2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[Duke Mu]

I get that and I think all smart, informed, pragmatic progressive voters get that. I’m worried about low-info progressive leaning voters who won’t bother to show up because they feel like neither party is speaking to their economic concerns. The kinds of voters that Obama was able to turn out in 08.

Obama was successful with working class voters. HRC was not as the Bernie Bros sat it out or voted for Trump. Kamala is rejuvenating working class ties with Obama's help. The Coalition has to prevail over the dumb white male vote: young voters, women, POC, working class, Arabs and Jews, progressives. It has to be the Rainbow.

Kamala has been rebooting the momentum lost during the Hurricane of Trump Lies about FEMA and disinformation that COST LIVES and PROPERTY.

 

[Paine]

Obama was successful with working class voters. HRC was not as the Bernie Bros sat it out or voted for Trump. Kamala is rejuvenating working class ties with Obama's help. The Coalition has to prevail over the dumb white male vote: young voters, women, POC, working class, Arabs and Jews, progressives. It has to be the Rainbow.

Kamala has been rebooting the momentum lost during the Hurricane of Trump Lies about FEMA and disinformation that COST LIVES and PROPERTY.

I know Obama was successful with working class voters, that’s my point. He didn’t have that success by appealing to suburban Republicans, he did it by running an economically populist campaign in the midst of a recession.

Harris has put forward some great policies that would be good for working people, but I worry that the messaging isn’t breaking through. Part of that is through no fault of her own, of course. Part of that, in my opinion, is that the progressive economic message is muddied by appeals to the very people who have been the enemy of the working class forever.

Let’s not rehash the Bernie Bro argument for the 80th time. But it’s simply not true that Bernie’s supporters sat out or voted for Trump. This is easily available info with a simple Google search. Liberals constantly denigrating Bernie Sanders voters is part of the issue they have with connecting with progressives to begin with.

 

[dukeman92]

I know Obama was successful with working class voters, that’s my point. He didn’t have that success by appealing to suburban Republicans, he did it by running an economically populist campaign in the midst of a recession.

Harris has put forward some great policies that would be good for working people, but I worry that the messaging isn’t breaking through. Part of that is through no fault of her own, of course. Part of that, in my opinion, is that the progressive economic message is muddied by appeals to the very people who have been the enemy of the working class forever.

Let’s not rehash the Bernie Bro argument for the 80th time. But it’s simply not true that Bernie’s supporters sat out or voted for Trump. This is easily available info with a simple Google search. Liberals constantly denigrating Bernie Sanders voters is part of the issue they have with connecting with progressives to begin with.

If the message wasn't breaking through she wouldn't be closing the gap with Orange Shitler on that issue, and polls reflect just that. And while her delivery is on point, I will concede that she could be better at varying her information to reach a broader range of people.

 

[Paine]

If the message wasn't breaking through she wouldn't be closing the gap on Orange Shitler on that issue, and polls reflect just that. And while her delivery is on point, I will concede that she could be better at varying her information to reach a broader range of people.

I think a certain percentage of the moving number of economic approval is conservative voters realizing that Trump isn’t fiscally conservative either.

I don’t even really blame Harris for this strategy. They had a very limited amount of time to come up with a message, and it somewhat makes sense to pursue conservative leaning likely voters rather than progressive leaning sometimes voters/new voters in that limited time. I’m still worried about the strategy though.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I’ve thought for years this was a huge problem and a big part of what’s gone wrong here. Folks on the left defaulting to believing guardrails would hold and we’d all be fine in the end. Enough non-cultists on the right voting Trump in 2016 thinking “what’s the worst that could happen?”

This is still a problem, even now. Just because things have been fine here your entire life doesn’t mean they always will be. The vast majority of folks who lived thru WWII are dead. Everyone alive today has only known the post-WWII relatively peaceful world order.

There’s been an enormous collective lack of imagination on the part of Americans. It can happen here.

