Democrats only: Are there lessons to be learned for team Harris?

[Jayhawker Soule]

So the Washington Post headline states in part ...

2024 turnout is near the 2020 record ...​

Note that "near the 2020 record" is another way of saying "less than last time."

And what about last?

While there remains a handful of votes to be counted, the Associated Press offers the following for 2024...

• TRUMP .......... 72,669,623 votes (50.9%)
• HARRIS ......... 68,012,883 votes (47.6%)

Wikipedia reports this for 2020 ...

• BIDEN ............ 81,283,501 votes (51.3%)
• TRUMP .......... 74,223,975 votes (46.8%)

In other words,

1. Trump's 2024 popular vote total was below what he had in 2020, and
2. Trump's 2024 popular vote percentage was below what Biden had in 2020.

This, and many of the points raised by @Quintessence in post #52, suggest that a circular firing squad is premature. We have the next four years to do it better while MAGA spends the next four years making it worse.

That's doable. The far more difficult task will be to find effective ways to mitigate the very real damage that will be done to the planet and its people in the interim.

 

[PureX]

The American people have seen themselves pushed up against the wall and robbed and pillaged and price-gouged for over 40 years now. The hopeful prosperous "happy whiteyville" America of the mid 40s to the mid 70s are no longer very happy nor very white. For several generations running people have seen that their children will not be better off than themselves no matter how hard they work at it, because the system is rigged by and for the rich. And they have seen both political parties pandering to it, consistently. The republicans don't even pretend they aren't whores for their rich patrons. While the democrats try to play the morality card by claiming the high ground on social issues while doing absolutely NOTHING to help the American people fend off these giant greedy corporate conglomerates that are exhausting them, and frustrating them, and driving them to despair.

In 2016 the democrats could have run Bernie Sanders: the one and only politician in all of America that was actually willing to stand up and point his finer at those giant greedy corporate conglomerates and say, "THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!". But no. The Dems chose Hillary Clinton, the wife of the man that sold the middle class down the river, and cost millions of Americans both their homes and their jobs.

And as a result they lost the election to a reality show buffoon.

This SHOULD HAVE TAUGHT THEM A LESSON, but it did not. Because their next candidate was Joe Biden, a life long legislative yes-man for corporate America. Voted against raising the minimum wage every time it came up. Voted against heath care reform every time it came up. Voted against reigning in big pharma's price gouging. Voted in favor of all the giant corporate mergers and against any and all privacy laws. Because that's what he was being paid to do by the big corporate sponsors that brought him to the dance.

And even though he did barely manage to get elected (running against the worst president in U.S. history) he and his democratic cronies did absolutely nothing with that opportunity to actually change the culture of corporate greed and it's economic abuse of the American people.

So now they've lost once again to the worst president in U.S. history. AND STILL THEY WILL NOT LEARN from this. They will continue to run candidates that are the little more than empty suits doing the bidding of their corporate sponsors while they pretend to be our moral superiors. And they will keep on losing. Just as they should.

But unfortunately, they are losing to an even WORSE sickness. And to even WORSE candidates. Because the people have become so hopeless and disgusted that they are now willing to vote republican and watch them burn the whole place to the ground. And they see Donald Trump as just the man that could do it. ... Trump: the train wreck that never ends.

 

[Alien826]

You mean the shrill "if you don't agree with me you are a stupid, ignorant bigot" gambit isn't in fact a shrewd rhetorical stratagem?

Shocked I tell thee

It's amazing the number of people who find this hard to comprehend and prefer to focus on things like "Russian disinformation" for narrow defeats, rather than show a modicum of self-awareness that they are a far more powerful force in promoting "populism" than the usual bogeymen.

That may not be the best way to convert them to "clever, well informed, tolerant people", but simply giving them what they want is not a good plan either, though it might get you elected.

So often, change is initiated by a minority that pushes something through in the face of opposition from those that fear all change, then when that new thing has been around for a while and proves to be beneficial everyone starts defending it with the same stubbornness that they showed towards whatever preceded it. I believe universal health care in Canada is a good example.

We're not going to have any beneficial change if the wants of the majority prevail. But you're right, there are effective and ineffective means of persuasion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not a Democrat, but since this thread is in North American Politics, anyone can weigh in, so I will post my two cents.

