I have already seen several Democratic opiners say they've got to stop running women as presidential candidates. I would have to think long and hard before voting for a woman in the 2028 primary. It may be necessary to accommodate the sexism of the American electorate. If that's what it takes to elect someone who will put the weather service back together, put fluoride back in our drinking water, resume measles vaccinations, not require political loyalty to be a US civil servant ... have you looked at all the shit Trump and co. have proposed?
Things are different now, @Gamma Gamaliel. I saw multiple reports yesterday about high school boys quoting Nick Fuentes this week: "Your body, my choice, forever."
I would personally like the next president to be a super lefty woman of color. But if the Democratic candidate most likely to win is a centrist white guy, so be it. My ideals will have to wait till the American electorate pulls its head out of its ass. Assuming that's even on the table.
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.
And yet wages in the U.S. have increased a rate higher than goods. I think part of this is selective analysis. People regard their higher wages as something they've earned and deserve while they regard higher prices for goods or services (which, in part, pay for other people's higher wages) as something undeserved that's inflicted upon them.
What about Pete Buttegieg? White, male, homosexual?
I guess issues of electability do have to take into account the prejudices of potential swing voters. Personally I think issues of character and competence should be of primary importance but I do understand that electability arguments lead us into difficult territory. The USA has elected a convicted felon with multiple character defects rather than a woman of colour without any of that baggage. I wish the electability issues weren’t there but it’s foolish to ignore them.
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.
And yet wages in the U.S. have increased a rate higher than goods.
The figures have wages only very slightly higher at the end of the period than the start, so 'feeling poorer' may be a real effect - especially if people spent the intervening period struggling.
People regard their higher wages as something they've earned and deserve while they regard higher prices for goods or services (which, in part, pay for other people's higher wages) as something undeserved that's inflicted upon them.
There's probably an element of this, but there's also a perception that firms have used this as an excuse to put prices up and take higher profits - with increasing backing from economists - see Isabella Weber's work: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/roke/11/2/article-p183.xml.
Furthermore, if you've primed people to think that the immediate hardship is justified by jam tomorrow (very much the framing of the interest rate rises and the 'need' for higher unemployment), then they'll be justifiably pissed when jam doesn't arrive.
Lastly, I suspect people are struggling to shift from an economy where unemployment was the biggest problem to one where it's inflation. Not helped by the fact that economic policy is based around keeping real and nominal inflation rates low (there are doubtless debt servicing costs that are suddenly a lot less affordable than they used to be).
Eventually, that glass ceiling will be shattered. And it could be a Republican nominee, like Niki Haley Watch Rep. Elise Stefanik from New York. She is young, currently 39, but she is the third highest leader in the House Republican Conference.
___
I think the Russians were actually disappointed Trump won. They were hoping he would have lost and then caused a disruption that would have made Jan 6, 2021 look like a love fest. There were several bomb threats on election day that were traced to the Russians. They wanted discord. Instead, they will get a peaceful transition of power.
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.
I saw multiple reports yesterday about high school boys quoting Nick Fuentes this week: "Your body, my choice, forever."
There's some young men who I very much hope are going to become familiar with a rather more, err, digital approach to romance than perhaps they would have been hoping for.
ETA - and a man (generic) not voting for a woman (generic)? I can believe it, but that is some f***** up sh*t. Though Ms Greene can do one, as far as I am concerned.
My guess is that in our current climate any attempt for a female candidate to do this overtly and repeatedly is going to be characterized as”nagging” and “shrill,” and dismissed aggressively.
@Gamma Gamaliel: Get off my side! Your Brit-splaining isn't significantly better than Telford's. Democrats in the US are seriously asking the question of whether they can run a woman for president in the foreseeable future.
I don't know about this -- a woman was elected president of Mexico in a landslide earlier this year. Maybe immigrants to the US are more traditionally minded?
I think the end of this speaks directly to what we're talking about here:
[Question:] I presume the conclusion they’re also going to reach is that they can’t run a female candidate for a really long time?
[Answer:} I really, I really, I really hope they don’t draw that conclusion.
There’s a reason the General Social Survey stopped asking the question about a female candidate in 2010: because it hit 96% support, and it’s even higher among young men. I suppose it’s possible that those men are secretly sexist or racist and won’t tell pollsters that, but that’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis, we can’t know.
