A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
This
What she did announce was bizarre - the price control stuff, the crypto thing. No policy or pattern. So Trump was free to fill in the blanks however he wanted...
Outside of Taylor Swift, media fragmentation means today's 'well known' faces are likely to be less well known than the 'well known' faces of the 2000 election.
The Harris adverts were awful. The group of men going into vote together to MAGA and then the image of one of their daughters popping up and him changing his vote to Harris in the booth...
If you love your family you'll vote a certain way - how effective a message does anyone think that'll be ?
On topic, the July 2024 numbers from here don't quite support the excitement of those opposed to the "Liberal-Left" (whatever that means).
18-24 year olds, according to YouGov, voted 41% Labour, 18% Green, 16% Liberal Democrat, 9% Reform and 8% Conservative.
Yes, there will undoubtedly be some 18-24 year olds who shed buckets of tears at the end of the glorious era of Conservative rule but they didn't go out to vote to save it (it would seem).
Though some on here try you can't generalise across whole regions of the planet based on what happens in one country (significant though the US is). It is societally and culturally unique.
Where I would offer a soupcon of generalisation is "the young" have always been the first to challenge convention and the status quo. The 1960s we all know about but in 1989 it was younger people who were in the forefront of the huge demonstrations which ultimately toppled the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and it was younger people who were mown down by the PLA in Tiananmen Square.
I remember (for I'm not as young as you used to be) the restlessness of youth, the desire to make something happen but how you rebel, what you rebel against and where that rebellion takes you are all significant questions. As @Leon would probably rightly argue, it's all about sex or the lack of it or the expectation of it or the availability of it.
We've talked about the perceptions and realities of masculinity on here before and I suspect will be doing so again.
I've no answers - I've been thoroughly emasculated by life and Mrs Stodge but as with everything else it comes down to identity and self-worth. Once I was told love was all I needed and that money couldn't buy me love.
I blame capitalism - where's that revolution I was looking for? I don't think starting it from my bed will go well.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
Very eloquent and accurate. You should comment more often, young man
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
She could also have stepped aside in favour of someone more likely to win, but she put personal ambition ahead of decreasing the risk of another Trump presidency.
I remember back in the spring, before the Biden Trump debate, being unconvinced that Harris would do any better than Biden - and a few people on here being convinced that she would do much worse - and speculating that might be a reason why Biden and those around him didn't want Biden to step aside. Not being able to see any way around Harris as nominee. Now a lot of this is on Biden - he should have stepped aside last year, and allowed primaries. But Harris has to share a lot of the blame - I don't think ANYONE thought she was the best candidate for the Democrats, so unforgivable that she should run under the circumstances.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
Yes. A further point is this. I don't suppose USA election s hinge much on foreign policy, but on the assumption that the USA is the great mega global power, the last four years have seen sub optimal foreign outcomes. Afghanistan was a PR and general disaster in every possible way, Russia has neither been deterred nor defeated and the middle east is a catastrophe. The Democrat policy in each case gives the appearance of being to manage, continue and allow situations which are unacceptable and unjust from every humane point of view.
I really think this smoking ban is a very bad idea.
I hate smoking but I am not sure making it an underground industry is going to help.
Strict regulation on vapes I support but again the cat is so far out the bag we need to get people off it. Why do I feel a ban for that is coming at some point too.
Vaping liquid is extremely dense - a litre of concentrated stuff makes zillions of refills. Perfect for smuggling.
There is a problem with young people *starting* on vapes and getting addicted to the nicotine. They have replaced cigarettes, mostly.
I really think this smoking ban is a very bad idea.
I hate smoking but I am not sure making it an underground industry is going to help.
Strict regulation on vapes I support but again the cat is so far out the bag we need to get people off it. Why do I feel a ban for that is coming at some point too.
Vaping liquid is extremely dense - a litre of concentrated stuff makes zillions of refills. Perfect for smuggling.
There is a problem with young people *starting* on vapes and getting addicted to the nicotine. They have replaced cigarettes, mostly.
Absolutely, that’s what I meant by cat out of the bag.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
He most certainly stampeded to the centre but then governed and supped at the poison chalice of wokeness.
A clear gender divide there with women for Harris and men for Trump.
Age wise Trump matching the support for populist right and far right figures like Le Pen and Wilders and Meloni doing better with young men especially than leaders of mainstream centre right parties would expect to but worse with pensioners. Indeed Harris like Macron against Le Pen won women over 65 albeit Trump still won men over 65 unlike Le Pen.
Farage like Trump alsoade inroads with young men although the Sunak Tories still won pensioners
So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?
Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?
Absolutely not.
But this shows that the difference between men and women isn't as stark as you'd expect. That points to economics, not wokery.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
I really think this smoking ban is a very bad idea.
I hate smoking but I am not sure making it an underground industry is going to help.
Strict regulation on vapes I support but again the cat is so far out the bag we need to get people off it. Why do I feel a ban for that is coming at some point too.
Vaping liquid is extremely dense - a litre of concentrated stuff makes zillions of refills. Perfect for smuggling.
There is a problem with young people *starting* on vapes and getting addicted to the nicotine. They have replaced cigarettes, mostly.
Absolutely, that’s what I meant by cat out of the bag.
We need to get young people off vaping. But how?
Tax the bejeesus out of it. The Gov't always needs money and it's not good for people's health so just boil the economic frog on it. Double RPI escalator or something.
Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?
The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?
Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.
On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.
And thanks for that on wages.
They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
That worked fine for Trump this election.
It's going to disappoint a load of 'pro-life' evangelicals come the next one. They're already litigating for fetal personhood - either the SC says yes, or it says no; that's not something that is likely to lie undecided for four years.
Similarly the deportation policy. Either he's serious about 10m plus - in which case millions of Hispanic families realise he didn't just mean gang members and drug traffickers - or he's not. If not, that's a different demographic which aren't going to be happy.
Can the GOP maintain its coalition of contradictions into the next election (and the above is just a couple of them) ? We'll get some clues pretty soon.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
Yes, Biden presented himself as the normal centrist candidate attached to the compulsory leftist running mate. Kamala was that leftist (though I agree, she didn't run as anything) attached to an even more leftist running mate. There was no-one to reassure the centre. It was thought to be enough to run as the grown-ups. Except actually running on the celebrity endorsements and snark isn't actually all that much more grown-up than, well, however we describe Trump's campaign.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…
If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.
