2024 ELECTION THREAD

slightly edited from the original for clarity

This of course doesn’t apply to smart conservatives but That’s why the Trump campaign has a bit of an 80’s bro vibe- people like hollywood hogan, mike tyson, Donald Trump himself, early gamer type misogyny-all from the 80’s. The average conservative thinks there is a certain way things should be and nowadays that average guys memory stetches back to the 80’s but no earlier. People in the gop have recently stopped acting/ talking like we could go back to the 1950’s and instead more like the 1980’s- early 1990’s. Arnold Schwazenegger would fit right in but apparently not a Trump guy. Hence someone like Vance talking about “normal gay vote” rather than gay people inherently being bad.

Of course all of these characters add up to a sort of misogynistic vapid cast of the 80’s(no mention of madonna for example-I dont actually remember the 80’s, I was a baby) designed to appeal to the “anti-pc”crowd, but that is why they only get 46% of the vote.

24 hours until the first actual election day results get reported, I can’t sleep :(

fetterman had a good take on what he thinks is parly an issue with some of the democrat party today and why theres a split between progressives and your typical liberals

maher has been saying it for years but according to the internet, he is basically a republican now

I will state my position on this respectfully before I go to bed: I think Maher is a good example of what movin target is talking about. He was very liberal compared to the time he grew up in, society has progressed while he hasn’t. So now instead of very liberal he’s more moderate. I don’t think the party has moved left or away from common sense, I think society has gotten a lot more free and open in a way that makes him uncomfortable.

I liked the Walz pick over Shapiro personally, but don't think it mattered all that much either. Once you get past the idea of VP's adding votes from their home state (there's compelling research that they don't), there's not a lot else that concerns me. They both add things to Harris in their ways but in the end Walz did his part just fine.

Maybe Shapiro would have done just as well but I think he had some vulnerabilities too, you were definitely going to see a lot more talk about the Israel-Palestinian bit, the $300k settlement for his aide's sexual harassment deal. And effectively upholding the suicide ruling of that teacher who stabbed herself 20 times to death--it's an f'd up story even before considering his relationship with the finance's family--among other possible concerns.

We'll never know but on balance, I think Walz largely succeeded in being the relatable folksy white family man type that fit the ticket. And brought enough good jabs at Vance and Project 2025 to be effective, and honestly a little break from all the doom and gloom everyone else had.

He didn't run over Vance in the debate or anything, which I think Shapiro might have had a better chance at doing, but didn't need to. If Lloyd Bentsen can do what did to Dan Quayle back in 1988 and still have his ticket lose by over 300+ EC points, then lol at it mattering.

I don’t think either of these things are true, but ymmv. I think a lot of people retain their political positions over time and then new people come in who might be considered more liberal/left than them as the culture changes. But I’m skeptical in the teleology of history argument. I think we should only strive to make the best decisions we can given the political environment and the changing information that we receive if indeed we are improving our information gathering practices.

But probably one of the most left positions I can think of right now would be dissolving the US and replacing it with anarchism or something and I can only see that as being completely disastrous, and this has been an argument regularly made even in leftist circles. Just look at Lenin’s argument against leftist anarchism for instance (not that I’m endorsing him or his views just as a paradigmatic example).

This is absolutely true, even if I consider myself to the left of maher (probably on parity with fetterman though)

but I think 60%+ of the "democrat" voter base is still closer to the mid line than progressive line. Why do I say this?

take ALL of CNNs or whatever left leaning source you want and check polls a year ago or 10 months ago on the immigration border policy and see how many of that electorate was even saying that they were preferring tougher border or immigration policy. whatever that means. I still think at least half plus of the democrat voter base skews more 90s liberal than that of the more proressive liberal mindset.

Another example is Sanders against biden, while it was insanely close between those two for the first week. It was clear after SC where it was heading, even the establishement knew sanders was going to get fried against trump on national.

people thinking sanders would do better than biden in 2020, you want to hear people voice that out loud so you can immediately cross them off the list of people who even have a remote clue of what they are talking about so you dont have to ever read or you know you can skip over their opinions

to tie it up what am I getting at? I think there is a big big chunk of democrat voters that still align closer to maher than dont.

I still think Sanders would have been a better president than Biden but it might be true that he had a worse chance of winning. He probably wasn’t ever going to win the democratic primary simply because he labeled himself a socialist though. Most people are still pro capitalism. He should have labeled himself an FDR democrat.

Unfortunately I think Sanders really is a socialist which is why he wouldn’t drop the label so in hindsight maybe he would be worse.

This is why its frustrating when an ignoramus like Maher comments on such things, though I guess Fetterman is the OP here.

