Yeah but on the other side, the doomerism also present in the media could lead to defeatism. "Well, if Biden is going to lose, what's the point?" I've known people like that, too. I don't know if...
Yeah but on the other side, the doomerism also present in the media could lead to defeatism. "Well, if Biden is going to lose, what's the point?" I've known people like that, too.
I don't know if one's worse than the other, but I feel like I tend to see more defeatist articles than these "he's got this" articles.
I do think it's important for voters to not feel complacent on election day. Before then, maybe it's fine? There's no voting to do, and there's more to life than politics. For many Democrats,...
I do think it's important for voters to not feel complacent on election day. Before then, maybe it's fine? There's no voting to do, and there's more to life than politics. For many Democrats, ignoring the whole thing until November seems like a mentally healthy choice.
(Though, from another perspective, people who volunteer for campaigns might have more opportunities to do stuff. That's not something I know much about, though.)
While these articles do give me some hope, I'm terribly afraid of it being another 2016 incident. Where everything looks to be going for the Democrats and then there's a major upset, but then...
While these articles do give me some hope, I'm terribly afraid of it being another 2016 incident. Where everything looks to be going for the Democrats and then there's a major upset, but then again I might just be jaded after that. Apathetic voters not getting their perfect unicorn of a candidate scares me the most.
Personally, I freaked out when Trump won because I knew it would be an immediate attack on women's reproductive issues. At first my reaction felt overblown, I had just finished reading The Handmaid's Tale, but I was distraught that the "grab 'em" remark or mocking a disabled journalist wasn't enough to prevent Trump from being elected. To me those were huge red lines that were crossed, but such violations just made Trump fans all the more excites. Lo and behold my fears become true when Kavanaugh and Barrett were placed as justices and Roe was overturned. Now every backwards state is in a race to the bottom for how cruel they can be to women.
I blame voter apathy for why I can't find a decent OB in my red state. All the good practitioners moved to blue states to avoid the nightmare that unfolded in hyper pro-life states. There are millions of women in the same position as me, but might be pregnant and face even scarier possibilities. Reproductive rights activist were screaming of this reality happening in 2016 and that still wasn't enough to convince voters to vote for Hillary. It was worth it to prove a point versus preventing this destruction. I've lost some faith in the American populace due to that too.
I want to be optimistic that the fervor to restore abortion rights is enough to bring Biden another win, but I am prepared to have a plan if Trump returns. It's not just Reproductive Rights on the line here but minority, Trans, religious, and more. I sincerely believe democracy will die if Trump is reelected and I hope that's enough to convince so called moderate and independent voters.
Speaking to the 2016 election, I wonder how much of that outcome was born out of what appeared to be entitlement and indifference coming from the Hillary campaign, somewhat acting as if she had...
Speaking to the 2016 election, I wonder how much of that outcome was born out of what appeared to be entitlement and indifference coming from the Hillary campaign, somewhat acting as if she had already won. I’m glad that Biden has brought respect back to the nations highest office with his ‘restraint’, for lack of a better word.
Could you please elaborate on why you think Hillary came off as entitled, but Biden displays restraints? While I do agree that there were some faults in her campaign, she was a highly qualified...
Could you please elaborate on why you think Hillary came off as entitled, but Biden displays restraints?
While I do agree that there were some faults in her campaign, she was a highly qualified candidate in comparison to Trump. She wasn't an idle First Lady due to her efforts with healthcare reform and international diplomacy. She was also a New York State Senator for 8 years, was Obama's Secretary of State, and was even a member of the impeachment inquiry staff during Watergate. Sure she didn't have the governorship or military experience of other presidents, but she had incredible foreign policy experience and understood the workings of DC.
I feel like this intensly negative interpretation of her was due to years of the media machine creating such an image. Was this entitlement a misunderstanding of the strengths of her own background due to literally going against an absolute buffoon who made cruel statements? I didn't think she was the best candidate, but I knew she was the best at the moment to keep my rights and other people's rights are not attacked. Not voting for her because you don't like certain aspects about her personality (that are small potatoes in comparison to Trump's) as a protest and allowing someone like Trump to be elected just screams of privilege. It fails to recognize the greater reverberations that can happen due to a tyrant being put in such a position of power.
