Post Election Debrief: Where to go from here?

We have talked a lot about the evil of Trump, now let's talk about the possibilities of Harris and the Democratic party.

Where do you think Harris could have done better?

I think the biggest mistake of Harris was her selection of her running mate. While I liked what Walz did bring to the table, it was not enough. I think Shapiro of Pennsylvania would have kept the state in the blue category.

A standard line in failed elections is: It (was) the Economy, stupid. I think more emphasis should have been on the economy. People are concerned about pocketbook issues more than anything else. I hate to think about what the Trump economy will look like. It will likely be worse. Trumps proposed tariffs will take a big bite out of the pocketbook. We had a congress seat being contested by to Republicans, one who voted to impeach Trump, the other who was endorsed by Trump. The Republican who voted to impeach won, because a PAC against the tariffs hammered the Trump endorsee with how much the proposed tariffs would raise prices on everything--even kitty litter.

I hope Harris will run again. I still think she is the best choice for Democrats.

In the meantime, it will be trench warfare.

But, you know what? The sun came up this morning. Moving forward is the only choice we have.
«134

Comments

  • Apologies for the double post. Thee editing time will run out, I fear.

    I also think the Democratic party should consider the concerns of the Arab American community. Next to the Latino community, the fasted growing ethnic group are Arab Americans. Our continuing to support the genocide* in Gaza and Lebanon soured the Arab vote in Michigan. We can no longer kowtow to the Israeli government. They have to be reined in. This really needs to emphasized in the next go around.

    Yes, I used that nasty word again. When the Israeli government levels hospitals and refuses to allow the UN relief agency work in disputed areas and indiscriminately attack areas of no military value, it is genocide. Thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of Lebanese have now died for how many hostages?

    In a just war: there is the issue of proportionality. Israel does not seem to accept that tenet.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think the biggest mistake of Harris was her selection of her running mate. While I liked what Walz did bring to the table, it was not enough. I think Shapiro of Pennsylvania would have kept the state in the blue category.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I also think the Democratic party should consider the concerns of the Arab American community. Next to the Latino community, the fasted growing ethnic group are Arab Americans. Our continuing to support the genocide* in Gaza and Lebanon soured the Arab vote in Michigan. We can no longer kowtow to the Israeli government. They have to be reined in. This really needs to emphasized in the next go around.

    So your recommendations are to take the concerns of Arab-Americans seriously, especially as regards Israel’s current war, and also that they should have nominated a much more pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian running mate?

    How exactly do you square that circle?
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Harris lost interior counties in California that Biden won, and it wasn't because there are a ton of pro-Palestinian voters there.

    I think our problem with running on economic issues is that people don't understand them. People are griping about the economy when it's growing like gangbusters.
  • That’s because Democrats aren’t good at running on the economy, and frankly I don’t think Harris did. That being said, it’s also hard to beat a candidate who just lies and says whatever, but Democrats have to figure out how to speak to middle and working class concerns. I didn’t really hear them do that, and the middle and working class people I know didn’t hear them doing that either.

    There’s a lot the Democrats need to learn. This is definitely not a great time to do that but here we are.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Ruth wrote: »
    Harris lost interior counties in California that Biden won, and it wasn't because there are a ton of pro-Palestinian voters there.

    I think our problem with running on economic issues is that people don't understand them. People are griping about the economy when it's growing like gangbusters.

    Harris lost Michigan. There is a tone of Arab American votes there. Other places

    1 New York City, NY 2. Los Angeles, CA 3. Detroit, MI 4. Chicago, IL 5. Washington, D.C. 6. Minneapolis, MN 7. Houston, TX 8. San Diego, CA 9. Philadelphia, PA 10. Miami, FL
  • ZappaZappa Shipmate
    My friends ... (Thanks for this thread because it makes this post redundant, but still ...)

    NEVER lose hope. My own theology is that Romans 1:26 is the key ... that we are "handed over" to the ramifications of our darknesses - greed, lust, anger ... all those zeitgeists that Trump and cronies have read so assiduously ...

    But never lose hope. Humanity has known dark days, but Easter light always breaks through.
  • That’s because Democrats aren’t good at running on the economy, and frankly I don’t think Harris did. That being said, it’s also hard to beat a candidate who just lies and says whatever, but Democrats have to figure out how to speak to middle and working class concerns. I didn’t really hear them do that, and the middle and working class people I know didn’t hear them doing that either.

    There’s a lot the Democrats need to learn. This is definitely not a great time to do that but here we are.
    I generally agree. But my reality is that I simply don’t have the brain space yet to try and do diagnosis. Y’all knock yourselves out; I may just need to avoid these threads for awhile.