The distriction between liberal and progressive is a bit mushy and not the issue.

Identity politics and material politics are largely different. Both parties embrace identity politics and are willing to take pretty string stands on culture war issues. But there are people on both sides who are even more extreme.

The populist movements on both sides are driven largely by dissatisfaction with our material conditions.

An example I've used before is that every wealthy country and some poor countries guarantee paid vaccination and holidays. 28 million Americans get none.

"Our workers should have far and away the worst benefits of any rich country." Is obviously the extreme position. "We should be somewhere in the middle" is a moderate position. Especially as polls show huge support for vacations and only a minority opposes it. The poll I found has it 75% support and 17% opposed.

https://today.yougov.com/economy/articles/10239-poll-results-paid-vacation

today

Poll Results: Paid Vacation | YouGov

However, by the standards of DC, the moderate position is extreme. 75% of us are extremists and 17% are the moderates. These issues are off the table completely. It is ridiculous to think all Americans deserve vacations, or HC, or other such things.

So often, these things are conflated. A pundit or politician might gesture at someone who wants bottom surgery for minors, or wants to abolish police as "the far left" and include with that, moderate material positions that DC won't address.

Of course, Dems could throw out a few more scraps. If 28 million people got 2 weeks of "Biden-Cation" a year, I doubt the election would be close. But they are unwilling, even to "save Democracy."

pretty much anyone would have have been a better candidate than biden

He's vain, but his campaign is more calculated than that — even if they get it wrong or it doesn't work, I doubt he's calling all the shots. The fact that it was in New York doesn't really matter. What matters is that it got national attention.

I don't even care if he ran as a socialist and if he said that was his viewpoint ideology, it didnt matter, what mattered is that his own party vastly preferred Bidens politics over sanders if we take the results at face value. They rejected sanders idea and vision and preferred bidens. Sanders didnt even have to say socialism or bring cuba reference points up. he was just far too left on every issue besdies gun rights to that electorate overall + felt biden was better to beat trump on a national stage.

And again there is no world where sanders even comes close to beating trump , Biden was a near ideal candidate to take trump on at that time.

hard disagree with this, especially the latter

What fetterman and maher say is correct, it is weird that harris has to appease the small but extremely loud and voracious anti israel pro hamas crowd. I already talked about how a lot of democrats felt about how biden admin was handling immigration too.

its not identity politics at all. Again, what progressives want and what liberals want if you can coin those two differently, are still completely different.

there are a ton of democrats that are strongly pro israel, ton of democrats felt biden admin wasnt "strong" enough on border policy (whatever that means) there are ton of demnocats who dont align with whatever far progressives are trying to say. again, we saw that with bernie vs biden and how the weeks gone on and how we arent seeing as many progressive type democrats as we all would have thought 6 years ago. that wave hasnt been seen, at least yet

Trump received 74 million votes as a republican. If I told you 10 years ago a republican candidate was going to get 72-74 million votes you not only wouldnt believe me, you would think im outright beyond trolling.

Also the fact you hard disgaree, how can you say that when he couldnt even win the democratic nominee? I just want to know why you who think sanders would be better than biden...Why did that own party choose biden over sanders? and what type of moderate or republican voter or trump supporter would vote for sanders over trump?

The logic that sanders would have been better than biden is borderline insane. I say that because again, he got blown out after super week, his own party didnt back him up and the voting of his OWN party said the same thing and which republican or moderate voter is going to look at what sanders policies are and say yeah you know what I align more with sanders than I do with biden or trump.

The people who say sanders does better than biden and beats trump might be beyond reality now. There is no facts or points of emphasis to back off any of that thinking. none.

I just don’t think a rally in MSG towards the end of the election when Kamala is in full schedule through all the swing states is pretty silly. He has no chance of winning NY.

(In b4 Trump wins NY and CA and people are quoting this post)

I didn't say anything about Isreal. I'm just explaining why these things are bewildering to those who accept "centrist" narratives from cable news or whatever. Like "the 75% supported policy, which ever other country has successfully implemented, is extremist and shouldn't even be discussed."

Foreign policy and military spending are another example though.

It's not about NY. It's about a large event that gets tons of national coverage. Swing state voters will see it.

I completely sign onto this post 100%, so I think we can agree to disagree on whether labeling himself a socialist is a big thing that has brought him down on the national stage.

I think progressives are very good with alternate media, social media, and traditional media which is why they have been able to have an outsized influence on our public discourse. And it appeals to a lot of people who historically don’t vote and also have too much time on their hands, young people. Plus they have a lot of academic support (which seems to be falling to some extent).

lol they got what they wanted I guess

Yeah, I've had a hard time trying to make sense of it.