Not who you asked, but I have some thoughts. Most people hate to be talked down to. I got the impression at the time that H Clinton was so busy proving that she was intelligent and qualified that...
Not who you asked, but I have some thoughts.
Most people hate to be talked down to. I got the impression at the time that H Clinton was so busy proving that she was intelligent and qualified that she forgot to ask what voters wanted and listen and make related promises while she campaigned. Running for president is different than applying to be executive staff like a cabinet member. W Bush beat Kerry and Reagan beat Carter and in both cases the smart candidate lost.
Also the electoral college is known and understood. Clinton could have done more personal campaigning in contested territory.
But sexist voters might still have rejected her. We don't know and can't.
At the time it was too harsh of a reminder that the party nominees get to be on the general election ballot not because they’re the best pick, but largely because they’ve been in the party...
At the time it was too harsh of a reminder that the party nominees get to be on the general election ballot not because they’re the best pick, but largely because they’ve been in the party schmoozing and trading deals for decades. Hillary won the primary on her own merits and was clearly a popular pick among voters. But I never liked that I could see the DNC pulling strings to help out Hillary where they could against Bernie.
But she might have been the best president of the 21st century had she won the general.
US President is one of those roles where having better qualifications actively hurts candidates, as it gives them a larger paper trail of the usual scandals that are inherent to politics. People...
US President is one of those roles where having better qualifications actively hurts candidates, as it gives them a larger paper trail of the usual scandals that are inherent to politics. People disliked Hillary because of what she (allegedly) did with her résumé, not because she would have been too green to handle the job.
"I'm with her" still hurts me with how bad it is. It plays into the tropes about her having an ego. She's just never been as likeable as her husband unfortunately (even going back to their...
"I'm with her" still hurts me with how bad it is. It plays into the tropes about her having an ego. She's just never been as likeable as her husband unfortunately (even going back to their Arkansas days).
No ? In 2016 Wikileaks released an e-mail from 2015 supposedly from the Clinton campaign (they never confirmed it was authentic, but also did not deny it) with a list of 80+ slogans they were...
Wasn’t her slogan “My Time”?
No ? In 2016 Wikileaks released an e-mail from 2015 supposedly from the Clinton campaign (they never confirmed it was authentic, but also did not deny it) with a list of 80+ slogans they were supposedly testing/considering, and some of them were pretty terrible. Among them was "It's your time", "It's your turn", "It's about you" - but addressed to her voters, not herself.
Her actual official slogan ended up being "Stronger Together"
There was a book published in 2016 as well which was titled "My Turn: Hillary Targets the Presidency" - but it was a critique of Clinton and made a point that she should not be elected. But this was a common critique against her, that she acts "entitled" and like she is owed the position - not that she outright said "its my turn", "my time" or whatever.
But doesn't every presidential candidate act like this ? Seems like there is a very thin line between "confidence" and "arrogance" that has to be balanced by a presidential candidate in the US, and the difference in perception probably has more to do with charisma than anything else. Trump has exhibited far more arrogance and entitlement than Clinton, but it has never really been held against him the same way. There is probably an element of sexism here as well - as a female candidate, Clinton's attempts to act confident and assertive were likely perceived negatively by some who might interpret the same actions by a more typical old male candidate more positively. She just didn't seem to have enough charisma to overcome this handicap in perception, at least in my opinion (for example Obama always projected utmost confidence bordering on arrogance, and was often perceived as condescending, talking down to people - yet he was also very charismatic and used this very effectively to counter the negative impact of such perceptions, to his opponents great frustration)
There was a certain "Clintonian Strategy" that started in earnest with her husband and her campaign had (by that point) perfected. Our shorthand for it was "Raise, Spend, Bury": You raise a lot of...
There was a certain "Clintonian Strategy" that started in earnest with her husband and her campaign had (by that point) perfected. Our shorthand for it was "Raise, Spend, Bury": You raise a lot of money early from donors, buy paid media, and drown out your opponent. No one did it better. In a way, she had every right to feel entitled: she outraised Trump by a huge margin. If the system worked the way it always had for the last 30 years, it was over before it ever began.
