OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS - POTUS | TRUMP ELECTED 47th President

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 43K
  • Politics 
rodoheel said:
Part of the problem is that people ALWAYS feel economically pinched. The vast majority of people essentially live up to the edge of what they can afford to, whether they should or not, and that means they inevitably feel like money is tight. That essentially means that outside of universal economic greatness, the non-incumbent party is always going to have an advantage in that respect.

I definitely agree with the last paragraph but it's easier said than done. The working class voters tend to move the goalposts when we try to meet them where they are on messaging. Harris was consistently saying she wanted to improve things for working class families, lower taxes for working class families, etc. None of it mattered because people thought the economy was bad and blamed the current administration. I'm not convinced there is any economic message at all that would have worked at all this cycle. 2/3 of people said the economy was doing not good or bad. No amount of promises about what she would do in the future would have worked; the only way to win on the economy would have been to change voters' mind and make them think the economy was actually already good. And I didn't think that's possible.

Also, I can promise you this: a large chunk of those 2/3 are magically going to start saying that they feel like the economy is great and that they're doing better in January 2025. There's a real chicken vs egg issue here with whether it's the message or the messenger. A huge chunk of voters are just going to say that they feel like the economy is bad when Dems are in power, no matter what. (And probably there's some of that going the other way too, but probably not as much.)
Click to expand...

Republicans in charge won't care about the deficit again either.
 
rodoheel said:
1. Yes. Pubs won't do it, or at most they may do it with some limited exception then try to close the door behind them on the way out; but I would prefer a full repeal, both because it's the right thing for democracy and because I think it would be good politically for Dems. As you may have seen in another thread, I am in favor of Pubs getting the opportunity to put their full legislative agenda in place and don't want them to have any excuses for not doing so. Because they have no real legislative agenda, and to the extent they do it's very unpopular, and I would prefer for people to be able to see very clearly that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to Republican plans to fix anything.
Click to expand...
On this we agree. I would go further and argue that the filibuster is a primary culprit as to how and why our politics became so toxic starting in 2009. We elect presidents; then we don't let them enact the policies they run on; and then we complain that they didn't keep their promises despite being in total control.

I expect the Pubs to get rid of the filibuster. Can you imagine Trump being told, "no we can't do this thing you want to do because we can't get 60 votes and that is an inviolable tradition that we must preserve"?
 
rodoheel said:
I wonder how exactly people expect Trump to both project strength and also be the anti-involvement-in-foreign-wars President? Does anyone think that telling Putin and Xi "we won't intervene militarily to stop you" is projecting strength?
Click to expand...
He projects strength with his penis, apparently.

He sucks up to the leader of one of the worst, least powerful and inconsequential countries on the planet. STRENGTH! All of NATO hates him except one of the least significant countries in the entire alliance, and Trump bends over backward for that guy because STRENGTH.

These mother fuckers have no idea what they are talking about ever.
 
rodoheel said:
Part of the problem is that people ALWAYS feel economically pinched. The vast majority of people essentially live up to the edge of what they can afford to, whether they should or not, and that means they inevitably feel like money is tight. That essentially means that outside of universal economic greatness, the non-incumbent party is always going to have an advantage in that respect.
Click to expand...
This
 
SnoopRob said:
When your entire take on what is possibly the biggest issue in an election is that "people are lying" then you have little to contribute to a discussion.

The economy is great at a macro-level, but those benefits are not equally spread across all levels of society. There are a lot of folks who are, by a reasonable definition, struggling.

Now, you are correct that these folks aren't living in hovels and eating gruel just to survive. But a lot of folks are in families where 2 adults work to afford a house, have reasonably new cars, be able to buy their kids news clothes, pay for childcare or minimal extracurricular activities, eat out a few times per month, and take a vacation once a year and to do so while also having some emergency savings and planning for retirement and being able to give their kids a good start in life.

