2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[Kaleredar]

Well, its been nearly a month now, and there is still alot of debate over the reasons on why it happened. Thankfully since my personal boycott of CNN for the next 4 years the noise of it all is muffled for me, however, heres a good 5 minute clip of why the election turned out the way it did. Hint, it wasn't because the Democrats didn't go red enough.



As I said before, I don't think we will have to wait long for a good 5-10% of the population to realize what they have done and deeply regret their election choices.

Pretty much this. The democrats failed to enumerate how 1) they'd be good for the economy and how 2) Trump would be bad. Plain and simple. And part of that could honestly be Harris having to basically gear up an entire campaign in three short months. She came out strong about women's rights and general GOP incompetence and probably gained what ground she could there, but with more time she and her campaign might have rightly assessed that people's perceptions about the economy would be the ultimate deciding factor.

And it means that all of this faffing from the right about "dems relied too heavily on identity politics" "dems were too woke" and somesuch garbage is nonsense. And frankly it also means that others from let's say other political spectrums claiming dems lost because they "didn't revolutionize geopolitics with Israel" or "abandoned (read, "didn't talk enough about," seeing as their stated positions or political platforms regarding the matter never actually changed) X progressive cause" were also off the mark.

People voted with their pocketbooks in mind. Now, they did so incredibly stupidly with barely any information or understanding of what was being proposed and utterly failed at educating themselves about what were essentially blatant lies, but that was the deciding factor this election. As has been noted however, if Trump's plans actually go through they'll get a rather rude and quick lesson on just how wrong they were.

[PhaelixWW]

heres a good 5 minute clip of why the election turned out the way it did. Hint, it wasn't because the Democrats didn't go red enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XnjJTNo5vk

As I said before, I don't think we will have to wait long for a good 5-10% of the population to realize what they have done and deeply regret their election choices.

I pretty much agree with his points 100%, with the caveat that people should get rid of the idea that every election is the same and that there's one strategy that is the "right" strategy. On the contrary, strategy is highly dependent on the setting.

This next election will probably favor a similar tone to this one, where the economy will be the most important factor, and Democrats should have a much easier time presenting their position as the solution to the problem. But if Democrats win majorities in Congress, too, they need to actually follow through on these policies.

[ringpriest]

You cannot simply cut off natural resources than open the tap somewhere else, it takes years if not decades to set up proper mining operations given you have ample supply. It's also the case that you can't always do that because the US doesn't have certain minerals or that China has the bulk of the supply for the world. That's why trade wars are destructive, no country has everything.

It will absolutely take years (or the better part of a year, if all parties involved are willing to go WWII-level readiness about it, which they likely wouldn't be). But when would you rather be doing that: during a cool economic standoff, or after a hot war starts?

The United States is vast, and the North America continent even larger. I doubt there's any element or mineral that's not viably extractable somewhere in North America. The extraction cost might not be competitive, but that's a different issue. The American "Deep State" has known this was coming, and has not been idle. (Although Trump is quite capable of deliberately or inadvertently sabotaging such plans in countless ways - one of many reasons why America's adversaries will celebrate his return to power.)

For example:

US Critical Materials makes gallium discovery at Sheep Creek in Montana (March, 2024)

Two Australian companies are pursuing federal funding to jump-start antimony mining near Fairbanks and Anchorage. (November, 2024)

Germanium is a bit of an odd duck compared to the other two (or to other rare earth elements). It's common, but not typically concentrated. The US has the world's only germanium mine (which also produced gallium), in Utah, but it's been closed for years. Global germanium production recently has largely been from reprocessing the ash from burned coal (typically using ash from power plants, as it is easy to get in bulk), although it's also possible to extract it from minerals with some germanium content, typically zinc ores.

This cut-off is only likely to accelerate existing American and others efforts to find alternatives. With regards to the US and China, it's a trigger the CCP should only get to pull once, and using it for this actually seems rather foolish (unless they're planning to invade Taiwan Real Soon, at which point this is pretty much the ideal time to use it). On the other hand, the US (especially under Trump) is quite possibly dumb enough to leave themselves exposed, to be hit by this tactic repeatedly over the next decade or two.

[ati87]

Pretty much this. The democrats failed to enumerate how 1) they'd be good for the economy and how 2) Trump would be bad. Plain and simple. And part of that could honestly be Harris having to basically gear up an entire campaign in three short months. She came out strong about women's rights and general GOP incompetence and probably gained what ground she could there, but with more time she and her campaign might have rightly assessed that people's perceptions about the economy would be the ultimate deciding factor.

