OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS - POTUS | TRUMP ELECTED 47th President

[finesse]

Well I'm saying our projected weakness emboldened putin, as it did under obama. Obviously that is just my opinion and not expecting you to agree. Along those lines, one of my biggest fears in a harris win was china invading taiwan during her term. Again, not expecting you to agree but you at least know where I'm coming from.

Agree with you on warmongering

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.

 

[rodoheel]

Well I'm saying our projected weakness emboldened putin, as it did under obama. Obviously that is just my opinion and not expecting you to agree. Along those lines, one of my biggest fears in a harris win was china invading taiwan during her term. Again, not expecting you to agree but you at least know where I'm coming from.

Agree with you on warmongering

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?

 

[SnoopRob]

How about if the real answer is that the Dems have been consistently better on all matters of the economy for 70 years ? Do you think they are buying it? The real problem is that if you are a Democrat, they aren't going to listen to any answer you give. I understand the point you're making. I also know I never had it that good. I don't feel like we're necessarily the ones acting in bad faith.

I agree with you that Dems are better for the economy across all economic levels of Americans.

I think Dems have got to do a better job discussing economic issues. Dems tend to get a bit caught up in showing how the economy is better using facts and figures and economic data...and most voters essentially equate "the economy" with their personal budget. Dems have got to find an economic populist message that works with those who aren't white collar professionals in reasonably high paying jobs. It's going to take hard work because Dems have to thread a needle of being realistic with what can be accomplished while also setting a vision that is beyond the strict reality of where we currently reside.

I think motifs of economic mobility, ensuring an opportunity of a "good life" for all, fighting corporate greed, and similar ideas will be the foundation of that message. But it will not be easy to really determine and will take a lot of effrort.

 

[altmin]

I would love to know the total number of prisoners that have received gender reassignment surgery while in prison. It’s absurd that something like this was a major component of a Presidential campaign.

all you need is one for it to be 24 hour coverage on Fox. Hell you don't even need one, you just need the possibility that there could be one.

 

[ZenMode]

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ, I'm so sick of this double standard shit. Trump and his supporters do nothing but trash, threaten, and bully liberals 24/7. For pete's sake, Trump repeatedly threatened to jail or even kill liberals in his campaign. Kamala was called a bitch, cunt, and other choice epithets. Yet god forbid anyone say anything negative about Trump or his supporters. I posted during the campaign that the double standard for Republicans and Democrats is real, and I continue to stand by that. They can say fuck you or you're a whore or evil or whatever and liberals are supposed to smile and let it go, but say anything negative about them and they lose their shit. It's gotten really, really old.

It's true. There are no standards for Trump but clearly Kamala, and to some degree the Democratic Party's, message doesn't seem to be reaching the non-MAGA contingency. It's not reaching the Left, center-left or center-right. She only got 65 million votes and Trump's votes remained almost completely unchanged from 2020, so it's not like people were switching.

 

[finesse]

I agree with you that Dems are better for the economy across all economic levels of Americans.

I think Dems have got to do a better job discussing economic issues. Dems tend to get a bit caught up in showing how the economy is better using facts and figures and economic data...and most voters essentially equate "the economy" with their personal budget. Dems have got to find an economic populist message that works with those who aren't white collar professionals in reasonably high paying jobs. It's going to take hard work because Dems have to thread a needle of being realistic with what can be accomplished while also setting a vision that is beyond the strict reality of where we currently reside.

I think motifs of economic mobility, ensuring an opportunity of a "good life" for all, fighting corporate greed, and similar ideas will be the foundation of that message. But it will not be easy to really determine and will take a lot of effrort.

Not to mention their fascination with the figureheads of corporate greed like Musk. I still insist the the biggest problem is that we can't agree on standards for discussion. If any argument presented or premise offered is rejected because "that can't be true", we are not getting anywhere.

 

[rodoheel]

I agree with you that Dems are better for the economy across all economic levels of Americans.

I think Dems have got to do a better job discussing economic issues. Dems tend to get a bit caught up in showing how the economy is better using facts and figures and economic data...and most voters essentially equate "the economy" with their personal budget. Dems have got to find an economic populist message that works with those who aren't white collar professionals in reasonably high paying jobs. It's going to take hard work because Dems have to thread a needle of being realistic with what can be accomplished while also setting a vision that is beyond the strict reality of where we currently reside.

I think motifs of economic mobility, ensuring an opportunity of a "good life" for all, fighting corporate greed, and similar ideas will be the foundation of that message. But it will not be easy to really determine and will take a lot of effrort.

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.

 

[SnoopRob]

Which does make sense until you see now Boomers have gotten more democrat than Gen X??

Boomers are now in retirement. They aren't as worried about growing their financial assets as preserving their income through their deaths (and securing social security and medicare). They aren't as worried about protecting their place in society as they are what kind of world they'll leave to their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Now, I'm not talking about everyone, but about the moveable margins. There's something about knowing your time is coming to a close that makes some folks more magnanimous. I think we can see that happening with Boomers and Gen X acting like Boomers did 20 years ago.