If your answer to them is that such a life is not one that they should have a reasonable expectation to and that they shouldn't vote based upon, then you're essentially telling a lot of the country that their lot in life is to struggle and then someday die. And that is a message that will lead folks to vote for your opponent in nearly every situation.
Click to expand...
You are undoubtedly correct concerning the situation many people face today and their opinion of the economy. The electorate certainly has changed, I guess, in the past 40 years. Being a young adult in Reagan’s first term, inflation was as bad as in Biden’s administration, interest rates were double the rates in the past four years, and buying a house was out-of-reach for most. Reagan still was reelected in ‘84.

Reagan must have been a much better blame shifter than Biden/Harris.
 
superrific said:
On this we agree. I would go further and argue that the filibuster is a primary culprit as to how and why our politics became so toxic starting in 2009. We elect presidents; then we don't let them enact the policies they run on; and then we complain that they didn't keep their promises despite being in total control.

I expect the Pubs to get rid of the filibuster. Can you imagine Trump being told, "no we can't do this thing you want to do because we can't get 60 votes and that is an inviolable tradition that we must preserve"?
Click to expand...
We'll see. I think it is more likely that Trump will circumvent Congress entirely to rule by executive order than that Pubs will eliminate the filibuster. They know how much it helps them in their constant grievance politics.

Consolidating presidential power is the end goal of people like Leonard Leo, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon anyway.
 
Gaza and the West Bank will be gone. And when Iran really responds, I have to say I want the USA just to stay out of it.
 
rodoheel said:
Short version: people respond to emotional messages, not rational ones, even on the economy which should be more about logic and data than emotion. Unfortunately it's much easier to emotionally message "you and your family struggling to put food on the table" than anything else.
Click to expand...

And yet, somewhat ironically, it was in the field of economics where it was shown by Kahneman and others that people responded to and based their decisions far more on emotions than on reason.
 
1moretimeagain said:
Click to expand...

This is so true. It's a slow leakage for black men. It is a massive hole in the boat for Latino men.

And Latinos are the largest minority in the country and they are growing faster than anyone. Democrat need to come up with a message that resonates and it's not we're not going to deport your cousin. Latinos that are already here and voting aren't going to be deported and I'm sure quite a few of them wouldn't mind seeing the Central Americans that are coming over the border potentially competing with them for jobs being shown the door.
 
finesse said:
My biggest fear is that Trump is going to encourage that. Since one of my daughters in law is from there, I'm not happy with having someone who seeks approval from dictators in charge.
Click to expand...
Can't see trump doing that as he is anti war and the pressure on him to respond would be huge. Also hoping his agenda will put more pressure on China's economy. It isn't great right now and not sure they are in a great position right now economically to pull off an invasion of taiwan.
 
Callatoroy said:
Can't see trump doing that as he is anti war
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHA. He just has a different idea of who the enemy is than most people. Like everything else about the man, this bullshit about "no foreign wars" is bad faith garbage that he never meant and will fall aside.

Besides, even in this campaign he wasn't anti-war. He wants Bibi to finish the job. And during his presidency, he attacked and killed an Iranian leader, which was then met by a missile attack on a US base that caused injuries that Trump dismissed as headaches.
 
rodoheel said:
We'll see. I think it is more likely that Trump will circumvent Congress entirely to rule by executive order than that Pubs will eliminate the filibuster. They know how much it helps them in their constant grievance politics.

Consolidating presidential power is the end goal of people like Leonard Leo, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon anyway.
Click to expand...
Why not both?
 
Callatoroy said:
Can't see trump doing that as he is anti war and the pressure on him to respond would be huge. Also hoping his agenda will put more pressure on China's economy. It isn't great right now and not sure they are in a great position right now economically to pull off an invasion of taiwan.
Click to expand...
I'd rather you be right for a change but he's such a toadie for dictators that I think it's the same as it ever was. I'm still not sold on that anti war thing at all.
 
rodoheel said:
I wonder how exactly people expect Trump to both project strength and also be the anti-involvement-in-foreign-wars President? Does anyone think that telling Putin and Xi "we won't intervene militarily to stop you" is projecting strength?
Click to expand...
When did he say that? Neither russia or china are in a good place economically. Putting pressure on their economies is the best deterrent. Trump would be under a lot of pressure to act if china invaded so i'm confident he wants to avoid that if at all possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top