Post New

In 2020, Mr.
Biden won 81,284,666 votes nationwide, compared to Trump's 74,224,319. 20 million voters refused to vote? ☮️.

2024
Harris
66,153,333 votes (47.5%).


Trump
71,070,414 votes (51%)"




WHERE did 20 million voters go? Something doesn't seem right?

Refilling tampon machines in the boys bathrooms across schools in America and they couldn't get to the polls

WHERE did 20 million voters go? Something doesn't seem right?

Two things:

First, they haven't finished counting all the votes. That's why several races still haven't been called. There are several millions of votes yet to be counted - perhaps not twenty, but a fair number. Wikipedia says that 87% of the vote has been reported. Not sure how accurate their number is, but there's probably north of 10 million votes that have yet to be reported.

Second, it was always a concern among Democrats that between Harris and Trump, a non-trivial number of their voters would choose the couch. We won't know until the counting's done and the data has been sliced and diced...but it's entirely possible that Democrats just weren't as willing to vote for Harris as they were for Biden in 2020.

I think one main throughline of this election is that the electorate was really unhappy with Biden's performance in office, and that his historically low approval ratings were not something that Harris or the national party were going to easily shake.

" We won't know until the counting's done and the data has been sliced and diced...but it's entirely possible that Democrats just weren't as willing to vote for Harris as they were for Biden in 2020."

good morning, isn't it fair to say trump had a tuff four years and became even more unlikable to many voters?

good morning, isn't it fair to say trump had a tuff four years and became even more unlikable to many voters?

We don't know yet. Again, there's probably somewhere between 10-15 million votes that have yet to be counted. While most of them are in western states that are likely to skew more Democratic than Republican, it's entirely possible (and IMHO likely) that Trump will end up with more votes in this election than in 2020.

it's entirely possible (and IMHO likely) that Trump will end up with more votes in this election than in 2020.

And now that my optimism has faded, that seems likely.

I think one main throughline of this election is that the electorate was really unhappy with Biden's performance in office, and that his historically low approval ratings were not something that Harris or the national party were going to easily shake. - albaby

-------------

Especially when Harris declares nothing comes to mind when asked how her presidency would differ from Bidens.

We don't know yet. Again, there's probably somewhere between 10-15 million votes that have yet to be counted. - albaby

--------------

I can't help notice the progression of uncounted votes in your last few posts. Started with millions but not twenty, then ten million, now ranging up to as high as 15 million. Just having fun. Reminds me of that Speckled Trout I caught, by the fourth time I told the story, that fish had become a record breaker.

I can't help notice the progression of uncounted votes in your last few posts. Started with millions but not twenty, then ten million, now ranging up to as high as 15 million. Just having fun. Reminds me of that Speckled Trout I caught, by the fourth time I told the story, that fish had become a record breaker.

You mean the twenty million votes? Or the thirty?

Your explanation actually makes me look better - the truth is I'm just lazy. I had started writing the previous post without looking up what percentage of returns were in, so at the beginning of the paragraph I knew it was millions but not how many. By the time I finished the post I had clicked over to wiki and saw that 87% had been reported, so I knew it was more than ten million - but I was too lazy to either edit or do the math. Then for the next post I did the math in my head, and came up with 15 million as a ballpark. It might actually end up being closer to 20 - if ~138 million reported votes is only 87% of ballots cast, then there's some 19 million still to come. Again, don't know if wiki is accurate.

But that makes it almost dead certain that Trump will have received more votes than in 2020. It makes it possible, but very unlikely, that Harris will have outperformed Biden's total from 2020. Total turnout may have gone up a smidge.

{{ I think one main throughline of this election is that the electorate was really unhappy with Biden's performance in office, and that his historically low approval ratings were not something that Harris or the national party were going to easily shake. }}

Yep. The "Bernie Bros" of 2016 and 2020 all went for Trump. Corporate DEMs should have done more for the working and middle-class.

I note that Kamala won voters with incomes over $100K/yr.

intercst

I think one main throughline of this election is that the electorate was really unhappy with Biden's performance in office...

But why? His performance has been -overall- very good. The only thing he fumbled was the border, and he corrected that a year ago.

IMHO, they have been bombarded with lies, and some of the excrement stuck.

That also doesn't explain how people that weren't in his base could excuse his felony convictions, his pending trials, his racist remarks, his sexist remarks, his incoherent ramblings, etc. How could anyone "on the fence" be knocked onto the reprehensible side of the fence?

But if people did stay on the couch, then the adage "the people get the government they deserve" will be coming home to roost for the next four years (or more...the convict is better prepared this time, and will have lackeys and stooges in key positions, so who will make him give up power in four years?).

But why? His performance has been -overall- very good.

Because inflation got out of control for a while, and voters hate inflation. So all over the globe, they generally threw out of office every political party that was the incumbent party when inflation spiked.

Biden made it worse for the Democrats, because his response to voters hating inflation was largely to deny the problem. Team transitory, and all that. The most charitable framing is that they acknowledged the problem but refused to alter any of their priorities to combat it. Instead, just getting really mad at Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema for being concerned about inflationary effects, rather than signing off on a $6 trillion or $2.5 trillion spending package. Which is probably not what voters wanted.

I hate inflation, too. But I also know that there are a lot of macro-economic factors that a head of state can't control. As I recall, Nixon actually tried to do it, and made things much worse.

Biden engineered the softest landing of any world leader, and our economy is humming along nicely (except for the debt, which neither party seems to be able to control). True that Biden benefited from pent-up demand coming out of COVID, but that was true of most world leaders. Yet we still landed mostly softly, and have recovered better than just about everybody.

I know you and I aren't typical in that we actually get informed (you more than me), but I would think that would be pretty basic. Of course, perhaps the Dems' problem was that they didn't highlight that in their advertising. Low-info voters wouldn't know it if someone didn't tell them (and Tucker Carlson won't tell them...he probably doesn't even know).

IBiden engineered the softest landing of any world leader, and our economy is humming along nicely (except for the debt, which neither party seems to be able to control). True that Biden benefited from pent-up demand coming out of COVID, but that was true of most world leaders. Yet we still landed mostly softly, and have recovered better than just about everybody.

I know you and I aren't typical in that we actually get informed (you more than me), but I would think that would be pretty basic. Of course, perhaps the Dems' problem was that they didn't highlight that in their advertising.

I don't think it would have mattered. We went through a prolonged bout of elevated inflation, and voters hated it. It doesn't matter that it wasn't caused by Biden. It doesn't matter that it was lower here than elsewhere. It doesn't matter that wages bounced back later. We went through about two years of elevated inflation, and voters lost all trust in Democrats to handle the economy because of it.