Is that aimed at me? If so - I doubt musk cares
He’s achieved his purpose. He’s got Trump elected and he’s rolling back Wokeness
$44bn is a total bargain compared to all the power and money he will now accrue
Musk picked up $15 billion from the overnight Tesla share spike on Trump's election.
Yes. Musk is going to make hundreds of billions by spending tens of billions on Twitter
More importantly, for a man of that wealth I doubt the money matters particularly, what Musk has bought is power and freedom. He’s virtually untouchable now
He got more attention in Trump’s victory speech than any other individual except maybe Vance
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
It probably got more than a few male voters to secretly vote for Trump.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
I was waiting for, but never saw, ads about the boom in manufacturing, aerospace and technology. Where were the ads of "Chip making its coming back to America"?
On topic, the July 2024 numbers from here don't quite support the excitement of those opposed to the "Liberal-Left" (whatever that means).
18-24 year olds, according to YouGov, voted 41% Labour, 18% Green, 16% Liberal Democrat, 9% Reform and 8% Conservative.
Yes, there will undoubtedly be some 18-24 year olds who shed buckets of tears at the end of the glorious era of Conservative rule but they didn't go out to vote to save it (it would seem).
Though some on here try you can't generalise across whole regions of the planet based on what happens in one country (significant though the US is). It is societally and culturally unique.
Where I would offer a soupcon of generalisation is "the young" have always been the first to challenge convention and the status quo. The 1960s we all know about but in 1989 it was younger people who were in the forefront of the huge demonstrations which ultimately toppled the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and it was younger people who were mown down by the PLA in Tiananmen Square.
I remember (for I'm not as young as you used to be) the restlessness of youth, the desire to make something happen but how you rebel, what you rebel against and where that rebellion takes you are all significant questions. As @Leon would probably rightly argue, it's all about sex or the lack of it or the expectation of it or the availability of it.
We've talked about the perceptions and realities of masculinity on here before and I suspect will be doing so again.
I've no answers - I've been thoroughly emasculated by life and Mrs Stodge but as with everything else it comes down to identity and self-worth. Once I was told love was all I needed and that money couldn't buy me love.
I blame capitalism - where's that revolution I was looking for? I don't think starting it from my bed will go well.
UK/USA comparisons don't really work in most direct ways. Younger voters in the UK are 75 years into permanent social democratic rule (including the Thatcher years) with assumptions about cradle to grave government care that the USA does not have. The important recent election in the UK was 1945 and there hasn't been an epoch making one since.
The issue which UK and USA has in common at this moment is this: the incumbent party lost.
I really think this smoking ban is a very bad idea.
I hate smoking but I am not sure making it an underground industry is going to help.
Strict regulation on vapes I support but again the cat is so far out the bag we need to get people off it. Why do I feel a ban for that is coming at some point too.
Vaping liquid is extremely dense - a litre of concentrated stuff makes zillions of refills. Perfect for smuggling.
There is a problem with young people *starting* on vapes and getting addicted to the nicotine. They have replaced cigarettes, mostly.
Actually they haven't replaced cigarettes. Twin A watches Durham uni from a vague distance and it's definitely the case that teenagers Vape (often from the age of 11/12 - she's seen her guides doing it). But in this year's 1st/ 2nd years there are now a lot of vapers who also smoke cigarettes at social occasions.
The story she's heard multiple times is cigarettes when out and about but because they are so expensive vape when at home.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…
If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.
Is that aimed at me? If so - I doubt musk cares
He’s achieved his purpose. He’s got Trump elected and he’s rolling back Wokeness
$44bn is a total bargain compared to all the power and money he will now accrue
Musk picked up $15 billion from the overnight Tesla share spike on Trump's election.
Yes. Musk is going to make hundreds of billions by spending tens of billions on Twitter
More importantly, for a man of that wealth I doubt the money matters particularly, what Musk has bought is power and freedom. He’s virtually untouchable now
He got more attention in Trump’s victory speech than any other individual except maybe Vance
I seem to recall that the reason, twice Obama supporting Musk went for Trump because of what happened to his son and the whole trans-industrial complex that told him and his family that if they didnt affirm their son's dysphoria he would end up killing himself.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
I was waiting for, but never saw, ads about the boom in manufacturing, aerospace and technology. Where were the ads of "Chip making its coming back to America"?
I feel like Harris wanted to run outside of Biden but never really committed to it. That’s why she didn’t mention any of this stuff.
There is a really bad clip going around of both Trump and Harris being questioned on what they would do for the cost of living. Trump is an awful man and I would never vote for him but he offered a much better answer.
It’s kind of staggering how badly they’ve cocked this up.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
I was waiting for, but never saw, ads about the boom in manufacturing, aerospace and technology. Where were the ads of "Chip making its coming back to America"?
Dems have a huge job on their hands trying to get back to working class economic basics. They need a new Bill Clinton and his modernising agenda. It is the economy stoopid.
So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?
Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?
Absolutely not.
But this shows that the difference between men and women isn't as stark as you'd expect. That points to economics, not wokery.
Lalalalala I'm not listening
At least you're honest!
If Badenoch does the same and goes all in on the culture war, she'll be making the same error I think the Democrats just made.
I really think this smoking ban is a very bad idea.
I hate smoking but I am not sure making it an underground industry is going to help.
Strict regulation on vapes I support but again the cat is so far out the bag we need to get people off it. Why do I feel a ban for that is coming at some point too.
Vaping liquid is extremely dense - a litre of concentrated stuff makes zillions of refills. Perfect for smuggling.
There is a problem with young people *starting* on vapes and getting addicted to the nicotine. They have replaced cigarettes, mostly.
Absolutely, that’s what I meant by cat out of the bag.
We need to get young people off vaping. But how?
Well, obviously, a War on Vaping. Huge prison sentences, special paramilitary police forces, use the intelligence services and military domestically & collapse society in some far off countries.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…
If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.
Is that aimed at me? If so - I doubt musk cares
He’s achieved his purpose. He’s got Trump elected and he’s rolling back Wokeness
$44bn is a total bargain compared to all the power and money he will now accrue
Musk picked up $15 billion from the overnight Tesla share spike on Trump's election.
