scoobdog

I would think a really old man who just spent four years being angry and incoherent is going to take a week off.

Ok... that's a good one.

Can't help but think everyone would be smarter if they took etymology seriously.

I told you why your takes were bad. I’m not going to argue with you because you’re an idiot. Suffice it to say that if the Democrats where you live actually made it easier to live and work there, you wouldn’t be complaining. And it’s not a simple thing to do, which is why they’ve punted it for so long.

Things will get worse, but, at the state level, it will force Democrats to get innovative

Foolish as they are, I tend to agree that a lot of people are fed up with Democrats, and they probably should be. We’ve been expecting national level Democrats to pull us through while local Democrats have done nothing of note,

So, I’ve seen online the talk from people who invariably say something to the effect of “Hey Lefty, it’s time to put aside the hate and start listening to those you don’t agree with.” It’s always from the same quarter. We absolutely can have those discussions with people who are capable of understanding the issues. In years past we would lose elections, hate ourselves in the morning, then sleep the same for four years. I certainly don’t regret the 8 years of George W even though I didn’t agree with his policies and I didn’t vote for him. The reason is Republican lawmakers were competent, and you could at least expect them to have the best interest of Americans they disagree with when disaster struck. We don’t have that now. Just like in this thread where we’re dragging Distorted and MD for their terribly myopic and poorly formed takes. If Democrats do the hard work at the local and state level, and we can prove that our concept works, but these people will continue to point out flaws or manufacture issues to disprove it. You can’t have discussion with stupid people; they don’t have their own vision for America, just a vision that is easily sold to them, usually of a world they’ve seen before. There are stupid people on all sides, even liberal; it’s harder to share a vision with stupid people when it involves thing they’re unfamiliar with. That’s the real takeaway from this election.

Trumpism isn’t the issue for future elections if only because none of the problems he claims to have an answer for have solutions. Those groups will not swing back and the voters that stayed home won’t leave again without a tangible plan for moving forward. To put it in overly simplistic terms, Democrats need to be industry friendly compared to Republican “business” friendly.

I don’t disagree. The problem with chasing demographics is that it parcels the issue in ways that could have Democrats contradicting themselves. Ultimately it’s far less important that there are “gains” in certain demographics because, like Icky said, Trump got the same amount of votes as 2016 selling the same message. He’s not more liked than he was when he got pushed out of office; like then, he’s a stand in for abstract fears that a very specific subset of voters have about our evolving society. It certainly didn’t help that Kamala is a woman because, more than any specific misogyny, she represents otherness. Some people expect that a woman isn’t going to represent their interests, or a POC can’t understand what it’s like to have a certain way of life taken from them. I stand by my assertion that the persistent negativity around Biden’s otherwise sterling handling of the post COVID economic recovery was that these same people didn’t see a place for themselves in that recovery. All of this is somewhat infantile in nature, but it’s no less real and the consequences are dire. It also puts the Democrats in an extreme no-win situation. The reality is that there is no going back. We’re not going to be able to invest long term in petroleum because that industry has reached the end of its life. Manufacturing isn’t going to be revitalized with blue collar jobs because automation and robotic machinery have exceeded the abilities of even some specialized workers like electricians and welders. Where the next generation of workers fits into this is anyone’s guess, though one would expect that this is also an opportunity for up and coming entrepreneurs to stake a claim. Nonetheless, you’re right. Democrats are complacent because a lot of this is beyond their control, but there are important things that they can do. Rather than simply throwing money at new tech industries, blue state governments need build a comprehensive program for educating and integrating trades people, and funding it heavily. Local Dems can use all the implements of zoning law to reconfigure communities around these industries, creating localized spheres where people can work and live. . . . TL;DR - Democrats don’t have to change their values or messaging, they have to actually turn those values into communities and populate them with people that can thrive in them.

I’m not going to Icky’s level here, but he’s not entirely wrong either. The fact is, Trumps voters regardless of how they rationalized it, were voting for regression. Part of it is that the messaging wasn’t as clear as it could be, but ultimately it was predominantly about returning to a way of life that’s going extinct. We’re not losing those demographics over the long term because we don’t have a choice but to find a way forward and Trumpism has no such way. Realistcally, the GOP is going to the ones that make the greatest strides in changing once Trump dies in office, which means they’re going to have to go further than Democrats to retain the youth vote.

Democrats lost because we couldn’t get Nabs to join Gemini’s Rocket league.

In other words, people more likely to be on the wrong side of the labor market. It tracks with the general complaint about the economy shown in the polls.

Famously, his own hometown rabbi disavowed him.

Because Vance is spineless. He’s not pulling strings even if he’s not Trump’s puppet.

Oh God.

I know who you voted for. Why is Kamala a shit candidate when I can demonstrably use voting data to show that her gender is the only identifiable constant between her supporters and detractors?

That is not what the majority of the country said, unless you're insinuating women in general are shit candidates. Is that what you're saying?

Harris lost because she was a woman and a POC. I've yet to hear a valid explanation of how pessimism about the economy exists despite the fact that an aggressive rate increase was enacted and miraculously did not trigger a recession. Yes, the direct explanation for Harris' loss is tied to that same pessimism and the cost of living, but all of the vitals for the economy (inflation index / CPI, borrowing rates, unemployment) suggest that the economy is in fairly excellent shape. The cause of that pessimism is almost assuredly not actual market indicators, but it is in a way about futures. Also, all this talk about Kamala being hurt at the polls because of her days as a prosecutor is hogwash (lol). Concerns about her work in law enforcement are absolutely valid and they certainly contributed to her floundering in the initial primary. Four year later, Gascon in LA loses his bid for reelection because he's everything she wasn't - conscientious and compassionate about charging low level offenders, direct when charging major crimes, willing to revisit past unjust sentencing - and he gets pegged for the perception that crime is rampant. If anything, Kamala should have benefitted from her work as a prosecutor at a time when crime was down because of it. No, this too is a smokescreen. More importantly, while black men might have been afraid of Kamala, black women were most certainly not. Trump didn't magically gain women followers, he simply had a higher share of women because there were fewer men voting for Kamala. The overall numbers were starkly favorable to Kamala. Why, then, is Kamala favorable to one group of black people and not to another? The common denominator here is gender across all of the demographics (well, except Gen X for reasons that eerily reflect those previously defined by Boomers). It's because men, regardless of their demographic, are less likely to trust a woman to uphold their best interests than a man. That's what's so confounding to me - that we can't trust a woman to be a president in a supposedly open society, even when compared to a demented old fool.

No, Kenny, I've never seen a poling place.

Of course I don’t know everything. I would never pretend I do. I’m just open minded enough to appreciate being wrong.

No can have a real conversation with you because you’re stupid. I don’t meant that as an insult… you really have no idea how anything works. You don’t understand foreign politics. You don’t understand the basics of macroeconomics. You have only a tenuous grasp on most of the sciences. Talking to you is a lot like talking to a wall.

I don’t know. I can’t even pretend I’m a Millennial either.

Oh, no doubt. It's just that Putin doesn't have a lot to offer Trump right about now. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has the best opportunity to pocket Trump because they have the money to give Trump anything he wants and they can benefit exponentially. It's entirely possible they encourage Trump to feed more weapons into Ukraine for the sole purpose of keeping Russia on the sidelines of the oil market, though that is also not particularly likely.

Those god damn mother fucking Gen Xers.