Biden presidency and 2024 election campaign

[Magpietothemax]

The cost of living and illegal immigration were clearly the two big issues. Both had gone backwards under Biden's watch, Harris was part of that administration and refused to say what she would do differently, so she was already pushing shit uphill on that front. Even introducing Trans issues into the campaign just would have proved to many that the Democrats didn't have their eye on the balls which were important.

Focus on getting elected and fixing the big issues first, then you can dabble in fringe issues if that's your inclination. People are much more likely to be well disposed toward spending on Trans stuff when they're employed, have a roof over their head, food on the table and some disposable income. They still may have zero interest, but at least they won't feel aggrieved about it.

Good post. Illegal immigration was an issue because both parties agreed that it was and promoted xenophobic policies.
So if you were wanting to protect immigants, but also wanted a roof over your head and food over the table, it was natural to think that your main concern is survival, and Harris ain't gonna help immigrants either.

[Magpietothemax]

It's going to be a fun four years. While he's not my cup of tea, I can see why many love him. Populism is an easy sell, and now he has to deliver. Is there a special charter flight to Australia with all those actors, etc.?

What exactly do you think that Trump will deliver?

[Magpietothemax]

The issues of trans and gay rights, racial affirmation, are irrelevant to those fighting for their material survival.

Try telling that to trans and gay people fighting for their material survival.

Trans or gay people fighting for material survival would have been in an impossible dilemma in this election.
They would obviously know that Trump is a violent and brutal enemy.
They would also know that Harris promised them nothing except further destruction of their living standards, because she was openly just advocating more of the same.
So such a political situation would be absolutely horrific for them. Their suffering must be immense right now.

However, the point I am making is that the salvation of mankind won't come through promoting trans, gay, racial rights. It will come instead through the fight for social rights, such as the right to quality health care, the right to quality education - from primary to tertiary. The right to decent accommodation, the right to full democratic rights (which fully protect the rights of all gay, trans, and racial groups).

It is only the fight for the social interests of the working class that can protect the rights of all other groups and minorities. This is the fundamental truth that has to be grasped in order to reject the right wing and divisionary identity politics of the Democrats.

Because the Democrats do not defend the social rights of the working class, but on the contrary reject them with contempt, their focus on identity politics becomes a mechanism for dividing and disorienting the working class.

[David]

The gubbermint should have been focussing on helping people put food on the table rather than worried about funding sex changes for trans prisoners.

And that's what we've seen. When times are tough people don't give a crap about your pronouns.

I guess it goes to show how effective political propaganda is that people thought this was a Democratic Party election campaign promise – when, in fact, it was a 2019 Harris Democratic Party primary proposal that the Republicans used in their campaign to attack her (hoping that it would get more bigots to vote for them) and that she had long since cravenly walked away from.

I think there's a lesson there for centre-left political parties who think that moving to the right will win them votes – ultimately, the other side are just going to paint you as the progressive you don't have the courage to be, so you may as well embrace it.

[David]

If you look at popular vote stats over the very long term, I think you'd agree Biden 81 million looks very out of pattern.

For those like Trump who are still clinging on to the notion that the 2020 election was stolen (despite his embarrassing repeated failure to even come close to proving it in court), I'd love to hear your explanation for why it didn't happen this time. Perhaps the Democrats just forgot, or decided they didn't want it as badly this time around?

[Durka]

If you look at popular vote stats over the very long term, I think you'd agree Biden 81 million looks very out of pattern.

For those like Trump who are still clinging on to the notion that the 2020 election was stolen (despite his embarrassing repeated failure to even come close to proving it in court), I'd love to hear your explanation for why it didn't happen this time. Perhaps the Democrats just forgot, or decided they didn't want it as badly this time around?

You are probably a greater follower of US politics than I am, but you've raised an issue that I was thinking about when the election results were being updated this time. Last time, my recollection is that in the swing states, or at least in some of them, Trump had a lead, then for a day or so after the polls had closed, truck loads of postal votes were counted which were heavily in favour of Biden, which swayed the balance. That's what gave Trump ammunition for his argument. Is my recollection correct?

This time, that did not occur. I didn't see any reports saying that we haven't counted postal votes yet. Each state had progressive updates as to what percentage of the votes had been counted, so they must have known then how many people had voted by post. Were procedures changed this time, so that the cut off date for postal votes were not so close to the day of the election?

