RugbyRebels

The thing is...this is a consistent theme across countries. The media and the retired/retiring middle class (the last of the middle classes, you could say) will not vote for parties or platforms that talk about workers rights, about "socialism", and about a fairer society. And the transitioning of a lunatic fringe in libertarians into the MAGA movement that encompasses a HUGE swathe of young male voters who feel like "big government" does not have their best interests at heart, and they can "make it on their own" leaves traditional liberal parties with a huge problem.

The failure to address the actual issues is incredible across the board. It's understandable in America. The conflation of Israel and Judaism, and the power of the Jewish lobby and/or vote means the middle east issue is a poisoned chalice for any status quo party or individual. The rights of minorities is difficult because of the complete mismanagement of immigration and the sweeping under the carpet of those issues.

And we get left with a situation where individuals or parties who will only make things worse come into power everywhere because they can actually use rhetoric to say they're not the same as those horrible people who want to continue with the current systems that do not work for you.

The only reason the UK has a Labour government and not a Conservative one is that the UK had a Conservative government for 14 years. Hungary is going the same way, though the change will be from "Conservative" to Conservative, but that's a different issue.

Young people are not enthused by politics, because it's correctly seen as a grift. And while it is beholden to corporate interests, it will continue to be so and continue to fracture us into two distinct groups who can be played off against one another.

We had a guest very recently, and the three of us all have different views on the world. I would be the most "left leaning", our guest the furthest right, and my wife in the middle. And despite the fact we could agree together on 80% of things...that 20% turns into an argument if it's let.

Which is a problem. Too much rhetoric has led us to a place where, even if you're 90% aligned with someone else, the fact that they're red and you're blue means you cannot work together.

This US election, I have not got myself involved on a "personal" level. I've watched it vaguely, from a sociology ad political PoV. And it's not the end of the world, it's simply another sign that we are not showing ourselves capable, across the board, of putting forward convincing arguments for MORE government. Or that government should be BIG in business, and SMALL in our personal lives, not the other way round.

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:13 pm Swerving left would take a spectacular type of stupid. One thing this election tells us is that Americans are decidedly not left wing.

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.

Having thought about it, I think the biggest mistake the Harris campaign made was hiring Tim Walz for his successful, "They're being weird, right?" commentary and then abandoning that strategy almost as soon as they got him.

I can understand the temptation to lean into the "He's going to destroy democracy and take away your rights" argument, because it feels the most powerful and, in a just and logical world, it really should've been a killer argument. However, it turns you into the shrieking bystander on the sidelines yelling about the end of the world, rather than talking about things that would make people listen to you. The beauty of the "weird" line of attack was that it flipped the positions and allowed the Dems to go, "Why are they talking about this stuff when you're more interested in the money in your pocket and what a new government will do for you?" It made MAGA the shrieking bystanders yelling about how terrible the opposition would be, and would've left Harris in the position of saying, "Okay grandpa, that's very nice, now here's my plan for the economy and how I'll make everyone richer."

Puja

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:13 pm Swerving left would take a spectacular type of stupid. One thing this election tells us is that Americans are decidedly not left wing.

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.

When was the last time someone competent tried a left leaning platform in an election? Actually, I might have the answer to that myself - didn't the French left wing do well in their last election, only to get stitched up by Macron when it came to selecting a Prime Minister?

Even if we're looking at Corbyn, who was not competent as a leader and who had a rebellious party that refused to back him (and in several cases went for outright sabotage), he still got 40% of the vote based on a left leaning platform in 2017. It's not the slam-dunk of an electoral policy that "racism and lying" appears to be, but it seems to be more engaging to people than, "Here's neo-liberal conservatism with slightly less racism" has been.

Puja

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:46 pm 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.

Yeah I'm trying to think of a specific example of what Eugene means, unless it's as broad as someone like Corbyn or Sanders failing.

I'm torn on the "weird" thing as well, it was funny for a brief time before everyone went full cringe mode, but I think in the end just added to the snooty, liberal elites shitting on the working person angle.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:01 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:00 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:47 am Ultimately Biden and those close to him are responsible for this, for not pulling out years earlier when it must have been obvious that he was deteriorating with age. The Democrats could have had a proper process and selected a new candidate from the whole range of options, rather than anointing Harris due to lack of time.

Also, it does look like the US isn't ready to elect a female President. It's a macho culture: too many of them want that strong man, even if they know full well he's an asshole. He's their asshole.

This. There are multiple reasons why Trump won, but I think a proper selection process with Biden having stepped back gracefully nice and early would have challenged some policy positions and exposed the views of the candidates better.

The candidate would still have needed to deal with the propaganda and lies, plus the perception that Biden had been an abject failure. But it would have been one less hurdle.

Harris could and should have tried to separate herself from Biden - that was a big failing in her campaign - but a different candidate would have found that much, much easier to do.

Obviously the leaders of the Dems also have a big responsibility in this defeat, for not insisting on an open contest, even though time was short.

