election victory for all it's worth. I have just seen this at the end of a Guardian online article :
This is the moment for truth Convicted felon Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States. Just as we did in 2016, we will hold the coming administration to account and rigorously challenge what will come.
This is a perilous time for America and the world.
***
But we have something powerful on our side.
We’ve got you.
The Guardian is funded by its readers and the only person who decides what we publish is our editor.
If you want to join us in our mission to share independent, global journalism to the world, we’d love to have you on side.
Please choose to support us today. It only takes a minute and you can cancel at any time. Thank you.
I found "we will hold the coming administration to account" particularly interesting. How does a British low circulation newspaper expect to hold the President of the United States to account?
In funnier news; Stephen King has been thrown off X for calling Elon the “First Lady”
Ha! I wonder if my account has been blocked then, I’ve referred to Muskrat as Dementia Don’s new First Lady in several posts! I’ll leave it for a week or so before checking.
"No, not THAT kind of free speech!"
How does a British low circulation newspaper expect to hold the President of the United States to account?
I was never sure what the phrase meant, now it has become virtually meaningless. So anyone can hold anyone else to account just by saying so.