And it means that all of this faffing from the right about "dems relied too heavily on identity politics" "dems were too woke" and somesuch garbage is nonsense. And frankly it also means that others from let's say other political spectrums claiming dems lost because they "didn't revolutionize geopolitics with Israel" or "abandoned (read, "didn't talk enough about," seeing as their stated positions or political platforms regarding the matter never actually changed) X progressive cause" were also off the mark.

People voted with their pocketbooks in mind. Now, they did so incredibly stupidly with barely any information or understanding of what was being proposed and utterly failed at educating themselves about what were essentially blatant lies, but that was the deciding factor this election. As has been noted however, if Trump's plans actually go through they'll get a rather rude and quick lesson on just how wrong they were.

Couple of things though.

I would agree on the lack of time if the Harris campaign was run with competence, but it wasn't. You don't boast about the Cheney endorsements or the CEO endorsements and think you will be populare with regular people.

Harris had a great start at the beginning, to quote myself for a moment.

The 2020 primary loss and the 2024 general election loss follows the same pattern. Harris starts out strong, has a lot of momentum but then messes up by listening to some of her advisers that tell her "campaign with the Cheney, boast about how many ceo's endorsers you and tell people you will be like Biden"

Who was in control of Harris 2020 primairy campaign compared her 2024 campaign. What a night and day.

in 2020 her best moment was attacking Biden, but the day took it back and ensured her loss, but now she looks like she doesn't give a Fuck. Probably somebody from the DNC told her to dim it, but still, picking Tim Walz is the attitude of going for the win.

My criticism towards that: outside the rich elites, nobody likes the Cheney's
Boasting that rich people support you is a losing strategy when people complain that eggs are expensive
Biden had stupid low approval before the debate, you don’t/can’t run away from Biden, but you don’t go and hug his policies,

[Draco-Onis]

It will absolutely take years (or the better part of a year, if all parties involved are willing to go WWII-level readiness about it, which they likely wouldn't be). But when would you rather be doing that: during a cool economic standoff, or after a hot war starts?

The United States is vast, and the North America continent even larger. I doubt there's any element or mineral that's not viably extractable somewhere in North America. The extraction cost might not be competitive, but that's a different issue. The American "Deep State" has known this was coming, and has not been idle. (Although Trump is quite capable of deliberately or inadvertently sabotaging such plans in countless ways - one of many reasons why America's adversaries will celebrate his return to power.)

For example:

US Critical Materials makes gallium discovery at Sheep Creek in Montana (March, 2024)

Two Australian companies are pursuing federal funding to jump-start antimony mining near Fairbanks and Anchorage. (November, 2024)

Germanium is a bit of an odd duck compared to the other two (or to other rare earth elements). It's common, but not typically concentrated. The US has the world's only germanium mine (which also produced gallium), in Utah, but it's been closed for years. Global germanium production recently has largely been from reprocessing the ash from burned coal (typically using ash from power plants, as it is easy to get in bulk), although it's also possible to extract it from minerals with some germanium content, typically zinc ores.

This cut-off is only likely to accelerate existing American and others efforts to find alternatives. With regards to the US and China, it's a trigger the CCP should only get to pull once, and using it for this actually seems rather foolish (unless they're planning to invade Taiwan Real Soon, at which point this is pretty much the ideal time to use it). On the other hand, the US (especially under Trump) is quite possibly dumb enough to leave themselves exposed, to be hit by this tactic repeatedly over the next decade or two.

The question is the quantity and the investment needed both in terms of infrastructure and education. I don't think we can count on the Trump administration to do anything long term their main focus is on lining their own pockets. Trump himself seems rather obsessed with oil which is understandable considering the bribes I mean donations he has gotten but US oil production is already pretty high.

Trump also wants to get into a trade war with the rest of North America and our other allies so while they will supply us with those minerals it will comes up a premium retaliatory tariffs. If the Trump administration was focused on competition with China they would be seriously investing in education and infrastructure. We have Linda McMahon who is pushing for welfare checks I mean vouchers for rich family and religion in schools. Frankly in the long run Trump and his shenanigans is the best thing to happen to China, they can blame every pain point on him and his trade war while forcing their economy to be more demand focused. Unlike the US they have the long term planning and are pouring trillions internally to make things happen.

[Kaleredar]

Couple of things though.

I would agree on the lack of time if the Harris campaign was run with competence, but it wasn't. You don't boast about the Cheney endorsements or the CEO endorsements and think you will be populare with regular people.