I think the main lesson the Democratic Party and, in general, many liberals and progressives need to learn is that humans tend to be driven by material conditions more than empathy, altruism, and moral slogans about issues that don't directly affect them. This is not to say that those three things can't or don't influence many people's worldviews and decisions, but when a decisive election is perceived to be a choice between someone promising a better economy, more stability, and more jobs on the one hand and, on the other hand, another who focuses more on rights and social issues that are seen by many as not directly affecting them or their living conditions, altruism will usually not outweigh voting for the option perceived to be more favorable to one's own interests.

I view the above as a descriptive rather than normative observation. I don't see those human tendencies as ideal, but they are what they are. The notion of linear "moral progress" is a myth, and so is the notion that given the "right" set of inputs or arguments, most people will necessarily be "rational" or make decisions that align with a progressive worldview (or any other specific ideology or worldview)—and I don't think a progressive worldview is necessarily synonymous with being "rational," altruistic, empathetic, etc., to be clear; I'm just framing this in terms of how a subset of liberals and progressives may see things.

There is, of course, much in what you say -- and you say it well.

My one observation, however, is that those humans you speak of are also gullible to an extent that cannot be good for them. Trump promised them better lives, yes. But he didn't say how. Harris actually did say how ordinary people would fare better under her plan, including improved early child care, help with buying homes and so forth.

Think of it this way: if you were a property manager and decided you wanted to build another 25 story apartment building on a bare lot you own across the street, and you put it out for tender, would you be more likely to trust the proposal that lays out how the building will be constructed, with some project details that say, "it will take 3 years and cost $530 million," or the vendor who promises only, "we can build that for you by a week Friday and it'll only cost $100 million?" I think you would ask some questions, and conclude that the second bidder was selling you a pig in a poke.

Trump promised to make inflation go away on day one -- did anyone ask how he is going to do that? Did anyone ask if that would move prices back 3 years so that the hardship they are now facing they won't face tomorrow because everything will cost less? No, I don't think they did. And it is that, I think, that will fuel the coming dissatisfaction that @F1fan alluded to.

 

[Koldo]

The American people have seen themselves pushed up against the wall and robbed and pillaged and price-gouged for over 40 years now. The hopeful prosperous "happy whiteyville" America of the mid 40s to the mid 70s are no longer very happy nor very white. For several generations running people have seen that their children will not be better off than themselves no matter how hard they work at it, because the system is rigged by and for the rich. And they have seen both political parties pandering to it, consistently. The republicans don't even pretend they aren't whores for their rich patrons. While the democrats try to play the morality card by claiming the high ground on social issues while doing absolutely NOTHING to help the American people fend off these giant greedy corporate conglomerates that are exhausting them, and frustrating them, and driving them to despair.

In 2016 the democrats could have run Bernie Sanders: the one and only politician in all of America that was actually willing to stand up and point his finer at those giant greedy corporate conglomerates and say, "THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!". But no. The Dems chose Hillary Clinton, the wife of the man that sold the middle class down the river, and cost millions of Americans both their homes and their jobs.

And as a result they lost the election to a reality show buffoon.

This SHOULD HAVE TAUGHT THEM A LESSON, but it did not. Because their next candidate was Joe Biden, a life long legislative yes-man for corporate America. Voted against raising the minimum wage every time it came up. Voted against heath care reform every time it came up. Voted against reigning in big pharma's price gouging. Voted in favor of all the giant corporate mergers and against any and all privacy laws. Because that's what he was being paid to do by the big corporate sponsors that brought him to the dance.

And even though he did barely manage to get elected (running against the worst president in U.S. history) he and his democratic cronies did absolutely nothing with that opportunity to actually change the culture of corporate greed and it's economic abuse of the American people.

So now they've lost once again to the worst president in U.S. history. AND STILL THEY WILL NOT LEARN from this. They will continue to run candidates that are the little more than empty suits doing the bidding of their corporate sponsors while they pretend to be our moral superiors. And they will keep on losing. Just as they should.