I think Democrats made it worse on themselves with the Build Back Better Act. There were just too many economists that were pointing out that it was folly to hit the gas pedal on the economy at a time when inflationary pressures were so high - when it was apparent that perhaps the ARP itself had been too large.

Biden gambled that Americans would prefer the growth and low UP that would come with it. He gambled wrong. To quote Jonathan Chait's quick take on the election:

But Biden’s policies worsened his predicament. He ignored warnings of inflation, believing that the fastest return to full employment and rising wages would be rewarded by a grateful public. Biden was following a strategy designed by the “anti-neoliberal” movement, which believed a populist economic strategy provided the key to building a Democratic majority. A 2020 memo laying out this strategy by the Hewlett Foundation, which poured millions of dollars into an intellectual campaign to spread these beliefs, called for “a new consensus permitting governments more room to spend on efforts that boost aggregate demand without worrying about inflation quite so frantically.”

Many liberals (including me) were eager to believe these policies could produce rapid growth without the risk of inflation or that inflation would prove more tolerable than slow growth and high unemployment. This proved mistaken: People prefer to believe their wage gains are a credit to their own skill and that inflation is the government’s fault.

https://archive.ph/egBym#selection-1443.0-1455.322

So Biden (and the Democrats) got blasted over the economy. Americans didn't want high inflation, but they got high inflation. It was Biden's job to steward the economy, but the economy did something Americans hated. So they didn't approve of his performance.

Anti neoliberal, Hewlett Foundation? Dovish immigration policy? That was quite a read. Well, we can't do that anymore folks. We have to be practical.

<<albaby quoting Chait: "People prefer to believe their wage gains are a credit to their own skill and that inflation is the government’s fault."

This--although I would substitute "income" for "wage gains." That is, I'd say that the income growth need not come literally from an increase in wages. It can be investment income, lotto winnings, or (what may have mattered to many voters this time, whether they know it or not) "helicopter money" in the form of short-term COVID relief checks and tax credits. Voters (and humans generally) will attribute pretty much anything and everything good to their own character and ingenuity (google: "fundamental attribution error").

Although the precise timing of the comparison in voters' minds is probably not "are you better off than you were four years ago" or (my preferred time span) "one year ago", it is the case that (my preferred statistic) RDPI, which is real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) disposable (i.e., after-tax) personal income per capita spiked early in 2021, then plummeted, and has only slowly recovered.

This chart speaks volumes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0#0

I agree that the Biden administration's effort to "explain" to voters that they're actually doing fine was politically dumb, even if not inaccurate.

Do voters "hate" inflation, per se? I would say not, so long as the money keeps flowing in to them to more than make up for the price rises. But that's a moot point regarding to this election, because it didn't.

Add in the short time period that Harris had to let (enough) voters get comfortable with her, and the fact that she's a brown-skinned female, and I think you've got most of the story.

The story clearly is NOT Trump's popularity. He's not popular, not even among many Trump voters. And it's not about his "policies," such as they may be. Most voters (and even most Trump voters) favor abortion rights and the ACA. And if they're upset about inflation, then deporting millions of low-wage immigrants, who keep labor costs on food and basic services low, and imposing across-the-board tariffs are exactly the wrong remedies. The bond market is already telling us this.

Heck, my family and I will do just fine financially under such a regime. But that's precisely the point. Most of the everyday voters who cast a ballot for a better life under Trump will suffer real pain, as Elon telegraphed. Will it be "short-term" pain, as he predicts? Perhaps--assuming voters throw out the Trumpys in two or four years and elect some actual Democrats (like Joe Biden), as opposed to neoliberal ones (like too many other ones).

I'd like to add a word re the trend in RDPI in this graph, which I referred to in my preceding post:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0#0

I (and many others a lot smarter than I am on such matters) would add that what truly matters is not merely whether aggregate income is growing but rather how those gains are getting distributed. As anyone who's studied the topic knows, in the U.S. (and in much of the world) the gains have gone largely to the folks at the top.

See, e.g., Thomas Piketty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty

Do voters "hate" inflation, per se? I would say not, so long as the money keeps flowing in to them to more than make up for the price rises.

You'd think so, but Chait's argument is that this is mistaken. That Biden gambled on this being true, and it turned out to be incorrect.

It appears that people think that high inflation means something is going wrong. Maybe their own incomes are rising, too - but that just means that they're managing to outmaneuver a bad economic environment. In a "good" economy, they'd still be getting that extra income - and inflation wouldn't be rising as much.

For any level of real income growth, there just may be an "animal spirits" type preference for the low inflation/low income growth scenario than the high inflation/high income growth version. Which makes some sense, actually - because the latter scenario makes it harder to protect against negative events (a job loss) through savings; if the treadmill is running at a higher speed, it hurts more if you fall off.

Trump is not popular. But Biden is really not popular. Less popular than Trump. Voters really disliked Biden as a candidate in 2024 - and that wasn't because he was a brown-skinned female. Democrats held onto the idea that they disliked him because he was old, or because of the hit he took with the Afghanistan withdrawal, which is when his popularity tanked, so that switching him out would help. Voters certainly told pollsters they didn't like Biden's age, so that's certainly correct. But they also very much told pollsters they didn't like where the economy was. So they didn't want more of the same. They're not digging into macroeconomics of the two parties' proposals - they used the heuristic of what happened during each party's last term running the government. Trump imposed tariffs and harassed immigrants, and inflation didn't go up; Biden pushed through a lot of big spending bills, and inflation went up a lot. So they're choosing the former and not the latter.

<<I wrote: Do voters "hate" inflation, per se? I would say not, so long as the money keeps flowing in to them to more than make up for the price rises.

Albaby replied: You'd think so, but Chait's argument is that this is mistaken. That Biden gambled on this being true, and it turned out to be incorrect.>>

But the money didn't keep flowing in fast enough. There was a big dip in real income; and current real income is still below the peak, even as inflation has cooled.

That said, after I wrote the passage above, I thought about deleting it. Biden may well have gotten dinged by voters for high inflation even if their real wages continued to grow steadily. The tendency of humans to blame others for anything bad and praise themselves for anything good (including being so smart as to elect and retain the right people to run government) may be insurmountable.

Most of the everyday voters who cast a ballot for a better life under Trump will suffer real pain...

Good. People get the government they deserve. If those voters experience pain, tough. They asked for it, the voted for it, so whatever pain they get is deserved.

The sad thing is that they may be motivated to toss the "bums" out next time, but they won't remember much beyond that. Short memories.

Plus distorted views courtesy of heavily biased media.

Trump imposed tariffs and harassed immigrants, and inflation didn't go up; Biden pushed through a lot of big spending bills, and inflation went up a lot. So they're choosing the former and not the latter.

I really appreciate you 'splainin all of this, gives me a better perspective.