If Democrats draw the conclusion that it was because it was a female candidate, that will be the wrong conclusion. Empirically. It will insult the male voters they need and it will hobble the careers of female politicians, potentially for a long time.
54% say the country is ready for a woman president; 30% say no. That's down from 63% of registered voters who said yes in 2015, according to the May 9-11, 2015 Economist / YouGov Poll
I wouldn't say that some men are secretly sexist (and racist, but I'm white, so I'll stick to what I can talk about with the most standing) so much as many are unconsciously sexist, as are some women, and some are just still flat-out sexist with no apologies. I think the effort to treat women as equal human beings is swimming against a tide of millenia-long cultural practices that will not be quickly and evenly turned back.
In the UK, the Conservatives are supposed to be the nasty party yet they have had 4 female leaders. They have very recently elected a black woman instead of a white man. Perhaps they have learned that it's best to choose the right person for the job.
I was trying to help but can see that my comments were wide of the mark. Apologies.
@Telford, the nasty party tends to elect nasty leaders. Theresa May was arguably rather less nasty than Thatcher, Truss and as Badenoch looks like she might be ...
But this is meant to be a thread about US not UK politics.
I was trying to help but can see that my comments were wide of the mark. Apologies.
@Telford, the nasty party tends to elect nasty leaders. Theresa May was arguably rather less nasty than Thatcher, Truss and as Badenoch looks like she might be ...
But this is meant to be a thread about US not UK politics.
My comment was about electing suitable leaders. Harris was chosen by Biden. My suspicion is that Biden hung on late enough to prevent anyone other than Harris being the candidate. Was that his idea or her idea ?
Here is a historical snapshot of women in the US Government. All information comes from Wikipedia.
Geraldine Ferraro ran as the Democratic Party VP candidate in 1984. She was the first female candidate on a major party ticket. Her running mate was Walter Mondale, who himself had been Jimmy Carter's VP. Since 1984, Democrats have raised Hillary Clinton (2016) and Kamala Harris (2020/2024) to the national ticket. There have been a fair number of women who have vied for the nomination itself, or to be the VP candidate, but just two women over 40 years is a fairly thin representation from the Party of Progress. Republicans, on the other hand, have offered only Sarah Palin (2008) as a national candidate.
Governorships show a similar trend. Democrats have appointed or elected 30 female state Governors to Republicans' 19. For US Territories and D.C. the numbers are 4-1, respectively.
60 women have served in the US Senate: 36 have been Democrats and 23 have been Republicans, with one Independent. Of the 50 States, 33 have elected female Senators; 17 have not.
Of the 384 women who have served in the House of Representatives, 252 have been Democrats (including four from U.S. territories and the District of Columbia) and 132 have been Republicans (including three from U.S. territories, including pre-statehood Hawaii). One woman has served as Speaker of the House (the 52nd Speaker), Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Women have represented 49 out of 50 states in the House, with Mississippi being the lone exception. I live in the stunted and struggling state of MS, and it is no surprise.
The Cabinet of the United States (the principal advisory body to the President) has had 65 female members altogether. (I didn't bother to break out the party affiliations.)
Of the 116 Justices of the Supreme Court, six have been female, including four current Justices. The other two are Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Reagan in 1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsberg (appointed by Clinton in 1993). Four female Justices have been appointed by Democratic Party Presidents, and two by Republicans.
In the UK, the Conservatives are supposed to be the nasty party yet they have had 4 female leaders. They have very recently elected a black woman instead of a white man. Perhaps they have learned that it's best to choose the right person for the job.
Oh yes, because Theresa May and Liz Truss were so the right people for the job
I think his idea was that he would run for president and was capable of it. I think her idea was that she couldn’t openly go against his idea.
Yup, agree entirely. She's Biden's VP; there's no way she could have challenged him. It's why it stung and stuck when Trump and other Republicans said she had been hiding Biden's condition. No one but Dean Phillips, who is so obscure I can't remember where he's from or what elected office he has held, so probably a Congressman, ran against Joe Biden in the primaries. He said Biden wasn't up to it in the summer of 2023, and I wish to God Democratic elites had listened to him then. Nancy Pelosi is quoted in the NY Times today saying Biden should have dropped out sooner -- what I want to know is if she made any effort to get him out sooner. She's the one who eventually made it happen in July. So what was she saying to him in July of 2023?