Yes. Musk is going to make hundreds of billions by spending tens of billions on Twitter
More importantly, for a man of that wealth I doubt the money matters particularly, what Musk has bought is power and freedom. He’s virtually untouchable now
He got more attention in Trump’s victory speech than any other individual except maybe Vance
Seems his real dream migth be Mars. Perhaps he sees in Trump someone who will help the spend the $ to get there?
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
The more I see, the more I feel like they just re-ran 2016 again.
Did nobody from the Biden team get involved in this?
The rumour is that the Biden team and Harris team really disliked each other.
There’s many books to be written about the last year in the Democratic Party.
I suspect that is one reason why Biden tried to continue - he didn't like Harris and co and (probably, correctly) couldn't see any way that she would not win the primaries
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
She could also have stepped aside in favour of someone more likely to win, but she put personal ambition ahead of decreasing the risk of another Trump presidency.
I remember back in the spring, before the Biden Trump debate, being unconvinced that Harris would do any better than Biden - and a few people on here being convinced that she would do much worse - and speculating that might be a reason why Biden and those around him didn't want Biden to step aside. Not being able to see any way around Harris as nominee. Now a lot of this is on Biden - he should have stepped aside last year, and allowed primaries. But Harris has to share a lot of the blame - I don't think ANYONE thought she was the best candidate for the Democrats, so unforgivable that she should run under the circumstances.
You're right. It was inconceivable that the nomination could have been gifted to anyone else. The only way it could not have gone to her is if she ruled herself out. Clearly the video between Obama and Biden at the funeral they were attending was them saying that she didn't "have it". She needed to announce she wasn't going to run and have a contest between Whitmer, Shapiro and Newsom to decide the candidate. The Democrats performance in the swing senate seats shows it may well have been closer. The closeness of the race in the swing states shows the Democrats ground game was top notch; the 5+ million undervote she's going to get compared to Biden nationwide will show in the final analysis what a poor candidate she was.
* Probably won't be 10 million, more like 5 given the amount of west coast vote to come in still.
I really think this smoking ban is a very bad idea.
I hate smoking but I am not sure making it an underground industry is going to help.
Strict regulation on vapes I support but again the cat is so far out the bag we need to get people off it. Why do I feel a ban for that is coming at some point too.
Vaping liquid is extremely dense - a litre of concentrated stuff makes zillions of refills. Perfect for smuggling.
There is a problem with young people *starting* on vapes and getting addicted to the nicotine. They have replaced cigarettes, mostly.
Absolutely, that’s what I meant by cat out of the bag.
We need to get young people off vaping. But how?
Cocaine? NOx? Flaming sambucas? The anti-vape hysteria ignores that by and large, people will use something so we can try and steer them to safer intoxicants or let the drug smugglers decide.
Remember also that although nicotine is the addictive part of fags, it was tar that caused cancer. The question about vapes is not nicotine addiction but what harm the pretty colours are doing to users' lungs.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
He most certainly stampeded to the centre but then governed and supped at the poison chalice of wokeness.
His Government faced the same problems as every other Government post-Covid. The pent up demand created a post-Covid splurge of economic consumption which the weakened global supply chain couldn't meet compounded by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The effect - inflation as demand outstripped supply and that had deleterious impacts across the western world especially on lower and middle income individuals and families who, as human nature would dictate, blamed the Government for their rising energy, food and other prices and the failure of their wages to keep up.
The other aspect was this exposed a new generation to inflation which most people hadn't considered for 20-30 years and to rising interest rates (ditto) and that came as a shock which exacerbated the anger.
It was "the economy, stupid", nothing to do with "woke" (whatever that is).
It’s also convenient for Trump. He can appease his anti abortion lobby by saying he’s “given it to the states to decide” and it’s no longer up to him. I get the strong sense he doesn’t give a hoot about the issue, just wants it to go away
I'm 99% certain that Trump personally is keen for abortion to still be easily accessible. He's likely paid for many over the years.
It's more likely that he's said he would pay for them, and then never come through with the money.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
She could also have stepped aside in favour of someone more likely to win, but she put personal ambition ahead of decreasing the risk of another Trump presidency.
I remember back in the spring, before the Biden Trump debate, being unconvinced that Harris would do any better than Biden - and a few people on here being convinced that she would do much worse - and speculating that might be a reason why Biden and those around him didn't want Biden to step aside. Not being able to see any way around Harris as nominee. Now a lot of this is on Biden - he should have stepped aside last year, and allowed primaries. But Harris has to share a lot of the blame - I don't think ANYONE thought she was the best candidate for the Democrats, so unforgivable that she should run under the circumstances.
You're right. It was inconceivable that the nomination could have been gifted to anyone else. The only way it could not have gone to her is if she ruled herself out. Clearly the video between Obama and Biden at the funeral they were attending was them saying that she didn't "have it". She needed to announce she wasn't going to run and have a contest between Whitmer, Shapiro and Newsom to decide the candidate. The Democrats performance in the swing senate seats shows it may well have been closer. The closeness of the race in the swing states shows the Democrats ground game was top notch; the 10+ million undervote she's going to get compared to Biden nationwide will show in the final analysis what a poor candidate she was.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
The more I see, the more I feel like they just re-ran 2016 again.
Did nobody from the Biden team get involved in this?
The rumour is that the Biden team and Harris team really disliked each other.
There’s many books to be written about the last year in the Democratic Party.
I suspect that is one reason why Biden tried to continue - he didn't like Harris and co and (probably, correctly) couldn't see any way that she would not win the primaries
Yes I also wonder about this - or at least those around Biden. But there's every chance that Harris would have struggled in primaries, so long as the rest of the field had narrowed quickly enough
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
The more I see, the more I feel like they just re-ran 2016 again.
Did nobody from the Biden team get involved in this?
The rumour is that the Biden team and Harris team really disliked each other.
There’s many books to be written about the last year in the Democratic Party.
I suspect that is one reason why Biden tried to continue - he didn't like Harris and co and (probably, correctly) couldn't see any way that she would not win the primaries
Yes I also wonder about this - or at least those around Biden. But there's every chance that Harris would have struggled in primaries, so long as the rest of the field had narrowed quickly enough
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
I was waiting for, but never saw, ads about the boom in manufacturing, aerospace and technology. Where were the ads of "Chip making its coming back to America"?