[Pies4shaw]

^ I think that's probably right - but the answer is actually more straight-forward and - perhaps unsurprisingly - doesn't depend on any facts about the electoral process. The Trumpanistas were ready to roll, again, with "The election was rigged" but Trump won, so that particular sh!tshow was unnecessary this time and, sadly, a lot of very poor constitutional lawyers and PR people have been left desititute as a result.

[David]

You are probably a greater follower of US politics than I am, but you've raised an issue that I was thinking about when the election results were being updated this time. Last time, my recollection is that in the swing states, or at least in some of them, Trump had a lead, then for a day or so after the polls had closed, truck loads of postal votes were counted which were heavily in favour of Biden, which swayed the balance. That's what gave Trump ammunition for his argument. Is my recollection correct?

This time, that did not occur. I didn't see any reports saying that we haven't counted postal votes yet. Each state had progressive updates as to what percentage of the votes had been counted, so they must have known then how many people had voted by post. Were procedures changed this time, so that the cut off date for postal votes were not so close to the day of the election?

The most immediately obvious reason for a reduction in postal votes would be that the 2020 election occurred in the midst of the pandemic, so many people would have chosen to stay home. There were also a few initiatives passed in Republican-run states to restrict postal voting this time around (including other attempts at voter suppression such as voter ID laws), so it's possible they had some effect, though it seems unclear to what extent if so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... l_election

According to this link, at least 87.9 million postal or pre-polling day votes were cast this election out of the 146.1 million that have been counted so far: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... early-vote
Last year, the equivalent figure was 108.4 million out of 155.5 million total, based on this report: https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files ... l_508c.pdf
Some more stats, including Trump vs Biden postal vote figures, here: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 ... e-in-2020/

Various plausible reasons for the discrepancy between postal votes for Biden vs Trump last time around (58% and 32% respectively) include that "Blue" states had more COVID restrictions than "Red" states; that Democratic Party voters were more likely to consider COVID a health risk than Republican Party voters, thus having more incentive to stay home; and that Trump explicitly politicised postal voting in the lead-up to the election, calling its integrity into question, which undoubtedly influenced the choices of his supporters. Absent the context of the pandemic, none of those applied this time around.

In terms of when the postal votes were counted, my understanding is that several efficiency measures were put in place for this election in various states to make counting faster, so that may also have been a factor in post-count swings. But anyone paying attention to election counting here in Australia as in any other country would already understand that this is a common occurrence, as are seemingly sudden shifts when metropolitan vs rural polling places finish counting.

I suspect that much of this conspiracy theorising, putting to one side the cynical opportunism of Trump and his inner circle, comes down to lack of electoral literacy. For instance, I've seen countless discussions on social media in the immediate aftermath of the election taking conclusions about turnout from clearly incomplete voting totals: people simply don't seem to realise that, even though the election has already been decided, voting is continuing and published totals are provisional. Similarly, I suspect too many people were watching the votes being counted on TV as if it were a football game, unaware that apparent voting leads on election night held by Trump in swing states were far from settled.

I don't think much of American cable news, but at least they do actually explain this stuff while you're watching. Unfortunately, previously uncontroversial factual information like that is just another fatality of the "fake news" era, where "the internet" is deemed more trustworthy than journalists – who, whatever their other failings, might at least understand some of what they're talking about.

[stui magpie]

^
Just on the supposed "efficiences", there were some improvements made, but on a state by state basis. The USA doesn't have an equivalent of our AEC, each state controls the voting process.

[Jezza]

Will be only the second time since 1988 (i.e. in the last nine elections) that a Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote.

That's right.

2024 = Trump (2.1)**
2020 = Biden (4.4)
2016 = Clinton (2.1) - lost the electoral college vote
2012 = Obama (3.9)
2008 = Obama (7.2)
2004 = Bush (2.4)
2000 = Gore (0.5) - lost the electoral college vote
1996 = Clinton (8.5)
1992 = Clinton (5.6)

** still counting

[Jezza]

Looking at why Trump won the popular vote this time round, I can identify three distinct reasons.

1. Increased his share of the Latino vote, particularly among Latino men (which he won 55-43 according to exit polling). Trump won 46% of the overall Latino vote which is a struck contrast to previous election cycles where the GOP candidate had only won 31% (in 2008), 27% (in 2012), 29% (in 2016) and 33% (in 2020).