To be fair to Pelosi, July ‘23 was only something like six months after her home was invaded and her husband beaten round the head with a hammer by someone trying to find her, who knows where they both were in their recovery from that event.
Would the sort of people who'd object to a woman be at all likely to vote Democrat anyway? Genuine question rather than challenge.
Yes.
Sure - there are dyed-in-the-wool patriarchal fundamentalists who will auto-vote republican, but those people don't matter. The people that matter are the ones who might vote either way, and there were significant chunks of the younger male demographic - particularly younger Black and Hispanic men - that voted for Biden, but voted for Trump over Harris.
There's some commentary about Harris not being seen as a "strong leader", which could well be code for "not male".
How much of the shift is sexism vs other things? That's harder to untangle, but just like not every Republican voter is a card-carrying fascist, not every Democratic voter is a right-on socialist.
And we're not really talking about "object to a woman" in some sort of male headship way, as we are talking about having a soft bias to not see women as strong leaders.
Good point. And of course it's not all on her -- Dean Phillips said he thought back in 2021 that Biden wasn't doing well, and he didn't have a front seat. All Biden's aides, his family, his friends, senior Democratic elected officials: there are lots of people who should have taken away the keys and didn't.
In the UK, the Conservatives are supposed to be the nasty party yet they have had 4 female leaders. They have very recently elected a black woman instead of a white man. Perhaps they have learned that it's best to choose the right person for the job.
Oh yes, because Theresa May and Liz Truss were so the right people for the job
That's not the point. They were democratically chosen
And we're not really talking about "object to a woman" in some sort of male headship way, as we are talking about having a soft bias to not see women as strong leaders.
I wouldn’t be so quick do discount “male headship.” The Conservative Evangelical lobby in the U.S. is enormous, and they’re all-in on backward-ass male headship. You’d never have had the phenomenon of MAGA Neanderthal men going online to brag about what they’d do if they found out their wives had voted for Harris were it not so. The Hispanic male vote shift has already been touted here, or on another post-election thread, including their strong social conservatism. Mix-in Catholicism for even deeper anchoring-in. And don’t forget the Tradwife movement which spawned from the Homesteading movement which is connected to the homeschooling movement — all hyper-conservative and overwhelmingly Evangelical. The toxic Man-o-sphere is there too, telling men they’re in charge of women without the religious underpinning. Taken together, I don’t doubt at all that a male headship aspect, religious or otherwise, was well at work this past Tuesday.
Trump has chosen Susie Wiles--she identifies herself as such.
She will be the second most powerful person in Washington. The only more powerful person will be DJT.
She actually identifies as a moderate person. She has had much success in a number of political campaigns.
As White House Chief of Staff, she will
Select senior White House staffers and supervise their offices' activities;
Manage and designthe overall structure of the White House staff system;
Control the flow of people into the Oval Office;
Manage the flow of information to and decisions from the Resolute Desk (with the White House staff secretary);
Direct, manage and overseei all policy development;
Protect the political interests of the president;
Negotiatw legislation and appropriating funds with United States Congress leaders, Cabinet secretaries, and extra-governmental political groups to implement the president's agenda; and
Advise on any and usually various issues set by the president
So over the past 4 years real GDP-per-capita has been going up (as it was during pre-COVID Trump and late Obama), but real median household income has not. Why is that?
So over the past 4 years real GDP-per-capita has been going up (as it was during pre-COVID Trump and late Obama), but real median household income has not. Why is that?
In a capitalist economy, the value of your labour is effectively split between you, in wages, and your employer, in gross profit.
If the value of your labour increases but your employer keeps the extra value and doesn’t increase your wages, then productivity goes up and your income doesn’t.
So it basically means that employers and shareholders have done well out of things.
So over the past 4 years real GDP-per-capita has been going up (as it was during pre-COVID Trump and late Obama), but real median household income has not. Why is that?
Because the president doesn't control this. Because corporations looked at rising inflation post-pandemic and realized they could raise their prices even more and people would think it was natural inflation and not blame them for simply deciding to take more money from customers.
The last report I saw was Republicans are leading in the House races 211-199. It takes 218 to control the House. Looks like it all is on California to determine the final outcome.
The control of the House is important in that all taxation and appropriation bills have to begin in the House.
Also any bill of impeachment begins in the house, not that it matters that much since a conviction will not happen in the Senate in the foreseeable future.
