Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 08:22:41 AM
What is the theory?
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on November 08, 2024, 08:27:28 AM
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 08, 2024, 08:37:17 AM
1. Sleepy Joe
This is probably the best answer. He originally said it would be one term and they should have stuck with it and made plans for someone else the whole time. They would have most likely messed it up regardless by anointing someone (prob KH) like they tend to do, but who knows. The only way back is for them to find someone that will resonate and bring people out to vote. They know how many votes they will need. I mean, we've seen that R's are going to show up and vote R no matter what.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 08:46:44 AM
1. Sleepy Joe
yeah honestly he should have announced he wasn't running for reelection in 2022 or something to allow a true primary. I think you can start there.
I think Kamala's biggest mistake was making Liz Cheney the surrogate face of the campaign. It ended up alienating a ton of the left, made them look like bumbling fools from the right, and the result was fewer republicans voting for Harris than Biden.
Related to that, I think Bernie was spot on when he said Democrats have more or less abandoned the working class. Obviously Trump doesn't give a crap about the working class, but "no tax on tips" was rough ridin' brilliant in that it came from a waitress in Vegas, is catchy, and is like "oh yeah he is for working people". Harris didn't propose a single solitary thing that anyone can remember for working people.
Come to think of it, can anyone name a Harris policy position off the top of your head? I definitely remember Cheney being touted and "we're not going back". Maybe something about money for new homeowners? I don't know, which clearly means that her policy positions sucked.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 08, 2024, 08:53:19 AM
1. Sleepy Joe
yeah honestly he should have announced he wasn't running for reelection in 2022 or something to allow a true primary. I think you can start there.
I think Kamala's biggest mistake was making Liz Cheney the surrogate face of the campaign. It ended up alienating a ton of the left, made them look like bumbling fools from the right, and the result was fewer republicans voting for Harris than Biden.
Related to that, I think Bernie was spot on when he said Democrats have more or less abandoned the working class. Obviously Trump doesn't give a crap about the working class, but "no tax on tips" was rough ridin' brilliant in that it came from a waitress in Vegas, is catchy, and is like "oh yeah he is for working people". Harris didn't propose a single solitary thing that anyone can remember for working people.
Come to think of it, can anyone name a Harris policy position off the top of your head? I definitely remember Cheney being touted and "we're not going back". Maybe something about money for new homeowners? I don't know, which clearly means that her policy positions sucked.
Agree with all of this. The bold part is interesting to me though. The Rs haven't had a platform or plan in I don't know how long. They still get people out to vote. I was reading a lot yesterday about how effective the Rs were with the younger generation now which is bonkers to me. Apparently they did a great job with the "bros" by doing podcasts, etc. I'm not sure how big of a voting block that was, but it was interesting to read. The Ds just seem to be out of favor with many groups right now and need to figure it out.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 08, 2024, 08:56:52 AM
1. Sleepy Joe
yeah honestly he should have announced he wasn't running for reelection in 2022 or something to allow a true primary. I think you can start there.
I think Kamala's biggest mistake was making Liz Cheney the surrogate face of the campaign. It ended up alienating a ton of the left, made them look like bumbling fools from the right, and the result was fewer republicans voting for Harris than Biden.
Related to that, I think Bernie was spot on when he said Democrats have more or less abandoned the working class. Obviously Trump doesn't give a crap about the working class, but "no tax on tips" was rough ridin' brilliant in that it came from a waitress in Vegas, is catchy, and is like "oh yeah he is for working people". Harris didn't propose a single solitary thing that anyone can remember for working people.
Come to think of it, can anyone name a Harris policy position off the top of your head? I definitely remember Cheney being touted and "we're not going back". Maybe something about money for new homeowners? I don't know, which clearly means that her policy positions sucked.
This is the biggest, and in general the key is blaming themselves. The blame is squarely on not getting people to show up. So that is the biggest.
1. Sleepy Joe
This is probably the best answer. He originally said it would be one term and they should have stuck with it and made plans for someone else the whole time. They would have most likely messed it up regardless by anointing someone (prob KH) like they tend to do, but who knows. The only way back is for them to find someone that will resonate and bring people out to vote. They know how many votes they will need. I mean, we've seen that R's are going to show up and vote R no matter what.
Agree this is the impetus of the lack of motivation. In general it wasn't looking good for Biden for a while, and had they done a primary it'd been a big chance to get new blood in. Heck even look at the support for Kamala like right after they got rid of Biden, and just how off kilter it made trump and co. They had their entire cannon fodder off on him. But once they were able to equate her with him, especially due to the non-primary way of doing it, and she didn't offer anything tangental as rusty said, it was kinda of game over.
People thirsted for a non don v Biden, and instead dems essentially gave it by proxy.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 09:03:06 AM
1. Sleepy Joe
yeah honestly he should have announced he wasn't running for reelection in 2022 or something to allow a true primary. I think you can start there.
I think Kamala's biggest mistake was making Liz Cheney the surrogate face of the campaign. It ended up alienating a ton of the left, made them look like bumbling fools from the right, and the result was fewer republicans voting for Harris than Biden.
Related to that, I think Bernie was spot on when he said Democrats have more or less abandoned the working class. Obviously Trump doesn't give a crap about the working class, but "no tax on tips" was rough ridin' brilliant in that it came from a waitress in Vegas, is catchy, and is like "oh yeah he is for working people". Harris didn't propose a single solitary thing that anyone can remember for working people.
Come to think of it, can anyone name a Harris policy position off the top of your head? I definitely remember Cheney being touted and "we're not going back". Maybe something about money for new homeowners? I don't know, which clearly means that her policy positions sucked.
Agree with all of this. The bold part is interesting to me though. The Rs haven't had a platform or plan in I don't know how long. They still get people out to vote. I was reading a lot yesterday about how effective the Rs were with the younger generation now which is bonkers to me. Apparently they did a great job with the "bros" by doing podcasts, etc. I'm not sure how big of a voting block that was, but it was interesting to read. The Ds just seem to be out of favor with many groups right now and need to figure it out.
"no tax on tips"
"build the wall"
"lock her up"
"mass deportation"
are all more memorable and concrete than anything Harris trotted out there (and stuck)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 09:29:12 AM
I do think a whole lot of voters are going to regret their vote once these tariffs actually get implemented, though. If we actually have an election in 2028, the democrats should do pretty well.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 08, 2024, 09:59:28 AM
They lost on the economy, and there really isn't anything they could have done better to handle the economy. They could have done a much better job trying to educate the voters on exactly what caused the inflation and how the rate has been lowered and what that means, but the vast majority of people aren't intelligent enough to follow or even care about any of that. Trump's policies that he's spelled out are all highly inflationary. Maybe over-simplifying his tariff plan into a "national sales tax" was too disingenuous, but it's probably the best way to describe it that people can understand. At the end of the day, Trump has already been president and prices didn't skyrocket, so the attacks on him weren't effective. I don't think any candidate or policy positions would have made any difference.
I do think a whole lot of voters are going to regret their vote once these tariffs actually get implemented, though. If we actually have an election in 2028, the democrats should do pretty well.
I agree with everything you said besides this. A very large portion only cared about winning and/or hurting the other side. They will line up to vote the same way again next time even if they can't afford to drive themselves there. Hopefully the Ds have finally realized this.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 08, 2024, 10:18:49 AM
They lost on the economy, and there really isn't anything they could have done better to handle the economy. They could have done a much better job trying to educate the voters on exactly what caused the inflation and how the rate has been lowered and what that means, but the vast majority of people aren't intelligent enough to follow or even care about any of that. Trump's policies that he's spelled out are all highly inflationary. Maybe over-simplifying his tariff plan into a "national sales tax" was too disingenuous, but it's probably the best way to describe it that people can understand. At the end of the day, Trump has already been president and prices didn't skyrocket, so the attacks on him weren't effective. I don't think any candidate or policy positions would have made any difference.
I do think a whole lot of voters are going to regret their vote once these tariffs actually get implemented, though. If we actually have an election in 2028, the democrats should do pretty well.
I agree with everything you said besides this. A very large portion only cared about winning and/or hurting the other side. They will line up to vote the same way again next time even if they can't afford to drive themselves there. Hopefully the Ds have finally realized this.
Ehh wrong, to me. That is precisely what drove them to vote for him, they were being hurt, and I agree with Rage, dems did practically everything they could correctly to thread a tight needle of curbing inflation without wrecking the economy, it's quite a feat. But it's like what other economists have noted, inflation is down, but people have a hard time connecting just because inflation is down, doesn't mean prices come down. Prices don't go down without deflation, which is an indicator of a failing economy. That is just a very very hard concept for a lot of people to work out in their head. They knew in recent memory this cost X, now it's X + a lot. Inflation is derivative, not direct, and it's a hard sale to be like "well we stopped it from being worse than it is!"
If trump does implement the tariffs and blows up all the carefully brought on restoration/healing since 2020, and wrecks it, many will absolutely switch back if the dems message it as "see we told you he was worse for the economy". Again you don't have to or won't get those who only care about winning/hurting the other side, you just have to convince like 10% of the people that you can do it better. You aren't going to win over hardly any true pubs, the data clearly shows that, hence the liz cheney thing not working. you're winning over a tiny group. That's not what you're going for. Just as you don't have to win over gay rights activists, you already have them. You just have a ton of people who simply won't vote for the other side, but you have enough that voting for something, and it's almost always household economics.
Post by: hjfklmor on November 08, 2024, 10:19:36 AM
They lost on the economy, and there really isn't anything they could have done better to handle the economy. They could have done a much better job trying to educate the voters on exactly what caused the inflation and how the rate has been lowered and what that means, but the vast majority of people aren't intelligent enough to follow or even care about any of that. Trump's policies that he's spelled out are all highly inflationary. Maybe over-simplifying his tariff plan into a "national sales tax" was too disingenuous, but it's probably the best way to describe it that people can understand. At the end of the day, Trump has already been president and prices didn't skyrocket, so the attacks on him weren't effective. I don't think any candidate or policy positions would have made any difference.
I do think a whole lot of voters are going to regret their vote once these tariffs actually get implemented, though. If we actually have an election in 2028, the democrats should do pretty well.