+1. This has been my thinking for a good while, since Trump's first term. There just seems to be too many people - and not just Republicans but many independents and even liberals - who just can't bring themselves to believe that Trump is really serious and that things could possibly get that bad. They cling to the illusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights will magically protect us and that handing complete control of all branches of the government over to Trumper Republicans just won't be that bad. And when they realize their mistake it will simply be too late.

 

[Duke Mu]

I know Obama was successful with working class voters, that’s my point. He didn’t have that success by appealing to suburban Republicans, he did it by running an economically populist campaign in the midst of a recession.

Harris has put forward some great policies that would be good for working people, but I worry that the messaging isn’t breaking through. Part of that is through no fault of her own, of course. Part of that, in my opinion, is that the progressive economic message is muddied by appeals to the very people who have been the enemy of the working class forever.

Let’s not rehash the Bernie Bro argument for the 80th time. But it’s simply not true that Bernie’s supporters sat out or voted for Trump. This is easily available info with a simple Google search. Liberals constantly denigrating Bernie Sanders voters is part of the issue they have with connecting with progressives to begin with.

That's not completely true. Obama also appealed to suburban Philly and Cleveland voters - moderates and even some Republicans. HRC lost the suburban women's vote as well as the working class.

The difference today is the gender gap. Kamala is counting on the Coalition and suburban women in Milwaukee, Detroit, That includes Nikki voters. When the margin is razor thin, you open that umbrella and add to the Coalition.

Trump's strategy is to suppress coalition voters who could beat him, while playing Pied Piper to white voters who don't normally vote.

 

[superrific]

I’m worried the putting the Cheneys front and center in the final weeks of the campaign is going to demotivate some people who would otherwise be Harris voters.

Moreover, if Harris is elected and feels more beholden to conservative and corporate elements of the party, I worry about what that means for progressive policy priorities that will improve the lives of poor and working people.

Anyone that wants to talk about this just DM me. I feel like I’m clogging up this thread at this point.

I live in a swingy state. Not the swingiest but I've been getting a lot of ads every time I watch youtube, and sometimes things on prime. I've seen dozens and dozens of Kamala ads. My 10 year olds have seen the ads too and thus know all about Trump banning abortion and the $4000 Trump Tax. Point is, we are getting the campaign's message.

I have yet to see a single ad with a Cheney or any Republican in it.

Campaigns have multiple messaging channels. The Cheney messaging is going to the audience that wants to see it. Different messages are going to a more progressive audience.

Kamala's strategy to de-partisanize the race is really smart. She's running against a) a movement and b) a very unstable, cognitively impaired idiot. Of those, you want to run against b). Kamala wins if the contest is between her as a person and Trump as a person. So bringing in Cheney allows the focus to be on Trump the unstable idiot, and not on more ideological barbs. Bringing in Cheney allows the focus to be on J6, which is a strong issue for Kamala.

 

[Duke Mu]

+1. This has been my thinking for a good while, since Trump's first term. There just seems to be too many people - and not just Republicans but many independents and even liberals - who just can't bring themselves to believe that Trump is really serious and that things could possibly get that bad. They cling to the illusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights will magically protect us and that handing complete control of all branches of the government over to Trumper Republicans just won't be that bad. And when they realize their mistake it will simply be too late.

Recent SCrOTUS decisions have proven how frail that document is without each generation fighting to keep the ideals alive.

"A Republic, madam. If you can keep it."

 

[nycfan]

Harris Seeks Suburban Swing to Offset Trump Gains​

America’s political fault line now runs through the suburbs, where Trump has alienated some college-educated voters​

“… Democratic inroads among the strip malls and cul-de-sacs of suburbia have been fueled by an emphasis on abortion rights and Trump’s heated rhetoric and colorful behavior, strengthening the party’s standing with independents and women with high levels of education. In recent days, Harris has sharpened her attacks on Trump, including saying she thinks he is a fascist and pointing to past aides who say he shouldn’t return to the Oval Office.

The former president’s campaign sees an advantage in the suburbs over concerns about immigration and crime, issues where polls show the former president is viewed as stronger, as well as hot-button cultural topics such as transgender athletes in youth sports.

