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

[danieldemol]

You are under the impression that being loathworthy makes one have less votes, but as I see it that is from true. Trump election numbers keep going up every election cycle. This can only mean the average republican feels properly represented by him.

I think that @Quintessence nailed it. The Democratic party simply wasn't able to get their own supporters to vote. So, I don't think the borders had anything to do with it.

Ok, perhaps the democratic party needs to try survey its supporters who didn't vote as to why if possible.

 

[Koldo]

Ok, perhaps the democratic party needs to try survey its supporters who didn't vote as to why if possible.

Indeed. I think that would provide the most reliable answer.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think Democrats need to step a bit left of the (American) center line. Go full progressive.

 

[sayak83]

Personally because 3 democratic governers warned Biden that the southern border was an issue I believe Harris could have had a bit more political savvy and urged Biden to clamp down on the southern border sooner. I believe that even if the US needs migration sometimes in politics you have to not be too much of a moral crusader and have more of a willingness to listen to the public's concerns even if they are unfounded.

Considering the loathworthy opponent Harris had I personally feel this shouldn't have been such a close race in my view.

Thoughts?

No. The resurgence of far right is a common phenomenon sweeping the Europe and US and much of the Western world as fear of migration and demographic pressures from shrinking population takes hold. There is no comparison between the quality of the two candidates. But the far right religio-nativist message coming from a strongman is now more popular.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Personally because 3 democratic governers warned Biden that the southern border was an issue I believe Harris could have had a bit more political savvy and urged Biden to clamp down on the southern border sooner. I believe that even if the US needs migration sometimes in politics you have to not be too much of a moral crusader and have more of a willingness to listen to the public's concerns even if they are unfounded.

Considering the loathworthy opponent Harris had I personally feel this shouldn't have been such a close race in my view.

Thoughts?

There are lessons to be learned by everything real. The trick is, we have to be willing to learn them.

 

[F1fan]

What have democrats learned? That many voters need to allow America to hit bottom before they take politics seriously.

There is no candidate that would have succeded against Trump given his popularity. The messaging from Harris did not get heard by most of those who voted for Trump. For some reason they believe Trump will make their lives better, yet with no plan from Trump in how that would happen. I predict many of these voters will become dissatisfied as Trump ignores the problems they want his to fix. The rich will get tax cuts. Musk has already said he intends to cut social programs, meaning there will be severe austerity. And with the ACA likely to be repealed there will be a deeper healthcare crisis, and no alternative. Trump had a terrible plan in 2017, and it failed. He didn't bother creating a new alternative in his last three years. He doesn't care.

I suspect by 2016 the dissatisfaction with Trump will mirror his 2020 ratings, perhaps worse if the project 2025 plans create chaos, and the tariffs cause inflation. Some economists predict a severe recession if Trump implements his economic ideas. Who would he have to blame?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... That worthless Harris and her ambition ... Withal, a disgraceful display.

It appears that we'll be treated to a chorus of disgraceful Trump-like displays.

 

[PureX]

Ok, perhaps the democratic party needs to try survey its supporters who didn't vote as to why if possible.

They won't.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

 

[anna.]

I was right. I said Trump would win. You thought Kamala Harris would blow him out with 300+ votes. There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying I’m right. But won’t waste my assessment on someone who refuses to listen (despite being so obviously wrong).

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.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I see after taking a drumming the elitist left here at RF is still unwilling to take a step back, admit they were wrong, and have a rationale discussion to do better.

Elitist? As in more thinking perhaps? And stepping back from what - not recognising what Trump is (and will likely do) but where so many can simply ignore this in the hope that they are just personally better off - and **** all others?

 

[Quintessence]

Ok, perhaps the democratic party needs to try survey its supporters who didn't vote as to why if possible.

This is more the job of academics than political organizations, but it is worth pointing out that the reduced turnout impacted both parties. Fewer humans showed up, period, across the board. This, after a trend of increased participation for the past three presidential elections. There are a lot of contributing factors to that which political scientists will be looking at, including but not limited to:

• The role of political apathy and disengagement as well as its underlying causes
• The role of voter intimidation and voter suppression laws that have reduced voting accessibility
• The role of misogyny, racism, and xenophobia
• The role of male entitlement and patriarchy
• The role of political misinformation and disinformation
• The role of poor media coverage and even poorer social "media" coverage
• The role of dark money and corruption in politics

Then there's the whole issue of folks believing these are "hard times" in spite of this not even remotely being true from a historical perspective. How is it that Americans are so utterly terrible at counting and recognizing the blessings and abundance in their lives? Is it the nonstop greed and consumerism caused by living in a materialist, capitalist culture? is it being perpetually overworked and under-appreciated to the point of spiraling the country into a national mental health crisis? Is it the failure of the regulators to combat the rise of a new Gilded Age of oligarchy and the exploitation of customers? What's the role of environmental change which has a net background effect of exacerbating all of these issues?