I agree with everything you said besides this. A very large portion only cared about winning and/or hurting the other side. They will line up to vote the same way again next time even if they can't afford to drive themselves there. Hopefully the Ds have finally realized this.
They will not regret their vote because they will not attribute anything that happens, good or bad, to their vote. The quotes in this article are interesting to read.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/11/08/trump-red-shift-voter-turnout-queens-bronx-southern-brooklyn/
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 10:26:29 AM
Post by: Pete on November 08, 2024, 10:30:10 AM
Post by: Pete on November 08, 2024, 10:33:39 AM
Post by: hjfklmor on November 08, 2024, 10:36:52 AM
“ I just went to the grocery store and eggs are still expensive. The Democrats keep talking about transsexuals and on Facebook I learned that Mexicans are bringing fentanyl into our grade schools and Haitians are eating cats. Also, the libs are a bunch of homos and the Black Lives Matter protestors steal Lego sets from target.”
I think the Democratic Party should look inward and blame themselves, but there is something to be said about Republicans network of podcasts, influencers, Twitter shitposters, etc. and how the Democrats mostly rely on traditional media to relay their message. It certainly seems one message is being received more than the other.
Post by: Pete on November 08, 2024, 10:39:21 AM
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on November 08, 2024, 10:44:36 AM
This is a good counterpoint. Even if they did have a normal primary process, it is hard to see someone other than Harris (part of the sitting Dem administration) emerging from the primary process anyway.1. Sleepy Joe
This is probably the best answer. He originally said it would be one term and they should have stuck with it and made plans for someone else the whole time. They would have most likely messed it up regardless by anointing someone (prob KH) like they tend to do, but who knows. The only way back is for them to find someone that will resonate and bring people out to vote. They know how many votes they will need. I mean, we've seen that R's are going to show up and vote R no matter what.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 10:52:56 AM
Post by: cfbandyman on November 08, 2024, 10:59:13 AM
Democrats can’t do that because they really really want the traditional media to stick around because they love what it stands for and it’s more important to toil in futile for the perfect than it is to be realistic and settle for the very good.
Lord this is so goddamn true for far too many left leaning voters. If the candidate isn't perfect it isn't worth voting for. Like seeing (somewhat joking) people voting for Jill Stein (not that it mattered that much in this one) than being able to bring themselves to vote for Harris cause of Israel connotations or whatever. Like, too many people on the left tend to be unable to bring themselves to overcome imperfections in a candidate or position cause they can't agree with it enough. A very throw the baby out with the bath water in the voting part (the baby being a candidate they mostly agree with and the water being the crap they don't like about them). The right seems to be like as long as I get X out this guy I'm all in, even if there are things they don't agree with or don't like. For them they are willing to throw the baby (social services, economy, etc) also out with the bathwater (things they don't like about the candidate), but as long as their person is there to do it. Dems have to appeal more to those who they can reliably get a vote from, not one they have to jump through 100 hoops to get their vote.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 08, 2024, 11:15:20 AM
Democrats can’t do that because they really really want the traditional media to stick around because they love what it stands for and it’s more important to toil in futile for the perfect than it is to be realistic and settle for the very good.
Lord this is so goddamn true for far too many left leaning voters. If the candidate isn't perfect it isn't worth voting for. Like seeing (somewhat joking) people voting for Jill Stein (not that it mattered that much in this one) than being able to bring themselves to vote for Harris cause of Israel connotations or whatever. Like, too many people on the left tend to be unable to bring themselves to overcome imperfections in a candidate or position cause they can't agree with it enough. A very throw the baby out with the bath water in the voting part (the baby being a candidate they mostly agree with and the water being the crap they don't like about them). The right seems to be like as long as I get X out this guy I'm all in, even if there are things they don't agree with or don't like. For them they are willing to throw the baby (social services, economy, etc) also out with the bathwater (things they don't like about the candidate), but as long as their person is there to do it. Dems have to appeal more to those who they can reliably get a vote from, not one they have to jump through 100 hoops to get their vote.
Yep, I honestly don't see how they fix this. The right elected a draft dodging, convicted felon, convicted sexual assaulter, non church goer not once, but twice!!! All those things are about as "not conservative" as you get. They will vote lock and step almost regardless. Dems have to fight being too progressive, not being progressive enough, having a weird laugh, etc. to get voters. Like, can you imagine if a Dem candidate pretended to blow a microphone at a rally!!!
Post by: Cire on November 08, 2024, 11:20:47 AM
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on November 08, 2024, 11:30:20 AM
Trump is never responsible for anything bad that happens ever.They lost on the economy, and there really isn't anything they could have done better to handle the economy. They could have done a much better job trying to educate the voters on exactly what caused the inflation and how the rate has been lowered and what that means, but the vast majority of people aren't intelligent enough to follow or even care about any of that. Trump's policies that he's spelled out are all highly inflationary. Maybe over-simplifying his tariff plan into a "national sales tax" was too disingenuous, but it's probably the best way to describe it that people can understand. At the end of the day, Trump has already been president and prices didn't skyrocket, so the attacks on him weren't effective. I don't think any candidate or policy positions would have made any difference.
I do think a whole lot of voters are going to regret their vote once these tariffs actually get implemented, though. If we actually have an election in 2028, the democrats should do pretty well.
I agree with everything you said besides this. A very large portion only cared about winning and/or hurting the other side. They will line up to vote the same way again next time even if they can't afford to drive themselves there. Hopefully the Ds have finally realized this.
They will not regret their vote because they will not attribute anything that happens, good or bad, to their vote. The quotes in this article are interesting to read.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/11/08/trump-red-shift-voter-turnout-queens-bronx-southern-brooklyn/
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 11:46:45 AM
makes me think of Bernie
Right wingers didn't like Bernie but his clarity of message and no apologies principled stands are FAR more respected, EVEN WHEN PEOPLE DISAGREE. Bernie isn't wishy washy on policy or values. (Joe Rogan endorsed him and Bernie did much better with white men, young people in 2016 and 2020)
If you are defend the campaign, the candidate, the previous admin, and put the blame on groups like Arabs, trans people, Gaza protestors etc. the burden of proof is on you. The pros got to run the campaign they wanted and they were as in control of a campaign as any in memory. Hard to believe it still needs to be said, but blaming voters is not a winning strategy in a democracy. I see a lot of it.
My big points below all come back to not enough "clash" between the positions of Trump and Kamala on policy (in addition to basically no difference with Biden) AND the rhetoric was incoherent. The dems ran a right wing campaign with Liz Cheney as the closing message to Republicans. How did that work out?
On immigration (we tried to pass a tough immigration plan and Trump stopped it!)
on democracy (Trump is a fascist and danger!) This was a completely ineffective point
Quote
But Trump voters made up a greater share of those who described American democracy as "somewhat threatened," 50 percent, or "very threatened," 51 percent, CNN's exit polls show. Comparably, Harris voters accounted for 49 percent of those who said democracy in the U.S. is "somewhat threatened," and 47 percent said "very threatened."https://www.newsweek.com/liberals-misunderstood-voter-concerns-democracy-1981664 (https://www.newsweek.com/liberals-misunderstood-voter-concerns-democracy-1981664)
on Israel (all of the warnings and red lines and Netanyahu completely ignoring/insulting Biden as he backed down or was totally absent, both sides looked to Trump as the change candidate on this!)
Here is Kamala's economic plan as pitched to black men (which were not the problem despite tons of attention about it), the problem to me is--
On economic issues focusing on what divides rather than universal programs. Obviously, you can't really have federal programs that give special handouts to only black men, but look at the weird phrasing (see below)
Quote
Drawing on insights from her experience throughout her career and her Economic Opportunity
Tour, today Vice President Harris is laying out an Opportunity Agenda for Black Men to provide
them with the tools to achieve financial freedom, lower costs to better provide for themselves
and their families, and protect their rights. This pathbreaking agenda includes:
(1) Providing 1 million loans that are fully forgivable to Black entrepreneurs and others to
start a business.
(2) Championing education, training, and mentorship programs that help Black men get
good-paying jobs in high-demand industries and lead their communities, including
pathways to become teachers.
(3) Supporting a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and other digital assets so Black
men who invest in and own these assets are protected.
(4) Launching a National Health Equity Initiative focused on Black Men that addresses
sickle cell disease, diabetes, mental health, prostate cancer, and other health challenges
that disproportionately impact them.
(5) Legalizing recreational marijuana and creating opportunities for Black Americans to
succeed in this new industry.
The biggest one....
Abortion/Dobbs (why was this not the centerpiece of the campaign???? THE ISSUE OUTRAN KAMALA ALL OVER THE PLACE! PEOPLE REALLY VOTED FOR TRUMP AND TO SECURE ABORTION RIGHTS ALL OVER THE PLACE!!)
Post by: MakeItRain on November 08, 2024, 11:57:28 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on November 08, 2024, 12:01:02 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 12:08:54 PM
Every large societal shift left in the history of this country has come from labor. We seem to be in another labor shift towards the worker or on the precipice of one, but the Dems let maga just take populism in the quest to appeal to suburban white women.
Biden was able to do a little Scranton magic in an extremely unfavorable COVID election against Trump but this is now a lost generation that was explicitly rejected when Obama picked up the phone before South Carolina got all the moderates to drop out, endorse Biden and get the entire DNC threw their support behind him while also Liz Warren stayed in so she could come in 3rd in her home state and split the left everywhere.
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Chuck Schumer, 2016.
This is going to haunt the dems for a long time.
Post by: wetwillie on November 08, 2024, 12:22:05 PM
I'm curious where dems are pointing their fingers. I also am sad sys left here because now I have to try to read his twitter feed.
What is the theory?
Wait, what do you mean Sys left?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2024, 12:45:42 PM
I heard a stat that said there have been 13 recessions in American history, 11 of those have been while a Republican was the president. How are Democrats so rough ridin' horrible with messaging?
Some of those recessions were driven by 1: The absolute crap policies of the previous Dem regime 2. In one if not several cases the recession was so shallow and so short lived it was barely noticeable
Viewers of this blog are reminded that we've had at least one if not two periods under the current Harris-Biden regime that fit every definition of a recession, but now we have to deal with the "we'll know a recession when we see it" #blueanon leaning experts. Had George HW Bush had the same mindset on his side, he would have won re-election in 1992.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 08, 2024, 12:50:29 PM
Democrats can’t do that because they really really want the traditional media to stick around because they love what it stands for and it’s more important to toil in futile for the perfect than it is to be realistic and settle for the very good.