The GOP nominee’s inability to broaden his support beyond his conservative base is one of the biggest challenges he faces in reclaiming the presidency. …”

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/kamala-harris-surburban-voters-election-strategy-ba658bfd?st=GDbjJv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

[Paine]

That's not completely true. Obama also appealed to suburban Philly and Cleveland voters - moderates and even some Republicans. HRC lost the suburban women's vote as well as the working class.

The difference today is the gender gap. Kamala is counting on the Coalition and suburban women in Milwaukee, Detroit, That includes Nikki voters. When the margin is razor thin, you open that umbrella and add to the Coalition.

Trump's strategy is to suppress coalition voters who could beat him, while playing Pied Piper to white voters who don't normally vote.

He appealed to those *some* of those suburban voters, sure. He doesn’t win without the margins he had in white working class communities and with working class POC.

 

[Paine]

I live in a swingy state. Not the swingiest but I've been getting a lot of ads every time I watch youtube, and sometimes things on prime. I've seen dozens and dozens of Kamala ads. My 10 year olds have seen the ads too and thus know all about Trump banning abortion and the $4000 Trump Tax. Point is, we are getting the campaign's message.

I have yet to see a single ad with a Cheney or any Republican in it.

Campaigns have multiple messaging channels. The Cheney messaging is going to the audience that wants to see it. Different messages are going to a more progressive audience.

Kamala's strategy to de-partisanize the race is really smart. She's running against a) a movement and b) a very unstable, cognitively impaired idiot. Of those, you want to run against b). Kamala wins if the contest is between her as a person and Trump as a person. So bringing in Cheney allows the focus to be on Trump the unstable idiot, and not on more ideological barbs. Bringing in Cheney allows the focus to be on J6, which is a strong issue for Kamala.

I largely agree with this. I will still worry about it until/if she wins. I think a message to appeal to both suburban voters and working class voters could be better communicated. Again, I think part of this is definitely the truncated timeline.

 

[Duke Mu]

I live in a swingy state. Not the swingiest but I've been getting a lot of ads every time I watch youtube, and sometimes things on prime. I've seen dozens and dozens of Kamala ads. My 10 year olds have seen the ads too and thus know all about Trump banning abortion and the $4000 Trump Tax. Point is, we are getting the campaign's message.

I have yet to see a single ad with a Cheney or any Republican in it.

Campaigns have multiple messaging channels. The Cheney messaging is going to the audience that wants to see it. Different messages are going to a more progressive audience.

Kamala's strategy to de-partisanize the race is really smart. She's running against a) a movement and b) a very unstable, cognitively impaired idiot. Of those, you want to run against b). Kamala wins if the contest is between her as a person and Trump as a person. So bringing in Cheney allows the focus to be on Trump the unstable idiot, and not on more ideological barbs. Bringing in Cheney allows the focus to be on J6, which is a strong issue for Kamala.

Exactly. The coalition wins. This is not a campaign of ideological purity. If Kamala wins, progressives can have that argument.

However, the sole purpose now is to WIN. Something that frankly milquetoast Dems have had a hard time understanding over the last decade.

Seriously, if HRC or Obama had committed 1% of the norm busting and crimes Trump has committed they would have been imprisoned (or in the case of Obama lynched) years ago.

HRC withstood years of investigation then turned around 13 hours of grilling on SC Rep. Gowdy for a mixed martial protest/terrorist riot on the 9/11 anniversary...on a day where the entire M.E. was rioting...and the ambassador was killed by smoke inhalation in embedded CIA base (not run by the State Department) within the Libyan Embassy grounds. There were 13 Benghazis under W.

 

[superrific]

I get that and I think all smart, informed, pragmatic progressive voters get that. I’m worried about low-info progressive leaning voters who won’t bother to show up because they feel like neither party is speaking to their economic concerns. The kinds of voters that Obama was able to turn out in 08.

Turnout in 08 was barely above 04 (61.6% to 60.5%). Both elections were lower than 2020, and both are going to end up lower than 2024. I don't know who these voters you think Obama turned out that didn't get turned out in subsequent elections -- except obviously some black voters, as black voter turnout was especially strong that cycle.

