America

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Well, policy wise, when there's no label, left leaning policies consistently poll better across the board.

It's just that they see what they want to see, and that is that Trump is the big powerful daddy who is going to save them from all the nasty brown people and women who want to take away their freedoms.

It's just that those freedoms look different to different people.

I'm amused there are still people resorting to polling to say that a left leaning platform is popular when election after election it gets a shellacking and polling is shown to be fundamentally flawed.

Well, we cannot compare the US to elsewhere, due to the extremely high levels of tribalism. But if we look elsewhere, we see that manifestos that include elements of what we would consider socialism tend to do better.

And I was careful to say left leaning and not full on crack smoking borderline communism here.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was talking about the US. Obviously some feeling for one's fellow citizen exists elsewhere.

[paddy no 11]

Zero % chance of deporting 11M immigrants, might get to 2% of that number

I think this is endearingly naive. Firstly, actually deporting them isn't the point. The point is giving authority for police or ICE to pick up and detain any brown person. Secondly you're assuming a level of decency in there execution that just won't exist. You're assuming they won't just pick people up and drive them across the border.

I think it's endearingly naive that you think one of the big 3 couldn't become an authoritarian state....leave this off please

Trump didn't even build the wall he promised 1st time around, not everything he says is followed through on, this is one reason why it won't happen, logistics being no 2.

[Stom]

I'm amused there are still people resorting to polling to say that a left leaning platform is popular when election after election it gets a shellacking and polling is shown to be fundamentally flawed.

Well, we cannot compare the US to elsewhere, due to the extremely high levels of tribalism. But if we look elsewhere, we see that manifestos that include elements of what we would consider socialism tend to do better.

And I was careful to say left leaning and not full on crack smoking borderline communism here.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was talking about the US. Obviously some feeling for one's fellow citizen exists elsewhere.

Well, I understand your point, then, but I disagree with it because I did say "poll better". And I do believe that, given the right platform and the right protection against the calls of socialism, it is possible to get elected on that platform.

The apparently low turnout in this election (though maybe only low compared to last time) seems to have as much to do with Harris' campaign leaning too close to the Republican campaign without her being "strong enough", unless you speak to some young black voters, when she was "too strong"... which suggests very much that this election had nothing at all to do with policy.

[Stom]

Well quite.

The problem is the difference between platform and policy. In isolation, every policy polls better. As a whole, there are cries of "how will we fund it" in the UK, or "socialism!" in the US, and it all falls apart.

And there is a very big difference between left leaning and left wing.

Government should not be "big" on our lives, but it needs to be big government when it comes to regulations on things that can actively harm its populace. This Trump concept is absolutely the opposite. The completely wrong way to govern.

well quite, again.... polling is not the same as voting, obviously.Tho the UK has just voted for huge government, but I suspect didn't realise it as govt was already big by UK standards.

I agree on the first point. But considering I did say polling...

However, I feel like the idea of "huge" government is a narrative shift, much in the same way the right/left spectrum has shifted. And it all comes back to the shifts that happened under Thatcherism/Reaganomics. Before the 80s, government was routinely multiples larger than the largest it's going to get under this current government.*

*and, yes, I am only going off text books, research, etc., here, not experience. For obvious reasons.

[Banquo]

The problem is the difference between platform and policy. In isolation, every policy polls better. As a whole, there are cries of "how will we fund it" in the UK, or "socialism!" in the US, and it all falls apart.

And there is a very big difference between left leaning and left wing.

Government should not be "big" on our lives, but it needs to be big government when it comes to regulations on things that can actively harm its populace. This Trump concept is absolutely the opposite. The completely wrong way to govern.

well quite, again.... polling is not the same as voting, obviously.Tho the UK has just voted for huge government, but I suspect didn't realise it as govt was already big by UK standards.

I agree on the first point. But considering I did say polling...