Lord this is so goddamn true for far too many left leaning voters. If the candidate isn't perfect it isn't worth voting for. Like seeing (somewhat joking) people voting for Jill Stein (not that it mattered that much in this one) than being able to bring themselves to vote for Harris cause of Israel connotations or whatever. Like, too many people on the left tend to be unable to bring themselves to overcome imperfections in a candidate or position cause they can't agree with it enough. A very throw the baby out with the bath water in the voting part (the baby being a candidate they mostly agree with and the water being the crap they don't like about them). The right seems to be like as long as I get X out this guy I'm all in, even if there are things they don't agree with or don't like. For them they are willing to throw the baby (social services, economy, etc) also out with the bathwater (things they don't like about the candidate), but as long as their person is there to do it. Dems have to appeal more to those who they can reliably get a vote from, not one they have to jump through 100 hoops to get their vote.
Yep, I honestly don't see how they fix this. The right elected a draft dodging, convicted felon, convicted sexual assaulter, non church goer not once, but twice!!! All those things are about as "not conservative" as you get. They will vote lock and step almost regardless. Dems have to fight being too progressive, not being progressive enough, having a weird laugh, etc. to get voters. Like, can you imagine if a Dem candidate pretended to blow a microphone at a rally!!!
Absolutely, all that is true, but clearly it doesn't matter that much, so maybe next time try to not do that? Can't be worse than where they already are at. I think it's all about worrying too much about that infighting, instead of just letting someone just do the fighting. Like the dems are kind of the classic case of Dunning-Kruger to themselves
Post by: cfbandyman on November 08, 2024, 12:58:01 PM
I think Biden deserved a ton of blame and Kamala could not overcome how unpopular and bad his presidency was and her association with it and inability to offer clear differences was I think issue number 1. The campaign completely misunderstood that she could not simply run on the record, nor simply run against Trump's first presidency.
makes me think of Bernie
Right wingers didn't like Bernie but his clarity of message and no apologies principled stands are FAR more respected, EVEN WHEN PEOPLE DISAGREE. Bernie isn't wishy washy on policy or values. (Joe Rogan endorsed him and Bernie did much better with white men, young people in 2016 and 2020)
If you are defend the campaign, the candidate, the previous admin, and put the blame on groups like Arabs, trans people, Gaza protestors etc. the burden of proof is on you. The pros got to run the campaign they wanted and they were as in control of a campaign as any in memory. Hard to believe it still needs to be said, but blaming voters is not a winning strategy in a democracy. I see a lot of it.
My big points below all come back to not enough "clash" between the positions of Trump and Kamala on policy (in addition to basically no difference with Biden) AND the rhetoric was incoherent. The dems ran a right wing campaign with Liz Cheney as the closing message to Republicans. How did that work out?
On immigration (we tried to pass a tough immigration plan and Trump stopped it!)
on democracy (Trump is a fascist and danger!) This was a completely ineffective pointQuoteBut Trump voters made up a greater share of those who described American democracy as "somewhat threatened," 50 percent, or "very threatened," 51 percent, CNN's exit polls show. Comparably, Harris voters accounted for 49 percent of those who said democracy in the U.S. is "somewhat threatened," and 47 percent said "very threatened."https://www.newsweek.com/liberals-misunderstood-voter-concerns-democracy-1981664 (https://www.newsweek.com/liberals-misunderstood-voter-concerns-democracy-1981664)
on Israel (all of the warnings and red lines and Netanyahu completely ignoring/insulting Biden as he backed down or was totally absent, both sides looked to Trump as the change candidate on this!)
Here is Kamala's economic plan as pitched to black men (which were not the problem despite tons of attention about it), the problem to me is--
On economic issues focusing on what divides rather than universal programs. Obviously, you can't really have federal programs that give special handouts to only black men, but look at the weird phrasing (see below)QuoteDrawing on insights from her experience throughout her career and her Economic Opportunity
Tour, today Vice President Harris is laying out an Opportunity Agenda for Black Men to provide
them with the tools to achieve financial freedom, lower costs to better provide for themselves
and their families, and protect their rights. This pathbreaking agenda includes:
(1) Providing 1 million loans that are fully forgivable to Black entrepreneurs and others to
start a business.
(2) Championing education, training, and mentorship programs that help Black men get
good-paying jobs in high-demand industries and lead their communities, including
pathways to become teachers.
(3) Supporting a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and other digital assets so Black
men who invest in and own these assets are protected.
(4) Launching a National Health Equity Initiative focused on Black Men that addresses
sickle cell disease, diabetes, mental health, prostate cancer, and other health challenges
that disproportionately impact them.
(5) Legalizing recreational marijuana and creating opportunities for Black Americans to
succeed in this new industry.
The biggest one....
Abortion/Dobbs (why was this not the centerpiece of the campaign???? THE ISSUE OUTRAN KAMALA ALL OVER THE PLACE! PEOPLE REALLY VOTED FOR TRUMP AND TO SECURE ABORTION RIGHTS ALL OVER THE PLACE!!)
For the first part like I agree with that, I think my blame is not on those people voting or not voting, but more why are you wasting your time trying to court them. My blame is more on going after them or relying on them to be the ones to do it. They are fickle AF.
For the second bold, that is where my reasoning of economics had to be key comes from. Individual issues like that you came almost certain get people to vote for it, it was proven in KS it's a winning issue. But, it's also not an all consuming issue. It affects half the population and even half of those it's in shades of grey. Bodily freedom is important but it clearly isn't enough to cause people to not split their votes. It's important, but not that important.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 08, 2024, 12:59:48 PM
I heard a stat that said there have been 13 recessions in American history, 11 of those have been while a Republican was the president. How are Democrats so rough ridin' horrible with messaging?
Some of those recessions were driven by 1: The absolute crap policies of the previous Dem regime 2. In one if not several cases the recession was so shallow and so short lived it was barely noticeable
Viewers of this blog are reminded that we've had at least one if not two periods under the current Harris-Biden regime that fit every definition of a recession, but now we have to deal with the "we'll know a recession when we see it" #blueanon leaning experts. Had George HW Bush had the same mindset on his side, he would have won re-election in 1992.
Yeah let's just ignore Ross Perot in all of it.
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 01:13:30 PM
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 08, 2024, 01:18:00 PM
I don’t know if this is pertinent to this thread, but in 2008 Barack Obama ran as a moderate who opposed same-sex marriage (but not civil unions).
Obama was basically slightly left leaning republican. MAGA republicans think he was a socialist. Back to being able to control the narrative.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 01:19:38 PM
I don’t know if this is pertinent to this thread, but in 2008 Barack Obama ran as a moderate who opposed same-sex marriage (but not civil unions).
Yeah, Kamala also ran on keeping status quo on issues like that. Even on abortion, they only ran on restoring Roe v Wade, not anything more extreme.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 08, 2024, 01:19:48 PM
I don’t know if this is pertinent to this thread, but in 2008 Barack Obama ran as a moderate who opposed same-sex marriage (but not civil unions).
Obama was basically slightly left leaning republican. MAGA republicans think he was a socialist. Back to being able to control the narrative.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Relative to #neoconism . . . that is party/politically agnostic
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 01:47:05 PM
I'm curious where dems are pointing their fingers. I also am sad sys left here because now I have to try to read his twitter feed.
What is the theory?
Wait, what do you mean Sys left?
Well, he hardly posts here anymore.
Post by: wetwillie on November 08, 2024, 02:00:47 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 02:04:19 PM
I don’t know if this is pertinent to this thread, but in 2008 Barack Obama ran as a moderate who opposed same-sex marriage (but not civil unions).
In 2004 Republicans pushed through constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage in a bunch of states as part of Rove's winning strategy to re-elect Bush. In 2008 Obama lied through his teeth that he was only in favor of civil unions when most dems wowasn't some sort of bi-partisan compromise position. In 1996 Obama had filled out a candidate questionnaire in favor of same-sex marriage. Look at the polling. Obgerfell was in 2015 and the Supreme Court ruled in favor and legalized it.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20there%20has%20been%20a%20gradual%20increase%20in,2001%20to%2033%25%20in%202024. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx#:~:text=Over%20the%20years%2C%20there%20has%20been%20a%20gradual%20increase%20in,2001%20to%2033%25%20in%202024.)
Obviously this court isn't going to do any favors like that and if it was a legislative or constitutional amendment issue it was never going to happen because our default setting is total gridlock.
So what do we learn from this? I'm not sure what the lesson is exactly but those are the facts.
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2024, 02:07:21 PM
Post by: chum1 on November 08, 2024, 02:08:39 PM
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 02:12:01 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
:lol: … but you may be right, and maybe part of the reason they trotted Harris out there to lose and probably now fade into Bolivian.
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 02:16:55 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
In a democracy do voters owe politicians or do politicians owe voters? The politician is supposed to be the vox populi! They are our representatives! If they don't get the job, they failed. Not the electorate. It is precisely backwards in terms of responsibility!
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 02:17:39 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
:lol: … but you may be right, and maybe part of the reason they trotted Harris out there to lose and probably now fade into Bolivian.
:lol:
Post by: cfbandyman on November 08, 2024, 02:21:45 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
:lol: … but you may be right, and maybe part of the reason they trotted Harris out there to lose and probably now fade into Bolivian.
:lol:
Holy crap that's awesome :lol:
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 02:22:19 PM
Post by: chum1 on November 08, 2024, 02:39:55 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
In a democracy do voters owe politicians or do politicians owe voters? The politician is supposed to be the vox populi! They are our representatives! If they don't get the job, they failed. Not the electorate. It is precisely backwards in terms of responsibility!
I read "dems" as inclusive of the voters.
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 02:43:56 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
:lol: … but you may be right, and maybe part of the reason they trotted Harris out there to lose and probably now fade into Bolivian.
:lol:
Holy crap that's awesome :lol:
;)
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 02:46:21 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
In a democracy do voters owe politicians or do politicians owe voters? The politician is supposed to be the vox populi! They are our representatives! If they don't get the job, they failed. Not the electorate. It is precisely backwards in terms of responsibility!
