If I could give this 5 likes, I would. Thirty years working in politics has taught me exactly this: when a campaign goes really badly, there have been multiple failures and perhaps a few impossibilities -- and latching completely onto any one is misleading. When it's close, it could have been anything or nothing that you did. These things are complicated and a presidential is just more complicated.
Appreciate the sanity amidst all the sound and fury, signifying nothing (every so often that liberal education comes in handy!). Enjoy your leave, best wishes for your wife and new baby, and we want pictures!
A family member once voted for some yahoo representing the Constitutionalist Party. The yahoo was one of those constitutional sheriff people. She didn't support that belief, but she "believes in the Constitution," so that's why she picked his name. There's enough voters with this level of insight in any election to tip it one way or another.
Cogent analysis, and right on target. The real worth of the Democrats' postmortem is in the several causes they didn't consider. As you point out, inflation was only part of the problem, but certainly a major part. The total absence of the word "inflation" in the document is (I think) a sign of the increasing mental ossification of Democratic leadership.
It seems like the more meaningful question is, why was the election so close? Why don't we have a coalition that can win easily against a candidate who has never really been very popular?
I have asked before about what you generously call "low information" voters and what this finding implies about universal suffrage. It could imply that universal suffrage is a bad idea. That the founders were right in allowing only property (including slaves) owning, white males to vote as, unfortunately, was written in the Constitution. But I believe the Declaration of Independence gave the correct guidance: that "all men [and women] are created equal" and should control their destiny via the vote.
This is correct not just for the soft reasons of compassion, fairness and all that BUT because when all citizens feel the system is working for them, the society/culture is most productive. Allowing too much power/wealth in too few is simply unproductive.
Great analysis and important as the next presidential election looms.Kamala’s own autopsy in her book cannot be ignored, and your historical tipping point analysis reveals the one state that stood out: Pennsylvania.
Harris lost by so little - and the US could have been on an entirely different trajectory. We need to up the education ante and cancel Fox "News". Great piece on how precarious the path of a huge country can be,
Great piece. The takeaway for me is that Dems can’t afford to indulge their innate tendency to focus on idealistic campaigns focused on policy papers and the antiquated, ridiculous notion that voters will credit them for past accomplishments. Voters are largely uninformed, self-interested and extremely vulnerable to the barrage of propaganda and misinformation we are subjected to 24/7. Dems must be smarter about social media and messaging if they want to have any chance of implementing their idealistic agenda.
Thank you Elliott. This is close to what Zeynep Tufekci wrote in, I think 2016 in the New York Times. She pointed out that elections aren't like the weather. Forecasters have years and years of daily data to look at to find durable patterns. With national elections every four years, there just aren't a lot of data points to find clear patterns, so, as you note, people find the patterns they like, whether they're real or not. Thanks again.
If I could give this 5 likes, I would. Thirty years working in politics has taught me exactly this: when a campaign goes really badly, there have been multiple failures and perhaps a few impossibilities -- and latching completely onto any one is misleading. When it's close, it could have been anything or nothing that you did. These things are complicated and a presidential is just more complicated.
Appreciate the sanity amidst all the sound and fury, signifying nothing (every so often that liberal education comes in handy!). Enjoy your leave, best wishes for your wife and new baby, and we want pictures!
The outcome that needs an autopsy is why that many US citizens voted for that guy in the first place. Closeness was just a byproduct.
A family member once voted for some yahoo representing the Constitutionalist Party. The yahoo was one of those constitutional sheriff people. She didn't support that belief, but she "believes in the Constitution," so that's why she picked his name. There's enough voters with this level of insight in any election to tip it one way or another.
Cogent analysis, and right on target. The real worth of the Democrats' postmortem is in the several causes they didn't consider. As you point out, inflation was only part of the problem, but certainly a major part. The total absence of the word "inflation" in the document is (I think) a sign of the increasing mental ossification of Democratic leadership.
It seems like the more meaningful question is, why was the election so close? Why don't we have a coalition that can win easily against a candidate who has never really been very popular?
I have asked before about what you generously call "low information" voters and what this finding implies about universal suffrage. It could imply that universal suffrage is a bad idea. That the founders were right in allowing only property (including slaves) owning, white males to vote as, unfortunately, was written in the Constitution. But I believe the Declaration of Independence gave the correct guidance: that "all men [and women] are created equal" and should control their destiny via the vote.
This is correct not just for the soft reasons of compassion, fairness and all that BUT because when all citizens feel the system is working for them, the society/culture is most productive. Allowing too much power/wealth in too few is simply unproductive.
The lesson for the Democratic party and for all of us who care about democracy is that EVERYTHING matters.
Great analysis and important as the next presidential election looms.Kamala’s own autopsy in her book cannot be ignored, and your historical tipping point analysis reveals the one state that stood out: Pennsylvania.
Harris lost by so little - and the US could have been on an entirely different trajectory. We need to up the education ante and cancel Fox "News". Great piece on how precarious the path of a huge country can be,
There is a parallel fallacy - victory equals mandate for policy x, y, z ..... Unfortunately people like stories even when there is no story to tell.
(please fix title typo lean --> learn)
Great piece. The takeaway for me is that Dems can’t afford to indulge their innate tendency to focus on idealistic campaigns focused on policy papers and the antiquated, ridiculous notion that voters will credit them for past accomplishments. Voters are largely uninformed, self-interested and extremely vulnerable to the barrage of propaganda and misinformation we are subjected to 24/7. Dems must be smarter about social media and messaging if they want to have any chance of implementing their idealistic agenda.
A great piece. Should be required reading for every podcast bro.
Thank you Elliott. This is close to what Zeynep Tufekci wrote in, I think 2016 in the New York Times. She pointed out that elections aren't like the weather. Forecasters have years and years of daily data to look at to find durable patterns. With national elections every four years, there just aren't a lot of data points to find clear patterns, so, as you note, people find the patterns they like, whether they're real or not. Thanks again.
Due to global warming, however, the forecasters are having difficulty because the weather patterns are shifting.
Yup, the weather gets more like politics everyday. Whatever happened to "global warming"?