If the Democrats control the House, there it can be a partial break to the most egregious parts of Trump's agenda.
A big reason why a number of minority groups went for Trump was because he visited them. Harris did not.
I think the next nominee should learn from Harris' mistake. You want working people and minorities to vote for you? Visit them where they are at. In the break rooms of retail and industry. In the ethnic cafe's. At their stores, sitting down for tea. The people will not come to you until you come to them.
One quip I just heard is the idea that exacerbating any idea of simply not being better off than you were four years ago is a growing, pervasive covetousness of social media. People are doom scrolling "influencers'" feeds that don't seem to do much more than present incredibly physically beautiful people who go to incredible places, drive incredible cars, wear incredible clothes, eat incredible food, hang out with other incredibly beautiful people, etc. -- it's the superlativation of commodified experience. And if people don't feel as if they're moving toward that level of living (however unrealistic, manufactured and irrational), they're being denied something. Stirring beneath the, "well, shit, egg prices have gone up again," is an ugly undercurrent of force-fed envy, and it's big trouble for the candidate who's not speaking to it -- "it" being the idea that your life *should* be much better, and it's _______'s fault that it isn't (immigrant's, trans athletes', the woke mobs', Elites', etc.)
One quip I just heard is the idea that exacerbating any idea of simply not being better off than you were four years ago is a growing, pervasive covetousness of social media. People are doom scrolling "influencers'" feeds that don't seem to do much more than present incredibly physically beautiful people who go to incredible places, drive incredible cars, wear incredible clothes, eat incredible food, hang out with other incredibly beautiful people, etc. -- it's the superlativation of commodified experience. And if people don't feel as if they're moving toward that level of living (however unrealistic, manufactured and irrational), they're being denied something. Stirring beneath the, "well, shit, egg prices have gone up again," is an ugly undercurrent of force-fed envy, and it's big trouble for the candidate who's not speaking to it -- "it" being the idea that your life *should* be much better, and it's _______'s fault that it isn't (immigrant's, trans athletes', the woke mobs', Elites', etc.)
That change happened to rap music as well. Started about being from the hood and ended up about having a big house
For some reason the whole post didn’t go through. A big house and drinking lots of expensive brandy. Is it a symptom of the American Dream. An interested Brit wants to know.
I'm not sure there's a citizenry anywhere on the planet that, in general, doesn't want to live better. How it's communicated about, however, makes a tremendous difference.
Trump also staged a number of rallies in medium sized communities. Harris ignored them
There was Butler PA, population size 20,000. Visited twice. First time he got shot. But returned later.
He visited Albuquerque even though New Mexico is a blue state. He visited Aurora, also a blue state. Harris did not visit the solid blue states and seldom crossed into red states.
I don't think this is evidence for your claim of 'a number of minority groups went for Trump', CairNational - who did exit polling of American Muslims, admittedly a disjoint group - published figures showing an uptick for Trump - but with a majority of voters going third party:
Secondly of the minority groups under consideration it's not clear to me whether the swings are a product of significant numbers of voters changing their votes or an artifact of Democrat inclined voters staying at home.
Comments
Things are different now, @Gamma Gamaliel. I saw multiple reports yesterday about high school boys quoting Nick Fuentes this week: "Your body, my choice, forever."
I would personally like the next president to be a super lefty woman of color. But if the Democratic candidate most likely to win is a centrist white guy, so be it. My ideals will have to wait till the American electorate pulls its head out of its ass. Assuming that's even on the table.
And yet wages in the U.S. have increased a rate higher than goods. I think part of this is selective analysis. People regard their higher wages as something they've earned and deserve while they regard higher prices for goods or services (which, in part, pay for other people's higher wages) as something undeserved that's inflicted upon them.
I guess issues of electability do have to take into account the prejudices of potential swing voters. Personally I think issues of character and competence should be of primary importance but I do understand that electability arguments lead us into difficult territory. The USA has elected a convicted felon with multiple character defects rather than a woman of colour without any of that baggage. I wish the electability issues weren’t there but it’s foolish to ignore them.
The figures have wages only very slightly higher at the end of the period than the start, so 'feeling poorer' may be a real effect - especially if people spent the intervening period struggling.
There's probably an element of this, but there's also a perception that firms have used this as an excuse to put prices up and take higher profits - with increasing backing from economists - see Isabella Weber's work: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/roke/11/2/article-p183.xml.