 

[SnoopRob]

The thing is though, this is me, my wife and 2 kids that you're describing. Except we can't afford new cars or can't save any money for retirement whatsoever, have no money in the stock market, and I still understand that this economy isn't the fault of the current administration. We struggle monthly to get by, routinely have 2 digits in our bank account at the end of the month, but I don't blame it on anyone, its just the way it is. Corporate greed coming off a worldwide pandemic set prices high and thats where they are now.

You're a much more educated voter than 80% or more of the electorate.

Dems have got to let go of the idea that if the general public just knew what we know, that they'd all understand and vote Dem.

It might be true, but the general public is too stupid, too lazy, and too distracted to become knowledgeable. Instead, Dems are going to have to be able to speak in short phrases and small words about economic issues in a way that resonates with the general public.

 

[Zoo_View]

idk, putting RFK in a cabinet level Health position may have pretty immediate consequences

Edit- ehh it may take 1-2 years for the herd immunity to fall below a level where we truly have outbreaks

The size of the US economy and government are similar to a supertanker or aircraft carrier traveling at speed - changing course and/or stopping is a slow process.

The impacts of Trump’s, Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s, and Musk’s ludicrous ideas (massive deportations, tariffs, eliminating the Dept. of Education, and gutting the federal government, deregulating damn near everything) will take a while to do and few or no of the impacts will be immediate (except for cutting off Ukraine).

The impacts will be dire, but not immediate.

 

[GQNC]

For something that is not a real issue or concern, seems easy to just align with the "yeah, we don't support it" side instead of dying on that hill and alienating a ton of voters - especially African American and Latino men.

I guess at times it is better be hard-hearted and not defend the few than to let defending the few cause you to not get the opportunity to help many (through other policies).

 

[Centerpiece]

In N.C. Trump got about 51% of the vote ...2,876,398
Harris got about 48% .................................2,684,465
Trump won by 191,933 votes
(of course there were an insignificant number of IIIrd party votes, but no where near 191,933 votes)

However, there were 2,095,813 registered voters in N.C. who did NOT CAST a ballot!
Shame on these folks for not voting! Granted, about 51% of those would have probably voted for Trump, but still...

 

[1moretimeagain]

For years Republicans have claimed Dems wanted Hispanic migrants in order to get their vote and we’d have single party rule in the US. Elon said that is the reason this would be the last ever election if Harris ends.

Will they be able to keep their Great Replacement theory going after the 2024 result?

 

[Zoo_View]

I would love to know the total number of prisoners that have received gender reassignment surgery while in prison. It’s absurd that something like this was a major component of a Presidential campaign.

Unfortunately, that ad resonated like the Jesse Helms “pink hands” ad in 1990.

 

[SnoopRob]

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.

I think most people respond to emotional messages that agree with the "rational" thoughts they have from their own experiences.

If we're having to point to macroeconomic data to go "well, actually..." about the economy then we're losing.

Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" message worked because it was an emotional message that comported with folks' real world experiences that they were economically pinched. If Bill has instead come out and said "You're doing pretty well, all things considered" instead, I don't think he'd have done nearly as well at the polls.

Dems are going to have to create an economic message that appeals to working class and lower end white collar professionals if Dems want to do well in future elections. That's the simple truth of the matter. The question is how to get there.

 

[Zoo_View]

For years Republicans have claimed Dems wanted Hispanic migrants in order to get their vote and we’d have single party rule in the US. Elon said that is the reason this would be the last ever election if Harris ends.

Will they be able to keep their Great Replacement theory going after the 2024 result?

Yes.

No problem doing that whatsoever.

 

[rodoheel]

I think most people respond to emotional messages that agree with the "rational" thoughts they have from their own experiences.

If we're having to point to macroeconomic data to go "well, actually..." about the economy then we're losing.

Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" message worked because it was an emotional message that comported with folks' real world experiences that they were economically pinched. If Bill has instead come out and said "You're doing pretty well, all things considered" instead, I don't think he'd have done nearly as well at the polls.

Dems are going to have to create an economic message that appeals to working class and lower end white collar professionals if Dems want to do well in future elections. That's the simple truth of the matter. The question is how to get there.

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.)

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Dems are going to have to create an economic message that appeals to working class and lower end white collar professionals if Dems want to do well in future elections. That's the simple truth of the matter. The question is how to get there.

Implied in your post is that you think Republicans got there. How did they manage it, in your opnion?

 

[rodoheel]

Yes.

No problem doing that whatsoever.

Yep. As long as the electorate is 71% white they will continue to direct their messaging and platform at white voters. Any minority voters they pick up are a bonus.

 

[EhringhausSouth]

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.)

Republicans in charge won't care about the deficit again either.