Hasan Piker's autopsy of the 2024 US Presidential election
Hasan Piker's autopsy of the 2024 US Presidential election
I was gonna title this "And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price you have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice" and then write "Stuck inside of America with the fascism blues again" here, but I'm not sure if that comes off like gloating and that's honestly the last thing I want to do this morning.
You're viewing a single thread.
Swinging left wouldn't have worked either.
There is no high horse. There is no right path. Us Americans have the critical thinking skill of an ant. The left should have fought dirty with a full blown propaganda machine, populist lies, and blatant collusion if they wanted to win, simple as that.
It needs a leftist Trump.
What are Republican's gonna do... demonize democrats even more?
Swinging left wouldn’t have worked either.
It absolutely would have. Progressive policy is insanely popular and easy to campaign on by virtue of being designed to help everyone. Do you think Bernie had such high favorably ratings because they have a thing for 80 year old white dudes?
Tell people "healthcare will be free" or "We will cap rent and build housing that won't cost more than 3x local median income" and then people can't afford not to vote for you.
Biden could have cut off arms to Israel, and hundreds of thousands of students so politically activated they're willing to risk their degrees to protest would be doing everything in their power to keep Trump out.
Instead they sent the police to kick the shit out of those kids, at great expense to the colleges, and called them antisemitic.
Why then do countries with existing left parties and proportional representation elect further and further right-wing parties in Europe?
It's simple: They promise easy solutions for complicated problems. Banning immigration will fix all crime and the economy, opposing LGBTQ+ rights will ensure a return of the better olden days, climate change is nothing to be worried about etc etc
And even people depending on social support will gladly shoot themselves in their feet if it means someone else will have it worse.
Why then do countries with existing left parties and proportional representation elect further and further right-wing parties in Europe?
Obviously they haven't gone far left enough. /s
Some people want easy solutions. Not unlike Trump voters.
I’m afraid exit polls say otherwise. Kamala’s economic policies were the most left wing we’ve seen in decades (a wealth tax?). If people cared about actual economic issues, such as inequality, they’d have elected her.
This election was lost because Latino men voted for Trump (for starters). We needed populism, not progressivism, to appeal to the small minded American voter. Don’t you see that? Most American men are misogynistic, racist psychos. And they’re unhappy. You appeal to them with populism full stop.
Wealth tax to collect more money to give to Israel and the most lethal military and killing immigrants is what she ran on, she ran as a right wing populist and lost because Trump is a better right wing populist
Small minded voters are told what to think, Harris refused to tell them to want free healthcare because that shit pisses off donors
Delusional
Yes, Democrats don't know how politics works, they ask Republicans to decide which issues are important, and then argue a slightly more moderate response to those issues is best. Sometimes they accidentally win doing that, if the economy is good and people are happy with moderation, but that's probably not going to be true any time soon.
they ask Republicans to decide which issues are important
I love this. They are so reactionary and seem almost incapable of counter messaging. I say almost because they managed it once with the tarrifs are sales tax response.
I'm not going to say that the Latino shift isn't huge, but this really feels like a strawman (to a certain extent). Even without the full 2024 turnout numbers, we know less people turned out to vote than 2020. I think NBC last night said Harris was projected to have 15 million less votes than Biden, and Trump voter numbers were steady, so I don't think it all went to Trump.
There are multiple factors that went into the outcome we have today, and only mentioning the Latino men or the pro-Palestine constituents and ignoring the failures of the DNC (starting with not having a convention) feels really weird.
The Latino men are one example. My point is that Democrats focused on policy and policy is ineffective when the electorate is a bunch of barely sentient macho dipshits angry about economic issues they can’t understand (not to mention most young men are broke and can’t get laid). You use populism. You blame the rich. You blame the wealthy elites. You channel Bernie Sanders.
Every other sentence out of Harris’s mouth should have been about the billionaires stealing from the working class. Instead we saw a bunch of well reasoned economic policy that went completely over everyone’s head.
