2024 Election

[HoyaFanNY]

Nov 7, 2024 3:42:11 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

A hundred people

[EtomicB]

Nov 6, 2024 11:11:45 GMT -5 njhoya78 said:

I spent the last twelve hours taking a good hard look at myself.

I was born and raised in New Jersey. Aside from my college years in DC and my law school years in Cleveland, I've lived here my whole life. I used to tell my children, fifteen-twenty years ago, that where we lived was, with the exception of the Northeast corridor from Boston down to Washington, Chicagoland, a small section of South Florida and the West Coast, we were different than the rest of America; that "they" didn't think or believe in the same things as we did. I said that as a bit of a warning that they should not expect similar attitudes as they traveled elsewhere...but I never thought to ask why they thought differently.

Kamala Harris ran a virtually perfect campaign. She did not lack for money, volunteers, or enthusiasm. Yet she lost the election. And unless the Democrats figure out a way to convey messaging better, and to come up with realistic solutions to problems instead of mere explanations, there will be more losses in national elections.

When families are struggling to pay for groceries, you can't tell them that it's due to price gouging by billionaires. When people are concerned about job security, you can't point to how well the stock market has done since the Democrats have been in the White House. When crime is perceived to be rising (even when it really isn't) due to the influx of immigrants across the border, you can't tell them that it's really not that bad. Democrats don't bother asking why people have that belief...they just preach to them. And that doesn't work.

Am I worried about what the next four years will bring? Absolutely. But I'm more concerned that the utopian, Camelot-like aspirations of the Democratic party fail to resonate with single-issue voters that see no place in the "Big Tent" for them. When Latino voters overwhelmingly break away from the Democrats to support a candidate who has threatened to deport legal immigrants, it's not just voting against self-interest...it's a belief that the GOP offers more clarity and comfort. When white suburban women vote break away from the Democrats to support a candidate who boasted of overturning Roe v. Wade, they're not just saying reproductive rights and bodily self-autonomy don't matter to them...they're saying they're not comfortable with what the Democrats are proposing. When white men under 30 years old are voting for the Republicans, it's not because they necessarily sign onto any promise of assistance from the GOP-led government...it's because they believe that the Democrats have been all-talk no action and have failed to deliver a better life for them.

Trotting out the same leadership group going forward, such as Chuck Schumer, is a recipe for disaster. The Democrats need to take a good hard look at how they've squandered the last twenty years.

As for me...I'm going to ask my friends who have been on the other side of the fence why they believe what they do, compared to my views...and listen. I can't change things myself. But I can at least try to reach a level of understanding, instead of simply asserting that my way is the right way...and the only way.

This is where I blame the corporate media as much as anything, Harris didn't blame billionaires for price gouging she blamed the corporations who raked in record profits all while blaming inflation for the high prices but that messaging fell very short if you relied on the media structure in this country to convey it fairly.

The same point applies to the border. She repeatedly stated she wanted to implement the bipartisan bill, which Lankford called the most conservative border policy in 40 years.

There's a huge disconnect between what was said & what was conveyed by the media.

I do agree that Schumer, Pelosi & Durbins need to go away but they won't for the same reason McConnell, Cruz & Graham are around, CORPORATE DONORS like it that way.

Our politics won't change until the corporate interests(Lobbying) are eliminated.

[Massholya]

metro.co.uk/2024/11/07/americans-exposed-no-idea-2024-us-election-21946173/

The reality is we are a tragically uninformed and intellectually lazy population at this point. Most Americans have little interest and make no time for news and self education. The exception to this is the older population who grew up in an era where EVERYONE read the paper each day whether you were a barber or a CEO. Trouble is most of those folks have transitioned to Fox watchers and have a somewhat skewed view of the world. I know this sounds preachy but I believe it is the heart of the issue.
Take Philly for instance. Only like 600,000 people out of a population of like 1.6 million actually voted. Some of us, like those who bother to post and read these threads, are engaged and interested but most of even those that voted likely are not. There is too much Football and Batchelor to watch to devote that time. If democrats want to succeed in the future they have a much larger hill to climb then republicans do right now. Republicans can rely on people just flipping on Fox News which is a proxy of their party at this point. Democrats don’t really have that outlet. Most people simply aren’t gonna regularly tune into news or at least not the one that their message will appeal to. Republicans will run into this same problems in the coming years as the Fox watchers slowly die off but they remain with a relatively safe way to engage their constituents for now. Democrats need to figure out a better way to engage and dialog with people on a more personal level if they ever want to fix their dynamic. They have been too satisfied with thinking running some political ads every couple of years will be enough. They have a much greater need to be more involved with the people they wish to serve to convince them that voting actually serves a purpose whereas republicans can just promote scary crime stories on Fox and blame it on democrats. They had a ton of money this election and they used it very poorly. No one but themselves to blame. They need to start actually talking to working class voters and try to understand how they can best serve them. Until they emphasize this more (they may have to do it at the expense of some of their most progressive goals) they will continue to struggle.

[DanMcQ]

Nov 7, 2024 7:28:17 GMT -5 HoyaFanNY said:

Nov 7, 2024 3:42:11 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

A hundred people

Just like a Trump rally!! ;-)

[HoyaFanNY]

Nov 7, 2024 13:38:30 GMT -5 Massholya said:

metro.co.uk/2024/11/07/americans-exposed-no-idea-2024-us-election-21946173/

The reality is we are a tragically uninformed and intellectually lazy population at this point. Most Americans have little interest and make no time for news and self education. The exception to this is the older population who grew up in an era where EVERYONE read the paper each day whether you were a barber or a CEO. Trouble is most of those folks have transitioned to Fox watchers and have a somewhat skewed view of the world. I know this sounds preachy but I believe it is the heart of the issue.
Take Philly for instance. Only like 600,000 people out of a population of like 1.6 million actually voted. Some of us, like those who bother to post and read these threads, are engaged and interested but most of even those that voted likely are not. There is too much Football and Batchelor to watch to devote that time. If democrats want to succeed in the future they have a much larger hill to climb then republicans do right now. Republicans can rely on people just flipping on Fox News which is a proxy of their party at this point. Democrats don’t really have that outlet. Most people simply aren’t gonna regularly tune into news or at least not the one that their message will appeal to. Republicans will run into this same problems in the coming years as the Fox watchers slowly die off but they remain with a relatively safe way to engage their constituents for now. Democrats need to figure out a better way to engage and dialog with people on a more personal level if they ever want to fix their dynamic. They have been too satisfied with thinking running some political ads every couple of years will be enough. They have a much greater need to be more involved with the people they wish to serve to convince them that voting actually serves a purpose whereas republicans can just promote scary crime stories on Fox and blame it on democrats. They had a ton of money this election and they used it very poorly. No one but themselves to blame. They need to start actually talking to working class voters and try to understand how they can best serve them. Until they emphasize this more (they may have to do it at the expense of some of their most progressive goals) they will continue to struggle.

According to the Philadelphia City Commissioners website there are 1,117,680 registered voters with 709,878 ballots cast...63.51%

Not great but it was similar to Chicago

[CTHoya08]

Nov 7, 2024 13:38:30 GMT -5 Massholya said:

metro.co.uk/2024/11/07/americans-exposed-no-idea-2024-us-election-21946173/

The reality is we are a tragically uninformed and intellectually lazy population at this point. Most Americans have little interest and make no time for news and self education. The exception to this is the older population who grew up in an era where EVERYONE read the paper each day whether you were a barber or a CEO. Trouble is most of those folks have transitioned to Fox watchers and have a somewhat skewed view of the world. I know this sounds preachy but I believe it is the heart of the issue.
Take Philly for instance. Only like 600,000 people out of a population of like 1.6 million actually voted. Some of us, like those who bother to post and read these threads, are engaged and interested but most of even those that voted likely are not. There is too much Football and Batchelor to watch to devote that time. If democrats want to succeed in the future they have a much larger hill to climb then republicans do right now. Republicans can rely on people just flipping on Fox News which is a proxy of their party at this point. Democrats don’t really have that outlet. Most people simply aren’t gonna regularly tune into news or at least not the one that their message will appeal to. Republicans will run into this same problems in the coming years as the Fox watchers slowly die off but they remain with a relatively safe way to engage their constituents for now. Democrats need to figure out a better way to engage and dialog with people on a more personal level if they ever want to fix their dynamic. They have been too satisfied with thinking running some political ads every couple of years will be enough. They have a much greater need to be more involved with the people they wish to serve to convince them that voting actually serves a purpose whereas republicans can just promote scary crime stories on Fox and blame it on democrats. They had a ton of money this election and they used it very poorly. No one but themselves to blame. They need to start actually talking to working class voters and try to understand how they can best serve them. Until they emphasize this more (they may have to do it at the expense of some of their most progressive goals) they will continue to struggle.

It probably shouldn't be shocking that print media has declined in the age of the internet, but it is surprising that the newspaper seems to have been replaced with . . . nothing. Yes, some people watch the news on television, and some get "news" from social media. But the actual physical newspaper isn't the only thing that was killed off--the practice of reading (yes, reading) the day's news on a daily business seems to have died off as well.

[Massholya]

Statistics say the average American spends only15 minutes reading each day. Hard to understand much in that limited time.

[DFW HOYA]

Nov 7, 2024 13:38:30 GMT -5 Massholya said:

metro.co.uk/2024/11/07/americans-exposed-no-idea-2024-us-election-21946173/

The reality is we are a tragically uninformed and intellectually lazy population at this point. Most Americans have little interest and make no time for news and self education. The exception to this is the older population who grew up in an era where EVERYONE read the paper each day whether you were a barber or a CEO. Trouble is most of those folks have transitioned to Fox watchers and have a somewhat skewed view of the world. I know this sounds preachy but I believe it is the heart of the issue.

In perception, perhaps, but voting in national elections is the highest it's been since 1900, and probably before that, in that the percentage numbers from that era were limited to white men nationwide and black men in the north--women did not have the right to vote and southern blacks were chased away by the poll tax.

The number of Fox watchers is remarkably small: about 3.3 million daily viewers in a nation of 334 million. Yes, that predominates among old white folks that buy pillows, but it's just over two percent of the popular vote total.

www.nationalmediaspots.com/stats-us-cable-broadcast-tv-network-rankings.php

[Massholya]

Nov 7, 2024 17:54:34 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Nov 7, 2024 13:38:30 GMT -5 Massholya said:

metro.co.uk/2024/11/07/americans-exposed-no-idea-2024-us-election-21946173/

The reality is we are a tragically uninformed and intellectually lazy population at this point. Most Americans have little interest and make no time for news and self education. The exception to this is the older population who grew up in an era where EVERYONE read the paper each day whether you were a barber or a CEO. Trouble is most of those folks have transitioned to Fox watchers and have a somewhat skewed view of the world. I know this sounds preachy but I believe it is the heart of the issue.

In perception, perhaps, but voting in national elections is the highest it's been since 1900, and probably before that, in that the percentage numbers from that era were limited to white men nationwide and black men in the north--women did not have the right to vote and southern blacks were chased away by the poll tax.

The number of Fox watchers is remarkably small: about 3.3 million daily viewers in a nation of 334 million. Yes, that predominates among old white folks that buy pillows, but it's just over two percent of the popular vote total.

www.nationalmediaspots.com/stats-us-cable-broadcast-tv-network-rankings.php

True but 2% is a massive difference in a country with an electoral college.

[SSHoya]

Nov 7, 2024 18:52:00 GMT -5 Massholya said:

Nov 7, 2024 17:54:34 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

In perception, perhaps, but voting in national elections is the highest it's been since 1900, and probably before that, in that the percentage numbers from that era were limited to white men nationwide and black men in the north--women did not have the right to vote and southern blacks were chased away by the poll tax.

The number of Fox watchers is remarkably small: about 3.3 million daily viewers in a nation of 334 million. Yes, that predominates among old white folks that buy pillows, but it's just over two percent of the popular vote total.

www.nationalmediaspots.com/stats-us-cable-broadcast-tv-network-rankings.php

True but 2% is a massive difference in a country with an electoral college.

Plus, not only are older voters high propensity voters compared to younger cohorts, older voters are likely to be more Republican. Thus, 2% of older voters who identify Republican is likely to yield more actual votes compared to 2% of a younger cohort of voters who skew Democratic. Thus, to imply that because older voters only comprise 2% of the electorate doesn't make a difference is simply not borne out by the facts and logical inferences that may be drawn from those facts.

www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/

“The older voters showed up,” says Republican pollster Bob Ward, a partner with Fabrizio Ward who teamed up with a Democratic counterpart to conduct AARP’s bipartisan preelection surveys this year. “It was big, and we didn’t see any surge of younger voters coming out in full force…. It’s the reason why Trump is now the president-elect.”

Making older voices count
Older Americans historically have been the most reliable voter group in a presidential election in recent history, according to data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. Voters 65 and older have had the highest turnout of any age group going back to 1988; nearly 72 percent of them voted in 2020, according to the Census Bureau.

www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2024/election-analysis-older-voters.html

[DallasHoya]

Nov 7, 2024 19:15:32 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Nov 7, 2024 18:52:00 GMT -5 Massholya said:

True but 2% is a massive difference in a country with an electoral college.

Plus, not only are older voters high propensity voters compared to younger cohorts, older voters are likely to be more Republican. Thus, 2% of older voters who identify Republican is likely to yield more actual votes compared to 2% of a younger cohort of voters who skew Democratic. Thus, to imply that because older voters only comprise 2% of the electorate doesn't make a difference is simply not borne out by the facts and logical inferences that may be drawn from those facts.

www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/

“The older voters showed up,” says Republican pollster Bob Ward, a partner with Fabrizio Ward who teamed up with a Democratic counterpart to conduct AARP’s bipartisan preelection surveys this year. “It was big, and we didn’t see any surge of younger voters coming out in full force…. It’s the reason why Trump is now the president-elect.”

Making older voices count
Older Americans historically have been the most reliable voter group in a presidential election in recent history, according to data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. Voters 65 and older have had the highest turnout of any age group going back to 1988; nearly 72 percent of them voted in 2020, according to the Census Bureau.

www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2024/election-analysis-older-voters.html

Actually, according to CNN's exit polling, voters 65 and over voted evenly between Trump and Harris. They moved in Democrat's direction compared to 2020.

And on Abortion:

"In 2024, it’s about two-thirds of Americans who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. But they didn’t necessarily tie that support to their vote for president. About half of people who say abortion should be legal in most cases supported Trump."

That tells me that (i) abortion wasn't a decisive issue for a significant number of voters and/or (ii) those voters believed Trump when he said he would veto a national abortion ban.

www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/politics/2020-2016-exit-polls-2024-dg/

[SSHoya]

Nov 8, 2024 11:29:43 GMT -5 DallasHoya said:

Nov 7, 2024 19:15:32 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Plus, not only are older voters high propensity voters compared to younger cohorts, older voters are likely to be more Republican. Thus, 2% of older voters who identify Republican is likely to yield more actual votes compared to 2% of a younger cohort of voters who skew Democratic. Thus, to imply that because older voters only comprise 2% of the electorate doesn't make a difference is simply not borne out by the facts and logical inferences that may be drawn from those facts.

www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/

“The older voters showed up,” says Republican pollster Bob Ward, a partner with Fabrizio Ward who teamed up with a Democratic counterpart to conduct AARP’s bipartisan preelection surveys this year. “It was big, and we didn’t see any surge of younger voters coming out in full force…. It’s the reason why Trump is now the president-elect.”

Making older voices count
Older Americans historically have been the most reliable voter group in a presidential election in recent history, according to data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. Voters 65 and older have had the highest turnout of any age group going back to 1988; nearly 72 percent of them voted in 2020, according to the Census Bureau.

www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2024/election-analysis-older-voters.html

Actually, according to CNN's exit polling, voters 65 and over voted evenly between Trump and Harris. They moved in Democrat's direction compared to 2020.

And on Abortion:

"In 2024, it’s about two-thirds of Americans who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. But they didn’t necessarily tie that support to their vote for president. About half of people who say abortion should be legal in most cases supported Trump."

That tells me that (i) abortion wasn't a decisive issue for a significant number of voters and/or (ii) those voters believed Trump when he said he would veto a national abortion ban.

www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/politics/2020-2016-exit-polls-2024-dg/

Agree with view on abortion. Slight disagreement with "older voters" depending upon how you define "older." But point taken since I selected the 65 and older cohort. I guess I disagree with DFW's seeming general assertion that 2% of the popular vote total would not matter in a close election.

There was a lot of reporting about a late poll out of Iowa showing a surge of older women in support of Harris. This did not fully materialize at the ballot box. Trump won older men by 14 points, while Harris won older women by 4, revealing a significant gender gap. Also, there were notable differences between voters aged 50 to 64 - we call those the younger older voters - and those 65-plus. Those - that younger group, 50 to 64 leaned by 6 points for Trump while the 65-plus were a group that favored him by 2.


www.npr.org/2024/11/06/nx-s1-5172235/aarps-nancy-leamond-shares-insights-on-exit-polling-of-older-voters

And to tie the age factor to the OP's point about the source of news:

According to Nielsen, the agency that does the ratings surveys for radio and television, Fox News has the oldest audience among all the cable news choices. The typical Fox News viewer is 68 years old and white; a majority are men.Aug 13, 2024

The average age of a Fox News viewer is in the 50–60 range, with the majority of viewers falling into the 50–64 age bracket. However, the median age of a Fox News viewer varies depending on the data source.

[CTHoya08]

Nov 8, 2024 11:29:43 GMT -5 DallasHoya said:

Nov 7, 2024 19:15:32 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Plus, not only are older voters high propensity voters compared to younger cohorts, older voters are likely to be more Republican. Thus, 2% of older voters who identify Republican is likely to yield more actual votes compared to 2% of a younger cohort of voters who skew Democratic. Thus, to imply that because older voters only comprise 2% of the electorate doesn't make a difference is simply not borne out by the facts and logical inferences that may be drawn from those facts.

www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/

“The older voters showed up,” says Republican pollster Bob Ward, a partner with Fabrizio Ward who teamed up with a Democratic counterpart to conduct AARP’s bipartisan preelection surveys this year. “It was big, and we didn’t see any surge of younger voters coming out in full force…. It’s the reason why Trump is now the president-elect.”

Making older voices count
Older Americans historically have been the most reliable voter group in a presidential election in recent history, according to data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. Voters 65 and older have had the highest turnout of any age group going back to 1988; nearly 72 percent of them voted in 2020, according to the Census Bureau.

www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2024/election-analysis-older-voters.html

Actually, according to CNN's exit polling, voters 65 and over voted evenly between Trump and Harris. They moved in Democrat's direction compared to 2020.

And on Abortion:

"In 2024, it’s about two-thirds of Americans who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. But they didn’t necessarily tie that support to their vote for president. About half of people who say abortion should be legal in most cases supported Trump."

That tells me that (i) abortion wasn't a decisive issue for a significant number of voters and/or (ii) those voters believed Trump when he said he would veto a national abortion ban.

www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/politics/2020-2016-exit-polls-2024-dg/

I do wonder if the surge of abortion-rights ballot initiatives (and defeat of abortion-restriction ballot initiatives) post-Dobbs gave voters "permission" to vote for Trump despite being concerned about the reversal of Roe. If you've already had your voice heard and gotten the result you want on the issue, that might take it out of the equation (or at least reduce its salience) when deciding on a presidential vote.

[DanMcQ]

[tashoya]

Nov 8, 2024 22:26:28 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

HOAX!!! Fake news!! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

[hoyajinx]

It’s embarrassing and shameful that democrats are engaging in these BS conspiracy theories like they’re Republicans. Not storming the Capitol level of embarrassing and shameful, but embarrassing and shameful no less. Trump won and, after the dust has settled, it seems clear that it was because the electorate largely rejected the current admin due to economic considerations rather than a full throated embrace of MAGA. Every single party in developed nations that was in power during the post-pandemic inflationary period has lost, and Canada will likely follow suit next year. That is not a simple coincidence. I see people claiming that it was a rejection of democratic policies overall, but that’s nonsense. Voters embraced Democratic policy in direct votes (protecting abortion rights, raising minimum wage, etc.) and every swing state senator polled ahead of Harris, some to a startling degree. After the 2018 midterms, Progressives went all in on believing that people voted for them as a full embrace of their policies. They were wrong; it was simply a rejection of the Trump administration. I have no doubt that MAGA and Trump will lean heavily into their perceived “mandate”, and will accordingly suffer the consequences in the 2026 midterms. Trump won a free and fair election. Now it’s up to him “fix” everything he promised to fix. The are no excuses for him if he doesn’t. With all the incompetent yes men with which he will surround himself, things certainly won’t go smoothly.

www.vox.com/politics/383944/conspiracy-theories-trump-win

[DanMcQ]

[CTHoya08]

Nov 9, 2024 6:46:05 GMT -5 hoyajinx said:

It’s embarrassing and shameful that democrats are engaging in these BS conspiracy theories like they’re Republicans. Not storming the Capitol level of embarrassing and shameful, but embarrassing and shameful no less. Trump won and, after the dust has settled, it seems clear that it was because the electorate largely rejected the current admin due to economic considerations rather than a full throated embrace of MAGA. Every single party in developed nations that was in power during the post-pandemic inflationary period has lost, and Canada will likely follow suit next year. That is not a simple coincidence. I see people claiming that it was a rejection of democratic policies overall, but that’s nonsense. Voters embraced Democratic policy in direct votes (protecting abortion rights, raising minimum wage, etc.) and every swing state senator polled ahead of Harris, some to a startling degree. After the 2018 midterms, Progressives went all in on believing that people voted for them as a full embrace of their policies. They were wrong; it was simply a rejection of the Trump administration. I have no doubt that MAGA and Trump will lean heavily into their perceived “mandate”, and will accordingly suffer the consequences in the 2026 midterms. Trump won a free and fair election. Now it’s up to him “fix” everything he promised to fix. The are no excuses for him if he doesn’t. With all the incompetent yes men with which he will surround himself, things certainly won’t go smoothly.

www.vox.com/politics/383944/conspiracy-theories-trump-win

Agreed. And I’m also shaking my head at the people on Twitter and NYT opinion pieces asserting that Harris lost the election because she wasn’t left enough, or didn’t emphasize her identity enough, or didn’t split with Biden on Gaza. Trump didn’t just win the swing states, it looks like he’s going to win the popular vote with an actual majority. Like it or not, the voters broke for him decisively.

[hoyajinx]

Nov 10, 2024 9:16:45 GMT -5 CTHoya08 said:

Nov 9, 2024 6:46:05 GMT -5 hoyajinx said:

It’s embarrassing and shameful that democrats are engaging in these BS conspiracy theories like they’re Republicans. Not storming the Capitol level of embarrassing and shameful, but embarrassing and shameful no less. Trump won and, after the dust has settled, it seems clear that it was because the electorate largely rejected the current admin due to economic considerations rather than a full throated embrace of MAGA. Every single party in developed nations that was in power during the post-pandemic inflationary period has lost, and Canada will likely follow suit next year. That is not a simple coincidence. I see people claiming that it was a rejection of democratic policies overall, but that’s nonsense. Voters embraced Democratic policy in direct votes (protecting abortion rights, raising minimum wage, etc.) and every swing state senator polled ahead of Harris, some to a startling degree. After the 2018 midterms, Progressives went all in on believing that people voted for them as a full embrace of their policies. They were wrong; it was simply a rejection of the Trump administration. I have no doubt that MAGA and Trump will lean heavily into their perceived “mandate”, and will accordingly suffer the consequences in the 2026 midterms. Trump won a free and fair election. Now it’s up to him “fix” everything he promised to fix. The are no excuses for him if he doesn’t. With all the incompetent yes men with which he will surround himself, things certainly won’t go smoothly.

www.vox.com/politics/383944/conspiracy-theories-trump-win

Agreed. And I’m also shaking my head at the people on Twitter and NYT opinion pieces asserting that Harris lost the election because she wasn’t left enough, or didn’t emphasize her identity enough, or didn’t split with Biden on Gaza. Trump didn’t just win the swing states, it looks like he’s going to win the popular vote with an actual majority. Like it or not, the voters broke for him decisively.

He definitely turned out his base, while Democrats simply didn’t. A state like New Jersey is telling: Trump received nearly an identical number of votes while Harris received 500,000 less than Biden. I don’t know if Trump won tons of converts, as a lot of his totals are the same, but proportionally he trounced Harris because of depressed Democratic turnout. Like you noted, going hard on Gaza or moving further left would have done either nothing, or, as I suspect, given her fewer votes.

[Elvado]

Nov 10, 2024 9:25:38 GMT -5 hoyajinx said:

Nov 10, 2024 9:16:45 GMT -5 CTHoya08 said:

Agreed. And I’m also shaking my head at the people on Twitter and NYT opinion pieces asserting that Harris lost the election because she wasn’t left enough, or didn’t emphasize her identity enough, or didn’t split with Biden on Gaza. Trump didn’t just win the swing states, it looks like he’s going to win the popular vote with an actual majority. Like it or not, the voters broke for him decisively.

He definitely turned out his base, while Democrats simply didn’t. A state like New Jersey is telling: Trump received nearly an identical number of votes while Harris received 500,000 less than Biden. I don’t know if Trump won tons of converts, as a lot of his totals are the same, but proportionally he trounced Harris because of depressed Democratic turnout. Like you noted, going hard on Gaza or moving further left would have done either nothing, or, as I suspect, given her fewer votes.

One must leave open the possibility that a tragi-comically bad candidate (0 votes in 2020) appointed through fiat, lost a lot of support for those two reasons.