  • Ruth wrote: »
    I think our problem with running on economic issues is that people don't understand them. People are griping about the economy when it's growing like gangbusters.

    I think for most people “economic issues” comes down to “am I better or worse off than I was at the last election?” And very few who answer “worse off” are going to be comforted by reports of the economy as a whole or the country on average being better off - if anything that will make them feel worse because they’re missing (or being excluded from) the boat.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    How many Americans are being left behind in the current economy? Like a real number of people who are poorer now than they were four years ago.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    How many Americans are being left behind in the current economy? Like a real number of people who are poorer now than they were four years ago.

    I don't know how many, but median household income is still lower than it was in 2019, once adjusted for inflation. It seems likely that there are a lot of people worse off than they were 5 years ago.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    How many Americans are being left behind in the current economy? Like a real number of people who are poorer now than they were four years ago.

    You were the one who brought up people griping about the economy even while it’s growing. I offered one possible explanation for that phenomenon. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe they’re all just too stupid to realise how much better things are right now.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    One problem for the left in the UK and it seems in the US is that any solution other than tax cuts for the rich is dismissed as at best tax-and-spend or socialism, and tax cuts for the rich do not solve economic problems.
  • I’m not sure if Harris could have done anything better. I think there is a very real possibility that that many people who were voting simply wanted the evil bully because he is an evil bully, and a bunch of people who didn’t vote simply didn’t care.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Jesus Christ, at least cite a source. Here's mine: AP News, dated Sept 10, 2024:
    The inflation-adjusted median income of U.S. households rebounded last year to roughly its 2019 level, overcoming the biggest price spike in four decades to restore most Americans’ purchasing power.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    Jesus Christ, at least cite a source. Here's mine: AP News, dated Sept 10, 2024:
    The inflation-adjusted median income of U.S. households rebounded last year to roughly its 2019 level, overcoming the biggest price spike in four decades to restore most Americans’ purchasing power.

    Different spin on the same figures, but it suggests that up until very recently a lot of people have been noticeably worse off than they were in 2019.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Jesus Christ, at least cite a source. Here's mine: AP News, dated Sept 10, 2024:
    The inflation-adjusted median income of U.S. households rebounded last year to roughly its 2019 level, overcoming the biggest price spike in four decades to restore most Americans’ purchasing power.

    Different spin on the same figures, but it suggests that up until very recently a lot of people have been noticeably worse off than they were in 2019.

    Are they worse off than they were in 2020, which was the actual question?
  • Ruth wrote: »
    How many Americans are being left behind in the current economy? Like a real number of people who are poorer now than they were four years ago.

    Ever notice how many families are now homeless? It is not because of alcohol or drugs or mental health issues.

    I know the saltines crackers we buy are twice as much as 2019. In the past 4 years, I have tried to retire twice. We thought wife's retirement would be good. She is now looking for a part time job.

    I can see how such complaints would cause some people to look at the other nominee.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    That’s because Democrats aren’t good at running on the economy, and frankly I don’t think Harris did. That being said, it’s also hard to beat a candidate who just lies and says whatever, but Democrats have to figure out how to speak to middle and working class concerns. I didn’t really hear them do that, and the middle and working class people I know didn’t hear them doing that either.

    Here is Donald Trump answering a question about what he would do to lower grocery prices. For those who don't want to watch, he rambles for eight minutes before coming down on tariffs as the fix-it.

    Here is Kamala Harris endorsing a plan to expand Medicare to cover long-term at home care.

    Can you explain why you find the Trump answer so masterful in addressing "middle and working class concerns"? And why you don't think "middle and working class" people are concerned about long-term care for their parents and grandparents, a burden which presently falls mostly on working age people?

    This seems to be an example of what's known as the pundit's fallacy; that all a candidate has to do to improve political outcomes is to adopt whatever policy agenda the pundit favors.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited November 2024
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Jesus Christ, at least cite a source. Here's mine: AP News, dated Sept 10, 2024:
    The inflation-adjusted median income of U.S. households rebounded last year to roughly its 2019 level, overcoming the biggest price spike in four decades to restore most Americans’ purchasing power.

    Different spin on the same figures, but it suggests that up until very recently a lot of people have been noticeably worse off than they were in 2019.

    Are they worse off than they were in 2020, which was the actual question?