I think what happened, actually, is that either Obama or Obama's election activated a certain cohort of voters. The problem is that we aren't winning those voters any more, or at least not in big enough numbers, because they get activated by fear and panic. That's what got them out in 08.

What people don't remember -- and it's possible I'm misremembering here -- is that the 08 race was close until Lehman fell. Obama was leading, but only a little bit. It was when the economy and the banking system tanked that it became a landslide. McCain "suspended his campaign" to return to DC to help do the bailout and ended up making a fool of himself because he did nothing. Sarah Palin was exactly the wrong VP candidate to have when the shit was hitting the fan.

Obama ran a great campaign in 08 but it would be thought of quite differently had the financial crisis not made it impossible for McCain to win. Pretty much any Dem would have won.

And remember the story about the door knocker being met at the door by a wife. When asked who she would vote for, she yelled to her husband and he responded "we're voting for the n*****" Whether or not that specific story is true (I tend to think it is, because after all, canvassers as a whole spoke to a lot of people), it captures what the campaign experienced. A lot of voters turning to the n***** because the economy was in the crapper and they wanted change. Then, when the economy was rescued, they went back to their former attitudes. They fell for the brown panic hook line and sinker.

 

[Duke Mu]

He appealed to those *some* of those suburban voters, sure. He doesn’t win without the margins he had in white working class communities and with working class POC.

That is incorrect. It was a huge swing. Chris Matthews noticed the loss of surburban voters to Trump real time on Election Night 2013. Hillary's campaign was arrogant. They thought they had the Blue Wall sealed. They went for the mandate and blew it by campaigning in the Southwest instead of the Blue Wall.

The object is to WIN.

 

[Paine]

That is incorrect. It was a huge swing. Chris Matthews noticed the loss of surburban voters to Trump real time on Election Night 2013. Hillary's campaign was arrogant. They thought they had the Blue Wall sealed. They went for the mandate and blew it by campaigning in the Southwest instead of the Blue Wall.

The object is to WIN.

I know the object is to win. I’m not sure why you keep suggesting I’m about ideological purity when nothing I’ve said has indicated that. I’m worried because I’m worried she won’t win without engaging a segment of voters that she seems to be missing right now.

 

[superrific]

I largely agree with this. I will still worry about it until/if she wins. I think a message to appeal to both suburban voters and working class voters could be better communicated. Again, I think part of this is definitely the truncated timeline.

And the backup quarterback could probably do a better job than the starter.

It's so easy to say "the messaging could be better." Actually doing it is harder. Much harder. And sometimes Kamala isn't the best person to do the messaging. That's why the campaign has been bringing in so many celebrity surrogates -- ones that people actually care about and who aren't washed up. As Plouffe said, they have researched who effectively delivers which messages to which audiences.

But the game is so, so difficult now. You have 5 seconds or 15 seconds to make a pitch on the internet before your ad becomes skippable. You have to make sure you don't create a sound bite or a Dukakis-in-the-tank image for the other side. You have to make sure the message to one group doesn't offend the others. That's another asymmetry. Trump can be out there promising giveaways to minorities to attract minority votes, because the white people know he's on their side. Kamala can't do that. She promises modest efforts at helping black people and it's "identity politics, woke, she wants to screw white people" blah blah blah.

Bottom line: The Dems have access to the smartest people in the country. You probably weren't alive in 92 when Clinton did "A Man From Hope" at the DNC, but at the time, it was incredibly buzzy. It was made by two TV producers (I don't remember their names) who had a string of hit shows under their belt, and they gave Clinton a Hollywood treatment. It hadn't been done before.

Ever since, the Dems have leaned on the creative community. It didn't hurt that so many people in advertising and media were gay and thus naturally aligned with the Dem program. Dems also have access to the smartest data scientists, smart researchers, etc.

And yet, with all this talent, the messaging proves difficult. Some people say, "the Dems suck at messaging." My response is that the messaging is really hard. There's no way they have all this talent and are also as inept as people think.