I feel like Harris wanted to run outside of Biden but never really committed to it. That’s why she didn’t mention any of this stuff.
There is a really bad clip going around of both Trump and Harris being questioned on what they would do for the cost of living. Trump is an awful man and I would never vote for him but he offered a much better answer.
It’s kind of staggering how badly they’ve cocked this up.
Harris got a boost when she came in because she was more in charge of her faculties than Biden. I think baked into this was the expectation that she'd say ... something? That she'd have a policy position. When none was forthcoming, people gradually drifted away again. Maybe they'd have drifted away anyway if she'd presented a policy position and it had been rejected. But what this shows is that you have to at least try.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
Political parties having multimillionaire Hollywood stars telling you what's good for you and how you should vote is something that really winds me up. Did you see that embarrassing "zoom" call with the Avengers cast in support of Harris? It was the sort of thing that makes you feel uncomfortable watching.
Why are UK voting patterns so different to the US? Housing costs? Social media?
The abortion thing appears to be a mirage. Astonishing pro-Trump figures for young women. Leapords, faces?
Again that's the wrong read on abortion. You will have had millions of women who voted for Trump but also have previously or will in future vote for pro-abortion mandates in their home state. The pro-choice movement has realised that the best way to enshrine a woman's right to choose is with legislation at state level so that's what they've been doing. It basically means abortion is no longer a federal issue spot doesn't figure into people's thought process when making the choice for president.
On differing voting patterns, America's economic growth has been captured entirely by a few small sectors yet inflation for basic goods is a burden everyone has had to bear. People on the lower and middle parts of the income scale, especially on unskilled jobs, have seen prices rose by 25% and wages rise by 10% since 2020. For these people the option was to take a gamble on Trump or stick with Harris who said she would have done nothing differently to Biden. They gambled.
On abortion, I'm just quite surprised that voters make such a distinction between state/federal. I'd have thought it was more a "values" issue than something so practical.
And thanks for that on wages.
They've started doing it because it's a winning strategy. Florida just had 57% of voters sat yes to abortion, it didn't get through this time because the state legislature rigged the vote and put a 60% minimum bar to pass it, but they'll be back once they've voted in a new state legislature and the next ballot initiative on abortion will require just a simple majority. It's happening all across the US, ballot initiatives have forced even the reddest of states to say yes to abortion. There is a overwhelming majority in favour of it and for good or ill the subject no longer rates at a national level where passing a federal pro-choice law seems impossible and relying on the courts has burned them already.
It really is a harsh set of restrictions in Florida. Maybe a compromised might be forthcoming as a result of the vote. From wiki: "The exceptions to the 6 week gestational age (since last menstrual period) abortion ban are as follows: (1) within 15 weeks gestational age, if the woman can give evidence from medical or official documentation that the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or human trafficking; (2) before the third trimester, if two doctors certify a fatal fetal abnormality; and (3) at any time, with doctor(s)' certification, "to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition".
From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…
If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.
Is that aimed at me? If so - I doubt musk cares
He’s achieved his purpose. He’s got Trump elected and he’s rolling back Wokeness
$44bn is a total bargain compared to all the power and money he will now accrue
Musk picked up $15 billion from the overnight Tesla share spike on Trump's election.
Yes. Musk is going to make hundreds of billions by spending tens of billions on Twitter
More importantly, for a man of that wealth I doubt the money matters particularly, what Musk has bought is power and freedom. He’s virtually untouchable now
He got more attention in Trump’s victory speech than any other individual except maybe Vance
Interestingly enough, those are the two most likely to clash on policy. Musk might want to sack everyone he sees but JD Vance does not. Who will have Trump's bullet-scarred ear?
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
That wasn't an ad from the Harris campaign. That was from the independent Lincoln Project. I am unclear how much it was actually shown on TV. A lot of Lincoln Project stuff they just stick online.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
Political parties having multimillionaire Hollywood stars telling you what's good for you and how you should vote is something that really winds me up. Did you see that embarrassing "zoom" call with the Avengers cast in support of Harris? It was the sort of thing that makes you feel uncomfortable watching.
I only saw that clip yesterday. It was as cringey as that “Imagine” video from the start of Covid.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
Political parties having multimillionaire Hollywood stars telling you what's good for you and how you should vote is something that really winds me up. Did you see that embarrassing "zoom" call with the Avengers cast in support of Harris? It was the sort of thing that makes you feel uncomfortable watching.
Trump had his share of celebrity endorsements. It's an American thing, not specific to Kamala. Heck, Trump is a celebrity in his own right.
Why is New Mexico so Democratic? The only state away from the far north east where the Dems took every single House seat.
Large number of hispanics of Mexican heritage plus the boundaries are drawn to the Dems advantage.
Re the last reason, that is not possible. The point of gerrymandering is herding your opponents into one or two carefully constructed areas so they win big there and you take the rest of the wards. If the Dems took every single seat that didn't happen (or even if it was gerrymandered they even took the seat(s) they had put by for the loser and still won them).
Oops just realised it is possible. If you have a natural decent majority over all but a GOP enclave you could gerrymander to wipe out that enclave and still win the other areas.
On topic, the July 2024 numbers from here don't quite support the excitement of those opposed to the "Liberal-Left" (whatever that means).
18-24 year olds, according to YouGov, voted 41% Labour, 18% Green, 16% Liberal Democrat, 9% Reform and 8% Conservative.
Yes, there will undoubtedly be some 18-24 year olds who shed buckets of tears at the end of the glorious era of Conservative rule but they didn't go out to vote to save it (it would seem).
Though some on here try you can't generalise across whole regions of the planet based on what happens in one country (significant though the US is). It is societally and culturally unique.
Where I would offer a soupcon of generalisation is "the young" have always been the first to challenge convention and the status quo. The 1960s we all know about but in 1989 it was younger people who were in the forefront of the huge demonstrations which ultimately toppled the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and it was younger people who were mown down by the PLA in Tiananmen Square.