Aside to Dope: Where's the riots you promised us? I'm disappointed. :)

Biden may well have gotten dinged by voters for high inflation even if their real wages continued to grow steadily. The tendency of humans to blame others for anything bad and praise themselves for anything good (including being so smart as to elect and retain the right people to run government) may be insurmountable.

Yep.

Plus, I think Democrats are going to have to reckon with the changing reality of how government spending on physical projects now works. Back during the New Deal, when Congress authorized funding for public works projects, those projects started getting built right then. The TVA was enacted in May of 1933 - by October of 1933 they had already broken ground on their first hydroelectric project. That doesn't happen any more. I don't know if Democrats expected voters to make an association between their big bills and the economic recovery, but I think they shouldn't any more - it just takes too long from the funding vote to shovels in the ground for that connection to fly.

So voters saw their own wages rise, and didn't attribute any of that to federal government action - because they didn't see any federal government action in their lives or community. But they saw inflation rise, and attributed that to federal mismanagement of the economy: because fighting inflation is one of the jobs of the federal government.

It makes for a hard predicament.

If you have people blaming the gov for inflation, it's hard to counter that with "it's transitory", especially when it doesn't appear to be transitory, but is later. He also claims Biden was listening to activists when he went dovish and dismantled the immigration blocks/constrictions to win over Latinos. And it didn't win over Latinos. Then reversed course.


So between the two of these we got done in. It sounds like we don't know how to win the votes, but we can govern better in reality. What a place to be.

So between the two of these we got done in.

I refuse to rule out a noticeable dose of racism and/or sexism. Definitely not the only thing, but also definitely in the mix.

--Peter

I refuse to rule out a noticeable dose of racism and/or sexism.
---------------------------

It's there too.

<<So voters saw their own wages rise, and didn't attribute any of that to federal government action - because they didn't see any federal government action in their lives or community.>>

I agree that investments in infrastructure take a while to register with everyday Americans. But you're forgetting the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. A lot of that consisted of direct payments to most Americans and small businesses as well as money to reopen schools, extended unemployment benefits, an expanded child tax credit, and expanded eligibility and subsidies for health insurance through Obamacare and expanded Medicaid.

And if you've overlooked it, imagine how little it registered on most voters. Sad.

I agree that investments in infrastructure take a while to register with everyday Americans. But you're forgetting the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. A lot of that consisted of direct payments to most Americans and small businesses as well as money to reopen schools, extended unemployment benefits, an expanded child tax credit, and expanded eligibility and subsidies for health insurance through Obamacare and expanded Medicaid.

And if you've overlooked it, imagine how little it registered on most voters. Sad.

I agree it didn't register on many voters. I recall seeing some polls that showed a significant number of voters attributing the direct payments to Trump, rather than Biden.

But I didn't forget it. I just don't think it registered in voters' minds as a reason why their wages went up after the pandemic was over. People will associate big infrastructure projects with jobs, but not tax credits or even direct payments.

given the number of admonitions (on Dem failure) is that americans want simple stories...
it seemed the only story acceptable enough was if another old+white+christian dude defeated trump.

but i personally feel the simple story admonitions are nonsense, and can be tossed out with gop pivots
- fiscal conservatives
- national security
- law & order
....

"$1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. A lot of that consisted of direct payments to most Americans and small businesses as well as money to reopen schools, extended unemployment benefits, an expanded child tax credit, and expanded eligibility and subsidies for health insurance through Obamacare and expanded Medicaid."

---------------------------------------------------------

Trump received no blame for his pathetic handling of the pandemic. Trump bears at least
equal responsibility for the inflation that occurred. Does anyone really think Trump
wouldn't have been invoking helicopter drops of money if he had won in 2020 ? I still
remember the $600 check Trump sent to everyone ( had to have his name on it,lol ), he
would have followed with more.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/27/trump-signs-covid-...

GWB handed Obama a colossal excrement sandwich.
Trump handed Biden a colossal excrement sandwich.
Trump skates away from all blame.

I have no more Effs to give, this is what the American people wanted,
have at it.

Nah, working class voters are tired of mealy mouthed third way democrats telling them to study harder if they want a larger share of the pie, and then condescending to them if they disagree.

Sanders has it right. The third way has no answers. Americans are hungry for a blunt working class message taking on corporate power, personal wealth, and the condescension of a bicoastal professional managerial elite. Just look at how close Dan Osborne came in deep red Nebraska.

"Americans are hungry for a blunt working class message taking on corporate power, personal wealth, and the condescension of a bicoastal professional managerial elite."

So true.... but they believed a fraudulent felon/salesman and bought the shit sandwich he was selling.

When the salesman declines any responsibility for the results of his stable genius, they'll force themselves to believe him again -'it's the libs fault'- because it would be to painful to admit they were conned on November 5, 2024.

And if you've overlooked it, imagine how little it registered on most voters. Sad.

Just highlights how crappy a job the Dem campaigners and Harris did with their soft dependence on anti-Trump messaging, assuming 60% of people would line up and nod.

“ When the salesman declines any responsibility for the results of his stable genius, they'll force themselves to believe him again -'it's the libs fault'-”

But it is our fault. I know what Harris ran against, but what did she run for other than a woman’s right to choose? America asked “why do you want the job” and her answer was “because I’m not Trump”,

Just highlights how crappy a job the Dem campaigners and Harris did

Do not underestimate the degrading effect on our national discourse and damage to factual reporting that our fractured media landscape has had. You better believe the RW echo chamber is a big part of what appears to be stupidity on the political right.

Is there a left wing echo chamber? Yes, but it is nothing like what goes on on the right.

and her answer was “because I’m not Trump”,

That's good enough for me. I mean you're pissed about inflation so you'll let RFK be in charge of health? That's owning the libs? That's gonna help you get a house?

So this whole thing was lopsided, but look. One of the reasons I liked Harris, was that I knew we would loose under Biden. So Harris gave me hope that maybe we wouldn't Trump up America. But we are going to Trump America and Albaby prepped me for that. I think my normal MO would have been just to hang onto that hope. So I'm prepped for Trump and am exercising, taking a little Buproprion and figuring out what's the reasonable cost way to get my wife good medical care.

But a good riot would do me good. Bring back memories of protesting the Vietnam War days. Nostalgia.

America asked “why do you want the job” and her answer was “because I’m not Trump”,

Oh, come on, she did lay out an agenda, one that would help average Americans, but that wasn't what the Trumpers wanted to hear. Retribution, hate, fear. The tools of the demagogue, that's what worked.

Oh, come on, she did lay out an agenda, one that would help average Americans, but that wasn't what the Trumpers wanted to hear. Retribution, hate, fear. The tools of the demagogue, that's what worked.