Ok, I see your point. You're not wrong here. But I'm always surprised at how averse US politicians are to anything perceived as left wing populism, while they tolerate (or even eat up) the right wing version.
Maybe it's a remnant of McCarthyism.
Tell people “healthcare will be free” or “We will cap rent and build housing that won’t cost more than 3x local median income” and then people can’t afford not to vote for you.
- It would have to go through congress, which wouldn’t approve it, so it would be a lie.
- They told people “I won’t do mass deportations or order the assassinations of my enemies” and it didn’t work. Why do you assume that this other stuff would?
- It would have to go through congress, which wouldn’t approve it, so it would be a lie.
The policies are extremely popular and universal. Doesn't really matter in a politicalcampaign if you struggle to achieve those ends. Trying is important and failing gives you ammunition against those who oppose extremely popular policies for next campaign.
- They told people “I won’t do mass deportations or order the assassinations of my enemies” and it didn’t work. Why do you assume that this other stuff would?
The bottom line is that the average person isn't listening for anything besides "how is the candidate going to help me because I feel like I'm drowning". The right scapegoats something and promises to fix your problems by hurting the scapegoat (immigrants, minorities, socialists, whatever). This is a lie, but it's just as, if not more, direct of a solution so some voters will support them.
Harris had attention when she said things like stopping price gouging and providing in-home elder care. Those were extremely popular ideas that she didn't focus on. Instead, she pivoted right.
It would have to go through congress, which wouldn’t approve it, so it would be a lie.
The US president is probably the single most powerful position in the world between explicit powers and people who serve at his pleasure and can be replaced at will, and undefined powers that that extend as far as anyone is able to stop them, as we saw under Trump. If they just flagrantly broke the law and kept doing it until the SCOTUS and others actually stopped them, the dems would be far more popular than just throwing their hands up and saying "better things aren't possible.
There's a lot of indirect ways they can get what they want done, whether it means appointing an AG and other department heads who will punish people who don't go along or using the military's vast legal protections and resources.
They told people “I won’t do mass deportations
-
That's not saying how you'll improve people's immediate conditions, just that trump will make them worse
-
You can't credibly say that when Biden deported more people than Trump.
If they just flagrantly broke the law and kept doing it until the SCOTUS and others actually stopped them, the dems would be far more popular than just throwing their hands up and saying "better things aren't possible.
This is basically what FDR did with a lot of his social and work programs during his presidency. He'd establish an agency or authority or whatever, regardless of the legality, and by the time the court's or whoever made the decision to close it, they'd have 5 others going simultaneously, and/or they'd make another one. And the process would start all over again.
Yup. The nice thing about policy that helps everyone is that it's incredibly unpopular to kill. Biden could have burned student debt in the most visible way possible, and then dared the SCOTUS to create new debt. If they took the bait, you'd have 46.2 million people ready to vote for anyone who promises to expand the SCOTUS.
-
This was also a congressional election you know.
It's easy to get students to protest. They're young, it's exciting.
Voting isn't loud or angry, so it doesn't feel effective. It feels like actual work. And so they skip it.
I'm sorry, forgive me if I don't take advice from the party that just lost. After Kamala picked Walz she was up by more than 5 points in many states that she was trailing in at the end of her campaign. People skip voting when you pick unpopular policies like Praise the Cheney's, No Different than Zionist Joe, Billionaire Mark Cuban Is the Greatest, and Hollywood Loves Me.
Yup, other than picking Walz each new thing the campaign did made me less excited aboit voting for Harris. I would have rather had Walz lead the ticket, at least he would have been an unknown white guy that the right wing propaganda would have had trouble vilifying.
I don't think the white guy thing is as important as at least he would have been someone that wasn't directly tied to the White House that has been lying about genocide for the last year, or apartheid for the last 4 years.
You underestimate the racism and sexism of rhe general population.
OK, but the people who are that racist and sexist are voting republican anyway. Of the dems many mistakes, running a black woman wasn't one of them.