Servus publicas
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2024, 02:48:29 PM
Post by: Trim on November 08, 2024, 03:05:41 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 03:08:03 PM
Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
Post by: Justwin on November 08, 2024, 03:38:11 PM
Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
I don't know it was anything particular this campaign, but the Democratic party is definitely viewed as being aligned with DEI and LGBTQ+.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 03:39:37 PM
They should blame the human nature of the voters. In hindsight, there's basically nothing they could have done to win.
In a democracy do voters owe politicians or do politicians owe voters? The politician is supposed to be the vox populi! They are our representatives! If they don't get the job, they failed. Not the electorate. It is precisely backwards in terms of responsibility!
It's the voters' fault.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 03:40:26 PM
Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
They failed to appoint any justices that might end gay marriage when they had the presidency.
Post by: Justwin on November 08, 2024, 03:40:30 PM
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
In my opinion, it still sums up the problems with liberals and the Democratic party.
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 04:06:21 PM
This article was published on April 21, 2016 (6-7 months before Hillary lost to Trump).
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
In my opinion, it still sums up the problems with liberals and the Democratic party.
This was not a criticism of Bernie.
Post by: Cire on November 08, 2024, 04:13:35 PM
Sorry, not that they ran on it, but they certainly had no answer to trump’s campaign.Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
I believe the White working class voted for Joe and wouldn’t vote for Kamala because they bought a load of crap and the Dems had no answer.
So I guess messaging is the culprit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: mocat on November 08, 2024, 04:43:04 PM
This article was published on April 21, 2016 (6-7 months before Hillary lost to Trump).
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
In my opinion, it still sums up the problems with liberals and the Democratic party.
If dems weren't so smug I wouldn't be forced to vote for this idiotic fascist felon!
Post by: hjfklmor on November 08, 2024, 04:48:11 PM
Sorry, not that they ran on it, but they certainly had no answer to trump’s campaign.Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
I believe the White working class voted for Joe and wouldn’t vote for Kamala because they bought a load of crap and the Dems had no answer.
So I guess messaging is the culprit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What is the answer? Inflation has gone back to typical levels, real wage growth is doing great, low unemployment, Biden practically did whatever the unions wanted. Voters didn't care. Groceries ain't coming back down in price, that's not how it works, and we managed inflation better than almost every other country. The American Rescue Plan is doing a lot of good in Republican areas. Good that Republicans are now starting to take credit for.
I guess it's messaging as well, unless there is something else the white working class wants. I agree with cfbandyman that the Dems insist on perfect being the enemy of good.
Post by: michigancat on November 08, 2024, 04:49:14 PM
Sorry, not that they ran on it, but they certainly had no answer to trump’s campaign.Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
I believe the White working class voted for Joe and wouldn’t vote for Kamala because they bought a load of crap and the Dems had no answer.
So I guess messaging is the culprit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I'd agree with that. They didn't even attempt to defend our even address an LGBT-friendly position that I'm aware of, which ceded the entire narrative to Trump. And he's probably as good as it gets at messaging stuff like that.
Oddly enough I felt like the border stuff toned down after Springfield because Dems stood up for those communities. They certainly didn't win on that issue but it probably could have been worse. I saw eat more trans ads from Trump than border ads at the end of the campaign.
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 04:50:28 PM
(https://i.redd.it/m3dmoa22nk5c1.jpeg)
Post by: star seed 7 on November 08, 2024, 05:04:43 PM
I do think there is something to that smug article though. I know a sad amount of people that vote that way. the "you think you're better than me?" vote.
(https://i.redd.it/m3dmoa22nk5c1.jpeg)
The irony in this is of course is that not only does Trump think he's better than everyone he's also not shy to tell everyone he's better than them. It's actually a huge part of his appeal to the "you think you're better than me?" voter
Post by: Cire on November 08, 2024, 05:11:30 PM
Agree with all that and I only saw anti trans ads in kc as well.Sorry, not that they ran on it, but they certainly had no answer to trump’s campaign.Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
I believe the White working class voted for Joe and wouldn’t vote for Kamala because they bought a load of crap and the Dems had no answer.
So I guess messaging is the culprit?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I'd agree with that. They didn't even attempt to defend our even address an LGBT-friendly position that I'm aware of, which ceded the entire narrative to Trump. And he's probably as good as it gets at messaging stuff like that.
Oddly enough I felt like the border stuff toned down after Springfield because Dems stood up for those communities. They certainly didn't win on that issue but it probably could have been worse. I saw eat more trans ads from Trump than border ads at the end of the campaign.
Hell, our board has a broad spectrum and we lost a prominent Biden voter who was losing his mind about trans community
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on November 08, 2024, 05:13:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 05:26:51 PM
Post by: Cire on November 08, 2024, 05:36:30 PM
You guys should introspectively read a book called The Vision of the Anointed.Thanks Clarence Thomas
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 05:38:20 PM
You guys should introspectively read a book called The Vision of the Anointed.Very smug comment. Sickening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 08, 2024, 05:46:36 PM
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 05:53:52 PM
You guys should introspectively read a book called The Vision of the Anointed.Very smug comment. Sickening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some should read introspectively. Some normally.
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 05:55:48 PM
SICKENING!You guys should introspectively read a book called The Vision of the Anointed.Very smug comment. Sickening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some should read introspectively. Some normally.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on November 08, 2024, 06:23:27 PM
You guys should introspectively read a book called The Vision of the Anointed.Very smug comment. Sickening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can you believe this guy?
Post by: Cire on November 08, 2024, 06:29:12 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 06:41:26 PM
nic could read the Bible and post attention to whom Jesus recruited to the squad
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:dubious:
Post by: nicname on November 08, 2024, 06:48:27 PM
nic could read the Bible and post attention to whom Jesus recruited to the squad
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:dubious:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4v64cpI5qHfBRXgXuBgDOg?si=S6ZYMxhyRHGtTCx3uIQHKw
Since we’re getting into religion everything in linked discussion could apply to MAGAs as well, and since we’re getting into religion I will say that there is a very real presence of hate amongst many MAGAs (religious or not) and many who purport to be Christians, particularly fundamentalist types, as well as many terminally online Trad Cath and Orthobro LARPers.
Post by: MakeItRain on November 08, 2024, 06:58:20 PM
I heard a stat that said there have been 13 recessions in American history, 11 of those have been while a Republican was the president. How are Democrats so rough ridin' horrible with messaging?
Some of those recessions were driven by 1: The absolute crap policies of the previous Dem regime 2. In one if not several cases the recession was so shallow and so short lived it was barely noticeable
Viewers of this blog are reminded that we've had at least one if not two periods under the current Harris-Biden regime that fit every definition of a recession, but now we have to deal with the "we'll know a recession when we see it" #blueanon leaning experts. Had George HW Bush had the same mindset on his side, he would have won re-election in 1992.
Who is to blame isn't the issue here, it's that democrats suck terribly at messaging so they have an entire country believing they are better for the economy when the fact is presidential policy has eff all to do with the economy
Post by: Cire on November 08, 2024, 07:41:01 PM
Welp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kat Kid on November 08, 2024, 08:45:14 PM
Post by: steve dave on November 08, 2024, 08:46:20 PM
David Shor had $700 million to spend against Trump. Maybe popularism is to blame?
maybe make other things popular? (eat my ass sys)
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 08, 2024, 11:37:48 PM
Donald Trump
Post by: 114Hickory on November 09, 2024, 07:47:10 AM
Another issue, I believe, is that we are living in an era of story and "relationship." Republicans seem to have better stories, true or not, than democrats. They also have a single person, with whom people can allegedly relate, manifesting what they seem to value. That's relationship. Democrats present as unrelatable in many ways and there is no single person in whom people can invest. I'm not saying this is healthy or right. There is nothing genuine in the "relationship" the republican party offers and I think the faux connection will hurt the party in the long run. But they sell this well, and I assume, very intentionally. Democrats can learn something from this. I would just hope that if they do, it's actually something real that they offer and not just a marketing strategy.
In addition, the republican party wears being common and ordinary as a badge. That resonates with ordinary people of all backgrounds and since nearly everyone is ordinary, it's a big deal. The democrats seem to be in a detached circlejerk reveling in their superior intelligence and knowledge of all things. It's even shown up in this thread. I'm not unintelligent, having earned a terminal degree (which I think is really as much about opportunity and persistence as intelligence) but I'm not an expert in everything. I'm not a climate scientist. I'm not an economist. I'm not an expert in geopolitics. I can research those topics and I do. I believe I have informed opinions on them. But, expecting everyone to study everything is unreasonable. If I was doing any work with either party, I'd encourage them to provide some scaffolding for ordinary people, like me, to understand these concepts in such a way as they can make an informed decision. Assuming people are not intelligent enough to understand these things is inaccurate, condescending, and an ineffective political posture to take.
Also, the appeal that both major parties make to outliers is frustrating and a terrible way to write policy. "Border-crossers" killing suburban, white women is an outlier. 12 year-olds having abortions is an outlier. That messaging seems to work with the already decided but it's abhorrent to me. It's the opposite of addressing the "middle." What is normative? What can we do to make things better for everyone, as much as that's possible? There is little appeal to that made by either side.
The fact that the people have ceded power to the two major candidates who ran for president is discouraging. It's embarrassing to me that these were our options.
Finally, I have zero belief that anyone at the higher levels of politics has any interest at all in the well-being and opportunities of people in this country. My bias is that they are all about themselves, power acquisition, and generating perpetually increasing financial resources. Maybe I'm a cynic. But I will own that. I'm the voter many people hate. I couldn't vote for either with any integrity. That's just me though. I don't question the integrity or rationale of anyone else's voting decisions.
Real change happens at the grassroots level. I don't hope for and wait for policy changes made by unaffected politicians. I just do my work and place my hope in having a positive impact on the people and communities with whom I engage.
Post by: wetwillie on November 09, 2024, 07:49:47 AM
Post by: Spracne on November 09, 2024, 07:56:14 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 09, 2024, 08:02:08 AM
Dems aligning with LGBTQ+ movement cost them white working class and latino males.
I'm sorry but what did they do to align with LGBTQ in this campaign?
eh, the campaign, not much I guess. But the average voter see Harris through the lens of the Biden presidency. So having Rachel Lavine as health whatever, having Dylan Mulvaney come in for interviews, having a pride day go really poorly at the white house, it's low hanging fruit as a campaign strategy for Trump campaign.
