With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.
If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.
If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.
Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The lesson is clear: do not run women
Europe would like a word...
Both Clinton and Harris got where they got to because of who they slept with, and because their parties wanted a woman to be president. Compare someone like Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel, who earned their positions.
completely different circumstances
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe pick a woman worth running? Hillary was famously loathed by a large percentage of the country. Harris... an empty suit would have been an improvement.
Can you name a woman worth running? Hell, can you name a man worth running? Most people here would argue every president since Jefferson has been a low iq moron, which usually makes me think they either don't understand the incentives involved or drastically underestimate our politicians.
I remember my parents had hoped Condoleezza Rice would run in 2008, though by the time the primary season came around, they both agreed that she was too tainted by her association with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to be a viable candidate.
More options
Context Copy link
I like Tulsi, although admittedly I don't know very much about her. I think that the fact that she's a veteran would win over a lot of undecideds, and being good-looking never hurt.
Do you think if she ran a campaign and lost, the commentariat here (and elsewhere) would say I know she lost, but damn, she's a fine politician?
I'm not really sure what you're asking me. "The commentariat" aren't a hive mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All I know is she could destroy me in combat or debate. That is enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Anyone tried cloning Margaret Thatcher yet?
Vance is looking real, real good to me right now.
...But those aside, Harris was, legitimately, an absolutely terrible choice, and I am pretty sure she was chosen because the better candidates, male and female, saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to tank their future prospects trying to salvage an election that Joe Biden's dementia had already pretty clearly lost.
The legacy media gave her every possible advantage they could, at considerable cost to their own dwindling credibility. She couldn't do interviews. She couldn't field basic questions on policy or on her record. So they let her hide in a closet and spun their guts out trying to astroturf contentless, mean-girls-style social consensus ex nihlio, while claiming all possible policy positions to the point of obvious self-contradiction. She claimed she'd protect the Second Amendment from Trump, man.
In her prime, I can't imagine Nancy Pelosi would have been this bad. Clinton wasn't anywhere near this bad. I'm pretty sure AOC wouldn't be this bad. I can't imagine Oprah or Michelle Obama being this bad if they threw their hats in. I would strongly oppose all of those women if they ran because I disagree with their values and their preferred policies. But Kamala is all that and a bag of rancid chips. Oprah is a billionaire businesswoman, an expert on public relations and communication. She boot-strapped herself into a commanding position as one of the richest and most influential women in America. Kamala sleazed her way into a position under one of the most corrupt politicians of the modern era, made a career for herself personifying the worst stereotypes of a "tough on crime" caricature, was massively unpopular as a presidential candidate, was tapped for VP explicitly on the basis of identity-politics checkboxes, and has now lost an election to Donald Trump. She outperformed Joe Biden in
zero counties in the entire nation.[EDIT] - This is false; I missed the clarification on CNN last night. Apparently she outperformed Biden in by at least 3% in 58 of 3144 counties, and presumably by less than 3% in more.Blues need to take the L and ask themselves some serious questions about the long sequence of bad decisions that brought them to this moment.
There's a map at https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/11/05/compare-2020-2024-presidential-results/?itid=ms_1 which is indeed mostly red, but there are a few blue arrows, e.g., in Colorado.
This confusion is due to a misunderstanding from CNN last night (I saw it live) King talking to Tapper said that, and later clarified the stat is actually there's no county she outperformed Biden by 3% points.
Yup, repeating what I saw last night. Apologies for the confusion.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, Tapper was confused. It looks like the clarification was Harris outperformed Biden by 3% in 58 counties. That's plausible enough that I'm not bothering to check. There's 3,144 counties, so I was skeptical of claims that something didn't happen in any of them. In Henry GA, with rapidly shifting demographics, Harris improved on Biden by 9.2 points; Biden improved on Obama in the same county by 16.1 points.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ah, Margaret Thatcher, universally loved and respected across the political spectrum. Not to mention a bizarre choice for a Trump supporter given her antipathy for the working class, out-of-touchness robotic character and neoliberalism. This smacks more of someone you agree with rather than an objective measure of quality or intellect, no?