2. Increased support among young people, especially young men.

3. Increased support among Catholics, who have been traditionally Democrat voters. He won 58% of all Catholic voters, an increase from 2020 where he won 47% of their vote.

He achieved this while retaining his traditional core support of white working class voters.

Once the final results are in, I'll post the full state-by-state results and the CNN exit poll numbers and how they contrasted to previous elections.

[stui magpie]

Well done Jezza,

@David you referred to the Democrats as a "Centre-Left" party. They aren't, they're a centre right party, just a little less right than the Republicans.

As the "slightly less right" party, they have become the home to the progressives. Over the last 10 years or so, the progressives haven't actually changed the party, but managed by weight of numbers to tack more progressive issues into the party agenda. The problem with that is that the progressives, typically inner city educated types, have zero interest in the rural blue collar types who used to be the Democrat heartland. Hence those people feel disenfranchised and turned to Trump who at least said that he cared about them.

Making the Trans stuff part of their election strategy was just stupid. What they should have done is play that topic low key, then, if elected, make the changes they wanted to make really early in the first term. The Trans people and their friends and families won't forget but, after any initial uproar, everyone else who it doesn't effect quickly will forget about it as long as they then actually turned their attention to those Blue Collar rural types and made a positive difference for them.

One thing the progressives have never been any good at is trying to win over skeptics.

@Magpietothemax the Illegal Immigration stuff wasn't just Xenophobia. The US is an absolute melting pot of races, it wasn't just the white people who had issues with the illegal immigrants, but plenty of others too.
One example I read of a Philippino bloke at an exit poll. He said he was a legal immigrant, he works, he pays his taxes and is struggling with the cost of living, and these people come here illegally and get put up in Hotels and given food and "I'm paying for that?"

Your "working class" get mightily (and rightfully) pissed off if they're trying to do everything expected but get ignored when they're struggling and instead see money that could have been used to help them, wasted.

[Durka]

I wouldn't have voted for the Democrats, even though I now identify as trans.
Transparent.
My pronouns are "who" and "where".

[David]

Making the Trans stuff part of their election strategy was just stupid. What they should have done is play that topic low key, then, if elected, make the changes they wanted to make really early in the first term. The Trans people and their friends and families won't forget but, after any initial uproar, everyone else who it doesn't effect quickly will forget about it as long as they then actually turned their attention to those Blue Collar rural types and made a positive difference for them.

What you're suggesting is what they actually did – it was Trump who made trans issues a campaign focus, not Harris.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-pol ... rcna179370

Ads that mentioned Harris’ past support for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care treatments were repeatedly aired during NFL and college football games last month. The ads ended with the tagline: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

Harris largely avoided the issue on the trail and in interviews and it was notably absent from this year’s Democratic National Convention.

Asked if she believed that transgender Americans should have access to gender-affirming care in this country, Harris told NBC News’ Hallie Jackson, “That is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary.” Pressed further, she said, “I believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, period, and should not be vilified for who they are, and should not be bullied for who they are.”

Again, it's remarkable that so many people believe that the Democrats campaigned on trans rights when they were actually the ones trying to sidestep the issue. I don't know if they would have fared any better if they had placed it front and centre (say, in promising to protect the interests of LGBT minorities), but I think more broadly they would absolutely stand a better chance if they pursued a strong agenda and showed that they had the courage of their convictions rather than pursuing this small-target strategy favoured by parties of their ilk in recent years.

Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your diagnosis of their position on the political spectrum or the position of progressives within the party – I think that's all essentially correct. My guess is that they were primarily doomed by a) insisting that the economy was fine when most voters clearly felt otherwise; and b) Harris offering no separation from Biden or promising to do things differently in office when he was a historically unpopular president. I think the culture war stuff over trans issues is mostly a sideshow and viewed as such by most voters.

[What'sinaname]

Similarly it was the democrats who made abortion an issue, not Trump. Trump didn't run his campaign on abortion, and in fact was very quiet / silent about the issue. Yet most people think Trump ran an anti-abortion campaign.

The republicans seized on Harris saying the prisoners are entitled to funded conversion surgery. Add that stories of illegals being put up in hotels and having meals paid and the sqillions spent on Ukraine and, rightly or wrongly, many people felt the current administration was putting Americans second.

I would say it's a tough lesson for Harris, but we wont see her again. The dems are lining up a new brigade for 2028