There will be no simple answers, because reality isn't simple.

 

[Koldo]

I suspect by 2016 the dissatisfaction with Trump will mirror his 2020 ratings, perhaps worse if the project 2025 plans create chaos, and the tariffs cause inflation. Some economists predict a severe recession if Trump implements his economic ideas. Who would he have to blame?

He would blame China.

 

[Koldo]

How is it that Americans are so utterly terrible at counting and recognizing the blessings and abundance in their lives?

What blessings? Not only there is very high inequality in the USA, people are being constantly reminded of how poor they are through social media. From a historical perspective, you are 100% correct, but that's not the perspective they have. They simply don't feel blessed.

 

[F1fan]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Quintessence]

What blessings? Not only there is very high inequality in the USA, people are being constantly reminded of how poor they are through social media. From a historical perspective, you are 100% correct, but that's not the perspective they have. They simply don't feel blessed.

Yeah, and that's the problem - folks are more or less brainwashed by a culture predicated on dissatisfaction to drive it. Post-colonial America is a wendigo nation and that's one of its most fundamental problems.

 

[Koldo]

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.

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.

 

[F1fan]

This is more the job of academics than political organizations, but it is worth pointing out that the reduced turnout impacted both parties. Fewer humans showed up, period, across the board. This, after a trend of increased participation for the past three presidential elections. There are a lot of contributing factors to that which political scientists will be looking at, including but not limited to:

• The role of political apathy and disengagement as well as its underlying causes
• The role of voter intimidation and voter suppression laws that have reduced voting accessibility
• The role of misogyny, racism, and xenophobia
• The role of male entitlement and patriarchy
• The role of political misinformation and disinformation
• The role of poor media coverage and even poorer social "media" coverage
• The role of dark money and corruption in politics

Then there's the whole issue of folks believing these are "hard times" in spite of this not even remotely being true from a historical perspective. How is it that Americans are so utterly terrible at counting and recognizing the blessings and abundance in their lives? Is it the nonstop greed and consumerism caused by living in a materialist, capitalist culture? is it being perpetually overworked and under-appreciated to the point of spiraling the country into a national mental health crisis? Is it the failure of the regulators to combat the rise of a new Gilded Age of oligarchy and the exploitation of customers? What's the role of environmental change which has a net background effect of exacerbating all of these issues?

There will be no simple answers, because reality isn't simple.

I think everyone is shocked. Even Trump is shocked he won, but happy about it because he stays out of prison.

It will take months, if not years, to sift through the social circumstances of what happened. It does look to be a lower turnout election even thoug many more voted early. The apathy needs to be explored and explained. Was the pandemic situation so bad that more citizens felt a need to participate? Was that an emergency that motivated otherwise apathetic voters to fire Trump? And now a good economy offers a reason for more apathy?

If Trump is everything that exprts predict, in regards to economic failure, and social and justice and helathcare regression, there will be another set of emergencies that cause a voter backlash and "wake up". The irony is how this is reactionary, and not what psychology defines as "planned, reasoned action". The voters will actually cause the emergency that they end up reacting to in the opposite direction, for a democrat next time.

 

[F1fan]

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.

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?

 

[anna.]

This is more the job of academics than political organizations, but it is worth pointing out that the reduced turnout impacted both parties. Fewer humans showed up, period, across the board. This, after a trend of increased participation for the past three presidential elections. There are a lot of contributing factors to that which political scientists will be looking at, including but not limited to:

• The role of political apathy and disengagement as well as its underlying causes
• The role of voter intimidation and voter suppression laws that have reduced voting accessibility
• The role of misogyny, racism, and xenophobia
• The role of male entitlement and patriarchy
• The role of political misinformation and disinformation
• The role of poor media coverage and even poorer social "media" coverage
• The role of dark money and corruption in politics

Then there's the whole issue of folks believing these are "hard times" in spite of this not even remotely being true from a historical perspective. How is it that Americans are so utterly terrible at counting and recognizing the blessings and abundance in their lives? Is it the nonstop greed and consumerism caused by living in a materialist, capitalist culture? is it being perpetually overworked and under-appreciated to the point of spiraling the country into a national mental health crisis? Is it the failure of the regulators to combat the rise of a new Gilded Age of oligarchy and the exploitation of customers? What's the role of environmental change which has a net background effect of exacerbating all of these issues?

There will be no simple answers, because reality isn't simple.

Matt Walsh, Christian nationalist, amplified by Steve Bannon:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854164649433858119