 

[Paine]

That is incorrect. It was a huge swing. Chris Matthews noticed the loss of surburban voters to Trump real time on Election Night 2013. Hillary's campaign was arrogant. They thought they had the Blue Wall sealed. They went for the mandate and blew it by campaigning in the Southwest instead of the Blue Wall.

The object is to WIN.

You’re missing my point. Comparing Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012 with Clinton’s loss in 2016 is what I’m doing here.

Clinton lost in the suburbs, yes. She also lost in the exurbs and among working class white voters in the Midwest. A lot of these voters were x2 Obama voters.

Biden won increased numbers in the suburbs over Clinton and regained a portion of white working class support.

Kamala also has to do both of those to win. Will she be able to? That’s what I’m worrying about.

 

[superrific]

You’re missing my point. Comparing Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012 with Clinton’s loss in 2016 is what I’m doing here.

Clinton lost in the suburbs, yes. She also lost in the exurbs and among working class white voters in the Midwest. A lot of these voters were x2 Obama voters.

Biden won increased numbers in the suburbs over Clinton and regained a portion of white working class support.

Kamala also has to do both of those to win. Will she be able to? That’s what I’m worrying about.

Yeah, but there are a few other things to consider here.

1. Gender. I'm absolutely convinced that HRC had at least a two-point disadvantage from being a woman, especially with those WWC voters you are mentioning.

2. In 08 Obama was running against the people who brought us the Great Recession.

3. In 12, Obama was running against someone who had literally screwed tens of thousands of workers out of jobs and pensions. He was private equity. Private equity had devastated those communities. Romney was the best candidate to run against in the Blue Wall states. That he didn't lean too hard into the culture wars meant that he had no way of creating common cause with the people who hated him.

 

[Paine]

Yeah, but there are a few other things to consider here.

1. Gender. I'm absolutely convinced that HRC had at least a two-point disadvantage from being a woman, especially with those WWC voters you are mentioning.

2. In 08 Obama was running against the people who brought us the Great Recession.

3. In 12, Obama was running against someone who had literally screwed tens of thousands of workers out of jobs and pensions. He was private equity. Private equity had devastated those communities. Romney was the best candidate to run against in the Blue Wall states. That he didn't lean too hard into the culture wars meant that he had no way of creating common cause with the people who hated him.

I hope y’all are right. I tend to agree that the strategy will work, if barely.

 

[SnoopRob]

I know Obama was successful with working class voters, that’s my point. He didn’t have that success by appealing to suburban Republicans, he did it by running an economically populist campaign in the midst of a recession.

Harris has put forward some great policies that would be good for working people, but I worry that the messaging isn’t breaking through. Part of that is through no fault of her own, of course. Part of that, in my opinion, is that the progressive economic message is muddied by appeals to the very people who have been the enemy of the working class forever.

Let’s not rehash the Bernie Bro argument for the 80th time. But it’s simply not true that Bernie’s supporters sat out or voted for Trump. This is easily available info with a simple Google search. Liberals constantly denigrating Bernie Sanders voters is part of the issue they have with connecting with progressives to begin with.

The question we have to ask is: Why was Obama successful with working class voters? My take is it was less actual economic policies and more that Obama was a generational political talent combined with an electorate ready for change after 8 years of Dubya. And I think he retained some, but not all, of those folks after 4 years in 2012 and he had largely lost them by 2016.

The appeals to disaffected conservatives is in no way at odds with appeals to progressives around economic issues. The appeals to disaffected conservatives is about saving democracy from Trump. Harris' economic proposals are reasonably progressive. Of course, it's hard to make the case that you're the "change" candidate when you represent the party in office and Harris has had to deal with the reality of that situation.

As far as 2016, I wholly disagree that it is "obvious" that progressives didn't cost Hillary the election. They certainly didn't do it single-handedly, but I find it pretty clear that movement to Stein by progressives cost Hillary both Michigan and Wisconsin and made things worse in Pennsylvania (although not necessarily enough to have flipped it to Trump alone). If we're going to talk about liberals connecting with progressives, a very important part of the discussion is that liberals feel betrayed by progressives just as much as progressives feel ignored by liberals. You can't handwave that away by pretending that 2016 didn't happen.