Furthermore, if you've primed people to think that the immediate hardship is justified by jam tomorrow (very much the framing of the interest rate rises and the 'need' for higher unemployment), then they'll be justifiably pissed when jam doesn't arrive.
Lastly, I suspect people are struggling to shift from an economy where unemployment was the biggest problem to one where it's inflation. Not helped by the fact that economic policy is based around keeping real and nominal inflation rates low (there are doubtless debt servicing costs that are suddenly a lot less affordable than they used to be).
___
I think the Russians were actually disappointed Trump won. They were hoping he would have lost and then caused a disruption that would have made Jan 6, 2021 look like a love fest. There were several bomb threats on election day that were traced to the Russians. They wanted discord. Instead, they will get a peaceful transition of power.
IMO they would not, demagogues like Sarah Palin notwithstanding.
I have to say that right now I’m leaning toward something like what @Ruth is saying.
That's not what I said in the comment you have quoted.
This NY Post article suggests that that some Hispanic men might fit into that category, for example, although "how many" would be difficult to estimate.
There's some young men who I very much hope are going to become familiar with a rather more, err, digital approach to romance than perhaps they would have been hoping for.
ETA - and a man (generic) not voting for a woman (generic)? I can believe it, but that is some f***** up sh*t. Though Ms Greene can do one, as far as I am concerned.
My guess is that in our current climate any attempt for a female candidate to do this overtly and repeatedly is going to be characterized as”nagging” and “shrill,” and dismissed aggressively.
I don't know about this -- a woman was elected president of Mexico in a landslide earlier this year. Maybe immigrants to the US are more traditionally minded?
I think the end of this speaks directly to what we're talking about here:
Here's another number: From a YouGov poll this past July:
I wouldn't say that some men are secretly sexist (and racist, but I'm white, so I'll stick to what I can talk about with the most standing) so much as many are unconsciously sexist, as are some women, and some are just still flat-out sexist with no apologies. I think the effort to treat women as equal human beings is swimming against a tide of millenia-long cultural practices that will not be quickly and evenly turned back.
I was trying to help but can see that my comments were wide of the mark. Apologies.
@Telford, the nasty party tends to elect nasty leaders. Theresa May was arguably rather less nasty than Thatcher, Truss and as Badenoch looks like she might be ...
But this is meant to be a thread about US not UK politics.
My comment was about electing suitable leaders. Harris was chosen by Biden. My suspicion is that Biden hung on late enough to prevent anyone other than Harris being the candidate. Was that his idea or her idea ?
Geraldine Ferraro ran as the Democratic Party VP candidate in 1984. She was the first female candidate on a major party ticket. Her running mate was Walter Mondale, who himself had been Jimmy Carter's VP. Since 1984, Democrats have raised Hillary Clinton (2016) and Kamala Harris (2020/2024) to the national ticket. There have been a fair number of women who have vied for the nomination itself, or to be the VP candidate, but just two women over 40 years is a fairly thin representation from the Party of Progress. Republicans, on the other hand, have offered only Sarah Palin (2008) as a national candidate.
Governorships show a similar trend. Democrats have appointed or elected 30 female state Governors to Republicans' 19. For US Territories and D.C. the numbers are 4-1, respectively.
60 women have served in the US Senate: 36 have been Democrats and 23 have been Republicans, with one Independent. Of the 50 States, 33 have elected female Senators; 17 have not.
Of the 384 women who have served in the House of Representatives, 252 have been Democrats (including four from U.S. territories and the District of Columbia) and 132 have been Republicans (including three from U.S. territories, including pre-statehood Hawaii). One woman has served as Speaker of the House (the 52nd Speaker), Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Women have represented 49 out of 50 states in the House, with Mississippi being the lone exception. I live in the stunted and struggling state of MS, and it is no surprise.
The Cabinet of the United States (the principal advisory body to the President) has had 65 female members altogether. (I didn't bother to break out the party affiliations.)
Of the 116 Justices of the Supreme Court, six have been female, including four current Justices. The other two are Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Reagan in 1981) and Ruth Bader Ginsberg (appointed by Clinton in 1993). Four female Justices have been appointed by Democratic Party Presidents, and two by Republicans.
Oh yes, because Theresa May and Liz Truss were so the right people for the job
Yes.