Post by: Kat Kid on November 09, 2024, 08:20:32 AM
Quote from: Spracne link=topic=[emoji[emoji[emoji638
I thought it was a nice post too.[emoji[emoji6
]
[emoji6
]][emoji
Did read.
I think at the core, the dems don’t really offer much to people and don’t have clear convictions that they are willing to stand behind.
The Republicans were successful “your life feels uncertain and you are worried these are the reasons why and we will fight them for you.”
They knew who their enemies were, they told you who to blame for the problems and they made their case.
The dems said Trump was the enemy and we should be scared of him but then they made their campaign pitch to “Nikki Haley voters” and tried to blur the differences between themselves and Trump on immigration.
Trump says “immigrants are raping and killing our women and destroying our country, they are bringing in drugs and ruining our economy. I’m going to be deporting them, we’re rounding them up and getting them out of here!”
Dems said “we tried to pass an immigration bill but Trump didn’t want to!”
Again, Biden will go down as an F tier president so maybe Kamala was doomed by him anyway, u will listen to that. But the dems ran a dogshit campaign.
Post by: chum1 on November 09, 2024, 10:04:12 AM
We've had three elections now in which people have clearly said that they're super into this stuff. They just don't seem very persuadable to me.
Post by: Kat Kid on November 09, 2024, 11:42:06 AM
-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
Trump is not afraid of naming enemies and saying who is to blame for why YOUR life is bad. He isn’t afraid of getting yelled at, when Trump gets attacked it just becomes self-reinforcing that people are trying to stop him from fighting for you. It is the same move that Bernie did, it is very different in tone from what Obama did but the same basic premise that there was this group of politicians in Washington that were trying to privatize social security, that they wanted to continue to deny people health care because of pre existing conditions and that he was willing to fight for you to get it.
Go ahead and let me in on how Kamala made that case. She had some momentum after Biden bowed out, she had some momentum from the debate then she went on the view and said she said she couldn’t name anything different she would do differently from Biden and didn’t make a case.
What was the policy? Who was she going to fight? “we won’t go back” is only half the message.
Post by: Spracne on November 09, 2024, 12:02:25 PM
(https://www.wavingthewheat.org/filedata/fetch?id=580416&d=1731128145)
Post by: michigancat on November 09, 2024, 12:16:02 PM
Love how Trump gets away with literally anything and KK is over here dissecting the body and pointing to one question in a daytime interview 6 weeks ago as the cause of Kamala's death. Sorry, Kat Komrade, but I think people are just really dumb and/or don't pay much attention (in addition to whatever -isms you like).
(https://www.wavingthewheat.org/filedata/fetch?id=580416&d=1731128145)
Trump at least makes people believe he has a point of view and a plan. That matters.
Post by: Spracne on November 09, 2024, 12:19:55 PM
Post by: steve dave on November 09, 2024, 12:26:34 PM
Post by: Spracne on November 09, 2024, 12:54:32 PM
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 09, 2024, 01:01:28 PM
Post by: Cire on November 09, 2024, 01:08:43 PM
How do you fix this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on November 09, 2024, 01:27:09 PM
I fully believe the main difference in messaging involves the "We see you" republican approach compared to the "We see us" democratic approach. I have no illusion that Trump or the republican party see anyone in any real way but they do a great job of communicating that they do. Kamala Harris and the democrats made no discernable effort to connect with everyman.
Another issue, I believe, is that we are living in an era of story and "relationship." Republicans seem to have better stories, true or not, than democrats. They also have a single person, with whom people can allegedly relate, manifesting what they seem to value. That's relationship. Democrats present as unrelatable in many ways and there is no single person in whom people can invest. I'm not saying this is healthy or right. There is nothing genuine in the "relationship" the republican party offers and I think the faux connection will hurt the party in the long run. But they sell this well, and I assume, very intentionally. Democrats can learn something from this. I would just hope that if they do, it's actually something real that they offer and not just a marketing strategy.
In addition, the republican party wears being common and ordinary as a badge. That resonates with ordinary people of all backgrounds and since nearly everyone is ordinary, it's a big deal. The democrats seem to be in a detached circlejerk reveling in their superior intelligence and knowledge of all things. It's even shown up in this thread. I'm not unintelligent, having earned a terminal degree (which I think is really as much about opportunity and persistence as intelligence) but I'm not an expert in everything. I'm not a climate scientist. I'm not an economist. I'm not an expert in geopolitics. I can research those topics and I do. I believe I have informed opinions on them. But, expecting everyone to study everything is unreasonable. If I was doing any work with either party, I'd encourage them to provide some scaffolding for ordinary people, like me, to understand these concepts in such a way as they can make an informed decision. Assuming people are not intelligent enough to understand these things is inaccurate, condescending, and an ineffective political posture to take.
Also, the appeal that both major parties make to outliers is frustrating and a terrible way to write policy. "Border-crossers" killing suburban, white women is an outlier. 12 year-olds having abortions is an outlier. That messaging seems to work with the already decided but it's abhorrent to me. It's the opposite of addressing the "middle." What is normative? What can we do to make things better for everyone, as much as that's possible? There is little appeal to that made by either side.
The fact that the people have ceded power to the two major candidates who ran for president is discouraging. It's embarrassing to me that these were our options.
Finally, I have zero belief that anyone at the higher levels of politics has any interest at all in the well-being and opportunities of people in this country. My bias is that they are all about themselves, power acquisition, and generating perpetually increasing financial resources. Maybe I'm a cynic. But I will own that. I'm the voter many people hate. I couldn't vote for either with any integrity. That's just me though. I don't question the integrity or rationale of anyone else's voting decisions.
Real change happens at the grassroots level. I don't hope for and wait for policy changes made by unaffected politicians. I just do my work and place my hope in having a positive impact on the people and communities with whom I engage.
TL;DR = the normals won
https://x.com/OldRowSwig/status/1854688446507295120
Post by: Spracne on November 09, 2024, 01:36:10 PM
Post by: DQ12 on November 09, 2024, 01:50:59 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gb9g5NHbUAAxoLd?format=jpg&name=900x900):lol:
Love the skinner meme
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 09, 2024, 05:54:58 PM
What did they win?
A future away from mom and dad after graduation.
Post by: Pete on November 09, 2024, 06:07:51 PM
Post by: schreds21 on November 09, 2024, 08:08:11 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on November 09, 2024, 08:15:21 PM
It’s the 80’s again
If you look at covid as the 70's then it makes sense
Post by: chum1 on November 10, 2024, 07:35:33 AM
Let’s accept your premise that the country too racist or sexist to elect Kamala
People didn't vote for Trump over her because of her race or sex. They voted for the person they thought was the best vehicle for white, Christian nationalism.
-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
To me, your question is ultimately like: why didn't the Dems fight white, Christian nationalism by nominating a white, Christian nationalist of their own?
-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
The only big gains from any group that I'm aware of were with Latino voters. But I would say nearly all groups of Trump voters unwittingly voted against their own self interests.
Post by: michigancat on November 10, 2024, 07:42:38 AM
Let’s accept your premise that the country too racist or sexist to elect Kamala
People didn't vote for Trump over her because of her race or sex. They voted for the person they thought was the best vehicle for white, Christian nationalism.-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
To me, your question is ultimately like: why didn't the Dems fight white, Christian nationalism by nominating a white, Christian nationalist of their own?-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
The only big gains from any group that I'm aware of were with Latino voters. But I would say nearly all groups of Trump voters unwittingly voted against their own self interests.
He definitely made similar gains with black voters and younger voters, at least compared to 2020. The Latino shift just started earlier so they have shifted way more than any group since 2016
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 11, 2024, 12:00:30 AM
DOJ, NYC DA, GA AG.
Post by: 114Hickory on November 11, 2024, 12:16:28 PM
https://jacobin.com/2024/11/election-harris-trump-democrats-strategy (https://jacobin.com/2024/11/election-harris-trump-democrats-strategy)
Post by: Kat Kid on November 11, 2024, 12:23:11 PM
Let’s accept your premise that the country too racist or sexist to elect Kamala
People didn't vote for Trump over her because of her race or sex. They voted for the person they thought was the best vehicle for white, Christian nationalism.-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
To me, your question is ultimately like: why didn't the Dems fight white, Christian nationalism by nominating a white, Christian nationalist of their own?-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
The only big gains from any group that I'm aware of were with Latino voters. But I would say nearly all groups of Trump voters unwittingly voted against their own self interests.
Maybe having Liz Cheney barnstorming with Kamala was the attempt to fight white Christian nationalism with white Christian nationalism?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on November 11, 2024, 02:44:29 PM
Let’s accept your premise that the country too racist or sexist to elect Kamala
People didn't vote for Trump over her because of her race or sex. They voted for the person they thought was the best vehicle for white, Christian nationalism.-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
To me, your question is ultimately like: why didn't the Dems fight white, Christian nationalism by nominating a white, Christian nationalist of their own?-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
The only big gains from any group that I'm aware of were with Latino voters. But I would say nearly all groups of Trump voters unwittingly voted against their own self interests.
Say more
Post by: Kat Kid on November 11, 2024, 03:38:49 PM
Post by: chum1 on November 11, 2024, 04:16:10 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on November 12, 2024, 07:20:04 AM
NHVlNnZj
Post by: michigancat on November 12, 2024, 07:26:05 AM
https://www.instagram.com/p/DCQRTvPuhtP/?igsh=MmV1bnA
was that true? I don't fully care but still
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1856304442280178000
Post by: michigancat on November 12, 2024, 07:27:05 AM
https://x.com/aaronnarraph/status/1855962504712552829
Post by: CNS on November 12, 2024, 07:30:12 AM
Post by: Kat Kid on November 12, 2024, 08:27:06 AM
Quote
"The incumbents in every single one of the 10 major countries that have been tracked by the ParlGov global research project and held national elections in 2024 were given a kicking by voters. This is the first time this has ever happened in almost 120 years of records."Tthere are some broad trends that incumbency and being establishment is much more difficult these days.
If you look at what happened to Labour, I don't think all of the "woke" or "Biden" stuff applies, but Keir Starmer rode in on an enormous wave election and then his popularity plummeted.