    In terms of the question in the OP the entire experience between 2020-2024 matters, and people aren't going to feel well disposed to a period in which they only made up lost ground (and may well have spent part of that period struggling)

    [This is before calculating the impact of the withdrawal of pandemic era provisions around EITC etc]
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Different spin on the same figures, but it suggests that up until very recently a lot of people have been noticeably worse off than they were in 2019.
    The traditional question is whether you're better off than you were four years ago, not five. Trump left things in complete turmoil, Democrats cleaned it up, and they don't get credit. They can't seem to find a way to claim credit for what they do; perhaps not surprising given how often they start off in a hole of the previous Republican administration's making.
    You were the one who brought up people griping about the economy even while it’s growing. I offered one possible explanation for that phenomenon. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe they’re all just too stupid to realise how much better things are right now.
    You didn't offer anything in support of your explanation.

    We're all kinda just spitballing, though. 538 offers some preliminary analysis here. They give three potential explanations: inflation (they interestingly bury discussion of "the state of democracy," the most-cited factor for voting under this heading), racial polarization (also education -- white college-educated people moved left, non-college-educated people of color, especially Hispanic and Latino voters, moved right), and abysmal Democratic turnout.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    That’s because Democrats aren’t good at running on the economy, and frankly I don’t think Harris did. That being said, it’s also hard to beat a candidate who just lies and says whatever, but Democrats have to figure out how to speak to middle and working class concerns. I didn’t really hear them do that, and the middle and working class people I know didn’t hear them doing that either.

    Here is Donald Trump answering a question about what he would do to lower grocery prices. For those who don't want to watch, he rambles for eight minutes before coming down on tariffs as the fix-it.

    Here is Kamala Harris endorsing a plan to expand Medicare to cover long-term at home care.

    Can you explain why you find the Trump answer so masterful in addressing "middle and working class concerns"? And why you don't think "middle and working class" people are concerned about long-term care for their parents and grandparents, a burden which presently falls mostly on working age people?

    This seems to be an example of what's known as the pundit's fallacy; that all a candidate has to do to improve political outcomes is to adopt whatever policy agenda the pundit favors.

    What the fuck dude. Can you show where I said that Trump, or the Republicans, are "masterful"? You can't because I didn't, but you invented a whole bunch of opinions for me. So, truly, go fuck yourself
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    What the fuck dude. Can you show where I said that Trump, or the Republicans, are "masterful"? You can't because I didn't, but you invented a whole bunch of opinions for me. So, truly, go fuck yourself

    You claimed that "Democrats aren’t good at running on the economy" and also claimed Kamala Harris didn't even try to do so. This is in the context of a discussion of what Democrats need to do to succeed in future elections. My point is that since Donald Trump did not noticeably run on the economy, at least not in terms of what he would do to improve the lives of "middle and working class" citizens, it's foolish to claim that this is the missing ingredient from Democratic campaigns, at least not without a lot more explanation than was given.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    Hostly beret on

    @Thomas Rowans "Go f*ck yourself" is a personal attack. Take it to hell or keep it purgatorial please.

    Hostly beret off

    la vie en rouge
    Purgatory host
  • Funny how nearly every recession I have lived through were during Republcian administrations, and every recovery has been during Democratic administrations.
  • That’s because Democrats aren’t good at running on the economy, and frankly I don’t think Harris did. That being said, it’s also hard to beat a candidate who just lies and says whatever, but Democrats have to figure out how to speak to middle and working class concerns. I didn’t really hear them do that, and the middle and working class people I know didn’t hear them doing that either.

    There’s a lot the Democrats need to learn. This is definitely not a great time to do that but here we are.

    The data are very clear over the past half-century or more: the economy does better when there is a Democrat in the White House. The fact that people don't believe that is due in part to the Democrats endorsing the Republican narrative that deficits are a huge problem (they aren't--in fact, a balanced budget would be a disaster) and so playing into the idea that Republicans are more "responsible" because they talk about the need for balanced budgets, when in fact it's just their excuse for cutting programs that actually help people (helping people in need being something conservatives are opposed to on principle).
  • I don't understand why so many Americans have voted for a convicted felon who is guilty of sex offences and is a misogynist who disrespects everyone. I fear for the future and what things Trump will impose on his people in the course of his presidency.
  • rhubarb wrote: »
    I don't understand why so many Americans have voted for a convicted felon who is guilty of sex offences and is a misogynist who disrespects everyone.

    Because they don’t care about those things. Or, more accurately, care less about those things than they do about having a leader who (they believe) will be good for them.

    James O’Brien says it best (long but worth a listen IMO)
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    So one thing that has been pointed out is that Trump did better than before amongst groups of voters that had previously been strongly opposed to him (e.g. Hispanic voters). Any ideas why?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    So one thing that has been pointed out is that Trump did better than before amongst groups of voters that had previously been strongly opposed to him (e.g. Hispanic voters). Any ideas why?