Vance? Silicon valley, VC 1%er Vance who happens to have a convenient origin story and connections to an ecosystem of companies weaponizing AI to surveil our citizens?
You're missing the point. 8 years ago you were sitting here writing that Clinton was a historically unpopular candidate, manipulative, stupid, whatever. 4 years ago you were sitting here writing how useless Biden is, he can't even leave his basement to campaign, dementia means he doesn't have two functional brain cells left to rub together. 4 years from now you'll be sitting here writing that Pete Buttigieg was the worst candidate in history, who tries to nominate a goddamn secretary of transportation man, at least Kamala ticked some diversity boxes and had some funny coconut memes or something.
Most criticism of politicians is hopelessly facile and ignorant (I assume, this isn't my field) of the realities on the ground or the workings of the system we've created. And most criticism in general is just people playing Monday morning quarterback to feel smart.
Kamala was a candidate who, so far as anyone could tell, had a 50% chance of becoming president yesterday. Sure, hopefully the dems learn from the experience (insofar as they really had that much control over events), but I don't believe the over-the-top criticism of Kamala and Hilldog is warranted.
She didn't need to be universally loved across the political spectrum, honestly, I'd struggle to name a politician who was.
The fact is, she won three elections and was the longest serving prime minister for over 150 years. She was, objectively, an extremely successful politician.
More options
Context Copy link
As far as anyone could tell bears a lot of weight here. It's not like the US flipped a coin yesterday. She had a much lower chance, we in the public just couldn't tell if the public polls were honest, artificially trying to keep it close to encourage turnout, or were afraid of predicting anything but 50%-50% because that's the safest prediction possible.
More options
Context Copy link
Thatcher, though now somewhat overrated on the right, won multiple elections and completely upended the political consensus. She succeeded at destroying the dead hand of the trade unions--an incredibly popular policy that Labour had promised and failed to implement--and was one of very few post-war politicians to have genuine convictions and enough political nous to push them through.
The people who hated Thatcher really hated her, but she was clearly beyond the vast majority of her peers. And I've met many, many working class people who loved and voted for her because she rescued them from the grasping hands of the people who pretended to speak for them. Any parallels to the modern day are left as an exercise to the reader.
More options
Context Copy link
And yet she was evidently damn good at her job, and it seems to me that it ain't the same working class, nor the same neoliberalism, nor the same world for that matter. She fought for liberty and against bureaucracy and communism.
He's the first politician I've listened to who could bring up interesting data-points I hadn't heard of before. I'm looking forward to his presidential bid. His "convenient origin story" happens to be his actual life, born to drug addicts and working his way up to the vice-presidency of the united states. Certainly his story looks considerably better than Kamala's.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't. I was planning to vote for Hillary until Trump cinched the nomination, because I wanted the neoconservative wing of the Republican party destroyed forever. She was quite unpopular in much the way Trump is, but 2016 was a very close election. I am pretty sure that I have never agreed with the moderate talking point that Hillary was a uniquely bad candidate and the only one the Dems could have picked that would have lost to Trump. I think if Trump could beat her he could likely beat most of the other Democrat contenders. I think she's a very bad, very corrupt politician, but that doesn't make her bad at securing power or an unserious candidate in the way Kamala was.
And he was, in fact, actually suffering from dementia, a problem that only got worse throughout his term. And Progressives sticking their fingers in their ears about it is how he was allowed to vegetate in office, which is why they had to dump him at the eleventh hour, couldn't get their actual talent to sign on, and were left with running Kamala. His dementia actually was real, actually cost him the race, and after more than a decade of Progressive claims that Republican presidents were senile (a common accusation against both W and Trump), they collectively missed their own candidate actually going senile right in front of them. And sure, I claim Biden was a bad president, because I think the record pretty clearly shows that his policies had numerous woeful effects in the real world. The exception, of course, was the Afghanistan Pullout, which I think was a masterful achievement and which I will defend against all comers.