But unfortunately, they are losing to an even WORSE sickness. And to even WORSE candidates. Because the people have become so hopeless and disgusted that they are now willing to vote republican and watch them burn the whole place to the ground. And they see Donald Trump as just the man that could do it. ... Trump: the train wreck that never ends.

What they will learn from this is they can't have a woman as a candidate. When they ran with a career white male politician, everything went all, the election numbers were amazing and when they gave a try to women on two occasions it simply didn't work.

The Democratic party simply won't go further left with a name like Bernie. Not because it doesn't have the guts to do so, but rather because that is not who they are. I see the Democratic party as a center party that leans towards the left just to gain support.

 

[Quintessence]

What did democrats do wrong? They stayed committed to women's rights and social fairness and decency. That was unacceptable to the majority of men. The question is: what is wrong with so many men?

I don't think that's a useful way of framing it - it sounds too much like blaming them for circumstances beyond their (or anyone's) direct control.

The fact of the matter is the underlying causes of socioeconomic dysfunction run so deep that neither political party can effectively resolve it. Humanity has grown too big for its own boots. A lot of what's going on in the present era is classic ecological carrying capacity issues - too many humans consuming too much stuff depending on too much on energy/technology. We already got a preview of what happens when the technological crutches break down during the pandemic: global recession, global inflation. Well beyond anyone's direct control. And a real collapse hasn't happened yet (it's coming).

Because humanity has grown too big for its boots, humanity cannot provide for itself. Especially Americans, whose inflated standards of living and obsession with technology were never sustainable to begin with. Humans who historically have been told it is their job to provide can't do that. Not for themselves, not for family. That's an existentially terrifying threat. What does any animal do when it is afraid? One of three things: (1) it lets out a whimpering cry for help, (2) it snarls and goes on the attack, (3) it suffers in silence and dies (literally or figuratively). Some humans are culturally conditioned to avoid doing the best of these three options (the first) and trend towards the other two. So when a political candidate taps into the angry snarling and the silent suffering? Of course it resonates. That impulse to fight and be heard is what ended enslavement of African Americans. It's what ended subjugation of women. It ended careless pollution of the land, sea, and sky. And eventually, it will end this blight of a con that has promised men solutions but in reality will give them none.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What did democrats do wrong? They stayed committed to women's rights and social fairness and decency. That was unacceptable to the majority of men. The question is: what is wrong with so many men?

Bingo. This attitude is why men are leaving the dem party. Go on the DNC website and look at the "Who we serve" link. Nowhere are men represented in this list. Men are falling behind in education, jobs, most homeless and drug addicts are men, men are lonelier and have less friends than women, have more depression, have less opportunity for scholarships or social programs. Men don't feel wanted in society and are blamed for most everything wrong in society. Anyone that has a young son knows this. They are struggling to know who they are and why they are valuable because everything is telling them they suck and are not wanted. And instead of the dem party trying to address these issues they just double down that men are the problem. Men are made fun of on TV shows and in society in general in a way that women never are. Obama scolded black men that won't vote for Kamala. The dem party is committed to women's and minority rights and success, they have no plan for men, especially young men.

 

[Watchmen]

So you double down on your "I was right," and on the idea that I should listen to you. So patronizing.

I'm willing to bet, the more you go on, that your "old school liberal" is more like the self-styled 'classic liberal' who listens to Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan.

Men like that are full of ideas for what the Democrats did wrong, and come up with very little Trump did wrong. They tend to claim that if only the Dems had done this, and the Dems had done that - been more progressive here and less progressive there, and jumped through this hoop, then that hoop, then maybe the racists and misogynists and xenophobes in this country would have been mollified enough not to vote against their own interests. Peterson/Rogan types, while pretending not to be MAGA are actually cut from similar cloth. The difference is that Peterson/Rogan types may say "if only Democrats would have listened" on the outside, but on the inside they're saying "**** Joe Biden." MAGA types would just say "**** Joe Biden" outright, without the pretense.

Nope. I don’t listen to Peterson or Rogan. They’re tools. Looks like you're the stereotyping patronizing one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The hopeful prosperous "happy whiteyville" America of the mid 40s to the mid 70s are no longer very happy nor very white.

What planet are you from?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bingo.