    The impression I get is that a lot of people don't feel like they're better off after 4 years of Biden. Trump acknowledged that and promised to fix it, while Harris was stuck trying to avoid criticising Biden while also trying to say what she'd do differently and avoid the appearance of having been utterly powerless as VP (despite that being kind of inherent, constitutionally). Combination of "it's the economy, stupid" and "if you're explaining, you're losing". Then you've got some Latinos who come from countries wrecked by self-proclaimed socialists and are vulnerable to the smears on that score directed at Harris. And plenty of Latinos are socially conservative, particularly around sex and gender. Trump spent $210M attacking trans people.
  • So one thing that has been pointed out is that Trump did better than before amongst groups of voters that had previously been strongly opposed to him (e.g. Hispanic voters). Any ideas why?

    Leaving aside the difficulties of getting accurate exit polling, some of it could simply be churn in the electorate. Young people reaching voting age, new citizens gaining the right to vote, older voters dropping out of the electorate through death. In other word “Hispanic voters” are a somewhat different group of people than they were four years ago.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited November 2024
    Crœsos wrote: »
    So one thing that has been pointed out is that Trump did better than before amongst groups of voters that had previously been strongly opposed to him (e.g. Hispanic voters). Any ideas why?

    Leaving aside the difficulties of getting accurate exit polling, some of it could simply be churn in the electorate. Young people reaching voting age, new citizens gaining the right to vote, older voters dropping out of the electorate through death. In other word “Hispanic voters” are a somewhat different group of people than they were four years ago.

    OK but that still leaves the question of "why are the new voters less opposed to Trump than the old voters"...
  • The new voters have perhaps a less clear memory of what he did the first time. having been maybe ten years old at that point...
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    I listened to James O'Brien's lamenting analysis yesterday. He's correct. Many, many Americans do not care about the personal moral character of their leader. The days of someone's dismal personal life serving as a cautionary tale re: their political leadership have long been gone. This is neither new nor limited to the Right. Consider our Presidents since and including FDR -- how do you understand their personal morality?

    FDR
    Truman
    Eisenhower
    JFK
    LBJ
    Nixon
    Ford
    Carter
    Reagan
    Bush Sr.
    Clinton
    Bush Jr.
    Obama
    Trump
    Biden
    Trump*

    How many of them stand out to you as morally admirable?

    Re: the Latino vote, I can only share that as a RC parish musician, a lot -- I mean, A LOT -- was made of the charge (however dubious) that Harris was vehemently Anti-Catholic (not from the Priest, mind you).
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited November 2024
    The_Riv wrote: »
    Re: the Latino vote, I can only share that as a RC parish musician, a lot -- I mean, A LOT -- was made of the charge (however dubious) that Harris was vehemently Anti-Catholic (not from the Priest, mind you).
    That's very interesting. I had not considered that at all as a possible rationale.

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    So one thing that has been pointed out is that Trump did better than before amongst groups of voters that had previously been strongly opposed to him (e.g. Hispanic voters). Any ideas why?

    The impression I get is that a lot of people don't feel like they're better off after 4 years of Biden. Trump acknowledged that and promised to fix it, while Harris was stuck trying to avoid criticising Biden while also trying to say what she'd do differently and avoid the appearance of having been utterly powerless as VP (despite that being kind of inherent, constitutionally). Combination of "it's the economy, stupid" and "if you're explaining, you're losing". Then you've got some Latinos who come from countries wrecked by self-proclaimed socialists and are vulnerable to the smears on that score directed at Harris. And plenty of Latinos are socially conservative, particularly around sex and gender. Trump spent $210M attacking trans people.

    This seems plausible. I suspect inflation usually over-influences the public relative to most other economic indications because it's very visible in everyday life. So even if the economy is doing quite well, an increase in inflation may make you feel that it's not.
  • Some of you may want to take a listen to the most recent episode of Pod Save America entitled "Making Sense of Tr*mp's Win" for some clear-eyed, sober pre-analysis and gut reaction to what happened on Tuesday. These are four former Obama staffers who have, if anyone has, staked out a Left-wing sliver of the political podcasting pie. It's about an hour in length, including imbedded sponsorship commercials.
  • So even if the economy is doing quite well, an increase in inflation may make you feel that it's not.

    If prices are going up faster than your earnings then you’re getting poorer, regardless of how fast your earnings may be increasing.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited November 2024
    So even if the economy is doing quite well, an increase in inflation may make you feel that it's not.

    If prices are going up faster than your earnings then you’re getting poorer, regardless of how fast your earnings may be increasing.