However, I feel like the idea of "huge" government is a narrative shift, much in the same way the right/left spectrum has shifted. And it all comes back to the shifts that happened under Thatcherism/Reaganomics. Before the 80s, government was routinely multiples larger than the largest it's going to get under this current government.

I know, you seemed to be expressing surprise that what people say they want versus what they actually vote for are different things...as per EW's quote.

Its not a narrative shift- big govt in the UK only arrived in 1945-50, before being partially dismantled by Thatcher. And in any case 40 years is quite a long time

[Son of Mathonwy]

Kin ell. Polls pretty significantly wrong in a bad way so far.

Margin of error. It looked like Trump was leading since the last month or so

Edge of margins, none had him winning all the swing states or significantly winning popular vote if that’s what happens

Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

[Banquo]

Margin of error. It looked like Trump was leading since the last month or so

Edge of margins, none had him winning all the swing states or significantly winning popular vote if that’s what happens

Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

aye. Suspect quiet Trump voter effect or summat like that.

[paddy no 11]

Demagogue effect

[Son of Mathonwy]

Zero % chance of deporting 11M immigrants, might get to 2% of that number

I think this is endearingly naive. Firstly, actually deporting them isn't the point. The point is giving authority for police or ICE to pick up and detain any brown person. Secondly you're assuming a level of decency in there execution that just won't exist. You're assuming they won't just pick people up and drive them across the border.

I think it's endearingly naive that you think one of the big 3 couldn't become an authoritarian state....leave this off please

Trump didn't even build the wall he promised 1st time around, not everything he says is followed through on, this is one reason why it won't happen, logistics being no 2.

...and it would crash the economy.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Edge of margins, none had him winning all the swing states or significantly winning popular vote if that’s what happens

Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

aye. Suspect quiet Trump voter effect or summat like that.

There was a pollster on C4, JL Partners I think, who were also more accurate - they claimed this was because they used a wider range of methods for reaching people eg having pop-up polls in computer games (which seems like a criminal act IMO) . . . and actually getting out and talking to people. Of course, maybe they were just pro-Trump and skewed their results that way, accidentally making them more accurate . Anyway, the pollsters in general got it wrong and need to review their methods.

[Banquo]

Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

aye. Suspect quiet Trump voter effect or summat like that.

There was a pollster on C4, JL Partners I think, who were also more accurate - they claimed this was because they used a wider range of methods for reaching people eg having pop-up polls in computer games (which seems like a criminal act IMO) . . . and actually getting out and talking to people. Of course, maybe they were just pro-Trump and skewed their results that way, accidentally making them more accurate . Anyway, the pollsters in general got it wrong and need to review their methods.

aye, that was where I was headed; there's also the supposition that polls themselves will impact polls

[Son of Mathonwy]

Is it really that simple? There's still a ton of people that simply didn't vote this time, and it seems like many who will simply vote for whoever promises the lowest cost of gas, groceries, healthcare etc. Harris didn't really seem to address the economy, not in a way that reached most people anyway.

Discussing the pros and cons of the Dems going left is obviously totally moot - it isn't going to happen.

But that doesn't mean it's necessarily stupid. Trump speaks to a lot of the working class who feel left out (because they are). He tells them lies because he only means to make life better for the rich but that doesn't mean there aren't votes to be had offering the working class a left wing deal eg better employment rights, better healthcare, pensions, benefits etc.

They were literally just offered that.

No, they were offered more of what they were already getting from Biden/Harris.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is funny, ironic, tragic, take your pick:

https://www.politico.eu/article/kamala- ... strategist.

[Stom]

Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

aye. Suspect quiet Trump voter effect or summat like that.

There was a pollster on C4, JL Partners I think, who were also more accurate - they claimed this was because they used a wider range of methods for reaching people eg having pop-up polls in computer games (which seems like a criminal act IMO) . . . and actually getting out and talking to people. Of course, maybe they were just pro-Trump and skewed their results that way, accidentally making them more accurate . Anyway, the pollsters in general got it wrong and need to review their methods.