I'd also put them at fault for not being firmer with Biden much earlier that he would be a one term president only (as I seem to recall he promised to be) and act as that transition to a younger generation. I was reading earlier that 80% of voters had made their minds up very early on this one. Much of that will be tribalism but given the poor reputation of the Biden administration, its hard to think that wasnt a huge factor in turning voters away from the democrats

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:09 am Having thought about it, I think the biggest mistake the Harris campaign made was hiring Tim Walz for his successful, "They're being weird, right?" commentary and then abandoning that strategy almost as soon as they got him.

I can understand the temptation to lean into the "He's going to destroy democracy and take away your rights" argument, because it feels the most powerful and, in a just and logical world, it really should've been a killer argument. However, it turns you into the shrieking bystander on the sidelines yelling about the end of the world, rather than talking about things that would make people listen to you. The beauty of the "weird" line of attack was that it flipped the positions and allowed the Dems to go, "Why are they talking about this stuff when you're more interested in the money in your pocket and what a new government will do for you?" It made MAGA the shrieking bystanders yelling about how terrible the opposition would be, and would've left Harris in the position of saying, "Okay grandpa, that's very nice, now here's my plan for the economy and how I'll make everyone richer."

Puja

The left has been calling people fascist for so long its lost its power as an insult. When someone genuinely autocratic does come along, it becomes likes the boy who cried wolf. Either Trump supports dont care about democracy, or they felt the argument was too overblown and focused on issues like the economy. Trumps plans there were absolutely up for ridicule.

But I agree that gentle mockery of the weirdos was a good tactic and seemed to have some momentum behind it.

Far from scientific, but this is both pretty funny and tragic.

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:12 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

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.

When was the last time someone competent tried a left leaning platform in an election? Actually, I might have the answer to that myself - didn't the French left wing do well in their last election, only to get stitched up by Macron when it came to selecting a Prime Minister?

Even if we're looking at Corbyn, who was not competent as a leader and who had a rebellious party that refused to back him (and in several cases went for outright sabotage), he still got 40% of the vote based on a left leaning platform in 2017. It's not the slam-dunk of an electoral policy that "racism and lying" appears to be, but it seems to be more engaging to people than, "Here's neo-liberal conservatism with slightly less racism" has been.

Puja

But Corbyn still lost against a Tory PM who had pissed off her most ardent supporters and was also losing any Brexiteer support (and talking about disloyalty was in equally a precarious position with her own right wing). That was the best chance for a labour government and it didnt work. When Corbyn tried again he got smashed (and yes Brexit was a huge factor) but so was the perceived socialist of Corbyn.

Societies evolve, and you can't expect to be successful at an election when the voters aren't with you, unless the groundwork has been done before to convince people that your solution might actually work.

Id even argue that the huge vote for the left in France was as much an anti-extemist vote as it was for left wing policies. And France traditionally has been far more open to left wing politics than the UK.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:17 am

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:46 pm 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 the logistics of literally removing 11 million people are prohibitive. In order to deport 11 million people, even if we're assuming no decency or organisation involved and just grabbing every brown person who isn't carrying their US passport with them, would require a large number of new police/ICE, not to mention materiel, transport, logistics, the land for "holding camps", guards, etc. The cost estimate for doing just 1 million additional deportations each year is $88 billion per year and it increases exponentially if you try and speed that up.

And that's assuming that the people exist who would be willing/able to take those jobs. Quite apart from the fact that 47% of the US voting populace is apparently not on board with mass deportation (and I suspect a not unsubstantial chunk of the 53% who voted in favour would baulk at the reality of concentration camps (or are operating on the Shirley principle of "Surely they don't mean Juan who runs the local store and is a pillar of the community - they're only going after the bad hombres, right?")), unemployment in America is only 7 million people. Remove even 500,000 immigrants from the working population and you're going to cause massive economic problems, let alone while trying to hire tens of thousands of goons at the same time.

Puja

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:17 am

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:46 pm 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.

Agreed. And even if its not 11m people rounded up, it doesnt need to be to create huge fear and panic and some optional flight amongst immigrant communities who dont wait to be treated like cattle.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:13 pm Swerving left would take a spectacular type of stupid. One thing this election tells us is that Americans are decidedly not left wing.

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 quite.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:41 amId even argue that the huge vote for the left in France was as much an anti-extemist vote as it was for left wing policies. And France traditionally has been far more open to left wing politics than the UK.

But the French had a non-left anti-extremist option in Ensemble and didn't pick it (yes, there was tactical voting to keep the Front Nationale out, but there were as many NFP supporters who voted Ensemble tactically as vice-versa) - they did actively opt for left policies.

Puja

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:13 pm Swerving left would take a spectacular type of stupid. One thing this election tells us is that Americans are decidedly not left wing.

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.

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:49 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

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 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.

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:01 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:49 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am
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 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.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:09 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:27 pm

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:13 pm Swerving left would take a spectacular type of stupid. One thing this election tells us is that Americans are decidedly not left wing.

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.

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:58 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:17 am

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:46 pm 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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:28 am

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:58 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am
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.

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:01 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:49 am

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.

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:44 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:01 am

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

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:20 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:49 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:25 am 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.