US politics isn't easy to understand as an outsider. It looks like Harris was was an ok candidate for the core democrat voter and a terrible candidate to win a populist election in what is essentially a deeply divided and mostly conservative country. She didn't address the swing voters greatest concerns which was their decline in real wealth due to inflation and fear of change. I am sure money and influence had a lot to do with it as well but still a colossal misreading of public sentiment and an inability to reach out to a broader audience.
Money may influence certain blocks of voters more than others, and the parties may spend it differently. That still doesn't mean it's an unalloyed good that we pour so much money into it when it could be used on more productive efforts.
I don’t think many in either party are worried about small donations. But the concern from Dems is usually the unlimited donations as one billionaire could match the financial influence of millions of non-billionaires.
I don't doubt it. Even to an outsider there is a obvious economic divide between blue and red states and I am sure both parties exploit that to some extent.
Judging from what I have seen of the foreign reach of "US" politics I am certain there is a lot of dark money and influence going around beyond any official numbers. I have doubts if those sorts of operations have any influence on the swing voters that were required for a victory. It seems more likely their needs were simply ignored.
>there is a lot of dark money and influence going around
I personally suspect, but can't really know, that this is what explains the dysfunctional state of US politics. It is simply too big a target for corruption for it to ever be able to operate effectively. You can see that many US states seem to have much more effective governance than the Feds despite having nominally the same two major parties. I also think this explains why Australia is better run than the USA, and why New Zealand and Norway are better run than Australia.
I wonder if there is even that much dark money is circulating beyond official numbers. Why would they bother, given that they have the legal loophole of PACs, Super PACs, and 501(c) groups.
It already seems so easy to throw money at a candidate if you wanted to, without even needing to do it behind closed doors.
receiving a measly 4% of votes. she was elevated to the VP position above merit worthy individuals solely to placate identity politics, as Biden did extensively with other appointments as well
Was Mike Pence getting chosen for his Christian background not an example of identity politics? Was JD Vance being a younger politician to balance old Trump identity politics? Everything relates to identity politics
Biden won which makes the choice harder to criticize.
People are often elevated without merit for a multitude of reasons including nepotism which don't benefit anyone but them. Trump will have to reward his supporters as well. It is the spoils system. It isn't unique to US politics but the cronyism is a bit more in your face than usual in regular democracies. If Biden's spoils went to a more diverse looking bunch then that probably says more about the diversity of his supporters than anything about his judgement. As far as I can see the criticism is unfounded. And when the democrats criticize the lack of diversity in the next administration it is a similar thing. The spoils don't go to randoms picked from a color swatch regardless of party.
Also the Democrat's main strategy seems to have been yell "orange man bad," over and over, while catering to the concerns of their partisan core of well-off white liberals.
I think they thought Trump was a wedge that would hand them a narrow victory without having to adapt very much.
The Republicans yelled “black woman bad” over and over again and it seemed to work for them, but then they were always catering to mostly older white guys.
I've seen Harris pronounce her name a variety of different ways... One of the more compelling reasons behind throwing accusations of wrongspeak when folks pronounce her name one way or another is that "kuh-mul-ah" sounds like "burn her" and rhymes with "suck on it" in Spanish, which might have triggered this to begin with.
I could not care less what a comedian calls Trump, John Oliver isn't in a position of trust and power, leading the nation, supposedly our best and brightest.
> Perhaps not, but this attitude is absolutely endemic on the left.
Oh come off it, you just elected a guy who thought it was good taste to physically mock a disabled journalist for crying out loud. You guys have absolutely no moral high ground to stand on if you are trying to favorably compare "attitudes" with the left.
(I'm not a US voter, but we have the same dynamic up here in Canada)
I think it's absolutely horrendous to:
- make fun of a disabled person
- make fun of someone for having an immigrant surname, though less so
- cancel someone because they don't toe the line exactly on your very detailed and opinionated ideology (reminds me of Christianity a couple of decades ago)
- call someone a Nazi when they aren't one
- call someone a communist when they aren't one
Next, it must be noted that zero percent of Trump's appeal lies in his social sense of kindness. People vote for him for other reasons; certainly not because he's a nice guy. For the left, a social sense of kindness is their entire shtick.
For a long time now, we on the center and on the right felt little kindness or good intentions coming from the left, only authoritarian diktats and an oppressive social pressure to conform-or-fuck-off.
I do hope the decline of both religion and wokeism means we can all be a bit more broadminded and centered from here on out.
it's funny what happens when people experience the cognitive dissonance to justify enabling someone with trump's ethos (or lack thereof).
everyone wants to pretend they have one, while simultaneously shirking accountability for his when they cast a vote, and then claim hurt feelings and vitriol to deflect away from their enabling of such a lack of ethos.
what you're experiencing is a rejection of your worldview.
when a person does egregiously disrespectful, demeaning things -- be it you or the demographic you perceive to be so under attack -- you are not entitled to kindness back. as much as i encourage people to try to love even those they hate, respect at the end of the day is a social contract, and even somewhat socratic in its nature.
southern white conservatives used to cancel persons all the time during a rather unfortunate and embarrassing (and hard to quantify in terms of pain), recent part of human (american) history -- this has only evolved to financial segregation and other facades that attempt to convey "we've changed!", and i will steer clear of the rabbit hole that does involve violence in today's climate for the sake of this thread.
the victim mindset around the left attacking the right given america's political history is a deflection. and it really confuses me.
i would have had no respect for these personalities pre-civil rights, and i still don't have much respect for this kind of political victim mindset in modern day america. i was raised with en ethos around humanity that fundamentally rejects it and wishes for and tries to build a different way of living.
if you want kindness and perhaps humanity, demonstrate it authentically and take accountability for history you've either. participated in, been influenced by, or enabled in some manner. support for someone of this dude's ethos is certainly not an act of humanity, and in no way a signal that your worldview should be validated or reinforced.
i have lost friends due to a lack of resources that were previously available and then repealed/removed by the current conservative political machine (which has been exploiting my home state for the better part of my adult life ie decades, and explicitly taking advantage of working class persons living paycheck to paycheck comprising about approx. >= 55% of the labor force) -- and no, i am not talking abortion policy, although that's quite relevant.
so yeah, i can imagine why some people are mad. i am just confused why you cannot empathize and instead have made it about yourself.
it's almost as if a whole swath of american "patriots" completely forgot the political ethos this country was founded upon (Locke et. al).
being an american means that you are, by definition, liberal.
Literally the only people I have ever seen use the phrase "orange man bad" are Trump supporters attacking Democrats. The more crass among Trump's opponents certainly made fun of his orange makeup somethings, but claiming that's all that was talked about is quite a strawman; there are many substantive criticisms of Trump's behavior and platform.
It's a really apt term to describe the kind of obsessive attacks on Trump's person, often as a substitute for any kind of positive policy message (as in, Harris will do X, Y, and Z), especially ones that would resonate outside the Democratic bubble. For a notable example, see this pithy message from the NY Times Editorial Board: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/02/opinion/vote-... (tl;dr: "You should vote for Harris because Trump is bad." What will Harris do? Who knows.).
Yes, plenty of people argue Trump is bad. But the phrase "orange man bad" suggests that criticisms of Trump's character are superficial, when in reality they are based on his behavior and statements.
> But the phrase "orange man bad" suggests that criticisms of Trump's character are superficial, when in reality they are based on his behavior and statements.
No to me.
To me, "orange man bad" suggests obsession, myopia, and a failure to realize criticizing Trump does not make the case for any alternative.