It sounds cheap to say it now and everyone is a genius in hindsight but I remember very specifically quoting Apollo Creed's trainer from Rocky to my friends and colleagues who worked on that campaign: "This guy is all wrong for us baby". In a way, Trump's campaign was very much like Rocky in that movie... he stepped into the ring with an entirely different plan than Apollo/Hillary: just stand there and absorb the punishment. Who cares if you you get buried in paid media if you can control the coverage with your antics? The show is 55 minutes of content and 5 minutes of ads. Let Hillary have the ads and focus on winning the content. You "win" by "going the distance with the champ", simple as that.
If the Trump/Rocky analogy holds, I hope this election goes worse for "Rocky" than it did in Rocky 2.
So, like Apollo Creed, to answer your question: Hillary was entitled/complacent but it's easy to understand how. By convention,they were both the "best that ever stepped into the ring".
My husband and I have been debating making that move, but we also live in the state we do due to family. We're still on that fence due to some personal circumstances, but if Trump is reelected we...
My husband and I have been debating making that move, but we also live in the state we do due to family. We're still on that fence due to some personal circumstances, but if Trump is reelected we are certainly jumping to a blue stronghold. I know I will also need a specialist in the future for another health condition and those folks just don't exist in this state. Nor do I trust our failing hospitals to properly perform that type of surgery. We also have one of the highest cancer mortality rates out of any state, so as I consider our future as we get older, I do realize we won't get the care we need here.
If we actually enter a dictatorship state I'll go so far as to leave the country. Thankfully I appear to qualify for a NZ resident visa which would be nice. Getting a job would be the main hurdle.
If we actually enter a dictatorship state I'll go so far as to leave the country. Thankfully I appear to qualify for a NZ resident visa which would be nice. Getting a job would be the main hurdle.
Been working on a bachelor’s myself to qualify for a visa and eventually residency in a country where I have some experience and connections. Just hope I can get that wrapped up in time, should...
Been working on a bachelor’s myself to qualify for a visa and eventually residency in a country where I have some experience and connections. Just hope I can get that wrapped up in time, should the option become necessary.
Which is why the DeepFake of Biden doing something pedo-creepy that will be released and amplified by Russian bots 2 days before the election is going to screw us all over.
Which is why the DeepFake of Biden doing something pedo-creepy that will be released and amplified by Russian bots 2 days before the election is going to screw us all over.
The truth about Trump is worse than things that we could make up, and his supporters love him for it. So I fear that you're correct, his supporters literally do not care about anything he does, he...
The truth about Trump is worse than things that we could make up, and his supporters love him for it. So I fear that you're correct, his supporters literally do not care about anything he does, he will never, ever lose them. He could issue an executive order to make guns illegal and his poll numbers wouldn't change.
Thankfully, he's pissed off enough of the inbetweeners that I think things will be okay.
They think that he's their means to direct influence over the government. I suppose to a degree this is true (granted, I don't think Trump was required for Roe to get overturned - and the policies...
They think that he's their means to direct influence over the government. I suppose to a degree this is true (granted, I don't think Trump was required for Roe to get overturned - and the policies he signed would have landed in front of any other Republican president). From where I'm sitting it looks like he's just terrorizing the government for fun. But his supporters think he's really pulling the strings to make them succeed long term.
I believe this is pretty much the case. Even then, the eight or so months between now and the election are an eternity in political terms, and there is no telling what huge events may happen that...
I believe this is pretty much the case. Even then, the eight or so months between now and the election are an eternity in political terms, and there is no telling what huge events may happen that will significantly dominate public discourse. I want to remind people that the prevailing news story the week of Feb 9th in 2020 was Trump's acquittal in the Senate in his first impeachment. How relevant was that by November?
No matter how many articles I read about Biden doing this or that, doing well or poorly, I just can't shake the notion that they are all ignoring the elephant in the room. I don't see how this...