Whomever is in power becomes the owner of the problems of society, but there is never a mandate to really change anything that will disrupt what is making people unhappy and so the cycle continues.
Post by: Kat Kid on November 12, 2024, 09:12:53 AM
This is such a perfect encapsulation of how the dems tried to talk to people about immigration.
Quote
Paul Krugman / New York Times:
Why Trump's Deportations Will Drive Up Your Grocery Bill
Post by: MakeItRain on November 13, 2024, 05:13:23 PM
Kamala is not good at campaigning and was accepted simply because the democrat leadership was afraid of the backlash if they chose someone else. Dems have a bad habit of painting themselves into corners with their fake outrage.
lol, she was fine at campaigning. There would not have been another Democrat who would have been better. She lost to a dude who committed every conventional sin known to God and man while on the trail. She lost to a guy who, multiple times the last week of the campaign, mimicked giving microphones blow jobs. He went to the largest city in a swing state and told them how shitty their city is.
People using the explanation that she was a bad campaigner to explain how she lost to Donald rough ridin' Trump, are the same ones who talked about how a former District Attorney, US Senator, and Vice President wasn't qualified to be president while voting for Donald rough ridin' Trump. The reasoning of these two particular critiques are transparent A.F.
Post by: MakeItRain on November 13, 2024, 05:14:32 PM
https://twitter.com/davidjharrisjr/status/1855037593689428341?s=46&t=qihx_M5rao00w7e29gt7Rw
How do you fix this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ban white women
Post by: MakeItRain on November 13, 2024, 05:23:45 PM
Let’s accept your premise that the country too racist or sexist to elect Kamala
People didn't vote for Trump over her because of her race or sex. They voted for the person they thought was the best vehicle for white, Christian nationalism.-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
To me, your question is ultimately like: why didn't the Dems fight white, Christian nationalism by nominating a white, Christian nationalist of their own?-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
The only big gains from any group that I'm aware of were with Latino voters. But I would say nearly all groups of Trump voters unwittingly voted against their own self interests.
He definitely made similar gains with black voters and younger voters, at least compared to 2020. The Latino shift just started earlier so they have shifted way more than any group since 2016
Stop trying to blame us. Black men literally shifted 1 percent from 2020 to 2024 to trump and black people overall shifted exactly 0%. The only real demographic shift trump was from hispanic men and women and trump showed his thanks by immediately appointing a man making the media rounds by saying he's going to attempt to deport legal citizens. Celebrate good times, come on!
https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turnout-election-demographics-trump-harris/3762138/
Post by: I_have_purplewood on November 13, 2024, 05:59:05 PM
Kamala is not good at campaigning and was accepted simply because the democrat leadership was afraid of the backlash if they chose someone else. Dems have a bad habit of painting themselves into corners with their fake outrage.
lol, she was fine at campaigning. There would not have been another Democrat who would have been better. She lost to a dude who committed every conventional sin known to God and man while on the trail. She lost to a guy who, multiple times the last week of the campaign, mimicked giving microphones blow jobs. He went to the largest city in a swing state and told them how shitty their city is.
People using the explanation that she was a bad campaigner to explain how she lost to Donald rough ridin' Trump, are the same ones who talked about how a former District Attorney, US Senator, and Vice President wasn't qualified to be president while voting for Donald rough ridin' Trump. The reasoning of these two particular critiques are transparent A.F.
I get incredibly tired of people talking about how they can't believe anyone would vote for such scum. Trump is absolutely a piece of crap but Kamala is no saint. Didn't she commit adultery earlier in her career? I think I remember from ccd class that's a top ten'r. I also recall her not being pleasant to work with?
https://nypost.com/2022/02/04/kamala-harris-speechwriter-joins-list-of-resigning-staffers/ (https://nypost.com/2022/02/04/kamala-harris-speechwriter-joins-list-of-resigning-staffers/)
So can we stop the sanctimonious bullshit? Is Trump worse? He is but we all have our sins. People overlooked his sins because she didn't have any substance on anything. I didn't think she was bad at campaigning but everything was scripted for her. Everyone knows this. Most of her interviews lobbed soft balls at her for fucks sake.
I can't remember how I came across this but I found it pretty interesting:
"You conspired to block Bernie (Sanders in past primaries). You discarded and defamed Tulsi Gabbard," Negreanu wrote." You didn’t invite Elon Musk to a summit on electric vehicles? You blocked Robbert Kennedy Jr. and others from having any path to make their cause in a primary. You embraced wokeism and identity politics, demonizing the evil, white cisgender male population, extra scorn for those who have attained financial wealth."
"You further insult them by telling them that they didn’t vote for Kamala because they are racist and misogynist," he wrote. "You then anointed the most unpopular VP of all time and tried to gaslight us into thinking she is the next coming because Meg Stallion shook her a-- on stage to get the vote out because…. ‘Joy.’
I don't agree with all of that but some of it definitely resonates with me. Same with what ol' Bernie said about the dems. And to blame white women? lol
Post by: wetwillie on November 13, 2024, 06:06:48 PM
Post by: I_have_purplewood on November 13, 2024, 06:46:46 PM
It's not that serious bro
Says the person who will probably play a huge roll in the upcoming insurrection. Just my :th_twocents: (ftp://:th_twocents:)...bro
Post by: wetwillie on November 13, 2024, 06:47:42 PM
Post by: nicname on November 13, 2024, 07:18:33 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on November 13, 2024, 07:18:53 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on November 13, 2024, 07:19:05 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nicname on November 13, 2024, 07:19:25 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Pete on November 13, 2024, 07:21:50 PM
Post by: michigancat on November 13, 2024, 07:45:52 PM
I wasn't blaming anyone but Dems, but those exit polls are different from what I was seeing shortly after the election.Let’s accept your premise that the country too racist or sexist to elect Kamala
People didn't vote for Trump over her because of her race or sex. They voted for the person they thought was the best vehicle for white, Christian nationalism.-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
To me, your question is ultimately like: why didn't the Dems fight white, Christian nationalism by nominating a white, Christian nationalist of their own?-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
The only big gains from any group that I'm aware of were with Latino voters. But I would say nearly all groups of Trump voters unwittingly voted against their own self interests.
He definitely made similar gains with black voters and younger voters, at least compared to 2020. The Latino shift just started earlier so they have shifted way more than any group since 2016
Stop trying to blame us. Black men literally shifted 1 percent from 2020 to 2024 to trump and black people overall shifted exactly 0%. The only real demographic shift trump was from hispanic men and women and trump showed his thanks by immediately appointing a man making the media rounds by saying he's going to attempt to deport legal citizens. Celebrate good times, come on!
https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turnout-election-demographics-trump-harris/3762138/
Like where in earth did this come from?
https://x.com/MatthewFoldi/status/1856348668736991301
Post by: I_have_purplewood on November 13, 2024, 07:58:47 PM
Lmao wut
Oh crap, I thought I was replying to SS7.
Post by: MakeItRain on November 13, 2024, 09:17:37 PM
Kamala is not good at campaigning and was accepted simply because the democrat leadership was afraid of the backlash if they chose someone else. Dems have a bad habit of painting themselves into corners with their fake outrage.
lol, she was fine at campaigning. There would not have been another Democrat who would have been better. She lost to a dude who committed every conventional sin known to God and man while on the trail. She lost to a guy who, multiple times the last week of the campaign, mimicked giving microphones blow jobs. He went to the largest city in a swing state and told them how shitty their city is.
People using the explanation that she was a bad campaigner to explain how she lost to Donald rough ridin' Trump, are the same ones who talked about how a former District Attorney, US Senator, and Vice President wasn't qualified to be president while voting for Donald rough ridin' Trump. The reasoning of these two particular critiques are transparent A.F.
Didn't she commit adultery earlier in her career?
Bruh
I didn't think she was bad at campaigning
Glad we agree, I don't know what any of that other stuff is all about, I didn't speak about any of it.
Post by: MakeItRain on November 13, 2024, 09:25:49 PM
I wasn't blaming anyone but Dems, but those exit polls are different from what I was seeing shortly after the election.Let’s accept your premise that the country too racist or sexist to elect Kamala
People didn't vote for Trump over her because of her race or sex. They voted for the person they thought was the best vehicle for white, Christian nationalism.-if Trump is such an existential threat then don’t nominate Kamala
To me, your question is ultimately like: why didn't the Dems fight white, Christian nationalism by nominating a white, Christian nationalist of their own?-explain how Trump made big gains among not just minorities but everyone
The only big gains from any group that I'm aware of were with Latino voters. But I would say nearly all groups of Trump voters unwittingly voted against their own self interests.
He definitely made similar gains with black voters and younger voters, at least compared to 2020. The Latino shift just started earlier so they have shifted way more than any group since 2016
Stop trying to blame us. Black men literally shifted 1 percent from 2020 to 2024 to trump and black people overall shifted exactly 0%. The only real demographic shift trump was from hispanic men and women and trump showed his thanks by immediately appointing a man making the media rounds by saying he's going to attempt to deport legal citizens. Celebrate good times, come on!
https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turnout-election-demographics-trump-harris/3762138/
Like where in earth did this come from?
https://x.com/MatthewFoldi/status/1856348668736991301
I don't know who that dude is but he's a liar mcliarsons. His graphic cites AP VoteCast. A couple of things, AP VoteCast is not an exit poll. Their data also shows a 1 point shift to trump, this dude is a clown and I'm about to tell him so.
https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latinos-black-voters-0f3fbda3362f3dcfe41aa6b858f22d12
Post by: MakeItRain on November 13, 2024, 09:38:27 PM
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 13, 2024, 09:38:34 PM
Kamala is not good at campaigning and was accepted simply because the democrat leadership was afraid of the backlash if they chose someone else. Dems have a bad habit of painting themselves into corners with their fake outrage.
lol, she was fine at campaigning. There would not have been another Democrat who would have been better. She lost to a dude who committed every conventional sin known to God and man while on the trail. She lost to a guy who, multiple times the last week of the campaign, mimicked giving microphones blow jobs. He went to the largest city in a swing state and told them how shitty their city is.