I remember (for I'm not as young as you used to be) the restlessness of youth, the desire to make something happen but how you rebel, what you rebel against and where that rebellion takes you are all significant questions. As @Leon would probably rightly argue, it's all about sex or the lack of it or the expectation of it or the availability of it.
We've talked about the perceptions and realities of masculinity on here before and I suspect will be doing so again.
I've no answers - I've been thoroughly emasculated by life and Mrs Stodge but as with everything else it comes down to identity and self-worth. Once I was told love was all I needed and that money couldn't buy me love.
I blame capitalism - where's that revolution I was looking for? I don't think starting it from my bed will go well.
UK/USA comparisons don't really work in most direct ways. Younger voters in the UK are 75 years into permanent social democratic rule (including the Thatcher years) with assumptions about cradle to grave government care that the USA does not have. The important recent election in the UK was 1945 and there hasn't been an epoch making one since.
The issue which UK and USA has in common at this moment is this: the incumbent party lost.
Also the right hasn't gone pandering to pensioners at the expense of everyone else, as the Tories have done here.
From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…
If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.
Is that aimed at me? If so - I doubt musk cares
He’s achieved his purpose. He’s got Trump elected and he’s rolling back Wokeness
$44bn is a total bargain compared to all the power and money he will now accrue
Remember, people, when Leon talks about "rolling back Wokeness", what he means is that he doesn't like people telling him not to be racist. Because he really, really wants to be racist.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
Women: Know Your Place.
The idea anyone should expect a woman to vote as she's told by her husband, or the same way, is sickening.
Nobody would expect a man to vote as his wife tells him to.
I don't know how my wife votes, although I "insist" that she does (she was a non-voter before marriage, I can now get her to reluctantly come to the polling station with me). For all I know she just writes "none of the above" across the ballot paper.
However, it's fair to say that putting out ads that basically say "we think your husband is a lying controlling scumbag if he votes for Trump, so vote for us" may not have quite the desired effect.
So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?
Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?
Absolutely not.
But this shows that the difference between men and women isn't as stark as you'd expect. That points to economics, not wokery.
Lalalalala I'm not listening
At least you're honest!
If Badenoch does the same and goes all in on the culture war, she'll be making the same error I think the Democrats just made.
I dont think she will. She needs some firm guidance to remind her that this stuff is super important to a very small number of people and can be used to humiliate the government, but only in a way that shows how the government is not focussing on the big things because it is too busy with transgender bathrooms and buggery for all lanyards.
Not the activists but the Ming vase strategy. Kamala was criticised for her lack of policy announcements, or indeed anything beyond a perky laugh.
The problem is that Harris was the incumbent. Labour’s strategy worked as they were not.
And the Ming vase strategy wasn't an absence of policy, it was explicit reassurances that Labour wouldn't be too radical. I may not agree with Labour policy but I don't think they were hiding what they would do. Kamala might have done anything. She didn't say. Which is one reason why people feared her.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
I was waiting for, but never saw, ads about the boom in manufacturing, aerospace and technology. Where were the ads of "Chip making its coming back to America"?
I feel like Harris wanted to run outside of Biden but never really committed to it. That’s why she didn’t mention any of this stuff.
There is a really bad clip going around of both Trump and Harris being questioned on what they would do for the cost of living. Trump is an awful man and I would never vote for him but he offered a much better answer.
It’s kind of staggering how badly they’ve cocked this up.
Harris got a boost when she came in because she was more in charge of her faculties than Biden. I think baked into this was the expectation that she'd say ... something? That she'd have a policy position. When none was forthcoming, people gradually drifted away again. Maybe they'd have drifted away anyway if she'd presented a policy position and it had been rejected. But what this shows is that you have to at least try.
I kept expecting her to run on the Biden stimulus for manufacturing etc. "We have the green shoots (ha!) of manufacturing recovery in the US. We need more".
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
That's embarrassing, "the one place women still have a right to choose". Does no one watch this stuff before it goes on air? Obama would never have run these kinds of ads.
Why is New Mexico so Democratic? The only state away from the far north east where the Dems took every single House seat.
Large number of hispanics of Mexican heritage plus the boundaries are drawn to the Dems advantage.
Re the last reason, that is not possible. The point of gerrymandering is herding your opponents into one or two carefully constructed areas so they win big there and you take the rest of the wards. If the Dems took every single seat that didn't happen (or even if it was gerrymandered they even took the seat(s) they had put by for the loser and still won them).
Not necessarily. If you (think you) have a big enough lead across the state, you might choose to draw unnatural boundaries to avoid giving your opponents any seats. It's more risky in the sense that given a big enough swing against you you might lose lots of seats, but it is the most efficient way of doing things.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
Political parties having multimillionaire Hollywood stars telling you what's good for you and how you should vote is something that really winds me up. Did you see that embarrassing "zoom" call with the Avengers cast in support of Harris? It was the sort of thing that makes you feel uncomfortable watching.
Trump had his share of celebrity endorsements. It's an American thing, not specific to Kamala. Heck, Trump is a celebrity in his own right.
He doesn't get the "A" list though. Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan ain't cutting it.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
The more I see, the more I feel like they just re-ran 2016 again.
Did nobody from the Biden team get involved in this?
The rumour is that the Biden team and Harris team really disliked each other.
There’s many books to be written about the last year in the Democratic Party.
I suspect that is one reason why Biden tried to continue - he didn't like Harris and co and (probably, correctly) couldn't see any way that she would not win the primaries
Yes I also wonder about this - or at least those around Biden. But there's every chance that Harris would have struggled in primaries, so long as the rest of the field had narrowed quickly enough
She came dead last in 2020.
Which was why Biden picked her. Ironically, she was the only VP I can think of, who actually kicked the President out (in effect).
So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?
Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?
Absolutely not.
But this shows that the difference between men and women isn't as stark as you'd expect. That points to economics, not wokery.
Lalalalala I'm not listening
At least you're honest!
If Badenoch does the same and goes all in on the culture war, she'll be making the same error I think the Democrats just made.
I dont think she will. She needs some firm guidance to remind her that this stuff is super important to a very small number of people and can be used to humiliate the government, but only in a way that shows how the government is not focussing on the big things because it is too busy with transgender bathrooms and buggery for all lanyards.
There’s a balance.