Almost every developed country tossed out their incumbent parties in the last election cycle. Left, right, center - whoever was in charge during the inflationary period got thrown out, save a handful of groups that went from expected blowout to barely hanging on (like the Democrats in 2022). The American people were looking for an agenda that radically changed an approach to the country (and specifically the economy) from what they had experienced, because they did not like that. Harris didn't lay out anything like that. Hers was an agenda of minor tweaks and small increments.

David Brooks' description of the situation resonated with me, though I often disagree with him on policy:

For the past 40 years or so, we lived in the information age. Those of us in the educated class decided, with some justification, that the postindustrial economy would be built by people like ourselves, so we tailored social policies to meet our needs.

Our education policy pushed people toward the course we followed — four-year colleges so that they would be qualified for the “jobs of the future.” Meanwhile, vocational training withered. We embraced a free trade policy that moved industrial jobs to low-cost countries overseas so that we could focus our energies on knowledge economy enterprises run by people with advanced degrees. The financial and consulting sector mushroomed while manufacturing employment shriveled.

Geography was deemed unimportant — if capital and high-skill labor wanted to cluster in Austin, San Francisco and Washington, it didn’t really matter what happened to all those other communities left behind. Immigration policies gave highly educated people access to low-wage labor while less-skilled workers faced new competition. We shifted toward green technologies favored by people who work in pixels, and we disfavored people in manufacturing and transportation whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/opinion/trump-e...

This critique is basically that college-educated folks pulled every lever to make sure that the economy would favor college-educated folks, that policy would be set by college educated folks to favor college-educated folks, and would emphasize the policy preferences that college-educated folks liked. There were some things that the Information Class supported that favored the working class (unions! We support unions!) - but every time there was a conflict between the preferences of the Information Class and the working class, the former would win out. The majority of the country - that isn't in the Information Class - is unhappy with how that's worked out for them. So they hired someone who they knew would do something very different than let the Information Class continue to be in charge.

“Oh, come on, she did lay out an agenda, one that would help average Americans”

In broad strokes, but nothing like “no tax on overtime or tipping wages”.

While appalling, Trump’s threats to round up immigrants plays well for the 70% of the labor market that stands to lose in a world where they have to compete with undocumented labor. The educated elite don’t have to worry about the economic threats posed by undocumented labor. The answer isn’t fascism, it’s labor protection. A national minimum wage indexed to the poverty level, serious reform of labor laws protecting and expanding collective bargaining, enforcing laws against monopolies, lifting the cap on FICA to extend its solvency and expand benefits, etc.

By expanding the social wage and protecting all labor we undermine the economic incentive capital has to exploit undocumented labor.

Dan Osborne had a message that resonated. Democrats need to figure a way toward a real working class politics instead of the third way nonsense we’ve been pursuing for thirty plus years.

Most nations rejected the populist, immigrant-hating, parties. LePen lost. The Torries were tossed (of course, they were the ruling party, so that may support your position a bit; but they have been anti-foreigner and anti-EU for a while, and people now know that they lied about Brexit).

In our case, I think it was more about fear and loathing. The right-wing media has been spewing that for the past four years (or more). It took hold. The convict's main line of attack was "I'm going to deport millions", and "they're eating your pets", and "we have an open border", and comments about "polluting" American blood. None of which is actually true, but it played on peoples' baser instincts. Just as it did in the late 20s to early 30s in Germany**. Very little in the way of economic policy was ever mentioned by the convict, at least in part because the campaign realized people weren't responding to that as much as "scary brown people".

Though it is true that the Dems seem to have become the party of the college-educated, I suspect rank and file voters aren't aware of that. They may dislike some of the progressive social views (like gay marriage, trans rights, etc). But they consistently support Dem programs when polled (e.g. they didn't like "Obamacare", but they did like almost all of the provisions within Obamacare when not labeled "Obamacare").

Therefore, it really isn't about policy, or "them fancy college kids", or anything of the sort. It was fear based on lies, and it will be fear based on lies in 4 years (e.g. "libruls will open the border and lets the rapists and asylum inmates in").

Assuming we have a country left after Project 2025 is implemented, and cronyism takes the place of competence in government.




**That has often been a successful tactic, not just Germany.

While appalling, Trump’s threats to round up immigrants plays well for the 70% of the labor market that stands to lose in a world where they have to compete with undocumented labor.

True and false. True, it played well. But, false, the labor market isn't threatened much by cheaper labor anymore. It's automation. I read an article a few years ago that some things are being on-shored again, but in automated factories. Apparently the Bangladeshi worker is more expensive than a machine. Muscle jobs, and repetitive jobs, will continue to be replaced by automation. Skilled jobs, like plumbers and electricians, are probably pretty safe. But if you work in a factory, you days likely are numbered.

About the only thing undocumented labor does is nannies and agriculture, both of which likely will continue regardless of what anyone does.

Though I do agree with A national minimum wage indexed to the poverty level, serious reform of labor laws protecting and expanding collective bargaining, enforcing laws against monopolies, lifting the cap on FICA to extend its solvency and expand benefits, etc.

But it is our fault. I know what Harris ran against,

Sorry man.

Following the lead of our new leader, I take no responsibility for anything.

David Brooks' description of the situation resonated with me,

It resonates with me as well, although I'm more inclined to describe it not as an "information" class but the "moneyed" class. It seems, to some extent, like capitalism run amok. Capital decided they could make more money by off-shoring jobs. So they did, with no regard to the folks who worked those jobs that were headed overseas. And government let them. After 40+ years of this approach, labor has had enough. This ties in quite well to the wealth divide that so many talk about but no one actually does anything to reduce.

From that point of view, I can't blame them for wanting something different. And Trump is definitely something different. Unfortunately, I doubt he has the skills to actually begin to fix the problem, but it will make some folks feel better for a time. And some a lot worse. Hopefully, it will bring the issue front and center.

Ultimately, the solution has to include some mutual respect. Brooks' information class (my capitalists) need to respect those working in skilled labor and find ways to improve their situation - mainly by providing the decent paying jobs they need. Skilled labor needs to respect the more highly educated and the improvements in community life that education can bring to the table. Both are needed for a well-functioning society.

--Peter

Though it is true that the Dems seem to have become the party of the college-educated, I suspect rank and file voters aren't aware of that. They may dislike some of the progressive social views (like gay marriage, trans rights, etc). But they consistently support Dem programs when polled (e.g. they didn't like "Obamacare", but they did like almost all of the provisions within Obamacare when not labeled "Obamacare").

I think rank and file are very much aware of that, because I think the above misses the point.

While Democrats think of class identification as a matter of wealth, it is increasingly more a matter of education and job. A wrong but good enough model is that you have Knowledge Workers and the Physical Stuff workers. There are people who work on keyboards and people who don't.