    The figures for real (as opposed to nominal) that are used above take that into account. Though given the last four years included a period where real income fell, most people's immediate memory will be of a few years of being worse off:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

    (More so once the impact of the unwinding of covid era measures are taken into account - especially towards the lower end of the spectrum).
  • One factoid I heard this morning was that when Harris took over in place of Biden, Biden was more than 20% points behind Tr*mp re: who voters trusted more re: the Economy. By Election Day, though, that number had shrunk to just 4%, after barely 100 days of Harris being the nominee. The commentator wondered aloud how much further that data point could have reversed had she had enjoyed a normal, longer campaign. That is, of course, true of a number of issues.

    Other interesting comments reassessed the power and pervasiveness, even the utter incessantness of right-wing conservative talk media well to the right of FoxNews, which when taken in conjunction with Conservative Religious (especially Evangelical) Media is actually gargantuan. Tr*mp was all over these spaces and made appearances on hundreds of local shows hosted by lesser culture warriors you've never heard of. The Left isn't serviced by anything remotely close to that. It still largely relies on mainstream media, academia, and more intellectual publications like The Atlantic to nurture its base in a much less cohesive manner. There's an interdependency gap on the Left, it seems.

    This was paired with the idea that the kaleidoscopic makeup of the Democratic Party was too ungainly for Harris' short(-er) candidacy -- that the necessary coalition building needed more time to stitch together its more disparate groups -- groups that are sometimes seen to be more in competition than cooperation. I wasn't paying as close attention to this part of the discussion, so I want to go back and re-listen.
  • Reading a lot general fatigue: aversion to fully processing the election result, aversion to beginning the requisite soul searching, aversion to having to brace for the next four years...

    A lot of, "I'm not doing any of that right now."

    Numb.
  • My general impression is that Trump won because many Americans are not willing to elect a woman as President.
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    Sadly and/or stupidly, there is that, yes.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Well, quite possibly moving toward being like Hungary but without universal healthcare and free universities is a lot to take in.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    HarryCH wrote: »
    My general impression is that Trump won because many Americans are not willing to elect a woman as President.
    That may well be true, so why do the Denocrats keep choosing female candidates?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Probably because they look at a candidate’s abilities, not their gender.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    So even if the economy is doing quite well, an increase in inflation may make you feel that it's not.

    If prices are going up faster than your earnings then you’re getting poorer, regardless of how fast your earnings may be increasing.

    The figures for real (as opposed to nominal) that are used above take that into account. Though given the last four years included a period where real income fell, most people's immediate memory will be of a few years of being worse off:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

    (More so once the impact of the unwinding of covid era measures are taken into account - especially towards the lower end of the spectrum).

    Those are interesting figures, which seems to indicate that real median household income did indeed rise rapidly during Trump's first term and not during Biden's. So why was that?
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Probably because they look at a candidate’s abilities, not their gender.
    They need to concentrate on their ability to win elections.

  • So even if the economy is doing quite well, an increase in inflation may make you feel that it's not.

    If prices are going up faster than your earnings then you’re getting poorer, regardless of how fast your earnings may be increasing.

    The figures for real (as opposed to nominal) that are used above take that into account. Though given the last four years included a period where real income fell, most people's immediate memory will be of a few years of being worse off:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

    (More so once the impact of the unwinding of covid era measures are taken into account - especially towards the lower end of the spectrum).

    Those are interesting figures, which seems to indicate that real median household income did indeed rise rapidly during Trump's first term and not during Biden's. So why was that?

    Here's some additional context
  • Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Probably because they look at a candidate’s abilities, not their gender.
    They need to concentrate on their ability to win elections.

    Machiavelli?

    If we followed this argument to its logical conclusion then we might as well have the US Congress stipulate that under no circumstances should any political party put forward a female candidate for Presidential elections.

    Or perhaps you are taking a line from the UK Conservative Party, several members of which regularly told me that they had no time for Boris Johnson personally but tolerated him because he was a 'good campaigner.'
  • Telford wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    Probably because they look at a candidate’s abilities, not their gender.
    They need to concentrate on their ability to win elections.

    I think this comment should be filed under 'Crassest UK response to the US election result so far.'

    I can well understand why American Shipmates resent 'Brit-Splaining' reactions or comments from this side of the Pond which clearly don't demonstrate a grasp of how the US political system works. I'm sure some of my posts have fallen into this category over the years.

    But now we have a comment that suggests that no US political party of whatever stripe should ever field a female presidential candidate because in doing so they would automatically fail to win.

    By that argument we'd never have seen any female CEOs, managers, police chiefs or politicians whatsoever.

    C'mon @Telford, you can do better than that.
Sign In or Register to comment.