People do hate the w stuff but I really don’t think SKS is perceived as particularly w on anything.
If the Tories run on this, it won’t work. They need to run on the economy.
It has been reported Musk is urging delays on tariffs.
I think they'll be used more against the likes of China rather than glass making equipment firms in the UK but maybe that's wishcasting
Cars are probably a big one the USA can do - there's enough internal market capacity there for them to go straight for that one off the bat. BYD are 100% getting massive tarriffs maybe they already do though lol
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
I never saw that but it sounds completely stupid. Patronising to women and insulting to men.
I was waiting for, but never saw, ads about the boom in manufacturing, aerospace and technology. Where were the ads of "Chip making its coming back to America"?
I feel like Harris wanted to run outside of Biden but never really committed to it. That’s why she didn’t mention any of this stuff.
There is a really bad clip going around of both Trump and Harris being questioned on what they would do for the cost of living. Trump is an awful man and I would never vote for him but he offered a much better answer.
It’s kind of staggering how badly they’ve cocked this up.
Harris got a boost when she came in because she was more in charge of her faculties than Biden. I think baked into this was the expectation that she'd say ... something? That she'd have a policy position. When none was forthcoming, people gradually drifted away again. Maybe they'd have drifted away anyway if she'd presented a policy position and it had been rejected. But what this shows is that you have to at least try.
I kept expecting her to run on the Biden stimulus for manufacturing etc. "We have the green shoots (ha!) of manufacturing recovery in the US. We need more".
Things like the Chips Act were popular with people who otherwise didn’t think too much of Biden, that’s exactly the sort of thing the Harris campaign should have been shouting from the rooftops about. Same with infrastructure investment, although I’m not sure how much of that is visible yet and not still stuck in the paperwork stage.
So, young men don't like being told they're privileged sexist misogynists, and incipient rapists, and having no help or encouragement at all to build their future. Who'd have thought it?
Will the Liberal-Left modify its religion of identity politics as a result in response to this?
Absolutely not.
No they won’t. And what’s more this will get WORSE for the left as young women follow young men in moving to the right
Who benefits from lots of frustrated young male migrants flooding our cities? It’s not young women is it? Look at the appalling rape statistics in Sweden and Denmark
The "moving right" part of it doesn't bother me that much, but the "moving authoritarian" part of it very much does.
Not the activists but the Ming vase strategy. Kamala was criticised for her lack of policy announcements, or indeed anything beyond a perky laugh.
Short answer, no.
Longer answer (because you didn't ask for it), the "Ming Vase" strategy, a term I remember Roy Jenkins coining of Tony Blair in 1997, works best when you are coming into Government after a long period of Opposition. It doesn't work if you've been close to Government for the preceding four years.
Harris had a chance once she got the gig - either be "continuity Biden" or be radically different (as different as say Boris Johnson was to Theresa May or Liz Truss wanted to be to Boris Johnson). As you say, she in effect did neither and simply hoped that running on "isn't Trump horrible?" would be enough.
That works if you can clearly show you had no part in the policy making of the previous period (Starmer and Blair and indeed Cameron could all do that) but you can't look convincingly different if you were at the centre of the policy mess created (Boris succeeded but that was against Corbyn in unique circumstances).
Trump hadn't been POTUS since 2020 - why should he be judged on the Biden administration's record? There's an analogy to Wilson and Heath over here in the 60s and 70s. Harris had little choice - had Biden said earlier he wasn't going to run and the Democrats had a full primary, who knows? She might have been candidate anyway just as Gore was after Clinton and George H W Bush after Reagan (with different results).
The fundamental, I think, was the failure of the Biden administration (a failure shared by most other Governments across the world) to manage the economic and societal impacts of the Covid virus and the return of inflation and higher interest rates to electorates not used to them had a severe impact on Government popularity.
I'll go further - had Trump been re-elected in 2020, the Democrats would have won by a landslide this time. Had Corbyn won in 2019, the Conservatives would have won the next election by a landslide.
What gives me some comfort is that the US has voted for Trump fair and square. Most people have and he’s won the electoral college.
He owns it now. When he cocks it all up again (as I am confident he will), it will be only him to blame.
But the Democrats need to put together something now that goes beyond “not Trump”. It’s not enough. They need policies and a platform.
If they can do this, they will be glad they lost this election. Otherwise it’s JD Vance for two more terms.
I do have little confidence they will learn anything, though.
The Democrats had more policies than Trump. Trump randomly said things, that we have no idea whether they will happen or not. The closest thing he has to a platform is Project 2025, which he then spent ages saying he had nothing to do with. Maybe the Democrats should have spent more time highlighting their policies, but they had policies: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf
It has been reported Musk is urging delays on tariffs.
I think they'll be used more against the likes of China rather than glass making equipment firms in the UK but maybe that's wishcasting
Cars are probably a big one the USA can do - there's enough internal market capacity there for them to go straight for that one off the bat.
Musk will be concerned about his exports and more importantly his supply chain, one imagines, even if he likes the reduction in competition from imports.
It has been reported Musk is urging delays on tariffs.
The Musk interview with Rogan was good on this.
Musk said that what’s needed is a ramp up rather than a sudden change, to allow manufacturers and industry to respond. Building a building takes time and costs money, instant high tariffs just lead to inflation in the short term.
To be fair, he knows more about manufacturing than 99.999% of the population will ever know.
The amount of young men being thrilled has really caught me by surprise. Trump clearly appeals to these people on the economy and other issues. It seems like going on Rogan etc was a touch of genius - assuming that is what has helped him reach these people.
I also wonder how if some of that is a rejection of Harris basically saying “vote for me, I am a woman” and almost taking those voters for granted.
I'm not surprised. It's a push back from young American men, especially white and Latino ones, who get told everything is their fault by women on TV and social media. There's been a drip, drip of poison that has made men on America feel emasculated and powerless in what they now feel is a system rigged against their success. Why would they vote for a woman who they feel was not only part of this emasculation process but also will speed it up?
That late TV ad with women winking at each other as they voted the opposite way from their husbands probably didn't do them any favours with male voters, either.
Women: Know Your Place.
The idea anyone should expect a woman to vote as she's told by her husband, or the same way, is sickening.
Nobody would expect a man to vote as his wife tells him to.