Believe it or not but that was probably an attempt to stymie people’s worries about the economy, or at least point out how Trump was bad for it. “See? Even republicans and big corporations are saying Trump is a bad pick.”

…which, yeah, they were saying that. But it wasn’t articulated in any grand way beyond that.

Like I said I really don’t think this was a meaningful matter of “people didn’t think Harris was progressive enough” as a reason they didn’t come out to vote. And if they did, it was once again a matter of her not articulating how her policies would help people. All back to a failure of messaging on the economy.

[PhaelixWW]

To be honest, I think the idea that some people have of the Cheney's endorsement somehow losing Harris the election is laughable. Like that was somehow enough to stop a significant amount of people from voting for Harris. Laughable.

Let's not forget that a plurality of people voted for a rapist and felon who fomented an insurrection. The "pinch your nose and vote" vibe was strong this election.

My mistake was thinking that a) people would be smarter about the economy, and b) that they'd be properly dismayed by Trump's criminal acts.

Not enough, it appears.

[NED funded]

The infighting over cheney and how red the democrats need to be is why they lost. Not sure if you guys have paid attention to MAGA , they all have very diverse opinions on a wide range of issues. The one common factor is that they are in line with the candidate. On this same thread people here deny that Biden is the most progressive candidate in the history of the US. Some people here straight up refuse to admit that he has done a lot for laboue, lgbt+ communities, his DOJ was tackling the issue of racial discrimination in the police force among a bunch of different things.

Be a wide camp but always enthusiastically support the candidate

[PhaelixWW]

The infighting over cheney and how red the democrats need to be is why they lost.

No, it wasn't.

"It's the economy, stupid."

[Endus]

On this same thread people here deny that Biden is the most progressive candidate in the history of the US.

Nope. Hell, just see my sig.

Calling Biden the "most progressive candidate" is like calling a dog "the most vegan canine". Dogs aren't vegan. It's just a supremely silly claim on its face, like that dog won't gulp down a steak if you slap it down in front of them.

Some people here straight up refuse to admit that he has done a lot for laboue, lgbt+ communities, his DOJ was tackling the issue of racial discrimination in the police force among a bunch of different things.

Mitigating the worst of some regressive systemic bigotries extant in US society is not actually "being progressive". It's trying to bring it back to zero on that scale, not moving things forward. Progressivism is about a fuck of a lot more than just mitigating bigotry.

Biden's still the guy who strongly backed the most regressive policing initiative pushed forward by the federal government in decades; the 1994 crime bill. Responsible for a lot of the current issues with criminal enforcement and encarceration. Biden hasn't even cleared out his own legacy in causing that harm, let alone moved the needle forward. You don't get to free-fall downwards for 30 years and then pull up right at the end and claim you've beeing going up this whole time.

[Odinfrost]

Oh god. That was a slog to catch up to... And I feel like thesilentmajority simply lacks reading comprehension because fucking hell.

But that kinda checks since apparently 21% of american adults can't read

[Edge-]

Oh god. That was a slog to catch up to... And I feel like thesilentmajority simply lacks reading comprehension because fucking hell.

But that kinda checks since apparently 21% of american adults can't read

Significantly lacking in honesty.

[Jessicka]

The infighting over cheney and how red the democrats need to be is why they lost. Not sure if you guys have paid attention to MAGA , they all have very diverse opinions on a wide range of issues. The one common factor is that they are in line with the candidate. On this same thread people here deny that Biden is the most progressive candidate in the history of the US. Some people here straight up refuse to admit that he has done a lot for laboue, lgbt+ communities, his DOJ was tackling the issue of racial discrimination in the police force among a bunch of different things.

Be a wide camp but always enthusiastically support the candidate

Biden was the “hold your nose and vote” candidate in 2020. You can’t come back 4 years later with that as the same plan, eventually different face.

[Edge-]

Biden was the “hold your nose and vote” candidate in 2020. You can’t come back 4 years later with that as the same plan, eventually different face.

I mean, homeboy wasn't the most exciting candidate ever but this is a wild concept to me. He wasn't remotely objectionable even campaigning as a moderate Democrat.

[Rasulis]

To be honest, I think the idea that some people have of the Cheney's endorsement somehow losing Harris the election is laughable. Like that was somehow enough to stop a significant amount of people from voting for Harris. Laughable.

Let's not forget that a plurality of people voted for a rapist and felon who fomented an insurrection. The "pinch your nose and vote" vibe was strong this election.

My mistake was thinking that a) people would be smarter about the economy, and b) that they'd be properly dismayed by Trump's criminal acts.