Presumably you missed the "Democrats only:" phrase in the title.

 

[Wandering Monk]

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Presumably you missed the "Democrats only:" phrase in the title.

Well I assumed when a staff member (Debater Slayer) said:

I'm not a Democrat, but since this thread is in North American Politics, anyone can weigh in, so I will post my two cents.

I could put my two cents in too.

 

[Kathryn]

I think that Trump won when he asked "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The answer for thousands of Americans was "No."
It's depressing that people don't vote for ideals as much as for their own pockets but that's the reality.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Given what we are learning about how citizens voted I'm not sure what the personal interests are. Most exit polls cite the economy as the biggest issue for them, but how did those people vote? If they voted for Trump they ignored the details of his economic plans and ignored what experts warned about.

I'm going to say these crucial issues might have been what they worry about, but it doesn't suggest they were well informed, nor used sound, lucid thinking. It could be that they didn't think any candidate could control the economy, but Trump made them feel more secure from their fears, and this would be an emotional reaction, not reasoning.

I've heard before how social stability can lead to a loss of identity for many in a society. They don;t know who they are, nor have a greater purpose. It's easy to get absorbed in a candidate that creates problems, creates fear, and acts as if they have solutions, even if they don't. They are attracted to the ilusion. Look at how people come together in an emergency. It unites them. Without an emergency people feel separated and self-absorbed, and I think this make them vulnerable to conmen. The best economy in the world may have been too boring, but the alternative MAGA scenarios very exciting. I've never seen so many people vote for a candidate that will do exactly what he campaigned against.

Look at what Barron's wrote. It's a warning about how they expect inflation to come in Trump's term, and interest rates will rise. It will affect the bond market and mean lower yields. The 10 year note's rate went up to 4.425% on Wednesday in expection of higher inflation with a Trump presidency.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-bond-market-has-a-message-about-trumps-win-09a1c3d0

This is someting sociologists will examine and describe. It'll be interesting to get a fuller picture of why Trump voters made their decision over what was a vastly more stable and competent opponent.

It is not like Trump has a proper plan to significantly improve the economy though. As I see it, it is more like people trust Trump more, and why would that be? Because a lot of voters feel better represented by Trump's character.

Let me put it this way: The West has seen a massive shift towards progressive values in the last 20 years. What used to be the norm, such as being homophobic, racist, etc., became repugnant in public discourse. But it is not like everyone changed so quickly. There are a LOT of people that miss the old days, and that is what Trump represents.

There is, of course, much in what you say -- and you say it well.

My one observation, however, is that those humans you speak of are also gullible to an extent that cannot be good for them. Trump promised them better lives, yes. But he didn't say how. Harris actually did say how ordinary people would fare better under her plan, including improved early child care, help with buying homes and so forth.

Think of it this way: if you were a property manager and decided you wanted to build another 25 story apartment building on a bare lot you own across the street, and you put it out for tender, would you be more likely to trust the proposal that lays out how the building will be constructed, with some project details that say, "it will take 3 years and cost $530 million," or the vendor who promises only, "we can build that for you by a week Friday and it'll only cost $100 million?" I think you would ask some questions, and conclude that the second bidder was selling you a pig in a poke.

Trump promised to make inflation go away on day one -- did anyone ask how he is going to do that? Did anyone ask if that would move prices back 3 years so that the hardship they are now facing they won't face tomorrow because everything will cost less? No, I don't think they did. And it is that, I think, that will fuel the coming dissatisfaction that @F1fan alluded to.

I agree that Trump won't actually improve the economy compared to Biden or Harris; I think a recession may occur if he manages to start a trade war and disrupt federal institutions as widely and deeply as he and his entourage in the GOP seem to want. I'm talking about his PR campaign and how he has sold himself to tens of millions of voters, not whether he will actually deliver improvements to the average citizen's life.

I think a lot of people around the world, not just in the US, don't have deep interest in politics or minutely scrutinizing campaign promises. Some may also vote for change out of being tired of the status quo, without deep scrutiny of what the change would exactly be. I see many problems inherent in both of those approaches, but I can understand why they develop even though I disagree with them.