I don't know how much that is happening now, but it was certainly true with my parents. The irony being that my Mum was much brighter than my Dad. At one point I sat down with her and argued why she should vote Liberal and not Tory or at least think for herself for once, my Dad then convinced her back. This went back and forth and finally she said she didn't know what to do so wouldn't vote. I said to her I would rather she voted Tory than not vote because for once she had thought about it. Having doubt was reasonable, rather than going and putting a tick in a box because Dad told you to, without any thought whatsoever.
Obviously I don't want to lose in an election, but I feel happier losing knowing those I have lost to have thought about their choice, even though I disagree with them.
On the precise point, it depends on tariffs on services, surely. Does Musk do anything that is not services?
We'll see what happens in European Commission vs Musk.
He's of the view that he and his businesses are above the law. That might be doable in the USA for very rich people, and the UK authorities have often bent over for the US Government in practice - and Musk will have the US Government at his beck and call, but I'm not sure that that will fly with the EC.
Musk has already cut Twitter's throat himself, so I wonder if he will pull that service in some places.
Judging from the percentages to date, it should come in at Gallego 1,846,351 (51.5%) Lake 1,734,224 (48.4%). Which is at near enough 52% vs 48%. The Devil's ratio
Update at 20241107_0955 (after 69% of votes cast)
Predicted total after 100% cast 3590677 Gallego 51.23% Lake 48.77%
I wouldn't call it a "landslide". The final share of the vote might be 51:48.
It was fairly efficiently distributed in a 50:50 country, but even Kamala, a dire token candidate anointed by the party machine, still won more than 200 EC votes. Republicans shouldn't get carried away. I can see people getting pretty sick of endless incompetence, psychodramas and megalomania over the next couple of years, and Trump is now a lame duck who can't run again and therefore may find it difficult to control his party especially in Congress and the states as those under him jockey for succession.
Trump is already down to 50.8% with millions of votes from California still to count, so I think he'll probably be down to 50% at least and possibly a touch lower.
From a usability point of view it’s awful. Goes down every week, suggested Tweets have nothing to do with the post above, stupid name…
If your solution to a left wing echo chamber is to make it a right wing echo chamber, it’s not free speech you value but influencing people.
Is that aimed at me? If so - I doubt musk cares
He’s achieved his purpose. He’s got Trump elected and he’s rolling back Wokeness
$44bn is a total bargain compared to all the power and money he will now accrue
Remember, people, when Leon talks about "rolling back Wokeness", what he means is that he doesn't like people telling him not to be racist. Because he really, really wants to be racist.
Comments
This
What she did announce was bizarre - the price control stuff, the crypto thing. No policy or pattern. So Trump was free to fill in the blanks however he wanted...
If you love your family you'll vote a certain way - how effective a message does anyone think that'll be ?
On topic, the July 2024 numbers from here don't quite support the excitement of those opposed to the "Liberal-Left" (whatever that means).
18-24 year olds, according to YouGov, voted 41% Labour, 18% Green, 16% Liberal Democrat, 9% Reform and 8% Conservative.
Yes, there will undoubtedly be some 18-24 year olds who shed buckets of tears at the end of the glorious era of Conservative rule but they didn't go out to vote to save it (it would seem).
Though some on here try you can't generalise across whole regions of the planet based on what happens in one country (significant though the US is). It is societally and culturally unique.
Where I would offer a soupcon of generalisation is "the young" have always been the first to challenge convention and the status quo. The 1960s we all know about but in 1989 it was younger people who were in the forefront of the huge demonstrations which ultimately toppled the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and it was younger people who were mown down by the PLA in Tiananmen Square.
I remember (for I'm not as young as you used to be) the restlessness of youth, the desire to make something happen but how you rebel, what you rebel against and where that rebellion takes you are all significant questions. As @Leon would probably rightly argue, it's all about sex or the lack of it or the expectation of it or the availability of it.
We've talked about the perceptions and realities of masculinity on here before and I suspect will be doing so again.
I've no answers - I've been thoroughly emasculated by life and Mrs Stodge but as with everything else it comes down to identity and self-worth. Once I was told love was all I needed and that money couldn't buy me love.
I blame capitalism - where's that revolution I was looking for? I don't think starting it from my bed will go well.
I remember back in the spring, before the Biden Trump debate, being unconvinced that Harris would do any better than Biden - and a few people on here being convinced that she would do much worse - and speculating that might be a reason why Biden and those around him didn't want Biden to step aside. Not being able to see any way around Harris as nominee. Now a lot of this is on Biden - he should have stepped aside last year, and allowed primaries. But Harris has to share a lot of the blame - I don't think ANYONE thought she was the best candidate for the Democrats, so unforgivable that she should run under the circumstances.
There is a problem with young people *starting* on vapes and getting addicted to the nicotine. They have replaced cigarettes, mostly.
I fear his intuition was right.
We need to get young people off vaping. But how?
https://x.com/300mirrors/status/1852545679136043302
Biden bought a working-class male Union vote that Harris mostly repelled. She is a totally empty suit, as some of us first said years ago.
Age wise Trump matching the support for populist right and far right figures like Le Pen and Wilders and Meloni doing better with young men especially than leaders of mainstream centre right parties would expect to but worse with pensioners. Indeed Harris like Macron against Le Pen won women over 65 albeit Trump still won
men over 65 unlike Le Pen.
Farage like Trump alsoade inroads with young men although the Sunak Tories still won pensioners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk
It's going to disappoint a load of 'pro-life' evangelicals come the next one. They're already litigating for fetal personhood - either the SC says yes, or it says no; that's not something that is likely to lie undecided for four years.
Similarly the deportation policy. Either he's serious about 10m plus - in which case millions of Hispanic families realise he didn't just mean gang members and drug traffickers - or he's not. If not, that's a different demographic which aren't going to be happy.
Can the GOP maintain its coalition of contradictions into the next election (and the above is just a couple of them) ? We'll get some clues pretty soon.
Did nobody from the Biden team get involved in this?
More importantly, for a man of that wealth I doubt the money matters particularly, what Musk has bought is power and freedom. He’s virtually untouchable now
He got more attention in Trump’s victory speech than any other individual except maybe Vance
Dow up 3.5%
Nasdaq up 2.9%
The markets seemed happy enough with the result, although some of that will be happiness that there was a clear result at all.