Not enough, it appears.

In this election, a >>>>>>>>>> b. I would like to make the argument that when you compare this election to Reagan vs. Carter and Clinton vs. Bush, which were also driven by economic dissatisfaction, Harris did much better than Carter and Bush. Trump's unlikability (b) was probably a factor. Reagan was very charming and funny. Clinton was boisterous and folksy. Very likeable. Trump was simply nasty.

[Jessicka]

I mean, homeboy wasn't the most exciting candidate ever but this is a wild concept to me. He wasn't remotely objectionable even campaigning as a moderate Democrat.

If unexciting and unobjectionable are barely enough to scrape past Trump first time, why expect it to be enough second once people have had chance to decide he’s a bit shit?

“Still not Trump tho” was never going to be as big a draw as it should be.

[diller]

Pretty much this. The democrats failed to enumerate how 1) they'd be good for the economy and how 2) Trump would be bad. Plain and simple.

I mentioned this in this thread a bit before the election and got shat on.

From what I can tell, the biggest problem the Democrats have is the economy.

There seems to be a lot of people thinking the economy was better 4 years ago but now everything is more expensive so those people will vote for Trump despite actually not liking him at all.


From what I can tell the Democrats have not tried to explain why the economy got worse and how they will continue to improve it if Harris is elected.

[Kaleredar]

I mentioned this in this thread a bit before the election and got shat on.

Perhaps people errantly assumed the voting public wouldn’t be stupid enough to believe Trump’s abject unsupported lies. For a second time.

Unfortunately we underestimated the shortsighted stupidity of the average American voter. And Harris likely did as well.

Though frankly “the economy” isn’t a “sexy, provocative thing” to say that Harris lost over. People have their own personal gripes with the political establishment and people who fancy themselves progressives on this forum wanted to use Harris’ campaign to say what she needed to do to make them more excited to vote for her.

But you didn’t need to convince progressives to vote for Harris. If they “sat out this election” they aren’t truly progressive, they’re just looking for attention. And don’t get it twisted, that doesn’t mean Harris needed to “appeal to republicans more,” it means that her messaging needed to be more focused on how, like I said, she’d be good for the economy and perhaps more importantly how Trump would (and is going to be) bad for it.

[Edge-]

If unexciting and unobjectionable are barely enough to scrape past Trump first time, why expect it to be enough second once people have had chance to decide he’s a bit shit?

“Still not Trump tho” was never going to be as big a draw as it should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_U...ntial_election

He did not "just scrape by". It wasn't a blowout, but it was a strong win with majority voter support (not just plurality) and a 5% split in favor of Biden, and a reasonable EC margin of victory (70).

You seem to have a pattern of not bothering to look to see if the claims your making have any validity or evidence to support them.

[Endus]

Though frankly “the economy” isn’t a “sexy, provocative thing” to say that Harris lost over.

The problem with it is that it's super easy for Trump to say "Gonna put tariffs on everyone! Shit will be cheaper for Americans! MAGA!", but to debunk that claim, you need to take the time to explain "Tariffs are applied to imports, so when a company imports goods that a tariff is applied to, they'll raise prices to include the tariff, meaning prices get increased to the actual consumer, not the one who was shipping the goods to America".

And the audience's attention span fell out halfway through that explanation, because there's not enough exclamation points and handjob-jerking motions being made by the person speaking.

Lies are always faster than the debunking of those lies. By the time you catch enough attention to properly debunk a given lie, the liar's already pushed 10 new lies, and you're losing the war even if you finally managed to win that one specific battle.

That doesn't mean you need to lie, yourself, but it does mean you shouldn't be trying to debunk (yes, I won't take my own advice on this point, but I'm talking about political candidates; debunking still has value just not on that level). You need to use emotional, stylistic rhetoric. You can't say "Trump's getting this point wrong, and let me explain to you why . . .", you need to be all "Trump's a stupid fucking dingus, and only other dinguses are stupid enough to fall for his bullshit! You're not a dingus, so don't fall for it!" Is that productive, informative discussion? Fuck no. That's not what works. What works is, apparently, fearmongering and name-calling.

It isn't "the economy" people got upset about. It was "why bananas cost three money, when used to cost two money?" You can't explain why tariffs don't work the way Trump claims, you need to boil it down to "tariffs make bananas cost FOUR money, one money just for TRUMP."

You can't explain why Trump's policies are bad. You need to yank his pants down and mock his tiny mushroom penis. You need to mock the dinguses that fall for his bullshit. That's where we're at. Apparently.