So will the DNC learn this lesson? — 180 Proof

What is the lesson? Not to nominate a woman?

Do you think a man would have won?

Yes, assuming this post-election autopsy is correct:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/946060

It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now.

It's stupid policy to have 11 million undocumented people living in this country. It's stupid politics on the Democrats part to tolerate/enable that and label anyone who disagrees as racist. It's also evil to let people stream into the country illegally so we can benefit from their exploitation.

A pundit once said if Americans are faced with a choice of a Democrat who won't enforce borders and a fascist who will, they'll pick the fascist. I hope Democrats learn from this shellacking.

It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now. — Fooloso4

I've watched this from a distance, so I don't really know what happened. A lot of comment on this election result seems to focus on questions of perception. It's payback for the neoliberal elites, sneering at the uneducated in the fly over states; it's perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok; it's moral panic - a nation at risk of transgender reassignment; It's a choice between more neoliberalism or embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard.

To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? And, if this is the case, is this driven by intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews?

I don't really know what happened. — Tom Storm

Neither does anyone else.

perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok — Tom Storm

For many the economy is a matter of what they can and cannot afford. For some there is real hardship and financial insecurity. For others it is being able to afford a house or what their parents had. And for still others it is resentment that they can't afford a big house or fancy car or luxury vacation.

Unfortunately Trump will take credit for an improving economy, just as he did last time around.

I don't think payback for liberal elites, transgender issues, and "wokeness" are that important. It is more a matter of what people see and hear in the media than these things having a significant effect on their lives.

embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard. — Tom Storm

Yeah, I agree. What they don't think about is what happens after the destruction. What replaces it.

To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? — Tom Storm

I think people are fickle. The Founders were well aware of this and tried to minimize it.

... intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews? — Tom Storm

It certainly seems as if this is the case, but I think the whole thing might be to a greater or lesser extent exaggerated. People are growing weary of it. The sport of "owning the libs" is getting old and tired. It takes time to adjust to change, and things continue in significant ways. Often acceptance comes with a new generation.

Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked.

Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked. — Fooloso4

That gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

Case in point.

That's funny. Why don't you look up under who's term it peaked? Bush. Who began de downward trend? Obama.

Maybe that explains why non-MAGA cultists voted for The Clown but does not explain why about 7 million Democratic voters who had voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Harris (or The Clown) this year.

Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked. — Fooloso4

Maybe. :smirk:

At least in part because they too chose change. She did not do a good job of articulating how her administration would differ from his. At one point she said she would not have done much differently She later attempted to walk that back.

Trump painted her as a radial progressive. In response she attempted to appear as a moderate maintaining the status quo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border_crisis#

Maybe that explains why non-MAGA cultists voted for The Clown but does not explain why about 13 million Democratic voters who haf voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Harris (or The Clown) this year.

Perhaps it was a little harder to pull off a steal this time.

Biden didn't get the most votes in 2020?

and a belief that Trump will fix it — Fooloso4

I think, for worse or better, this is it. There's no inherent bigotry or biases to people involved. Its to types of information, and styles of presentation.

I don't know a single person who supports Trump who cares Kamala is a woman. They care she's a hypocrite, panders and has next to nothing to offer in the current climate (in their view).

The reason Dems didn't vote for Harris is simply: She did not inspire their vote. Adding in some form of bigotry is a fully-on cope.

I don't know a single person who supports Trump who cares Kamala is a woman. — AmadeusD

I don't either. I guess we've moved on from sexism. That's cool.

Perhaps it was a little harder to pull off a steal this time. — NOS4A2

:lol:

Looks like Trump will get under 50%. Hillary did better than he has this time in the popular vote, winning by more.

So much for a landslide and a mandate. But we’re witnessing the peak of Trumpism, regardless. And what amazing leadership picks so far— Dr. Oz, a supplement-peddling charlatan; Matt Gaetz, a Dr. Seuss-looking teenage girl enthusiast; Linda McMahon, straight from the world of wrestling— obvious pick for education; and of course several climate deniers to lead the EPA, Energy, and Interior. Perfection.

4 years of this clownshow and people will be begging for literally anything else. Which is good.

If only the Democrats were "anything else".

:lol:

4 years of this clownshow and people will be begging for literally anything else. Which is good. — Mikie

Problem with that is that then the Democrats won't make much effort to do anything and we will have four years after that both cleaning up after Trump and not doing politics that actually benefit the people.

Democrats need a strong counter to what Trump offers, not in "spirit", but in actual work. As mentioned earlier, Bernie had the support of the people, so that's a good hint at what type of Democrat the people actually want. They now have four years to find and build up a candidate that can inhabit his abilities and policies. Form a good marketing campaign for it and tour around listening to people who will get screwed by Trump politics.