The issue which UK and USA has in common at this moment is this: the incumbent party lost.
The story she's heard multiple times is cigarettes when out and about but because they are so expensive vape when at home.
There’s many books to be written about the last year in the Democratic Party.
There is a really bad clip going around of both Trump and Harris being questioned on what they would do for the cost of living. Trump is an awful man and I would never vote for him but he offered a much better answer.
It’s kind of staggering how badly they’ve cocked this up.
If Badenoch does the same and goes all in on the culture war, she'll be making the same error I think the Democrats just made.
It's worked for everything else, right?
As I said in the summer Harris was slicker but a female black Dukakis or Kerry 2 and too coastal liberal for middle America most of the time
The closeness of the race in the swing states shows the Democrats ground game was top notch; the 5+ million undervote she's going to get compared to Biden nationwide will show in the final analysis what a poor candidate she was.
* Probably won't be 10 million, more like 5 given the amount of west coast vote to come in still.
Remember also that although nicotine is the addictive part of fags, it was tar that caused cancer. The question about vapes is not nicotine addiction but what harm the pretty colours are doing to users' lungs.
Brat summer. What on Earth were they thinking.
The effect - inflation as demand outstripped supply and that had deleterious impacts across the western world especially on lower and middle income individuals and families who, as human nature would dictate, blamed the Government for their rising energy, food and other prices and the failure of their wages to keep up.
The other aspect was this exposed a new generation to inflation which most people hadn't considered for 20-30 years and to rising interest rates (ditto) and that came as a shock which exacerbated the anger.
It was "the economy, stupid", nothing to do with "woke" (whatever that is).
Not the activists but the Ming vase strategy. Kamala was criticised for her lack of policy announcements, or indeed anything beyond a perky laugh.
“Brat summer”
Omfg the cringe
"The exceptions to the 6 week gestational age (since last menstrual period) abortion ban are as follows: (1) within 15 weeks gestational age, if the woman can give evidence from medical or official documentation that the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or human trafficking; (2) before the third trimester, if two doctors certify a fatal fetal abnormality; and (3) at any time, with doctor(s)' certification, "to save the pregnant woman's life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition".
Oops just realised it is possible. If you have a natural decent majority over all but a GOP enclave you could gerrymander to wipe out that enclave and still win the other areas.
Apologies.
Ok so the 2028 US market is now open on Betfair..
DYOR ofc, but the value bets to me look to be Vance at 4.2, Buttigieg at 21, and Shapiro at 24, so I've had a small bet on Shapiro.
However, it's fair to say that putting out ads that basically say "we think your husband is a lying controlling scumbag if he votes for Trump, so vote for us" may not have quite the desired effect.
He owns it now. When he cocks it all up again (as I am confident he will), it will be only him to blame.
But the Democrats need to put together something now that goes beyond “not Trump”. It’s not enough. They need policies and a platform.
If they can do this, they will be glad they lost this election. Otherwise it’s JD Vance for two more terms.
I do have little confidence they will learn anything, though.
Division ! Division ! Division ! With no content. Fact or reason or logic based arguments have little purchase.
We're back to needing to find ways to criticise baseless or imaginary narratives.
There are certain similarities to cults of various kinds - whether religious cults or secular cults such as Freemen on the Land, or belief in Trump.
People do hate the w stuff but I really don’t think SKS is perceived as particularly w on anything.
If the Tories run on this, it won’t work. They need to run on the economy.
Cars are probably a big one the USA can do - there's enough internal market capacity there for them to go straight for that one off the bat. BYD are 100% getting massive tarriffs maybe they already do though lol
Longer answer (because you didn't ask for it), the "Ming Vase" strategy, a term I remember Roy Jenkins coining of Tony Blair in 1997, works best when you are coming into Government after a long period of Opposition. It doesn't work if you've been close to Government for the preceding four years.
Harris had a chance once she got the gig - either be "continuity Biden" or be radically different (as different as say Boris Johnson was to Theresa May or Liz Truss wanted to be to Boris Johnson). As you say, she in effect did neither and simply hoped that running on "isn't Trump horrible?" would be enough.
That works if you can clearly show you had no part in the policy making of the previous period (Starmer and Blair and indeed Cameron could all do that) but you can't look convincingly different if you were at the centre of the policy mess created (Boris succeeded but that was against Corbyn in unique circumstances).
Trump hadn't been POTUS since 2020 - why should he be judged on the Biden administration's record? There's an analogy to Wilson and Heath over here in the 60s and 70s. Harris had little choice - had Biden said earlier he wasn't going to run and the Democrats had a full primary, who knows? She might have been candidate anyway just as Gore was after Clinton and George H W Bush after Reagan (with different results).
The fundamental, I think, was the failure of the Biden administration (a failure shared by most other Governments across the world) to manage the economic and societal impacts of the Covid virus and the return of inflation and higher interest rates to electorates not used to them had a severe impact on Government popularity.
I'll go further - had Trump been re-elected in 2020, the Democrats would have won by a landslide this time. Had Corbyn won in 2019, the Conservatives would have won the next election by a landslide.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/39d95f3f-fec9-4a12-9260-3fcce31f3a54?shareToken=4b854cd019accb0cb65b26e26756bb63
Musk said that what’s needed is a ramp up rather than a sudden change, to allow manufacturers and industry to respond. Building a building takes time and costs money, instant high tariffs just lead to inflation in the short term.
To be fair, he knows more about manufacturing than 99.999% of the population will ever know.
Obviously I don't want to lose in an election, but I feel happier losing knowing those I have lost to have thought about their choice, even though I disagree with them.
We'll see what happens in European Commission vs Musk.
He's of the view that he and his businesses are above the law. That might be doable in the USA for very rich people, and the UK authorities have often bent over for the US Government in practice - and Musk will have the US Government at his beck and call, but I'm not sure that that will fly with the EC.
Musk has already cut Twitter's throat himself, so I wonder if he will pull that service in some places.
Predicted total after 100% cast 3590677 Gallego 51.23% Lake 48.77%
It’s not finished yet but they seem to had almost 10 million voters not vote at all. Kamala repelled people.
Nott walkout