OK, but the people who are that racist and sexist are voting republican anyway
No, plenty of them vote Democrat too, because the majority of the country is racist and sexist, even if it is just subconscious.
I'm not saying running a black woman was a mistake, just that a white man has an advantage because the population tends to favor white men.
So help me, I'm tired of seeing this take. You can't have it both ways. If you think Americans (dems specifically) are too racist/sexist for a black female president, then running her IS a mistake. Either you think it's ok to run a candidate you know will likely lose but it's worth it to say a black female ran, or you think they had reason to believe she would win. If #1, then that's tacit support of Trump, if #2 you think the best poli sci/stats people in America were too dumb to figure out people are too sexist/racist.
I know dem voters that are racist (seeing a POC=lock your doors). They voted Harris. I know Rs that are racist (too racist to write here). They voted Trump. If the dems ran a better campaign, Kamala would have won. If they knew they were gonna run this campaign and were concerned the tiny minority of dem racists/sexists would be a problem, they should have run a white man. The take that America is racist but Kamala did all she could and the platform was great and we don't regret running her is the problem with democrats. They did something wrong because they lost. If they wanna blame racism/sexism, fine, but then they have to take accountability for having a black woman run as the only choice. If we're saying that's the reason I don't wanna see them run this kind of campaign for another woman or POC. Give us our rights. I don't care what the person who does that looks like.
Sorry for the rant. I'm sure we agree on most issues, I'm just absolutely livid. I'm beyond consolation. My best friend just had a miscarriage and was given medical care that Rs are trying to make illegal. She would have died without it. She's still trying to convince. If this happens again in trumps America, I don't know what her outcome would be. It feels hopeless when people just point at voters. Dems can't change America, but they can change their platform. I hope they learn and do better, but that's been my hope for too long. I'm losing faith.
If you think Americans (dems specifically) are too racist/sexist for a black female president, then running her IS a mistake.
I'm saying it is an uphill battle, just like it was with Obama. That doesn't mean I think it was impossible for her to win, and at first I thought she was on the right path.
Then she did a bunch of stuff that was shooting herself in the foot like cozying up to Republicans and continuing the support of Israel instead of focusing entirely on progressive policies to excute the base like Obama did. She did the same thing that multiple Dem candidates have done in the past, because apparently the party has a hard time learning from their successes.
I don't think you're wrong but I also have to add that I won't accept that we just can't run black women for offices for that reason
e; I should have read this thread further, it looks like other people are already discussing this
I am NOT implying that Dems shouldn't run black women.
I'm not pretending racism and sexism doesn't exist, but that didn't cause her to lose. I hope one day you'll come to accept that.
They don't need to lie, they just need to get better at being direct and stip pulling punches or taking the high road to avoid offending moderates or whatever their stupid logic is.
Instead of cozying up to Cheney, just call Trump a felon constantly, remind people about how he put migrants in cages and is now using durect nazi rhetoric against them. Those aren't lies, and they jind of half assed brought them up, but they need to actually lean in hard and constantly.
They did call him a felon constantly! They plastered everything he says in every outlet, screamed his threats at the top of their lungs.
No one cares!
That doesn't get you in people's facebook, tiktok, and youtube feeds.
Dems need a candidate who's already famous. They need one totally unchained, unhinged, who would say awful but barely not illegal things in public, so they're plastered on every news outlet constantly. They need someone who's a little iffy about vaccines, who will print money and send people fat checks with their face stamped on it, who will straight up collude with the powerful in public, so calling it out does nothing.
They need a liberal Trump.
I'm not sure who it would be... maybe a big pop star that kinda loses their marbles? Think Taylor Swift. But the dems are not going to win a Trumpist election running someone like Bidden, Harris, Bernie, AoC or whatever.
Don’t think it has to explicitly be a shitty person but the Left definitely needs to realize it’s a popularity contest. Charisma and moxie win it cuz voters want it simple.