I also believe it's highly noteworthy that Trump has gotten fewer votes this election than he did in 2020, when he lost by a large margin. There is no way, in my opinion, that all of those tens of millions of voters are racists, xenophobes, homophobes, theocrats, etc. I think one could correctly bet that the vast majority of voters who strongly harbor such tendencies have indeed voted for Trump because he represents their prejudices and agendas, but I don't see it as realistic to say that the vast majority of Trump voters must also have those tendencies. He was crushed in the election just four years ago—including in some of the states that he won this time. Since he flipped some states, it is guaranteed that many voters who snubbed him last time voted for him in this election.

Unless millions of voters have turned into hardcore racists, xenophobes, theocrats, etc., in the relatively short timeframe between this election and the last, I think the far more likely explanation is that many voters picked him for other reasons that the Democratic Party could have worked around more effectively in order to retain or win those votes. He's a con man, liar, sexual predator, and impulsive demagogue, but he clearly knows how to market himself and knows what to say to get many swing voters behind him. That makes him far more dangerous, but I also think it should demonstrate to the Democratic Party that the promise of a loaf of bread and a banknote is sometimes more effective and immediately resonant than the promise of living up to lofty ideals and relatively abstract principles. As the cliché goes, "Money talks." So does food.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

...but he clearly knows how to market himself and knows what to say to get many swing voters behind him. That makes him far more dangerous, but I also think it should demonstrate to the Democratic Party that the promise of a loaf of bread and a banknote is sometimes more effective and immediately resonant than the promise of living up to lofty ideals and relatively abstract principles. As the cliché goes, "Money talks." So does food.

So given that Harris was talking about cutting taxes, expanding tax credits like child tax credit, bans on price gouging, cutting costs on child care and elder care, and expanding expanding prescription drug savings, as well as the Democratic party being far more likely to implement social safety nets, what else could have been promised?

I do think how the message is delivered could be better, and I think being more progressive rather than (American) center would be more effective.

 

[Kathryn]

So the Washington Post headline states in part ...

2024 turnout is near the 2020 record ...​

Note that "near the 2020 record" is another way of saying "less than last time."

And what about last?

While there remains a handful of votes to be counted, the Associated Press offers the following for 2024...

• TRUMP .......... 72,669,623 votes (50.9%)
• HARRIS ......... 68,012,883 votes (47.6%)

Wikipedia reports this for 2020 ...

• BIDEN ............ 81,283,501 votes (51.3%)
• TRUMP .......... 74,223,975 votes (46.8%)

In other words,

1. Trump's 2024 popular vote total was below what he had in 2020, and
2. Trump's 2024 popular vote percentage was below what Biden had in 2020.

This, and many of the points raised by @Quintessence in post #52, suggest that a circular firing squad is premature. We have the next four years to do it better while MAGA spends the next four years making it worse.

That's doable. The far more difficult task will be to find effective ways to mitigate the very real damage that will be done to the planet and its people in the interim.

There was less than half a percentage point between Trump and Biden, between 2020 and 2024 - possibly even less than that. The Democrats need to pay attention.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So given that Harris was talking about cutting taxes, expanding tax credits like child tax credit, bans on price gouging, cutting costs on child care and elder care, and expanding expanding prescription drug savings, as well as the Democratic party being far more likely to implement social safety nets, what else could have been promised?

I think the party could have dedicated more time and effort to talking about immigration and overseas manufacturing in relation to employment, among other things, although I don't claim to know how much of the loss was due to the platform itself and how much was due to ineffective delivery. For instance, could Harris have won if she had kept her message roughly the same but delivered it differently? I don't know. I think it's a question worth exploring, though.

I do think how the message is delivered could be better, and I think being more progressive rather than (American) center would be more effective.

I agree on the former, but I'm unsure about the latter. Unfortunately, I think that if a platform veers too explicitly and too far to the left or the right of most voters—even if doing so on certain issues is the more humane and reasonable position to take, especially when a subset of mainstream political positions in a country are abusive or draconian—it may prevent the candidate from winning. It seems to me that this is where the need arises for political practicality and the ability to balance the need for change in some areas with maintaining appeal to enough undecided voters to win (a task that I realize is often quite difficult).

