Donald! Trump!

I am not skirting the question eloquently, I am ignoring it.

The very thing you seem to profess against. You seem to be very outspoken on a lot of matters. It seems odd that you become a shrinking violet on this subject.

I’ll ask again, who would you have voted for if you were a US citizen?

The very thing you seem to profess against.

Sorry you’ve lost me. You can ignore as much as you want.

The only thing I am claiming is that the presidential elections don’t prove that the majority of American voters are ****. I am using my imagination to assume what **** means.

Of course, we should have all known that the American electorate are all super racist and would never vote for a black president.

oh…

You can ignore as much as you want.

I’m not ignoring.. quite the opposite…

I’m just trying to understand your point of view, but it’s very difficult if you have, how can I put this nicely? ‘a fluid view of reality’?

It’s not hard, just answer the question, if you were a US citizen, who would you have voted for?

a fluid view of reality’?

Pointing out the number one issue for American voters was the economy is “a fluid view of reality”’?

You think that agreeing with you that it was in fact “race” would be a better more realistic reality? Have you actually studied the demographics behind the results?

Edit: Maybe read this for a better insight. I warn you though, the author doesn’t say who he would have voted for had he been a US citizen.

5 reasons why Donald Trump won & the Democrats lost

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/5-reasons-why-donald-trump-won-the-democrats-lost-9656973/

Are you going to answer?

….Don’t bother, it’s become a rhetorical question now.

That’ll explain Labour’s landslide victory then.

Well, aside from what everyone else has beaten me to saying, it was still a charisma vote when the options were between a ham sandwich and a rich tea biscuit. Starmer is about as charismatic as red paint, but even paint is more interesting than bare wood.

As the story goes, two men happen across a tiger, one starts putting on running shoes, the other says “are you mad, you’ll never outrun a tiger” to which the other replies “I don’t need to, I just need to outrun you.”

The level of bipartisanship from the legacy media in this election was extrodinary, and tied at the hip with the Democratic campaign, The public not only ceased to believe what they were hearing but they began to feel actively insulted by the suggestion that if they didn’t ‘t vote for Harris they were either sexist, racist or both.

Harris, a candidate who couldn’t even get beyond the first round in her own Party’s primaries, a dollar shop Liz Truss (and that’s being generous).

Trump won not only because of Harris’s deficiencies but because the Republicans managed to form a new coallition of latino, Black and most significantly, young voters. Together they were enough to get him over the line in the swing states

The Democrats thought that presenting the electorate with a person who self identified as Indian but who now identified as black would shore up the minority vote but it failed spectacularly, profoundly insulting the electorate and they responded accordingly and when Obama spoke, the levee broke, soliciting disgust and an outright hostility from black male voters.

I know people are alarmed at black voters not voting for the party they are supposed to but he way the Democrats behaved in this election cycle has fractured that long standing but paternalistic relationship, perhaps for good (in both senses of the phrase).

The Left in general are probably surprised at the significant youth turnout for Trump as well but the Left hasn’t realised yet that the youth aren’t the youth anymore. Those young people motivated towards politics by Corbyn Greta, Brexit and Trump 1.0 aren’t young anymore, many will now be nudging 30. The next wave of young people will inevitably want to rebel against the previous generation and voting for Trump is the punk thing to do, (We will see the same thing happen in the UK before our next elections)

That and the fact that many young voters feared being conscripted into a foreign conflict if Harris were to have won the election, believing, with some good reason that she is a Neo-Con and would have dragged the US into future wars and in addition to her politics, there is a perceived weakness about her (and she knows it) that many believe would encourage her to act thougher than she actually is on the global stage, which could lead to disastrous consequences for younger people in particular. They have seen what prospects are like for the youth in Ukraine and have probably observed that it kicked off not when Trump was in Office, but when Biden and Harris were in office.

The strongest post Obama candidate the Democrats had was Tulsi Gabbard but they ostracized her and she ended up defecting to the other side. They have only themselves to blame.

Interesting post Inkster but one I don’t agree with in some ways. I don’t disagree with your analysis of how the US electorate voted but it was the perceived handling of the economy and immigration that drew people to vote for Trump. The US has possibly been affected more by the post-Covid inflation than other western countries. It always used to be a “cheap” country to buy food/clothes/cars to run mortgages. It’s not now and that is hurting many people. People blame Biden for that and the cost of living crisis (the US don’t use this term) is a major voting factor. Also immigration and Harris was seen to be at blame for this. Even if it was worse under Trump 1.0.

Also the weird fact that, like Boris, many Americans don’t believe what Trump says, but vote for him anyway. They want change.

When someone directs me to the large scale favelas on the outskirts of US/UK cities, I’ll start to understand.

And by ‘large scale’ I mean enough to explain electoral majorities.

And by ‘favelas’ I mean shanty towns of self-assembled shacks without running water, legit electricity supplies or sewerage.

I.e. people who can justifiably vote for whoever they want because of a real sense of having nothing to lose.

The US has possibly been affected more by the post-Covid inflation than other western countries.

I think the main driver of US inflation has been the Russo-Ukraine War,. Which when consider that the Biden’s Administration strategy is to keep the war simmering without allowing either side to win, through limited arms supply to Ukraine, and Donald Trump’s wild claims of ending it immediately, that might also provide a clue as to what was on American voters minds.

Edit: To be fair US inflation is currently only 2.4% so it should not have been a huge election issue although I don’t know how aware US voters are of the improved economic situation – do they personally feel it? Based on Trump’s “ask yourself am I better off than 4 years go” question, and that voters claim the economy was the most important issue for them, the answer would appear to be no.

I remember thinking back in mid 2022. We either need to equip Ukraine to win or negotiate territorial concessions for a ceasefire. As nearly always we have ended up doing the worst option.

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.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-people-have-died-in-the-russia-ukraine-war-and-what-could-happen-next

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****.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/10/from-thatcher-to-trump-and-brexit-my-seven-lessons-learned-after-28-years-as-guardian-economics-editor

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.

Even Putin is calling Trump a liar now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4g0vg8gdqo

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.