If only the Democrats were "anything else". — Benkei

:up:

As mentioned earlier, Bernie had the support of the people, so that's a good hint at what type of Democrat the people actually want. — Christoffer

:up:

Bernie had the support of the people, so that's a good hint at what type of Democrat the people actually want. — Christoffer

We really don't know how many people would have voted for him. The label "socialist" still scares a lot of people. I do think, however, that targeting wealth disparity might be a winning message.

We really don't know how many people would have voted for him. The label "socialist" still scares a lot of people. I do think, however, that targeting wealth disparity might be a winning message. — Fooloso4

The map over donors from the public towards candidates is a pretty clear indicator of what the people want. What the Democratic party then does is just ignoring this and go for the elite at the top (those criticized for being out of touch with the people).



The fear mongering using "socialist" is just the right playing their cards. Sanders modell his politics after Scandinavia and people buying into the socialist fear mongering gets quite the cognitive dissonance when living conditions in Scandinavia are brought up to be among the world leading. But they're not socialist nations.

What Sanders is capable of doing is to sell in the politics and policies to the people with just basically asking them what they want and then telling them that's what these policies will do. "You can't take care of your sick relative and need to have three jobs to even support basic living conditions? Here's the welfare system to support it, free health care, sick leave, vacation weeks, constitutional workers rights etc."

He says things as they are and gives people what they ask for. The problem in the US is that Democrats are too afraid of losing voters on the right, who themselves want better living conditions and they do it by just catering in to the same lies and narratives of the right rather than go harder into left economics and give people what they want.

And we see more and more people just saying the same things that the Democrats have been following for years now: "do the same tactics as the right", "try to speak the Maga language" and more of such nonsense, pushing the party more and more to the right by the day.

Instead of just facing reality and distinguish themselves as a left leaning party. Here's the left economics focused on supporting the people.

The absolute hilarity of the right trying to cater to the working class while still increasing the people's living costs while funding the military to such an excess it nearly breaks the economy, much rather than taking a microscopic part out of that to fund a really functioning and good health care system, better education, support for the conditions of the working class etc.

...things that overall, over time, produces the foundation for future industry, entrepreneurs, engineers and workers who can build an improved future.

This short-term self-indulging elitist politics need to stop and it will stop when parties like the Democrats choose someone with a properly intelligent vision that the people can gather around. When are people going to realize that politicians go by their own interests, in the direction of money ans building their own wealth of power rather than caring anything for how to actually care for a nation and the world?

This is why I want to ban anyone from halls of power who's not a true representative of the people and who constantly lies. Statements in politics that aren't factual should lead to removal of their power. It would get rid of not just clowns like Trump, but all clowns on both sides.

The map over donors from the public towards candidates is a pretty clear indicator of what the people want. — Christoffer

Unless I am missing something, if donations are any measure then Harris would have won.

The fear mongering using "socialist" is just the right playing their cards. — Christoffer

I am not sure that is entirely true. It may be that people do not understand Sander's proposals, but a proper understanding of a candidate's position has never been a requirement for voting.

This is why I want to ban anyone from halls of power who's not a true representative of the people and who constantly lies. — Christoffer

So, you are not in favor of democracy.

Unless I am missing something, if donations are any measure then Harris would have won. — Fooloso4

How do you figure that? It's not about winning the election but who's the Democrat's candidate running for office. Without Sanders, she's third, and that's including all the public exposure she's got as a VP.

I am not sure that is entirely true. It may be that people do not understand Sander's proposals, but a proper understanding of a candidate's position has never been a requirement for voting. — Fooloso4

He's being countered and bullied by both the Republicans AND the Democrats. He doesn't get as big of a stage and he's never been an elected candidate that gets all the attention to speak nationally. And it's not about understanding his position, it's about understanding his politics. The people actually understands him and likes his proposals because of it, every time he's spoken it's relatively crystal clear. Compare that to the non-vision gobbledygook that the other Democrats constantly spew out. And he has the ability to change his rhetoric depending on the crowd. When he speaks to working class voters he's doing the most basic 1 to 1 logic of policy to result based on their questions.

So, you are not in favor of democracy. — Fooloso4

Yes, I'm more in favor of democracy than most, that's why a representative democracy should actually work as one and have true representatives, not manipulators, liars and demagogues. To force the representatives to form policy out of facts, research and what the people ask for, pitting that against other politicians who have other conclusions about how to solve issues. What we see in politics, especially in the US today, is not actually democracy and everyone who thinks that, are fools.

Without Sanders, she's third, and that's including all the public exposure she's got as a VP. — Christoffer

Donors who gave to Bernie over other Democrats only shows that Democratic donors favored him, not that he had the support of the people.

... a representative democracy should actually work as one and have true representatives ... — Christoffer

But that is not what we have. The question is how to democratically make it a representative democracy? Banning people from the halls of power is anti-democratic.