Sure - there are dyed-in-the-wool patriarchal fundamentalists who will auto-vote republican, but those people don't matter. The people that matter are the ones who might vote either way, and there were significant chunks of the younger male demographic - particularly younger Black and Hispanic men - that voted for Biden, but voted for Trump over Harris.
There's some commentary about Harris not being seen as a "strong leader", which could well be code for "not male".
How much of the shift is sexism vs other things? That's harder to untangle, but just like not every Republican voter is a card-carrying fascist, not every Democratic voter is a right-on socialist.
And we're not really talking about "object to a woman" in some sort of male headship way, as we are talking about having a soft bias to not see women as strong leaders.
That's not the point. They were democratically chosen
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I wouldn’t be so quick do discount “male headship.” The Conservative Evangelical lobby in the U.S. is enormous, and they’re all-in on backward-ass male headship. You’d never have had the phenomenon of MAGA Neanderthal men going online to brag about what they’d do if they found out their wives had voted for Harris were it not so. The Hispanic male vote shift has already been touted here, or on another post-election thread, including their strong social conservatism. Mix-in Catholicism for even deeper anchoring-in. And don’t forget the Tradwife movement which spawned from the Homesteading movement which is connected to the homeschooling movement — all hyper-conservative and overwhelmingly Evangelical. The toxic Man-o-sphere is there too, telling men they’re in charge of women without the religious underpinning. Taken together, I don’t doubt at all that a male headship aspect, religious or otherwise, was well at work this past Tuesday.
She will be the second most powerful person in Washington. The only more powerful person will be DJT.
She actually identifies as a moderate person. She has had much success in a number of political campaigns.
As White House Chief of Staff, she will
Select senior White House staffers and supervise their offices' activities;
Manage and designthe overall structure of the White House staff system;
Control the flow of people into the Oval Office;
Manage the flow of information to and decisions from the Resolute Desk (with the White House staff secretary);
Direct, manage and overseei all policy development;
Protect the political interests of the president;
Negotiatw legislation and appropriating funds with United States Congress leaders, Cabinet secretaries, and extra-governmental political groups to implement the president's agenda; and
Advise on any and usually various issues set by the president
(per Wikipeadia)
Ms Wiles will be the first female chief of staff.
To return to the economic angle, which I am not yet sure I fully understand:
Here is real GDP per capita:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA
Here is real median household income:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
So over the past 4 years real GDP-per-capita has been going up (as it was during pre-COVID Trump and late Obama), but real median household income has not. Why is that?
In a capitalist economy, the value of your labour is effectively split between you, in wages, and your employer, in gross profit.
If the value of your labour increases but your employer keeps the extra value and doesn’t increase your wages, then productivity goes up and your income doesn’t.
So it basically means that employers and shareholders have done well out of things.
Corporate profits rose: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2024/10/corporate-profits-and-markups/
The control of the House is important in that all taxation and appropriation bills have to begin in the House.
Also any bill of impeachment begins in the house, not that it matters that much since a conviction will not happen in the Senate in the foreseeable future.
If the Democrats control the House, there it can be a partial break to the most egregious parts of Trump's agenda.
I think the next nominee should learn from Harris' mistake. You want working people and minorities to vote for you? Visit them where they are at. In the break rooms of retail and industry. In the ethnic cafe's. At their stores, sitting down for tea. The people will not come to you until you come to them.
Evidence for this claim?
That change happened to rap music as well. Started about being from the hood and ended up about having a big house
Trump visited the Arab community in Dearborn https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-visit-largest-arab-majority-city-in-battleground-michigan-where-harris-has-yet-to-campaign/ar-AA1tlLh4?ocid=BingNewsVerp
Trump also staged a number of rallies in medium sized communities. Harris ignored them
There was Butler PA, population size 20,000. Visited twice. First time he got shot. But returned later.
He visited Albuquerque even though New Mexico is a blue state. He visited Aurora, also a blue state. Harris did not visit the solid blue states and seldom crossed into red states.
You want more evidence?
I don't think this is evidence for your claim of 'a number of minority groups went for Trump', CairNational - who did exit polling of American Muslims, admittedly a disjoint group - published figures showing an uptick for Trump - but with a majority of voters going third party:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcH4kgLasAEHGmM?format=jpg&name=medium
Secondly of the minority groups under consideration it's not clear to me whether the swings are a product of significant numbers of voters changing their votes or an artifact of Democrat inclined voters staying at home.