I'm not on your side. I'm opposed to your candidates, because I disagree strongly with their policies and values. But I, at least as an individual, am actually trying to speak honestly here: Progressives have suffered multiple, severe unforced errors due to believing their own bullshit. Their control of the consensus narrative has made them lazy, and now that this control is failing, they're stuck in a position where the main effect their spin is having is to compromise their own decision-making. Biden was in fact too old, as was RGB when she tried to hang on till Hillary. They should have picked a running mate who could actually run for his VP, but they were too busy playing identity bingo, and besides, it was an article of faith that he was sharp as a tack. They did this to themselves.
I am pretty sure it is in my direct interest for Progressives to see things the way you do.
I predicted a Trump win, with weak confidence, based on a lot of factors that seemed to be leaning his way. This does not appear to have been a coin-flip election; pretty much every state in the country shifted right by significant margins, with Donald Trump as the candidate. As recently as two years ago, IIRC, Democrats were still directly funding Trumpian candidates in Republican primaries, hoping that public revulsion for him and his supporters would make them unelectable in the general. But as I said above, I am pretty sure that Progressives doubling down further is pure advantage for my side. By all means, don't let me dissuade you.
She was good at her job based on what, winning elections? Justin Trudeau won as many, after breaking 9 years of conservative rule, yet I doubt you think he's a particularly good candidate or Prime Minister.
As for fighting against bureaucracy and communism, these are just partisan buzzwords. 50 years ago, our ancestors were sitting in a pub bemoaning the sorry state of British politics and the terrible candidates and the country going to hell in a handbasket because the new generation was a bunch of pussies.
Not to mention it's telling that you picked a politician from 50 years ago that (I assume, based on the apparent age of your children) you were barely alive for in a country you never lived in. I'm willing to bet that 50 years from now our grandchildren will lionize the greatness of Obama and Trump without having to deal with the shitty day-to-day reality we inhabit. I'm willing to bet that very few people think [current year] politicians are particularly talented.
Whatever - without guessing the particulars of who you have voted for, would you agree that my characterization fits a broad swathe of the at least the American public, and likely the local commentariat?
As for the 'historical unpopularity' that gets thrown around constantly - this absolutely drives me up the wall. Look at favorability polls (first figure). Insofar as Trump and Hillary were historically unpopular, they're just continuing a 70 year old trendline with vanishingly few exceptions. Do you think our politicians suddenly became retarded and unlikable in the 90s? Here's a bet for you - the next pair of candidates for both major parties will be historically unpopular (say the bottom quartile of favorability). Want to take it?
I actually largely heard this from progressives and the right, not the center? If anyone liked Hillary it was the center. Bernie bros ain't moderates.
Because if we had 25th'd Joe out (presumably he wasn't about to leave on his own)in the middle of the COVID and inflation shitshow and let Kamala run things for 2 years, this election just would have gone swimmingly for democrats? If you think 'the actual talent' refused to sign on this year, they 100% wouldn't have signed up in your hypothetical. Not to mention you'd be sitting here lecturing me about how stupid it was to 'allow' Joe to get elected in the primaries in the first place, or something.
And...you think progressives like Joe Biden? Is this just some Overton ploy to define Joe as a progressive such that everyone to his left is some insane fringe radical, while Trump and Vance live in the center? Public figures endorse him because they hate Trump, but Joe Biden was not the progressive candidate of choice in 2020.
I disagree. With the exception of inflation (and who knows whether the counterfactual recession would have been better or worse than inflation, or whether there actually was a center path that avoided both) I think he's been on point and centrist for the most part. CHIPS act and infrastructure are both great (though we'll see if either can actually be implemented in a meaningful way, there seems to be a lot of grift), the economy is doing well (just watch - the economic doomerism on the right is about to evaporate with the election alongside the voting fraud narrative), he tried to push immigration reform. The manufacturing sector is doing better under Biden than Trump. But I imagine this is an entire separate discussion.
We're all on the same side here, brother.