People using the explanation that she was a bad campaigner to explain how she lost to Donald rough ridin' Trump, are the same ones who talked about how a former District Attorney, US Senator, and Vice President wasn't qualified to be president while voting for Donald rough ridin' Trump. The reasoning of these two particular critiques are transparent A.F.
Campaigning involves answering direct questions and taking positions, good or bad. She was one of the worst campaigners in history. Even SNL made fun of her inability or reluctance to answer questions.
Post by: michigancat on November 13, 2024, 09:43:38 PM
Rusty, I have no idea how you found that dude's account to cite but a very quick once over of his account reveals that he's a conservative propagandist. That graphic is a textbook definition of misinformation.
Yeah I searched "black shift" on twitter, so it makes sense that a conservative weirdo would be top of the results. Shame on me.
I also recalled things like this from FT (but can't remember my source when I made my original comment):
https://www.ft.com/content/392e1e79-a8c1-4473-ab51-3267c415b078?sharetype=blocked
Post by: MakeItRain on November 13, 2024, 11:19:29 PM
Kamala is not good at campaigning and was accepted simply because the democrat leadership was afraid of the backlash if they chose someone else. Dems have a bad habit of painting themselves into corners with their fake outrage.
lol, she was fine at campaigning. There would not have been another Democrat who would have been better. She lost to a dude who committed every conventional sin known to God and man while on the trail. She lost to a guy who, multiple times the last week of the campaign, mimicked giving microphones blow jobs. He went to the largest city in a swing state and told them how shitty their city is.
People using the explanation that she was a bad campaigner to explain how she lost to Donald rough ridin' Trump, are the same ones who talked about how a former District Attorney, US Senator, and Vice President wasn't qualified to be president while voting for Donald rough ridin' Trump. The reasoning of these two particular critiques are transparent A.F.
Campaigning involves answering direct questions and taking positions, good or bad. She was one of the worst campaigners in history. Even SNL made fun of her inability or reluctance to answer questions.
This is stupid JD, and I'm fairly certain you know it too. Tell me what positions she specifically didn't take, what were we ambiguous about when it comes to her stances? Now compare that with the person she was running against. We actually have two full debates of trump actively not answering direct questions, literally refusing.
Even if what you assert was true, she didn't take positions and didn't answer questions, okay? Do you think that the people who voted for trump did so because of his strong policy positions and they would have voted for her if they only knew how she stood on topic x? Those voters, just like you, had the ability to know exactly what her platform was on whatever you deemed important, but you instead decided to listen to the propaganda that said she was unqualified and didn't take any stances on anything. It's a really really stupid take that can very easily be disproven. Just say you don't like the lady, and don't like democrat party positions. There's literally no reason to further this ridiculous talking point. If you truly believe she didn't take stances, let me know and I'll walk you through what you need to know and I'll completely ignore the famous quote she had stating she wouldn't do anything different than the president she spent 4 years serving under.
Post by: michigancat on November 14, 2024, 06:43:27 AM
Even if what you assert was true, she didn't take positions and didn't answer questions, okay? Do you think that the people who voted for trump did so because of his strong policy positions and they would have voted for her if they only knew how she stood on topic x?
I don't want to get into everything, but honestly Trump does a better job making it seem like he has strong policy positions and branding them.
"No tax on tips"
"Build the Wall"
"Lock her up"
"Mass deportations"
"Kamala is for They/them, Trump is for you"
"Make America Great Again"
"Democrats love war"
If you asked the average voter about top policy positions of Trump, that probably name something from that list. If you asked them the same about Kamala, what would they say? I really don't know.
Now, you and I know he probably won't follow through on any of that stuff because he's lazy and easily distracted, but you have to admit he has been better at branding and marketing than Kamala was. Whether you consider that "campaigning" or not is up to you.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 14, 2024, 08:11:09 AM
https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Post by: michigancat on November 14, 2024, 08:19:07 AM
https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
Post by: cfbandyman on November 14, 2024, 08:22:06 AM
https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
Oh no argument from me at all on that. Biggest personal drum I have been beating for a while. Just the dissonance is impressive in that post was all. I do agree kinda of "moving on" from what is there replacing it with something "new" might be the better play.
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on November 14, 2024, 08:32:31 AM
What is the argument against Universal Medicare? Government sponsored health insurance is Socialist and bad except for disabled people and people who have managed to survive until age 65?https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
Post by: michigancat on November 14, 2024, 08:33:29 AM
Quote
In the 2020 elections, then-candidate Joe Biden and many of his congressional colleagues loudly advocated for a federal “public option” health insurance plan. It was framed, at the time, as part of his incoming administration’s response to the pandemic.
“Low-income Americans will be automatically enrolled in the public option at zero cost to them, though they may choose to opt out at any time,” Democrats promised in their party platform.
But since Biden entered office, it’s been crickets. The president hasn’t uttered the phrase “public option” since December 2020, according to factba.se, which tracks his public remarks.
Why the disappearing act? In a word: politics.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-202-biden-public-option-health-insurance/
Post by: michigancat on November 14, 2024, 08:36:18 AM
What is the argument against Universal Medicare? Government sponsored health insurance is Socialist and bad except for disabled people and people who have managed to survive until age 65?https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
it will raise your taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, etc. The article I linked above said hospitals were a powerful lobbying group against a public option but it wasn't clear why. My guess is because they would make less money. Maybe it would make them more efficient? Hmmm
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on November 14, 2024, 08:36:45 AM
worth remembering Biden made a public option part of his 2020 campaign and did absolutely nothing to push it forward once electedI mean people hate private health insurance companies. Would be very good for everyone if health insurance wasn't tied to your employer.QuoteIn the 2020 elections, then-candidate Joe Biden and many of his congressional colleagues loudly advocated for a federal “public option” health insurance plan. It was framed, at the time, as part of his incoming administration’s response to the pandemic.
“Low-income Americans will be automatically enrolled in the public option at zero cost to them, though they may choose to opt out at any time,” Democrats promised in their party platform.
But since Biden entered office, it’s been crickets. The president hasn’t uttered the phrase “public option” since December 2020, according to factba.se, which tracks his public remarks.
Why the disappearing act? In a word: politics.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-202-biden-public-option-health-insurance/
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on November 14, 2024, 08:37:41 AM
Hospitals and clinics would not exist in large parts of Kansas if it wasn't for Medicare.What is the argument against Universal Medicare? Government sponsored health insurance is Socialist and bad except for disabled people and people who have managed to survive until age 65?https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
it will raise your taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, etc. The article I linked above said hospitals were a powerful lobbying group against a public option but it wasn't clear why. My guess is because they would make less money. Maybe it would make them more efficient? Hmmm
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 14, 2024, 08:45:39 AM
worth remembering Biden made a public option part of his 2020 campaign and did absolutely nothing to push it forward once electedI mean people hate private health insurance companies. Would be very good for everyone if health insurance wasn't tied to your employer.QuoteIn the 2020 elections, then-candidate Joe Biden and many of his congressional colleagues loudly advocated for a federal “public option” health insurance plan. It was framed, at the time, as part of his incoming administration’s response to the pandemic.
“Low-income Americans will be automatically enrolled in the public option at zero cost to them, though they may choose to opt out at any time,” Democrats promised in their party platform.
But since Biden entered office, it’s been crickets. The president hasn’t uttered the phrase “public option” since December 2020, according to factba.se, which tracks his public remarks.
Why the disappearing act? In a word: politics.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-202-biden-public-option-health-insurance/
Imagine how many jobs would open up for younger people. I know several people at my company that are still around just because of the insurance. I know my retirement date would move up drastically. It would rule.
Post by: michigancat on November 14, 2024, 08:53:23 AM
Hospitals and clinics would not exist in large parts of Kansas if it wasn't for Medicare.What is the argument against Universal Medicare? Government sponsored health insurance is Socialist and bad except for disabled people and people who have managed to survive until age 65?https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
it will raise your taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, etc. The article I linked above said hospitals were a powerful lobbying group against a public option but it wasn't clear why. My guess is because they would make less money. Maybe it would make them more efficient? Hmmm
those hospitals aren't part of the lobbying group
and their constituents probably don't realize that fact
worth remembering Biden made a public option part of his 2020 campaign and did absolutely nothing to push it forward once electedI mean people hate private health insurance companies. Would be very good for everyone if health insurance wasn't tied to your employer.QuoteIn the 2020 elections, then-candidate Joe Biden and many of his congressional colleagues loudly advocated for a federal “public option” health insurance plan. It was framed, at the time, as part of his incoming administration’s response to the pandemic.
“Low-income Americans will be automatically enrolled in the public option at zero cost to them, though they may choose to opt out at any time,” Democrats promised in their party platform.
But since Biden entered office, it’s been crickets. The president hasn’t uttered the phrase “public option” since December 2020, according to factba.se, which tracks his public remarks.
Why the disappearing act? In a word: politics.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-202-biden-public-option-health-insurance/
Imagine how many jobs would open up for younger people. I know several people at my company that are still around just because of the insurance. I know my retirement date would move up drastically. It would rule.
100%. I also think you would see a lot of entrepreneurs pop up if both health care was guaranteed for the founders and they knew they would never need to provide it to employees
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 14, 2024, 08:58:37 AM
Hospitals and clinics would not exist in large parts of Kansas if it wasn't for Medicare.What is the argument against Universal Medicare? Government sponsored health insurance is Socialist and bad except for disabled people and people who have managed to survive until age 65?https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
it will raise your taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, etc. The article I linked above said hospitals were a powerful lobbying group against a public option but it wasn't clear why. My guess is because they would make less money. Maybe it would make them more efficient? Hmmm
those hospitals aren't part of the lobbying group
and their constituents probably don't realize that factworth remembering Biden made a public option part of his 2020 campaign and did absolutely nothing to push it forward once electedI mean people hate private health insurance companies. Would be very good for everyone if health insurance wasn't tied to your employer.QuoteIn the 2020 elections, then-candidate Joe Biden and many of his congressional colleagues loudly advocated for a federal “public option” health insurance plan. It was framed, at the time, as part of his incoming administration’s response to the pandemic.
“Low-income Americans will be automatically enrolled in the public option at zero cost to them, though they may choose to opt out at any time,” Democrats promised in their party platform.
But since Biden entered office, it’s been crickets. The president hasn’t uttered the phrase “public option” since December 2020, according to factba.se, which tracks his public remarks.