For the last two decades, the world's major establishment parties (including both the Democrats and Republicans) have been largely siding with the people who work on keyboards in western developed economies. Less restricted global trade favor the keyboard workers. Less restricted immigration flows favor the keyboard workers. Climate change and Green policies help the keyboard workers. And now during COVID, the restrictions that most countries adopted favored the keyboard workers (especially in the US, where keeping kids out of school for longer was far less damaging for people who could work from home).

That's even before we get into the fact that college-educated keyboard workers generally tend to have more cosmopolitan views than the rest of the electorate, so that when they get control of government and/or institutions those bodies tend to start promoting views that are different than those of the non-college workers. Or that college-educated keyboard workers generally support giving more policy-making power to technocrats rather than elected officials, which tends to privilege their views on policy choices (since most technocrats are themselves college-educated keyboard workers).

When push came to shove during the Biden Administration, the Democrats sided with the Keyboard Class time and again. The Covid regulations were better for the Keyboard Class. Emphasizing Green spending over fighting inflation - or indeed any other social program spending - in the crafting of the BBB favored the Keyboard Class. Liberal immigration policy favors the interests of the Keyboard Class. College loan forgiveness is the ur- example of a policy that favors the Keyboard Class. To say nothing of minor but very politically salient decisions, like Keystone. In almost every instance where there was a conflict between the groups, the Keyboard Class won out.

This isn't surprising. The party workers, news media, policy wonks, think tank employees, government staff, and many of the other folks who shape Democratic policy are more than ever from the Keyboard Class. Bernie made that worse, a little bit - his big demand when he bowed out was to make sure members of his constituency, particularly the greens of the Sunrise Movement, got to shape the party agenda.

The same was true of the GOP. But Trump made it clear that all those pencil-necks that never respected him could go pound sand, and he was going to do whatever his hobbits and deplorables wanted - technocrats and think tanks be damned.

I'm not sure how the Democrats address this. This isn't about policy papers or platforms - it's about who sets the party's agenda, and who wins when there is conflict between groups within the party. The Democrats have been giving an increasingly large voice to college-educated progressive professionals, and they have used it to advance their priorities. Although there's some overlap between the groups (the Keyboard Class supports unionization, for example), it's pretty clear which group has the whip hand.

A national minimum wage indexed to the poverty level, serious reform of labor laws protecting and expanding collective bargaining, enforcing laws against monopolies, lifting the cap on FICA to extend its solvency and expand benefits, etc.

Those are all OK. But they don't address the major problem - the lack of good paying manufacturing jobs. We need to bring some of that industry back home.

It resonates with me as well, although I'm more inclined to describe it not as an "information" class but the "moneyed" class.

I can relate to that position. But I think it's wrong. It might be one of the biggest errors that Democrats make. They think of it as an issue of wealth, rather than station.

That's wrong. For the last several decades, we've been shifting the economy to favor people with degrees in the "information" class over people who don't. Whether they're "moneyed" or not. Associate professors and accountants and journalists and architects and the like aren't necessarily going to be rich. But those people are well positioned to handle a "placeless" economy that rewards people moving pixels rather than physical objects, in a way that other folks are not.

So when you tot up the winners and losers of policies like fighting climate change, freer movement of international trade, increased role of technocrats in shaping policy, and more liberalized immigration flows....the folks that don't have college degrees are going to be disproportionately on the losing side.

Associate professors and accountants and journalists and architects and the like aren't necessarily going to be rich.

But compared to the manufacturing laborers whose jobs have been shipped overseas, they ARE rich. They have a high 5 figure or low 6 figure income, with raises every year. They have nice company health insurance plans. They have 401k plans (hit tip to JEDI) with some company match. They get two or three weeks of paid vacation every year. They get paid for a few sick days. They get unpaid time off for family leave, knowing they'll have a job to come back to. They can afford to buy a house in the suburbs.

What does the guy working on an assembly line have? He's lucky to have a job. He gets paid less than his father did (on an inflation adjusted basis). And that pay barely goes up from year to year. His wife has to work just to make ends meet. He's lucky that he inherited the family house from his parents, because he couldn't afford to buy it today. The union got busted a decade ago, so there's no pension plan and a crappy health plan.

You can talk about a "station" in society. But it's really about money. And rightfully so.

--Peter

Perhaps, but that wasn't this campaign. This campaign on the Rep side was scary-brown-murderers-and-rapists. That was by far the majority of what I heard from their campaign, and even their street signs. Stoking fear.

And while neither party really fights for the labor class, the Dems -over objections from Reps- favored (and implemented) increased minimum wage to help those folks. The Reps opposed, and in AZ there was a ballot measure to exempt tip-workers from minimum wage. Which was defeated, showing yet again that individual Dem positions (like increasing minimum wage) are popular.

As for stuff like trade, both parties favor that over labor. Both parties are dependent on corporate/manufacturing lobbyists and donations. The Reps have historically -and I think it continues to this day- favored less regulation, less oversight, freer trade**.




**Though the convict's tariff idea does go counter to that.

What does the guy working on an assembly line have? He's lucky to have a job. He gets paid less than his father did (on an inflation adjusted basis). And that pay barely goes up from year to year. His wife has to work just to make ends meet. He's lucky that he inherited the family house from his parents, because he couldn't afford to buy it today. The union got busted a decade ago, so there's no pension plan and a crappy health plan.

You can talk about a "station" in society. But it's really about money. And rightfully so.

Sure. And it's going to get worse. And the Reps certainly won't fight to slow that down. They are the union-busters. They are the off-shorers. They are opposed to increased minimum wage.

Yes, he is lucky to have a job that hasn't been replaced by a machine, or exported to Vietnam. Sad, but true. Macroeconomics says it will get worse, and I don't think either party can do much about it.

But compared to the manufacturing laborers whose jobs have been shipped overseas, they ARE rich.

Exactly - only by comparison are they rich. They're not "moneyed," though. They're not the 1% (much less the 0.1%). They're the folks that make more money than non-degree holders, but low enough that they're certainly not "rich." They're not likely to be materially affected by the handful of Democratic policies that go after "the moneyed" (like raising taxes on people who make more than $400K or stuff like that). A mid-level staffer at the EPA or a junior professor at a state school isn't ever going to be making bank - they're better off than the warehouse employee making $50K after a few years, but not rich.

If you define "Elite" in terms of wealth and income, you're not intuiting that would include these folks.

That allows Democrats to overlook the way their policies that differentially privilege the information class over the working class - the stuff that creates that correlation between having a degree and being marginally wealthier than those without. Things like liberalized trade policy, stringent decarbonization, laxer immigration standards - even things like inflation are going to hit harder for people who work on physical things rather than pixels.

That's the problem. Democrats have adopted a lot of policy preferences that don't benefit the working class, but don't realize it because they don't benefit "the wealthy" either. It's the misdirect of "the 99%" as a framework (and why that faded, IMHO).

Even worse, if Democrats conceptualize the "Elite" as people who are really wealthy, rather than people that have degrees, it will be hard for them to respond to the complaint about not just who benefits from these policies, but who decides them. Democrats (and the progressive left generally) are very comfortable with a framework where policy questions are largely decided by institutions that are dominated by college-educated information workers - politically (the technocratic government), culturally (the credential-heavy journalism and media groups), and academically. Which is how you end up not only with Democratic policies that favor the information class and disfavor the working class, but also end up with structures that remove decision-making power from the working class and hand it over to the information class. Handing decisions over to technocrats, rather than subjecting them to political decision-making, gets Democrats the policy answers they prefer - but at the cost of removing the ability of people who aren't technocrats to have a role in shaping society.

I think it's wrong. It might be one of the biggest errors that Democrats make. They think of it as an issue of wealth, rather than station.

I think you are on the right track here but lack a sophisticated approach to class politics in America. The truth is neither class speaks to the less well educated working class. The educated elite you speak of is the Professional Managerial Class (PMC). It is not the capitalist class, although 401k plans have tied their interests to capital market success. The Clintonian third way policies around education, along with the information revolution, really boosted this class and it has been the loyal base of the Democratic Party for thirty years.

Clintonian third way policies devastated working class Americans by ending AFDC, declining to bolster collective bargaining, embracing outsourcing through NAFTA, and vastly expanding corporate power through banking and telecommunications reforms. I would argue that Clinton’s term represented a sharp break with the American working class.

The only way the democrats could build an electoral majority was to tie the corporatist interests of the PMC to the civil rights and identity interests of black, brown, lgbtq communities, and
women. This identity and educational elite alliance is weak, diffuse, and bound to the corporate powers that rule American politics.

The Republican Party has always been, and remains, the party of the rich. Much of the vast chasm of inequality that has opened up in America is the result of the shifting tax burden imposed on workers through increases in payroll and sales taxes while gutting taxes on capital. The constant dollar cost of higher education has tripled since Reagan was elected thanks to the withdrawal of states from the financing of public higher education.

The Republican Party is also the home of the self made man. The disdain small business owners in MAGA hats have for the condescending university pin heads is intense. While this alliance of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie has been the backbone of the republicans for a century, it was only the racism of the southern strategy that offered them a pathway to electoral majorities. Unfortunately a growing minority of black and brown voters are disappointed enough in the emptiness of democratic policy that they are turning toward an openly racist alternative. Mind boggling, but the turn needs to be acknowledged and addressed through meaningful policy initiatives.

With the less well educated working class adrift without a party to call home, the republicans have seized an opening. Unless third way democrats end their fratricidal war on progressives (the Jewish lobby picking off progressives one at a time is only the most recent example of this civil war), the republicans stand a chance to build an electoral majority that lasts well into this century.

Frankly, I think the Democratic Party will experience a vicious civil war between the Sanders and Clintonian wings and unless the progressives win, the democratic establishment is in a death spiral. They have nothing to offer an increasingly black and brown working class.

They're not "moneyed," though.

To be blunt, tell that to the guy whose manufacturing job just got off-shored or was replaced by a robot.

Your original quote from Brooks opened my eyes quite a bit. (Far better than all of the rambling nonsense from Jedi, even though I suspect that's roughly what Jedi was saying.) But I still don't think its as much about class or status as it is about money.

Perhaps I'm not using "moneyed" in the traditional sense, but trying to use it from the perspective of the guy whose smarts and skills are not with a keyboard but with his hands. I suspect he doesn't have too much of a problem with someone with a college degree making a bit more than him, but when the college educated start leaving him in the dust, he gets annoyed. Not at the education (which I would still argue that most without a college degree see some benefit in - these folks aren't stupid or uneducated, they simply don't have a college degree), but at the lack of understanding of what all these "smart" folks are doing to them.

You and I might think that the problem is really rich capitalists running their business to benefit themselves at the expense of others. But that's just us having EXACTLY the same point of view about those above us on the economic scale as those just below us have about us.

--Peter

Frankly, I think the Democratic Party will experience a vicious civil war between the Sanders and Clintonian wings and unless the progressives win, the democratic establishment is in a death spiral. They have nothing to offer an increasingly black and brown working class.

But that's the problem. I think the Democrats have a serious problem even if the Sanders/progressive wing wins.

What Sanders and the progressives miss, I think, is that the working class dislikes some of their major policy prescriptions. They dislike prioritizing fighting climate change - a lot. They dislike liberalizing immigration movements. They dislike progressive approaches to criminal justice. They dislike the use of technocrats and credentialed folks to make policy decisions that involve "should" questions of policy. And they dislike a lot of their social values.

These aren't just - or even primarily - the priorities of the PMC. They're the priorities of the young college-educated segment of the "Bernie Bros" that are now a bit older and wielding a lot of power in the coalition.

That wasn't a problem while the GOP establishment was dedicated to some policy positions that the working class also hated - free trade, entitlement reform, and immigration as a source of cheap labor. But Trump's killed those folks. That stuff is dead, now - the GOP is very truly NOT a free trade, guest worker, get rid of Medicare and Social Security party any more. So now the working class' long slide towards Republicans based on social issues has even less friction.

* * *

I think the most illustrative example of this problem for Democrats is climate change. Progressives care a lot about it. It might be their top priority. Progressives generally try to avoid prioritizing things, preferring "everything bagel" approaches - but when push came to shove and they were forced into the crucible by Manchin and Sinema during the BBB negotiations, the climate change provisions were what came out. That's what the IRA ended up having as its largest component. The Green measures. And even then, the progressives were furious and disappointed about it:

https://www.salon.com/2022/01/23/varshini-prakash-...

The problem isn't that the working class is opposed to fighting climate change - it's just something they care very little about. They care a lot more about a lot of other things. So when the party elevates climate change as their top priority - that climate change is the "whole of government" priority that shows up in Department of Defense policy and new SEC regulations - it just means the Democrats are out of step with the working class.

Even if the progressives were completely in charge, they'd still be missing the boat. They'd be primarily focusing on the things that they care about, rather than the things that the working class cares about.

expanding collective bargaining - 1pg

------------

Up to a point but when the unions insist on limiting innovation and productivity improvements (see longshoremen) then they go too far.

I suspect he doesn't have too much of a problem with someone with a college degree making a bit more than him, but when the college educated start leaving him in the dust, he gets annoyed. Not at the education (which I would still argue that most without a college degree see some benefit in - these folks aren't stupid or uneducated, they simply don't have a college degree), but at the lack of understanding of what all these "smart" folks are doing to them.

No, I think that's exactly wrong. I don't think he gets annoyed that the college educated person is leaving him in the dust, if that's what happens. I think he perfectly understands what the college educated person is doing to him.

The college educated people are restructuring society to favor college-educated people, and disfavor working-class people. Not just capitalists. The college-educated professionals - which includes a lot of progressives - are doing it, too. As college-educated folks grew more numerous, we ended up taking control of most of society's institutions - and the ones we didn't control, we diminished. We took over. We were no longer the smart boffins that were often working for someone who didn't go to college - we were always the people in charge.

We arranged our economy to be more favorable to people who work with information rather than physical things: climate regulation, immigration policy, trade policy. We arranged our institutions so that they're less accessible to people without degrees - listing a degree as a job prerequisite for jobs that don't need them, making sure we hire people with the same backgrounds that we have, shifting decision-making to institutions filled with college graduates rather than working class folks, etc.

This is what progressives fail to understand about right-wing populism - that the "Elite" isn't limited to the Rich Capitalists, but (generally) includes the educational Elite as well. They're part of the problem. A Democratic party that's run by college-educated progressives, that elevates the choices and policy expertise of the college-educated folks, is going to have many of the same problems. There's a very good reason that the old-style Communist purges didn't just go after the capitalists and the bougeousie, but also the academics and intellectuals - because those people have a tremendous amount of power and control, too, and they wield it to advance their interests at the expense of the working class.

The populist offer is to let the working class people, the Common Folk, the hobbits and "deplorables" have a voice in how society is run, rather than leaving it to the technocrats in Brussells or the University Department chairs or the newspaper editors to decide what the "correct" policy is to advance the interest of the working class. Democrats aren't going to rise to that challenge merely by letting the Sanders wing be in charge.

Capital decided they could make more money by off-shoring jobs.

-------------

As if tax policy, excessive regulation, and requiring DEI commitments in government contracts (eg Chips Act) had nothing to do with it.

As if tax policy, excessive regulation, and requiring DEI commitments in government contracts (eg Chips Act) had nothing to do with it.

C'mon, BHM. Those are peanuts compared to the savings from switching from $30/hour labor to $3/hour (or less) in a labor intensive business.

the folks that don't have college degrees are going to be disproportionately on the losing side.

I call these "people who like to work with their hands", and I'm all for figuring out how to give them a place in the middle class. But the middle class is lower nowadays, the pyramid looks flatter. They need good decent paying jobs and a chance at their own business. i don't think Elon Musk or Trump can help us get there.

Up to a point but when the unions insist on limiting innovation and productivity improvements (see longshoremen) then they go too far.

Arguably. But that is a worker-protection action. Automation usually increases productivity, but it lowers the demand for headcount, and lowers cost. So the Rep solution has been to bust the unions. Which is counterproductive to the workers who no longer have a voice because they are just a handful of relatively poor people compared to the mega-corp with deep pockets, and armies of lawyers.

Since PATCO, the "too far" has been mostly in favor of the corporations, progressively more as time goes on. It's only very recently we've seen a small surge in union-joining.

I don't think either party will be able to affect this much. Innovation and productivity will continue to drive automation, and reduce the number of heads necessary for X units of output. And those that are needed to tend to the machines will have to be pretty well educated, at least vocationally (i.e. a degree in engineering would not be needed for most of them). Albaby argues that the Dems are ignoring those folks, but the Reps are, too. They have been since Reagan (if not before). The Reps have nothing for them. And all the Dems have is an increased minimum wage, and subsidized healthcare (which they've had for 10 years now). That's why Yang was an interesting candidate with his 'minimum income' proposal. He was probably too early with that, but he was seeing the future.

I think MAGA populism is working because they have nothing else. So it's a matter of blaming "the other", and making people feel good about their position relative to other groups (be in blacks -LBJ has a famous quote about that-, "sh|thole countries", or whomever).

LBJ: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9150190-if-you-ca...

I think the most illustrative example of this problem for Democrats is climate change.

I remember when Obama became President and the first order was climate change. I was unhappy and wanted them to work out Health Care first, then Climate change. I had pretty much decided that we were going to conduct the great experiment and see what the world was like 2-3 degrees warmer and we should just recognize that. We didn't demand that China change its energy policy and they were pumping coal into the air in huge amounts, so it wasn't a priority there, so why first priority here? People need good paying jobs, health care, and families need houses, townhouses or condos designed for kids, then climate change.

And I'm starting to read some very anti-US views being pumped to Brits because of the problem in Gaza.

China is a conundrum. They are at the same time constructing more "renewables", and also more coal plants. Last I knew. But I agree with you to some extent. It's not just a US problem, and we're already over the tipping point for a 2-3C change over the norm. So it is now lower on my priority list, even if I think the US should make progress on this front.**

Gaza is a mess. We can't expect Israel to put up with attacks on their people (we wouldn't if it was a group in Mexico killing folks in San Diego). At the same time, most Gazans just wanted to go about their lives in peace. Ironically, the Brits were contributors to this problem (and several others) since they occupied that territory, and divided it up as they saw fit at the time.





**Specifically, our grid needs a lot of modernization, and we should probably take advantage of that opportunity to install cleaner, more efficient, power generation. In the end our grid needs to be hardened to cyber-war, and it needs to not go down in 6 states when a tree falls on a power line.

<<I remember when Obama became President and the first order was climate change. I was unhappy and wanted them to work out Health Care first, then Climate change. >>

You're misremembering. The ACA was signed into law in March 2010, barely a year after Obama's first term started, and it took that long only because he tried to get (at least some) Republicans on board. But the first order of business was digging out of the Great Recession.

The Paris Accords and climate change stuff was in his second term.

You're misremembering. The ACA was signed into law in March 2010, barely a year after Obama's first term started, and it took that long only because he tried to get (at least some) Republicans on board. But the first order of business was digging out of the Great Recession.

No this article is from June 2009, before Congress picked up ACA. What I misremember is that it passed the house but didn't pass the Senate. Obama was sworn in Jan 20, 2009.

House passes landmark climate change bill
By Reuters
June 27, 2009
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama scored a major victory on Friday when the House of Representatives passed legislation to slash industrial pollution that is blamed for global warming.
The Democratic-controlled House passed the climate change bill, a top priority for Obama, by a vote of 219-212. As has become routine on major bills in Congress this year, the vote was partisan, with only eight Republicans joining Democrats for the bill. Forty-four Democrats voted against it. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/environme...

Obama and Pelosi pulled out all the stops and it was in the news for 3 months. So this got heavily worked on before the ACA, but thanks for the tip.

<<No this article is from June 2009, before Congress picked up ACA. >>

That's fine. But no way was Obama's top priority in his first term climate change. It was (1) responding to the financial crisis and (2) health insurance.

But no way was Obama's top priority in his first term climate change. It was (1) responding to the financial crisis and (2) health insurance.

I beg to differ.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s two top priorities in his first term were:

1. opening up the smuggling pipeline across the southern border to allow more fentynsl and terrorists into the country.

2. Destroying race relations in this country for generations by saying, of Trayvon Martin, “He could have been my son.”

The damage done by Barack HUSSEIN Obama was incalculable . Thank God Donald Trump will soon be president. He will protect ALL US citizens if they voted for him, whether they like it or not.

Only HE can fix it, blesséd be His Holy Name!

But no way was Obama's top priority in his first term climate change

|Regardless, the first thing he worked on other than econ recovery was climate change. So what does that look like? Somehow climate change too precedence over the ACA. So maybe the mood in Congress caused that, don't know, but my memory that climate change was worked on before ACA is accurate.

Returning to the actual question posed in this thread, hclv had asked:

In 2020, Mr.
Biden won 81,284,666 votes nationwide, compared to Trump's 74,224,319. 20 million voters refused to vote? ☮️.

2024
Harris
66,153,333 votes (47.5%).

Trump
71,070,414 votes (51%)"

WHERE did 20 million voters go? Something doesn't seem right?

I had posited that this was due in large part to the large number of votes that remained to be counted. Five days later, and the popular vote totals (per wikipedia) now stand at:

2024
Harris
71,239,698 (48.0%)

Trump
74,834,220 (50.4%)

So about 9 million votes added to the total, with still another 5% of the vote left to count. There's still a decline in overall turnout compared to the last election. It looks like turnout will be down compared to 2020 - but only modestly.

Closing the loop on this one, hclv had asked:

In 2020, Mr.
Biden won 81,284,666 votes nationwide, compared to Trump's 74,224,319. 20 million voters refused to vote? ☮️.

2024
Harris
66,153,333 votes (47.5%).

Trump
71,070,414 votes (51%)"

WHERE did 20 million voters go? Something doesn't seem right?

I had posited that the "20 million" was just an artifact of the unfinished counting in several states, mostly on the west coast. Because of the different ways that states run their elections, some stats just take longer than others.

Now the count is almost complete. The near-final vote total is now up to:

Harris
74,327,659 (48.4%)

Trump
76,838,984 (50.0%)

So it looks like the difference in turnout will end up being about 4 million votes - not 20. A very modest drop from 2020, not something that "doesn't seem right."

Harris
74,327,659 (48.4%)

Trump
76,838,984 (50.0%)

Looking back at 2020, the popular vote was (according to Wikipedia)

Biden
81,283,501 (51.3%)

Trump
74,223,975 (46.8%)

Harris got almost 7 million fewer votes than Biden, while Trump was up over 2 million.

I think it's still an interesting question - Where did Dem voters go? A simplistic answer is that a whole lot chose to stay home. But it's probably more complicated than that.

--Peter

and there you have it.

A 4 million drop - in a hotly, hotly contested election with record spending and high tech get out of the vote effort....is modest.

What matters here is the meaning of modest versus where did they go.

See? We're focused on what matters.



*sigh*



lol

I think it's still an interesting question - Where did Dem voters go? A simplistic answer is that a whole lot chose to stay home. But it's probably more complicated than that]
******

As usual, I have links showing it's just not a big deal. Focus on the how it's a 'modest' decline and nothing serious.

2 million voters showing up in an election that was apart by - oh - 2 million votes - that's a modest thing.

Have a Google Link, a seminar, and it's all good.

PS: It's a damn interested question you ask - but you'll have to convince the Campus and Google Jockey empire - that it is extremely interesting and even serious.

I think it's still an interesting question - Where did Dem voters go? A simplistic answer is that a whole lot chose to stay home. But it's probably more complicated than that.

Yes. It's a very important question - the Democrats inarguably lost support across the board, and they need to figure out what they're going to do about it.

I think the OP, though, was intimating that the massive (but ultimately illusory) drop off in overall turnout showed that there was something untoward about the election. That there couldn't be 20 million fewer votes without something being really wrong. This was echoed in some conspiracy theory posts that were circulating around the 'web right after the election was called, suggesting that Biden's 81 million votes in 2020 couldn't possibly have been legitimate - because there were so many fewer votes in 2016 and 2024.

Now that we see that turnout in 2024 was pretty close to 2020 turnout, that conspiracy theory explanation is kind of dead - revealed as nothing more than the artifact of comparing final 2020 numbers with preliminary 2024 numbers with 10% of the vote still to count.

Harris did worse than Biden; Trump 2024 did better than Trump 2020. It's not because there was anything untoward with Biden's 2020 totals, but rather the Democrats losing support to Republicans in this election cycle.

"Where did Dem voters go?"

A combination of they were independents who in 2020 voted for Biden, but voted trump in 2024, and Dems stayed home.

I'm reading Lucky Loser, a book about Trump, and I had always wondered how can a "genius"
business man BK casino's. Trump was a piss-poor businessman, acted rashly, almost always went with his "gut" rather than crunching numbers and analyzing what the numbers would have told him that the market could support. The big banks were very complicit, they loaned him huge amounts of money with little or even nothing down. The big Media were complicit, they printed Trump's boasts as truths.

Trump accumulated sooooooooo much debt on purchases of land, hotels, and airline that even if things went perfect the properties wouldn't throw off enough cash flow to make the tax and interest payments ( tax on properties that the municipality did not give him sweetheart tax abatements on ). Real "genius". And he was nothing like his Dad Fred, who had a very healthy respect against carrying too much debt. And in those days, the vast majority of wealth that Trump claimed as his was actually Fred Trump's assets. But Don just loudly boasted that he had all of that wealth, and the banks and Media bought into those lies.

And now this "genius" is going to run the Country like he ran his business, which is what all of his supporters are clamoring for. So BK is in our near term future ?? He sure BK's a lotta lotta bidness,lol.

Highly recommend the book !


Buckle up.

So it looks like the difference in turnout will end up being about 4 million votes - not 20. A very modest drop from 2020, not something that "doesn't seem right."

Interesting that turnout was higher in the middle of the pandemic. Survival is a strong motivation. On election day 2020, the U.S. Covid death rate was increasing to record highs.

U.S. daily deaths from Covid were about:
7,000 on election day November 3, 2020
15,000 peak was 12 weeks later (last week of January 2021)
less than 100 on election day 2024

Harris got almost 7 million fewer votes than Biden, while Trump was up over 2 million.

Elections are often a referendum on the incumbent. Trump lost in 2020 because of his failure to stop Covid.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.