Donors who gave to Bernie over other Democrats only shows that Democratic donors favored him, not that he had the support of the people. — Fooloso4

The map shows people's donations. There's no candidate voting by the people, the people can only vote on what the Democratic party puts forward. If the people were to vote for a candidate, it would have been Sanders.

But that is not what we have. The question is how to democratically make it a representative democracy? Banning people from the halls of power is anti-democratic. — Fooloso4

Banning people who actively lie is a protection of the democracy. Banning people who try to manipulate and abuse their power is protecting democracy. If you tolerate the intolerable, it's going to erode everything and you lose democracy. You're not banning representation of the people, you're not banning based on political leaning or politics, you ban people who abuse their power and through that focus politics to function as representative of the people's vote.

Just reacting like that to the concept of "banning people" is like the freedom of speech ticks that people misuse as some kind of defense for whatever they like. You need to have context, otherwise it's like when someone is banned off this forum, people would complain that this is anti-democratic, disregarding that censorship has to do with state censorship, banning people off this forum is there to protect the standards of quality that this forum has. It's the same principle. Getting rid of the demagogues require getting rid of the people who act as demagogues. And that requires laws and regulations to do it in order to protect the quality of democracy that should be considered obvious. It's not rocket science.

If the people were to vote for a candidate, it would have been Sanders. — Christoffer

You do not know that. The approval of Democratic donors is not the same as the approval of "the people".

Banning people who actively lie is a protection of the democracy. — Christoffer

Not unless it is done democratically. How would that work?

it's like when someone is banned off this forum, people would complain that this is anti-democratic — Christoffer

It is anti-democratic! I don't know what the forum would look like if it were democratic, but my guess is that I would prefer it the way it is.

banning people off this forum is there to protect the standards of quality that this forum has. — Christoffer

I agree.

It's the same principle. — Christoffer

It is not the same principle. One is a government regime the other is a forum.

It's not rocket science. — Christoffer

Right, it is not. Rocket science is much less complicated.

You do not know that. The approval of Democratic donors is not the same as the approval of "the people". — Fooloso4

It's as much representative of the people as an election itself. You think they would donate to someone they wouldn't vote for? And on top of that, what other metric do you have to measure this?

Not unless it is done democratically. How would that work? — Fooloso4

By checking against facts. For example, politicians inflate numbers all the time to make their statements sound better, only to retract when stakes are less high. By demanding facts to be represented correctly you can install a strike method to make sure continuously lying politicians stay to actual facts.

Demagogues can win democratically by just playing the part, scheme and hide problems. "Democratically" doesn't mean anything if there's no protection of truth surrounding it.

How would you make sure that anything "democratically" is handled with care to protect itself? Hitler got to his power "democratically".

It is anti-democratic! I don't know what the forum would look like if it were democratic, but my guess is that I would prefer it the way it is. — Fooloso4

While there's no democratic election of the moderators, I would say that if some mod were to abuse his power and people rise up to that, the other mods would surely democratically decide to strip that mod of those powers. And for bannings, they're done together with a stated reason for it, and if that reason isn't according to the rules, then that too could be contested. So far the reason why things on this forum works is because to become a mod you need to show that you have the virtue of keeping the quality of this forum. And it works well.

But then, apply that to the scale of society, it's impossible to keep it from being infested by corruption and bad actors. Through democracy it works better to cycle leaders and make the people decide who they trust. But such trust can be manipulated.

So how do you get similar quality, but through a democratic system, without having the ability to safeguard against bad actors? Banning the ones who lie and scheme, taking down the leaders who try to manipulate the masses to hide the fact they're not on their side.

It is not the same principle. One is a government regime the other is a forum. — Fooloso4

You don't know what an analogy is? We are talking about different governing systems, on how to improve the quality of representative democracy. We ban people on the forum in order to not infest the place with low quality trash that's only there to feed the ego of the person behaving like that.

In the government, politicians should not be there to feed their ego, to work for themselves, they are there for the damn people, to represent the people who put them there. That's the whole point of democracy. And if politicians lie and cheat people to get votes, then it's not a democracy anymore, it's a demagogy.

To argue for better protection of the democratic system is to argue for a way to keep such manipulators and liars out of halls of power. To effectively ban them from being there. The people they were supposed to represent can choose another one who can behave according to the rules and regulations of such a protection system, just like we have rules on this forum. Banning such people do not remove the representative power of the people, it protects the whole system from abusers of power.

Right, it is not. Rocket science is much less complicated. — Fooloso4

I don't think so, I think people are lost in definitions and ideologies. People seem unable to look at a system without wearing lenses of their personal value systems infecting how they read certain words.

Democracy is not a single thing that cannot be evolved. There's lots of room to improve a democratic system to rid itself of corruption, demagogues and improve the quality of its people-representative function as a governing power.