And what was that mistake, not being leftist enough to inspire the workers revolution (cf Freddie De Boer, Bernie bros)? Not being centrist enough (cf Tracingwoodgrains, stupidpol, I'd guess some MSM outlets in the next few weeks) to win the suburban wine mom vote? You all agree that progressives are stupid and lazy and mistakes were made, you just completely disagree about the directionality.
Here's a different narrative - in 2020, Biden wasn't senile yet and won the primary. In 2020, the focus was on winning the election in front of you, because there's four years to worry about the next one. He governed well, although Harris got some tough assignments and the optics for both of them were bad with COVID/inflation/Ukraine/Gaza. Ending lockdowns would have enraged one section of the population as much as enacting them would another. Bombing the shit out of Gaza or taking a hard stance against Israel both would have pissed off a core constituency. Refusing to fire up the money printers may have triggered a recession that would have lost the election just as surely as inflation/idpol/whatever else actually did.
As an aside, you say identity bingo, analysts say lock down the black vote because you're an out-of-touch old white man. For all you know Biden would have lost in 2020 with a different VP pick.
Y'know, the funny thing is Trump will probably push policies that benefit me more personally. Please cut my taxes and kill my competition from China, what do I care?
Whatever. Anyways, you think I'm an arrogant, complacent and intellectually lazy progressive who can't see the flaws in his own party. Leaving aside whether any of those are true, I just think the arguments here are lazy, superficial and mostly ignorant of the realities of governing and winning elections in America. Discussing politics is >95% hindsight bias.
If it wasn't a coin flip election, why did you have such weak confidence? And given your uncertainty, why would you say running Kamala was a mistake if you (and presumably the dem machine) couldn't have predicted her loss in advance?
Four years from now, conditional on the Trump faction losing the general election, will you be here saying you guys fucked up and Rs had better learn from their mistakes? Somehow, I doubt you'll take that L particularly gracefully if past experience is any indicator. I know the drill - time to reach for the fourth box, the election was rigged, America will be destroyed by a communist dictatorship.
I hope Trump is as successful as you think he will be, and that our country flourishes over the next four years.
More options
Context Copy link
I think pulling out of Afghanistan was the right call. I think how they executed was terrible. They were managing to a sept 11 timeline. That’s dumb.
Even the Biden administration gave strategic credit to Trump in trying to defend their tactical blunder. “This was the timeline Trump negotiated” was their refrain.
Yet it seems plainly obvious that if you’re going to exit the county, you retreat to your strongest position and exit from there. And you don’t leave unspoiled equipment for the enemy to use.
Why in the world would the last point of exit be the civilian airport and not the military airbase?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the point is that Thatcher was an impressive woman, worthy of running regardless of what you think of her politics or sensibilities.
Yes, people like Vance. I'm guessing you don't? I'm struggling to parse your criticism other than a vague hand gesture towards his previous career.
I think I'm missing your point... are you suggesting that we can't criticise politicians or are you saying that you can't criticise the Dems for consistently running poor candidates since Obama?
Isn't this pretty much true for every US election ever?
No, I think you do get my point - it's just a bit funny that you dismiss my criticism as superficial for Thatcher and Vance, but (and I make some assumptions here not knowing you) would accept my criticisms of Harris as being a historically bad candidate. Probably Clinton as well.
The point is that almost all of these 1-2 sentence comments about Harris being an unlikable whore who sucked her dick to the vice presidency is about as substantial and knowledgeable as me saying Vance is a 1%er puppet of the SV elite. I don't think these people know anything about politics, have never worked a political campaign or crafted a bill or written a political speech.
But hey, it sure is easy to wake up the morning after and rant about how the losing candidate was historically bad and the dems are a bunch of morons.
I'm saying they weren't bad candidates, depending on what you mean by bad candidate. If you strictly mean they lost elections, well, I guess Biden wasn't a bad candidate? Or do you mean something else?
Maybe to put it differently, would you have taken 50-50 odds for Biden v. Trump in 2020? Or would you have taken 50-50 odds for Obama v. McCain?