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I also believe it's highly noteworthy that Trump has gotten fewer votes this election than he did in 2020, when he lost by a large margin. There is no way, in my opinion, that all of those tens of millions of voters are racists, xenophobes, homophobes, theocrats, etc. I think one could correctly bet that the vast majority of voters who strongly harbor such tendencies have indeed voted for Trump because he represents their prejudices and agendas, but I don't see it as realistic to say that the vast majority of Trump voters must also have those tendencies. He was crushed in the election just four years ago—including in some of the states that he won this time. Since he flipped some states, it is guaranteed that many voters who snubbed him last time voted for him in this election.

It is interesting that in 2020 Trump received 23% more votes than the average for republicans in the last 3 elections, but Biden received 25% more votes than the average of the last three elections. That election had massive turnout. Biden received 11M votes in California where Clinton received 8.8M votes. Both candidates in 2020 received more votes in 2020 than any previous elections for their party.

In 2024 Trump received 17% more votes than the average vote count in previous years before 2020 and Harris only received 1.9% more votes. Trump will receive about 2-3% less votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. Harris will receive about 18% less votes than Biden did in 2020. Looks like Trump voters came out for him but Harris voters did not turn out for her the same they did for Biden in 2020. I don't think that many Biden voters switched and voted for Trump this time.

 

[anna.]

It is interesting that in 2020 Trump received 23% more votes than the average for republicans in the last 3 elections, but Biden received 25% more votes than the average of the last three elections. That election had massive turnout. Biden received 11M votes in California where Clinton received 8.8M votes. Both candidates in 2020 received more votes in 2020 than any previous elections for their party.

In 2024 Trump received 17% more votes than the average vote count in previous years before 2020 and Harris only received 1.9% more votes. Trump will receive about 2-3% less votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. Harris will receive about 18% less votes than Biden did in 2020. Looks like Trump voters came out for him but Harris voters did not turn out for her the same they did for Biden in 2020. I don't think that many Biden voters switched and voted for Trump this time.

I don't know what the final count is in California - there are still well over 6 million votes still to be counted.

California President Election 2024 Live Results: Harris Wins

View live results of the California presidential election. See maps of county-by-county presidential election results in the race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Augustus]

Think of it this way: if you were a property manager and decided you wanted to build another 25 story apartment building on a bare lot you own across the street, and you put it out for tender, would you be more likely to trust the proposal that lays out how the building will be constructed, with some project details that say, "it will take 3 years and cost $530 million," or the vendor who promises only, "we can build that for you by a week Friday and it'll only cost $100 million?" I think you would ask some questions, and conclude that the second bidder was selling you a pig in a poke.

For the analogy to reflect the election, you'd have to note that the person making the first proposal had already been working on it for the past 4 years without much perceived progress yet now they are saying that they have worked out what they need to do and just need a few more years to turn it into a reality.

I don;t think the anaolgy works in general though because 'the state of the nation' is not a simple problem with known solutions, and the electorate is not a property manager.

Analogies made at a micro scale are not meaningful at a mass level. Simple systems cannot be used to make analogies about complex systems

Abba Eban on the perils of analogy, "This apple is round, red, shiny, and good to eat. This rubber ball is round, red and shiny. Therefore, there is at least a strong probability that it will be good to eat. The basic truth is that circumstances in which situations differ from each other may precisely be those that define their essential nature."

Mass persuasion is far more about vision, feeling and identity rather than facts and policy minutiae (and this applies right across the spectrum). People don't invest much time in policy details, and very few people have the ability to understand them or evaluate them rationally. Even among those who consider themselves "high information voters", most evaluate policies heuristically based on ideology.

Harris had no vision, did not connect well with much of the country, and was tied into all of the perceived failures of the past 4 years. I believe leadership is 80% luck and the president gets credit/blame for many things that are outside their control, but it is what it is and the past 4 years haven't been good for incumbents in western nations.

Many people understand Trump is being hyperbolic, but he's also acknowledging the problems that many people perceive, and communicating a vision regarding these. This aligns with the idea that 'things have got worse in the past 4 years'.

He may be a repugnant character, but it's pretty easy to understand why he won and it's not simply that people are stupid and bigoted.