Well, the polls on voting intention have been skewing further and further from the reality in recent years, often very much over-egging the non-right wing votes. I guess this is because, for those people who do not go on their understanding of politics, they are fed up with the systems and want to break it. Whoever sells them the devil of the system better, wins.

Which is how Labour won in the UK, actually...and how the opposition are probably going to win in Hungary. And likely how Erdogan will finally lose in Turkey. But it doesn't help against the Trump, Bibi, Modi, et al...

[Puja]

Really interesting article in the Guardian about how lazy and reductive it is to blame "populism".

Since we’ll hear a lot, again, about “populism”, let’s remember, again, that 19th-century US populism had a healthy strain of leftwing politics. Defending workers, riling up bankers, decrying the “cross of gold” and economic conservatism: look past his Bible-bashing, and William Jennings Bryan was a precursor to Franklin Roosevelt. Yet for much of this election year, the populists’ modern-day successors in the Democrats have served up an anti-populism: telling voters they were wrong.

...

For reasons I’ll explain in a moment, I’m no fan of explanations that begin and end with the bogeyman of “populism”. They almost always wind up with well-lunched commentators ventriloquising the opinions of people they’ve never talked to and in whose worlds they’ve never set foot. Look at the exit polls and you see a materialist explanation for what’s just happened: two out of three US voters report their economy is bad. And they have an excellent point.

...For the vast majority of US employees – whether middle class or working class, teacher or shop assistant – wages have flatlined. Not for four or even 20 years – but for most of the past half century. Strip out inflation, and average hourly earnings for seven out of 10 employees have barely risen since Richard Nixon was in the White House.

I can’t think of a more flammable political economy than a country with a few very rich people where most workers only get by because of low gas and food prices. Then what happens? A second blow. Covid peters out, the world comes out of lockdown and low-wage America is doused in that most combustible of economic substances: inflation. The entire system goes up – and Donald Trump spots his chance.

Faced with the flames, what would be a left-populist response? It wouldn’t be to resort to pedantry, to correct angry voters by showing them the aggregate figures – but that’s what many Democrat supporters did. Nor would it be to roll back all the benefits extended over the pandemic: the improved child tax credit, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. But that’s what Joe Biden did, even as he shovelled billions into infrastructure. The electoral result was that working- and middle-class voters peeled away from the Democrats. Kamala Harris won the most affluent voters, while Trump took those earning between $50,000 (£39,000) and $100,000 (£77,000). The two tied for those on $50,000 and below. So much for Harris being part of the most pro-worker government since the 1960s.

Just as the electorate professed fury with the entire political and economic system, she and the Democrats made themselves the system’s defenders. They weren’t change but more of the same. They worried about the future of “democracy”; they warned about disrupting free trade. Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” said it all: a campaign defined by being anti-Trump rather than for anything. A strategy intended to woo “moderates” left nearly everyone cold.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mp-victory

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Really interesting article in the Guardian about how lazy and reductive it is to blame "populism".

Since we’ll hear a lot, again, about “populism”, let’s remember, again, that 19th-century US populism had a healthy strain of leftwing politics. Defending workers, riling up bankers, decrying the “cross of gold” and economic conservatism: look past his Bible-bashing, and William Jennings Bryan was a precursor to Franklin Roosevelt. Yet for much of this election year, the populists’ modern-day successors in the Democrats have served up an anti-populism: telling voters they were wrong.

...

For reasons I’ll explain in a moment, I’m no fan of explanations that begin and end with the bogeyman of “populism”. They almost always wind up with well-lunched commentators ventriloquising the opinions of people they’ve never talked to and in whose worlds they’ve never set foot. Look at the exit polls and you see a materialist explanation for what’s just happened: two out of three US voters report their economy is bad. And they have an excellent point.