Why the disappearing act? In a word: politics.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-202-biden-public-option-health-insurance/
Imagine how many jobs would open up for younger people. I know several people at my company that are still around just because of the insurance. I know my retirement date would move up drastically. It would rule.
100%. I also think you would see a lot of entrepreneurs pop up if both health care was guaranteed for the founders and they knew they would never need to provide it to employees
Yep, I think it would be a huge boom to small business. Way less of a risk to leave your job and start your own small business when you don't have to worry as much about your kid getting sick.
Post by: Woogy on November 14, 2024, 10:21:08 AM
worth remembering Biden made a public option part of his 2020 campaign and did absolutely nothing to push it forward once electedI mean people hate private health insurance companies. Would be very good for everyone if health insurance wasn't tied to your employer.QuoteIn the 2020 elections, then-candidate Joe Biden and many of his congressional colleagues loudly advocated for a federal “public option” health insurance plan. It was framed, at the time, as part of his incoming administration’s response to the pandemic.
“Low-income Americans will be automatically enrolled in the public option at zero cost to them, though they may choose to opt out at any time,” Democrats promised in their party platform.
But since Biden entered office, it’s been crickets. The president hasn’t uttered the phrase “public option” since December 2020, according to factba.se, which tracks his public remarks.
Why the disappearing act? In a word: politics.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-202-biden-public-option-health-insurance/
Imagine how many jobs would open up for younger people. I know several people at my company that are still around just because of the insurance. I know my retirement date would move up drastically. It would rule.
This is me and I just turned 60. My absolute last day is when I reach 65 - unless investments just absolutely tank. Really just working for insurance for insurance coverage in large part. A few mid-horizon projects I would like to see through. We already 'retired' the wife earlier this year - she had 25 years in KPERS. Just that annuity stipend and SS when we claim it pretty much will cover our base expenses. We're cheap dates.
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 14, 2024, 11:01:51 AM
worth remembering Biden made a public option part of his 2020 campaign and did absolutely nothing to push it forward once electedI mean people hate private health insurance companies. Would be very good for everyone if health insurance wasn't tied to your employer.QuoteIn the 2020 elections, then-candidate Joe Biden and many of his congressional colleagues loudly advocated for a federal “public option” health insurance plan. It was framed, at the time, as part of his incoming administration’s response to the pandemic.
“Low-income Americans will be automatically enrolled in the public option at zero cost to them, though they may choose to opt out at any time,” Democrats promised in their party platform.
But since Biden entered office, it’s been crickets. The president hasn’t uttered the phrase “public option” since December 2020, according to factba.se, which tracks his public remarks.
Why the disappearing act? In a word: politics.
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/health-202-biden-public-option-health-insurance/
Imagine how many jobs would open up for younger people. I know several people at my company that are still around just because of the insurance. I know my retirement date would move up drastically. It would rule.
This is me and I just turned 60. My absolute last day is when I reach 65 - unless investments just absolutely tank. Really just working for insurance for insurance coverage in large part. A few mid-horizon projects I would like to see through. We already 'retired' the wife earlier this year - she had 25 years in KPERS. Just that annuity stipend and SS when we claim it pretty much will cover our base expenses. We're cheap dates.
There are millions of people like this. Too bad you have to wait until you are even older ballz(no offense) and may not be able to do as much fun stuff with your money before you can enjoy full retirement. At least we aren't socialists before the age of 65 though!!!!!
Post by: Spracne on November 14, 2024, 01:24:12 PM
What is the argument against Universal Medicare? Government sponsored health insurance is Socialist and bad except for disabled people and people who have managed to survive until age 65?https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
Don't forget veterans.
Post by: mocat on November 14, 2024, 01:48:08 PM
https://x.com/ppPepoComfy/status/1855046358077477259
Yeah, that incapsulates the bad messaging. Both from the dems side and the success of the pubs at it.
Also, Obamacare/ACA sucks.
Medicare for all would be a winning message
Of course, but it was only called "Obamacare" by people trying to kill it
Post by: star seed 7 on November 14, 2024, 02:19:19 PM
Post by: chum1 on November 14, 2024, 02:37:43 PM
Quote
Writing more on this for tomorrow, but the Dem ground game in the target states really did its job. Had Trump only gotten as many votes as he did in 2020, Harris would have held Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and would be losing Michigan right now by fewer than 600 votes.https://bsky.app/profile/daveweigel.bsky.social/post/3lawb6hm7es2f
Actually I pulled the newest Michigan data - had Trump only hit his 2020 number she'd have won Michigan.
Post by: DQ12 on November 14, 2024, 02:45:40 PM
Is this sarcastic?QuoteWriting more on this for tomorrow, but the Dem ground game in the target states really did its job. Had Trump only gotten as many votes as he did in 2020, Harris would have held Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and would be losing Michigan right now by fewer than 600 votes.https://bsky.app/profile/daveweigel.bsky.social/post/3lawb6hm7es2f
Actually I pulled the newest Michigan data - had Trump only hit his 2020 number she'd have won Michigan.
Post by: star seed 7 on November 14, 2024, 02:48:17 PM
Post by: mocat on November 14, 2024, 03:00:57 PM
Thankfully because of OBAMAcare I'll have insurance in the 6 month gap before I'm eligible for Medicare. My bills for 2024 were over 2 million :sdeek:
:sdeek:
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 14, 2024, 03:06:55 PM
Thankfully because of OBAMAcare I'll have insurance in the 6 month gap before I'm eligible for Medicare. My bills for 2024 were over 2 million :sdeek:
you should look in to the ACA, way better.
Post by: MakeItRain on November 14, 2024, 05:30:52 PM
Even if what you assert was true, she didn't take positions and didn't answer questions, okay? Do you think that the people who voted for trump did so because of his strong policy positions and they would have voted for her if they only knew how she stood on topic x?
I don't want to get into everything, but honestly Trump does a better job making it seem like he has strong policy positions and branding them.
"No tax on tips"
"Build the Wall"
"Lock her up"
"Mass deportations"
"Kamala is for They/them, Trump is for you"
"Make America Great Again"
"Democrats love war"
If you asked the average voter about top policy positions of Trump, that probably name something from that list. If you asked them the same about Kamala, what would they say? I really don't know.
Now, you and I know he probably won't follow through on any of that stuff because he's lazy and easily distracted, but you have to admit he has been better at branding and marketing than Kamala was. Whether you consider that "campaigning" or not is up to you.
There are three policy positions there, one of which he already failed at. But, yes, you're 100% correct on the perception of policy positions with most people, as opposed to the reality of the situation. I would like to think people that post on a politics message board would be more savvy than the general 22 year old who gets his news off of twitter, but I guess not.
Yes, he's better and brand slogans, than she is, he's better at that than anyone else, mostly because he won't be held accountable for whatever he says so it's tough for him to have any messaging that won't resonate. The issue here isn't comparing her to him as a campaigner. There isn't a person in America that will compare favorably to him, because of the mindset of the people taking the message in. The question here is if she ran a bad campaign as opposed to anyone else who would be running for president, and of course the answer is no she did not. There isn't anything she could have done, as far as campaigning, that would have made a difference here. She pandered to the right center, and not only didn't it work, but we have people that she campaigned to, lamenting about her ceding her campaign to the left, lol.
Post by: steve dave on November 14, 2024, 05:35:16 PM
Even if what you assert was true, she didn't take positions and didn't answer questions, okay? Do you think that the people who voted for trump did so because of his strong policy positions and they would have voted for her if they only knew how she stood on topic x?
I don't want to get into everything, but honestly Trump does a better job making it seem like he has strong policy positions and branding them.
"No tax on tips"
"Build the Wall"
"Lock her up"
"Mass deportations"
"Kamala is for They/them, Trump is for you"
"Make America Great Again"
"Democrats love war"
If you asked the average voter about top policy positions of Trump, that probably name something from that list. If you asked them the same about Kamala, what would they say? I really don't know.
Now, you and I know he probably won't follow through on any of that stuff because he's lazy and easily distracted, but you have to admit he has been better at branding and marketing than Kamala was. Whether you consider that "campaigning" or not is up to you.
There are three policy positions there, one of which he already failed at. But, yes, you're 100% correct on the perception of policy positions with most people, as opposed to the reality of the situation. I would like to think people that post on a politics message board would be more savvy than the general 22 year old who gets his news off of twitter, but I guess not.
Yes, he's better and brand slogans, than she is, he's better at that than anyone else, mostly because he won't be held accountable for whatever he says so it's tough for him to have any messaging that won't resonate. The issue here isn't comparing her to him as a campaigner. There isn't a person in America that will compare favorably to him, because of the mindset of the people taking the message in. The question here is if she ran a bad campaign as opposed to anyone else who would be running for president, and of course the answer is no she did not. There isn't anything she could have done, as far as campaigning, that would have made a difference here. She pandered to the right center, and not only didn't it work, but we have people that she campaigned to, lamenting about her ceding her campaign to the left, lol.
I'd argue Trump's "tarrifs on everyone" policy probably hits pretty strongly as well because 98% of the population of this country has no idea how tarrifs work and it sounds to them like he's solely punishing other countries. Dems also did a HORRIBLE job of spiking the football on the economy the last few years. Animal Spirits talked about it a lot wednesday like imagining if Trump had been in charge during this absolutely historic bull market and raging economy. dems didn't even try to take credit for it. so the average american thinks the overall economy sucks when it objectively rules. so baffling.
Post by: Pete on November 14, 2024, 06:21:35 PM
Thankfully because of OBAMAcare I'll have insurance in the 6 month gap before I'm eligible for Medicare. My bills for 2024 were over 2 million :sdeek:That’s more than I make in an entire year!
Post by: wetwillie on November 14, 2024, 06:30:32 PM
Thankfully because of OBAMAcare I'll have insurance in the 6 month gap before I'm eligible for Medicare. My bills for 2024 were over 2 million :sdeek:
You can easily negotiate that down to 500k
Post by: nicname on November 14, 2024, 06:36:55 PM
Thankfully because of OBAMAcare I'll have insurance in the 6 month gap before I'm eligible for Medicare. My bills for 2024 were over 2 million :sdeek:That’s more than I make in an entire year!
:lol: