Dem Post Mortem

[TSwizzle]

Sorry guys, but according to most of my female friends and my sister, as well as myself, one of the biggest reasons that Harris lost is because she is a female and not enough people in this country will vote for a female who is running for president.

lol, the biggest reason Harris lost was because she offered nothing.

Plus, do y'all remember all the nasty things that were said about voting for a female president, like a man isn't a true man if he votes for a woman for president. I may not have the words exactly corrects but that was a common thing said by the Republicans who suck up to Trump during the campaign season.

Nah, but I do remember the “white dudes for Kamala” nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Both focused their campaigns on "getting out the vote" to the exclusion of all else. Even said so in interviews and the like. It just worked a lot better for Trump, because his supporters actually like him.

That's typical. It's very difficult for the left to coalesce around one candidate and like them. This is why third-party candidates always hurt the left more than the right. Our tent is too large to keep everyone happy.

Well, it would help if the left didn't treat some large constituency of it as inconsequential.

The fact is that the right

They barely bothered to campaign at all, despite wasting billions of dollars at the attempt.

Where do you get this from?

The Harris campaign was doing multiple rallies daily in swing states. You couldn't walk by a tv without seeing a campaign ad.

The bottom line is people preferred the Trump bullshit over the Harris truth.

Politesse isn't exactly wrong. The Harris campaign spent a lot of money convincing those who needed no convincing.

When I was a little kid, I had a misconception that being more "busy" in my action would get more done. The thing I didn't understand at the time was the concept of wasted motion. I didn't know that I could do more while still accomplishing less of my goal.

Much of the issue here is that various conservative interests, and especially "covert" conservative interests such as the NYT, have an interest in forcing the Dems into "wasted effort", while giving "free effect" to the conservatives.

Is there an event that paints the Dems well or the conservatives badly? Publish stories about "congress"; the Dems have their victory diluted, and the conservatives have their sins piled on "government". In the inverse situation of shameful Dems or successful conservatives? Name them so that Dems are shamed and Cons are famed! Hire an editorial staff who will engineer headlines and influence the lowest information voters with the only thing they care about.

Rinse and repeat for an entire election cycle, and suddenly it doesn't matter how much spending is done on advertisements and announcements people actively avoid and ignore!

Social media? Twitter is literally owned by Musk, who has a finger on every scale in favor of Trump. Sinclair media owns an absurd number of local broadcasters across the nation.

The problem is that an ad can't compete with a firehose of scheduled content that says the opposite of what an ad does.

It wouldn't matter if the Dems spent 10 times as much, because those who own our media apparatus have a vested interest in countering and burying that message.

So basically you're saying there isn't a damn thing that can be done.

Not by spending their money *that* way, no.

There are ways, just not that way. That way is like standing to fore, pissing into a whirlwind of piss in the hopes of offending it's sensibilities.

One of the most effective ways would have been to just publicly shame the media for doing it and playing favorites, but the problem is that the Dems did the same thing to Bernie with respect to Hillary.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry guys, but according to most of my female friends and my sister, as well as myself, one of the biggest reasons that Harris lost is because she is a female and not enough people in this country will vote for a female who is running for president.

lol, the biggest reason Harris lost was because she offered nothing.

As usual, you remember wrong.

Plus, do y'all remember all the nasty things that were said about voting for a female president, like a man isn't a true man if he votes for a woman for president. I may not have the words exactly corrects but that was a common thing said by the Republicans who suck up to Trump during the campaign season.

Nah, but I do remember the “white dudes for Kamala” nonsense.

Just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

Both focused their campaigns on "getting out the vote" to the exclusion of all else. Even said so in interviews and the like. It just worked a lot better for Trump, because his supporters actually like him.

That's typical. It's very difficult for the left to coalesce around one candidate and like them. This is why third-party candidates always hurt the left more than the right. Our tent is too large to keep everyone happy.

Well, it would help if the left didn't treat some large constituency of it as inconsequential.

The fact is that the right

They barely bothered to campaign at all, despite wasting billions of dollars at the attempt.

Where do you get this from?

The Harris campaign was doing multiple rallies daily in swing states. You couldn't walk by a tv without seeing a campaign ad.

The bottom line is people preferred the Trump bullshit over the Harris truth.

Politesse isn't exactly wrong. The Harris campaign spent a lot of money convincing those who needed no convincing.

When I was a little kid, I had a misconception that being more "busy" in my action would get more done. The thing I didn't understand at the time was the concept of wasted motion. I didn't know that I could do more while still accomplishing less of my goal.

Much of the issue here is that various conservative interests, and especially "covert" conservative interests such as the NYT, have an interest in forcing the Dems into "wasted effort", while giving "free effect" to the conservatives.

Is there an event that paints the Dems well or the conservatives badly? Publish stories about "congress"; the Dems have their victory diluted, and the conservatives have their sins piled on "government". In the inverse situation of shameful Dems or successful conservatives? Name them so that Dems are shamed and Cons are famed! Hire an editorial staff who will engineer headlines and influence the lowest information voters with the only thing they care about.

Rinse and repeat for an entire election cycle, and suddenly it doesn't matter how much spending is done on advertisements and announcements people actively avoid and ignore!

Social media? Twitter is literally owned by Musk, who has a finger on every scale in favor of Trump. Sinclair media owns an absurd number of local broadcasters across the nation.

The problem is that an ad can't compete with a firehose of scheduled content that says the opposite of what an ad does.

It wouldn't matter if the Dems spent 10 times as much, because those who own our media apparatus have a vested interest in countering and burying that message.

So basically you're saying there isn't a damn thing that can be done.

Not by spending their money *that* way, no.

So what way should the money have been spent

There are ways, just not that way. That way is like standing to fore, pissing into a whirlwind of piss in the hopes of offending it's sensibilities.

One of the most effective ways would have been to just publicly shame the media for doing it and playing favorites, but the problem is that the Dems did the same thing to Bernie with respect to Hillary.

I'm seeing a shit ton of criticism about the campaign. But I'm seeing very little suggestions of how to do it better.

 

[Jarhyn]

So what way should the money have been spent

One of the most effective ways would have been to just publicly shame the media for doing it and playing favorites

There are ways, just not that way. That way is like standing to fore, pissing into a whirlwind of piss in the hopes of offending it's sensibilities.

One of the most effective ways would have been to just publicly shame the media for doing it and playing favorites, but the problem is that the Dems did the same thing to Bernie with respect to Hillary.

I'm seeing a shit ton of criticism about the campaign. But I'm seeing very little suggestions of how to do it better.

The fact is that the Dems have spent years shooting themselves in the feet spending money on stupid shit and beating around all manner of bush at several critical junctures, as well.

The majority of advertising that reached me was text messages announcing events rather than text messages discussing that media bias. Hell, they could buy up whole media companies in key states with some of the outlays we have seen year on year.

They could start by not giving that money directly to media companies whose board members hate anyone with less money than them, which is almost everyone.

 

[Politesse]

I do feel that you are trying to paint me as some sort of partisan shill for the Democrats, which strikes me as a pretty odd claim given the thread we're in.

Post 837 explains why I would feel that paint suits you.

Then you have a very simplistic view of the world. Love of the DNC is not the only reason to eschew Trump. Even most of the outright conservatives on this forum know better than to openly endorse Trump. He's a threat to the democratic system itself, not just the Democrats.

 

[Bomb#20]

Harding/Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt/Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump. How often is a president who serves out his whole term replaced by a different president from the same party? In a hundred years it's only happened twice. Harris was up against long odds, and to have won she'd have needed voters to believe the economy was going great. (Well, that or 25th-ing Biden and getting to be the sitting president.) "Trump's a fascist" was never going to sell.

In hindsight ... Biden should have resigned (or at least promised not to run for a 2nd term) sometime in 2023.

Promising not to run wouldn't have accomplished a thing; it would have just left Harris or a primary winner in exactly the same situation. Johnson didn't run for reelection in 1968 and his VP still lost. Resigning in 2023 (or better, 2022) would have given Harris enough time to come out from Biden's shadow and become a known quantity in her own right to people considering whether to vote for her, just like Coolidge and Truman and Johnson. (And Ford, of course, but 3 out of 4 ain't bad.) Presidential incumbency has advantages; vice presidential, not so much.

No need to 25th him. The Ds would have had their primary, yet retained incumbency.

Biden is 82 years old already. If that's not too old to be POTUS, surely 86 is. Make up some medical condition if he needed to save face. Were Biden's mental powers diminishing in 2023? I dunno, but those who think he was still fine in 2024 did not watch the same debate I did.

Perhaps those close to Biden understood he was getting too old, but did not want to disappoint this good man. That was a real shame: Sacrificing American democracy to avoid hurting an oldster's feelings.

Not sure Biden's such a good man. He just pardoned his own son.

 

[Swammerdami]

In hindsight ... Biden should have resigned (or at least promised not to run for a 2nd term) sometime in 2023.

Promising not to run wouldn't have accomplished a thing; it would have just left Harris or a primary winner in exactly the same situation. Johnson didn't run for reelection in 1968 and his VP still lost. Resigning in 2023 (or better, 2022) would have given Harris enough time to come out from Biden's shadow and become a known quantity in her own right to people considering whether to vote for her, just like Coolidge and Truman and Johnson. (And Ford, of course, but 3 out of 4 ain't bad.) Presidential incumbency has advantages; vice presidential, not so much.

I don't disagree. I might have taken the time to write "2022 or 2023"; but resigning too early would look funny.

No need to 25th him. The Ds would have had their primary, yet retained incumbency.

Perhaps those close to Biden understood he was getting too old, but did not want to disappoint this good man. That was a real shame: Sacrificing American democracy to avoid hurting an oldster's feelings.

Not sure Biden's such a good man. He just pardoned his own son.

That Biden is a GOOD man, especially by the standards of top politicians, is uncontroversial. Recall that Lindsay Graham, now a vile Trumpsucker, once said something to the effect of "If you don't like Joe Biden, there's something wrong with you." The biggest complaint against Biden was that he was TOO nice: TOO eager to "reach across the aisle." (He led the hearings that heard from Anita Hill yet still approved Clarence Thomas.)

I see nothing wrong with pardoning his son. IIUC Hunter's biggest "crime" was letting the Liars plant fake evidence on his laptop. /sarcasm. Why let a whole new batch of vile QOPAnoners torment his son?

Contrast this with the Psychopath who sold pardons to rich criminals and plans to use his powers to free hundreds of insurrectionists. With top henchmen like the racist Stephen Miller, Trump-47 may even end up incarcerating for the "crime" of not being a Christian of Aryan blood.

 

[TSwizzle]

Good lord, is she drunk?

Vice President Kamala Harris acknowledged to her supporters Tuesday that her loss to former President Donald Trump still “feels heavy,” in widely mocked remarks delivered after her post-Election Day vacation. “I just have to remind you, don’t you ever let anybody take your power from you,” Harris added. “You have the same power that you did before November 5th, and you have the same purpose that you did, and you have the same ability to engage and inspire. So don’t ever let anybody or any circumstance take your power from you.” Neither offered an explanation for how their well-funded campaign (Harris raised more than $1 billion between July and November) managed to lose every swing state, the Electoral College and the popular vote to Trump.

News

So cringey. As one wag put it, "Kamala has been un-bourboned by what has gin".

We dodged a bullet

 

[thebeave]

Good lord, is she drunk?

Vice President Kamala Harris acknowledged to her supporters Tuesday that her loss to former President Donald Trump still “feels heavy,” in widely mocked remarks delivered after her post-Election Day vacation. “I just have to remind you, don’t you ever let anybody take your power from you,” Harris added. “You have the same power that you did before November 5th, and you have the same purpose that you did, and you have the same ability to engage and inspire. So don’t ever let anybody or any circumstance take your power from you.” Neither offered an explanation for how their well-funded campaign (Harris raised more than $1 billion between July and November) managed to lose every swing state, the Electoral College and the popular vote to Trump.

News

So cringey. As one wag put it, "Kamala has been un-bourboned by what has gin".

We dodged a bullet

There is a parody video out there showing her with a bottle of booze in her hand while she's making that speech. It's how Otis Campbell would look if he were a black woman.

What is all this "power" stuff she is talking about, and who is threatening to take it away? Is she referring to the power to vote? Or is it some sort of "woo" power, like The Force?

 

[JohnG]

In Canada, the opposition is having a field day with post Covid global inflation, RUS/UKR war caused fuel price increases, and global food shortages from extreme weather.

They are having a blast lying through their teeth to Canadians, blaming the incumbent govt for all that is wrong in the world.

Any Canadian with a cell phone is a 10 second google search away from the causes of global inflation. So is every American.

We are going to vote in probably our weakest candidate ever put forth (certainly in my lifetime) because Canadians believe the Liberal govts. climate change policy is causing global inflation. (It adds a minuscule amount to inflation, and is even deflationary in BC according to a recent study)

Canadians are low info too. If you lie and rage hard enough, it works.

Woke, trans, caravans, are synthetic issues specifically designed by think tanks to engage specific demographics to vote.

It’s extremely dishonest and it hurts other demographics that are of little consequence to their voter base - none of those targets are conservative voters to any degree that their oppression wouldn’t outweigh the value of demonizing them.

A democracy hinges on the education level of the citizens - obviously that’s why education is under attack as well by anti-democratic interests.

 

[TomC]

Woke, trans, caravans, are synthetic issues specifically designed by think tanks to engage specific demographics to vote.

I'll bet they're having a great time with the township (Emo) being fined 15K for not being woke enough to suit the militant queers.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I do feel that you are trying to paint me as some sort of partisan shill for the Democrats, which strikes me as a pretty odd claim given the thread we're in.

Post 837 explains why I would feel that paint suits you.

Then you have a very simplistic view of the world. Love of the DNC is not the only reason to eschew Trump. Even most of the outright conservatives on this forum know better than to openly endorse Trump. He's a threat to the democratic system itself, not just the Democrats.

Well regarding a narrow view let us examine your story of witnessing a slur used at a gas station, from a person you do not know to a person you do not know.

Your response was "I saw a person using an anti-Hispanic racial slur. I concluded that the person was a Republican because that person used a slur. Now I can use that person as evidence that Republicans use racial slurs."

 

[bilby]

Neither does Sally liking girls make her breaststroke any faster.

That depends on whether the context is swimming or dating

 

[Politesse]

I do feel that you are trying to paint me as some sort of partisan shill for the Democrats, which strikes me as a pretty odd claim given the thread we're in.

Post 837 explains why I would feel that paint suits you.

Then you have a very simplistic view of the world. Love of the DNC is not the only reason to eschew Trump. Even most of the outright conservatives on this forum know better than to openly endorse Trump. He's a threat to the democratic system itself, not just the Democrats.

Well regarding a narrow view let us examine your story of witnessing a slur used at a gas station, from a person you do not know to a person you do not know.

Your response was "I saw a person using an anti-Hispanic racial slur. I concluded that the person was a Republican because that person used a slur. Now I can use that person as evidence that Republicans use racial slurs."

That's not my conclusion, you're the one who party politics into it.

Though if you think Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to use racial and sexual slurs in the age of Donald "Grabembythepussy" Trump, I'd say you're engaging in a rhetorical game of some kind, rather than using common sense. Opposing political correctness and the correct naming of people's nationality, pronouns, and other such common courtesies has been a central plank of Trump's reform movement since well before he was a presidential candidate, and his followers likewise oppose civility to others on principle. To quote the man himself, "I won’t use a certain words because it’s not politically — but everybody knows the word I’d love to use. Should I use it? I won’t do it." Which defines his usual strategy. He has a showman's instinct for knowing when a camera is on, but he loves stoking racial animus with a wink and a nod, as long as he has technical if not plausible deniability.

But that doesn't mean Democrats are somehow paragons of virtue and good manners just by dint of being Democrats, and by the numbers, less than half of the Americans you meet have a strong party affiliation anyway. I certainly don't. Circumstances have obliged me to vote Democrat across the board lately, but it's not out of love, and I'm not registered member of their party nor likely to become such.

To paraphrase another famous block of wood, I'm on no one's side, because no one is on mine.

 

[Swammerdami]

In Canada, the opposition is ... having a blast lying through their teeth to Canadians, blaming the incumbent govt for all that is wrong in the world.
...
Canadians are low info too. If you lie and rage hard enough, it works....

So Canada is also embracing Stupidism? (Or kakistocracy, to use a word I learned here recently.)

In the 1990's the Professor of PoliSci Francis Fukuyama wrote about The End of History, claiming that the Fall of the Soviet Union implied "the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

What a sad joke that has turned into.

 

[JohnG]

In Canada, the opposition is ... having a blast lying through their teeth to Canadians, blaming the incumbent govt for all that is wrong in the world.
...
Canadians are low info too. If you lie and rage hard enough, it works....

So Canada is also embracing Stupidism? (Or kakistocracy, to use a word I learned here recently.)

In the 1990's the Professor of PoliSci Francis Fukuyama wrote about The End of History, claiming that the Fall of the Soviet Union implied "the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

What a sad joke that has turned into.

Yes we are. In fact it’s surprising that most Canadians can’t see the connection between US inflation and Canadian inflation simply because we are so exposed to US media. I don’t expect many US citizens to make that connection as they are not likely getting a lot of outside media, but Canadians are usually hyper aware of what’s happening in the US.

Many of Canadas biggest media outlets are owned by US conservatives. We still have a public broadcaster but the conservatives here have that in their crosshairs too.

The US (Republicans) is trying to do to Canada what Russia was trying to do to Ukraine prewar. Control our assets.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you believe that Trump's view is representative of all conservatives?

What leads you to feel that the ads for a single specific candidate represent the views of all conservatives?

What mockery did Fox push that specified college educations? Why do you assume that infotainment has the beliefs of all conservatives nailed?

Why do you always argue using strawmen?

What part of those posts do you think is a strawman?

all conservatives

all conservatives

all conservatives

Is it your contention that Poli secretly mean "some few conservatives" when he said this:

Since conservatives hate Mexicans, trans people, and college education, it's a perfect wedge issue.

 

[Emily Lake]

(Can't find the meme picture)
Chair: Has 4 legs, you sit on it. A horse qualifies.

Literal versus figurative language

A horse is figuratively a chair if being used as a place to plant your ass. But a horse is not literally a chair. And people who try to force a literal interpretation onto a figurative use are going to be the downfall of humanity.

 

[Emily Lake]

Appearance doesn't always prove reality. There are those who are repeatedly mistaken for the wrong gender. I wouldn't fool anyone in person but in situations where I am not present mistakes abound. (And that includes the phone--it does something to my voice that makes it sound female.)

No shit. And hey, guess what? No matter how often someone might mistake you as female because of your phone voice, that does not actually transform you into a female. Similarly, if you toss on a dress and some lipstick and start introducing yourself as Lauren... you're still going to be every single bit as male as you are right now.