...For the vast majority of US employees – whether middle class or working class, teacher or shop assistant – wages have flatlined. Not for four or even 20 years – but for most of the past half century. Strip out inflation, and average hourly earnings for seven out of 10 employees have barely risen since Richard Nixon was in the White House.

I can’t think of a more flammable political economy than a country with a few very rich people where most workers only get by because of low gas and food prices. Then what happens? A second blow. Covid peters out, the world comes out of lockdown and low-wage America is doused in that most combustible of economic substances: inflation. The entire system goes up – and Donald Trump spots his chance.

Faced with the flames, what would be a left-populist response? It wouldn’t be to resort to pedantry, to correct angry voters by showing them the aggregate figures – but that’s what many Democrat supporters did. Nor would it be to roll back all the benefits extended over the pandemic: the improved child tax credit, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. But that’s what Joe Biden did, even as he shovelled billions into infrastructure. The electoral result was that working- and middle-class voters peeled away from the Democrats. Kamala Harris won the most affluent voters, while Trump took those earning between $50,000 (£39,000) and $100,000 (£77,000). The two tied for those on $50,000 and below. So much for Harris being part of the most pro-worker government since the 1960s.

Just as the electorate professed fury with the entire political and economic system, she and the Democrats made themselves the system’s defenders. They weren’t change but more of the same. They worried about the future of “democracy”; they warned about disrupting free trade. Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” said it all: a campaign defined by being anti-Trump rather than for anything. A strategy intended to woo “moderates” left nearly everyone cold.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mp-victory

Puja

As I may have mentioned in another thread I think the only sustainable way to hold off the populists (ie those who offer bullshit, often hateful, solutions for the real problems of ordinary people), is to give the people something real and tangible to improve their lives (which would vary depending on the group in question, but reduced taxes for those on lower income would be a quick and noticeable way to do it). When times are tough, or when economic growth is unspectacular, this can only realistically be done by redistribution of incomes and/or wealth. (This would have the bonus effect of increasing equality, which IMO is a positive in itself).

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Discussing the pros and cons of the Dems going left is obviously totally moot - it isn't going to happen.

But that doesn't mean it's necessarily stupid. Trump speaks to a lot of the working class who feel left out (because they are). He tells them lies because he only means to make life better for the rich but that doesn't mean there aren't votes to be had offering the working class a left wing deal eg better employment rights, better healthcare, pensions, benefits etc.

They were literally just offered that.

No, they were offered more of what they were already getting from Biden/Harris.

Which was better employment rights, better healthcare, but also housing

[cashead]

Well, the polls on voting intention have been skewing further and further from the reality in recent years, often very much over-egging the non-right wing votes.

This only seems to be significantly an issue in American elections. Most other elections have more or less gone as expected based on opinion polls - case in point the Japanese general elections late last month, where, if anything, the LDP's popularity - which was hitting historic lows under the previous prime minister Kishida - was overestimated and the government's ruling majority just got wiped out in a 76-seat swing.

Or shit, the UK elections, where the polls predicted a bloodbath for the Tories, and welp. Maybe there was a surprise in Truss losing her safe Tory seat and effectively having her parliamentary career ended, but considering how much of a dedicated failure turtle she is, that couldn't have been that big a surprise.

[Donny osmond]

I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

[Son of Mathonwy]

They were literally just offered that.

No, they were offered more of what they were already getting from Biden/Harris.

Which was better employment rights, better healthcare, but also housing

Let me clarify. When I say 'better' I don't mean the same as what they're getting. I mean better than what they're getting.

[Puja]

I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

I always find it amazing that the left is attacked for incivility. Yes, there are absolutely obnoxious people on every fringe who drive people away, but it's not the left who use the epithet of "pedos" to describe marginalised groups and those who advocate for them - that's a mainstream right thing, endorsed and promoted by mainstream right leaders. Nor was it the "left" leader or "left" spokespeople who made constant streams of personal attacks about "DEI hire", "Slept her way to the top", "low IQ", etc.