Look how FDR swept Hoover. Went around promising Happy Days are Here Again and he’ll whip the government into fixing the individual’s problems. Blasted his aura on the radio and newsreels which kept voters’ eyes on him. Then kept them for 3 more terms by saying fuck the red tape and making tangible things happen (which is probably what drives people to Trump despite the different results)
People want to back the cool guy who tells em it’ll be alright. Simple as
Then kept them for 3 more terms by saying fuck the red tape and making tangible things happen (which is probably what drives people to Trump despite the different results)
Please don't kill me, but I saw this appeal when Trump first ran. In 2016, his rhetoric on withdrawing from foreign wars and similar stuff, when Hillary was the other choice, was very appealing. Of course my eyes were opened wide by his actual statements/history, and then his presidency.
I think what's different now is the feedback loop is broken. In the 30s, I assume people connected what FDR was doing to what was happening. Everyone lived in the same reality.
But now people live in complete personalized realities inside their phones and apps. Perception is extremely selective, issues are complicate. And just, like, looking him up on Wikipedia and news archives like I do is completely alien now. I know children and relatives who literally don't know how to use the internet and just live in their scrolling feeds.
Nah you’re completely right. The appeal was that he’d push past the usual ineffectualness of politics and get things done.
Bumble through the red tape too quickly for consequences to catch him while claiming everything as a win.
The warping of reality hides what he’s actually doing/who he is and too many people are just red team vs blue now so will keep on supporting. They’ll think a win for him is a win for them and won’t look further to think otherwise (because who wants to think they’ve lost?).
Almost wish Biden would’ve gone full Mr. Bean and just oopsied his way through using executive power. Oops, forgave student loans. Oops, taxed the rich. Oops, legal weed. Trump already showed the system is too slow to stop it and doing things that actually helped folks would be disastrous for any group trying to undo it once people felt the effects. Oh well..
Almost wish Biden would’ve gone full Mr. Bean and just oopsied his way through using executive power. Oops, forgave student loans. Oops, taxed the rich. Oops, legal weed. Trump already showed the system is too slow to stop it and doing things that actually helped folks would be disastrous for any group trying to undo it once people felt the effects. Oh well…
He was trying to preserve the image of the US president as being dignified. measured and cognizant, but only now are we certain that's not what voters want.
They want President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
You joke.
But do you think, say, MrBeast would lose if he ran for president? No way he would.
Haha maybe not my choice since his appeal is very focused to one group but maybe that’s a good thing? Would draw the young vote out at least. And we now know scandals aren’t something that affect eligibility.
Either way, def time to find someone who grabs attention. Even the governator served two terms as an R in California (and wasn't the worst all things considered)
Ideally someone who could court the rural vote… but most famous dudes of that nature are staunch GOP
Hasan😈
But I don't know who that is, lol. Not until now.
Dems need a candidate who's already famous. They need one totally unchained, unhinged, who would say awful but barely not illegal things in public, so they're plastered on every news outlet constantly.
They need a liberal Trump.
What chuds like about Trump is that he jokes around and appears to be passionate about what he talks about, and instead of backing down when challenged, will face it head on and double down. Someone who will spit in the face of his enemies without apologizing after. Get anyone who can riff and mock their enemies while standing firm on their positions.
They need someone who's a little iffy about vaccines, who will print money and send people fat checks with their face stamped on it, who will straight up collude with the powerful in public, so calling it out does nothing.
I dont think they actually like any of this, just the way he does it inspires confidence. They care very little about the actual policy specifics.
That's all they really want is confidence. They aren't confident in their place within a changing world and want someone who exudes that confidence so they can delegate their trust to someone who has it where they have none.
I only said Hasan because he's funny, comfortable being an asshole, confident, and isn't a pushover.
The checks, IMO, worked very well. People loved that.
Don't underestimate the power (and historical precedent) of simple populist policy. It's not super effective campaigning, but its very effective at keeping someone in office.
But the left in the USA is like half a dozen people, they don't even have a party, how would they organize it?
Because Democrats are just a more "moderate" right.