So far as anyone could tell, it seemed like a true toss up last night. People with money and reputations on the line with access to similar information as the most of us agreed those were the odds.
No... I didn't... But I do now - so thank you for explaining.
Whilst I agree that there are superficial criticisms of all candidates, the difference is that Thatcher and Vance have ameliorating qualities to them whilst it's hard to parse what positive qualities Biden and Harris have when it comes to their candidacy.
Thatcher was intelligent, articulate, charismatic and had a penchant for leadership. Vance is intelligent and articulate; I wouldn't say he's particularly charismatic but he does come across as overwhelmingly normal and down-to-earth which has a charm to it, even if you wouldn't call it charisma.
This seems to be the difference that people are gesturing towards: whilst you can come up with superficial criticisms for all candidates, Biden* and Kamala seem fairly unique in their lack of positive qualities.
*2020 Biden.
No, I would say they are bad candidates. Why would you say they're not bad candidates? What positive qualities could you name? Are they great orators? Especially charasmatic? Wonkish? Great leaders? I'm really struggling to see what your argument would be here.
Yes to Biden v. Trump in 2020 and then I was too young back during Obama v. McCain to make a call there.
However, I imagine they were close.
Campaigns spend millions trying to secure the vote of a slither of the electorate. Given how few people the campaign is actually fought over, it kind'a means that all elections are close.
It's difficult to say without defining your terms. Do good presidents craft legislation, compromise and build coalitions while good candidates just win elections? I believe the majority of the electorate doesn't care about policies (and honestly, I include myself in this category - I care, but I rarely have time to educate myself properly on any given bill or proposal) and is more into vibes and public persona, so again, what is a good candidate/president? But whatever, I can answer in kind.
Biden is not a good speaker. But I do believe Biden (or his team) has a great nose for politics. He was smart enough to distance himself from the BLM riots early on when many other democrats weren't. He went through with the Afghanistan pullout despite what I bet was enormous pressure internally in DC to keep troops there, in a way that I believe was immensely net positive for the country. He pushed immigration bills (crafted in collaboration with some pretty conservative senators) in the last 6 months in an attempt to blunt Trump's attacks on that issue, when I doubt many progressives or democrats were willing to do so. His experience over decades allowed him to compromise and shepherd large bills on infrastructure (which Trump failed to do) and industrial policy through congress during historically polarized times. There are one or two other moments over the course of the campaign where I was impressed with his foresight on issues years ago that paid dividends this year.
I also liked Hillary and Obama. At the risk of undermining my own point, I was less excited about Kamala although I think she mostly inherited a bit of a mess. Most agree that she won the debate against Trump, and regardless of whether you're sour grapes about the moderators, I don't think Biden, Hillary or the entire Republican primary field in 2016 can say the same. She was disciplined with her messaging. And unfortunately, I've run out of time to continue this comment but I may revisit it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I actually don't think running women was the problem. plenty of women have won positions at all other levels. It's just that the way the DNC does it is to bypass primaries and put in a woman who might do well in closed-door insider politics, but is bad at public speaking in a normal election.
Isn't "closed-door insider politics" exactly how the examples of Thacher and Merkel rose to power? I don't entirely understand the parliamentary systems used in the UK and DE, but my limited understanding is that people vote for the party and the party produces the leader primarily through "closed-door insider politics". OTOH neither Thatcher nor Merkel ever won a direct election either. This comment is admittedly from a position of partial understanding of those system.
yeah, those are parliamentary systems where the party (mostly) selects the candidate and voters simply vote for the party. very different system. But it is somewhat analogous to how American politics works in "safe" seats, like Harris's California senate seat, where you simply have to win inside the local party political machine and then they'll guarantee you a victory.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Exactly exactly. Women in the House do just fine, though how often they emerge from the recruitment process varies greatly. I honestly don't think gender matters a whole lot anymore. Sure there are some double standards still, but also some advantages for a woman (though fewer), but overall it just doesn't move the needle a lot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link