The key bit of that diatribe is "They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children." What decisions do they want to make that they feel the intolerant left would stop them from?

Puja

[Stom]

Well, the polls on voting intention have been skewing further and further from the reality in recent years, often very much over-egging the non-right wing votes.

This only seems to be significantly an issue in American elections. Most other elections have more or less gone as expected based on opinion polls - case in point the Japanese general elections late last month, where, if anything, the LDP's popularity - which was hitting historic lows under the previous prime minister Kishida - was overestimated and the government's ruling majority just got wiped out in a 76-seat swing.

Or shit, the UK elections, where the polls predicted a bloodbath for the Tories, and welp. Maybe there was a surprise in Truss losing her safe Tory seat and effectively having her parliamentary career ended, but considering how much of a dedicated failure turtle she is, that couldn't have been that big a surprise.

Yeah, OK, most likely it doesn't hold true across the board. I know most about UK elections, US elections, and Hungarian elections, all of which have had pretty poor polling results in recent times. Also, as Puja said: France. Oh, and the last election in Turkey was meant to be a narrow loss for Erdogan, no?

[Stom]

I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

It's definitely a thing. You don't counter uncivility by being uncivil...you need to hold a mirror up to it, which is why the sudden turn away from that weird line of attack was...weird.

But I think this hides a more important point about the election, and about election in general. Which is that there will always be a large minority who votes for the right wing candidate. BUT there will also be another large minority who are absolutely fxxxd off with the state of their country/the world, and cannot trust "establishment" votes to do what is right, because they haven't done so for coming up to 50 years.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

I disagree. (And I find the language used in that quote unusual for a supposed Democrat. 'pedos' really?)

Sure, being preachy isn't good. But then Trump comes across as a swaggering, bullshitting bully. You take the presentation you like, I guess.

The Democrats didn't lose because of the 'intolerance of the tolerant left'. They mostly because (in no particular order):

1) Any government that presided over massive inflation will find reelection difficult.
2) Biden shouldn't have stood again, and should have allowed a new candidate to be selected in the normal way. A cleaner, new candidate would have been better able to offer 'change' from Biden and would have had time to build a profile.
3) The Democrats need to offer something tangible to those who feel left behind and are falling for populist lies.

[Coco]

I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

I always find it amazing that the left is attacked for incivility. Yes, there are absolutely obnoxious people on every fringe who drive people away, but it's not the left who use the epithet of "pedos" to describe marginalised groups and those who advocate for them - that's a mainstream right thing, endorsed and promoted by mainstream right leaders. Nor was it the "left" leader or "left" spokespeople who made constant streams of personal attacks about "DEI hire", "Slept her way to the top", "low IQ", etc.

The key bit of that diatribe is "They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children." What decisions do they want to make that they feel the intolerant left would stop them from?

Puja

Donny's quoted text is accurate. The majority are fed up.

Frankly, most parents want their children to go to school to learn HOW to think (for themselves), instead of WHAT to think. They want their childten to be able to express their own thoughts and opinions... and to actually be allowed to have those thoughts/opinions/questions without being punished, shunned, or told they are wrong. They would like the opportunity to choose the public school their child goes to, whether it is in their district or not. They would like their children to spend their time in school learning English, Math, and the basics rather than have pronoun confusion, affirmation of their childs dysphoria without parental notification or against the parents wishes, or teachers discussing their sexual orientation with 7 year olds. Parents want to have those conversations with their children when THEY see fit to do it, not any sooner, and to be able to deal with certain issues in a way they feel is best for their child. They would like for teachers and administrators to mind their own business when their son has an American flag sticker on his backpack instead of telling him its triggering for some students so he needs to take it off. They are fed up with activist teachers and their agendas.

Thats just some of the info Ive gathered from what Ive read/heard. This is a big reason why homeschooling and charter schools are so popular now.