No matter how many articles I read about Biden doing this or that, doing well or poorly, I just can't shake the notion that they are all ignoring the elephant in the room. I don't see how this election will be anything other than a referendum on abortion rights. I think barring a historical-level news story between now and November, something along the lines of 9/11 or COVID-19, the election will be framed by the repeal of Roe. It's an easy drum for the left to beat, Trump is as directly responsible for the repeal as any president could've been, and most Americans haven't gotten the chance to vote in a consequential election since the repeal happened.
Maybe this part is overly optimistic of me, but I'm willing to bet there are a lot of voters out there who aren't fans of Biden but will absolutely turn out to defend abortion rights. I mean, if abortion can win in Ohio and Kansas, surely it can get a couple percentage points in Wisconsin and Arizona.
It’d be foolish for the Democrats to not beat that drum, especially now that men and women in affected states have been living with the consequences of the repeal for a while now. lt has the...
It’d be foolish for the Democrats to not beat that drum, especially now that men and women in affected states have been living with the consequences of the repeal for a while now. lt has the potential to pull blue votes even in historically red areas.
at the end of the day it will come down primarily to the economy. If the election was today I'm pretty confident Biden would lose just because people on average feel worse than they did 4 years...
at the end of the day it will come down primarily to the economy. If the election was today I'm pretty confident Biden would lose just because people on average feel worse than they did 4 years ago even if this doesn't match reality.
however there's a long time to go before November. I think Bidens October surprise still be cannabis rescheduling which will definitely help a lot. and for all the problems we're facing, real wage growth is up across the board.... I'm just not sure it's enough considering how greedy corporations have been during the pandemic recovery.
Wages are up at every quartile: https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker (click on 'wage level' to see the wages by quartile) If you notice the first 2 quartiles (the poorer 50%) saw...
Wages might be growing strongly, and if you're lucky and bought a home before THAT went crazy, you're pretty happy. But if you're like most poorer Americans and you rent, you've lost a significant amount of your purchasing power to rent inflation, used cars are stubbornly more expensive now despite decreasing wholesale prices, all of the basic economic indicators are showing that people need more than just some amount of deflation in durable goods. This isn't even getting into how inflation just kinda sucks to deal with. Inflation and shrinkflation are just annoying. It's irritating that a container of ice cream is 1.5 qt instead of a half gallon. Even if the wages grow enough that it doesn't matter this is still a negative for people subconsciously because people hate change.
If people's rent starts coming down significantly in real terms this year I think he still stands a chance. But between that and his stance on Palestine I think Biden has sufficiently frustrated a large part of his supporters AND subconsciously made a lot of his 2020 voters feel worse off. Remember, just because the numbers say something doesn't mean that people will go along with it. They have to feel it too.
More so than mere resistance to change, I strongly believe that the vast majority of humanity uses just price economics as the basis for their instincts. Inflation is a rude reminder of the...
inflation is just annoying
More so than mere resistance to change, I strongly believe that the vast majority of humanity uses just price economics as the basis for their instincts. Inflation is a rude reminder of the nihilistic reality of “prices are whatever the market says they are.”
they have to feel it, too
Perhaps we’re using the wrong sets of numbers. That or, much as all politics is local, the national unemployment rate is junk: the numbers that matter are the un(der)employment rate among your close family and friends, which is highly regional. Further, if underemployment is counted in a nation where 80% of the populace views themself as above average, it’s no wonder everyone is pessimistic.
Home values are on the way down overall, but that market is sticky downward. People really don't want to sell if they can avoid it. If something happens that triggers panic selling or some other...
Home values are on the way down overall, but that market is sticky downward. People really don't want to sell if they can avoid it. If something happens that triggers panic selling or some other wave of forced sells then we'll see those prices slide much faster but for now people are just trying to hold their investment and wait until rates are low again so they can sell at an absurdly high price.
There's also the frustrating fact that decreasing home values also takes time to decrease rents. Same with new construction. I'm not sure a market system can handle these problems quickly, it'll take years.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any quick solutions that would make everyone happy. Falling home prices would be a boon to anyone looking to buy, and a bane to anyone that thinks their...
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any quick solutions that would make everyone happy.
Falling home prices would be a boon to anyone looking to buy, and a bane to anyone that thinks their home's value should appreciate forever. Unless housing becomes a depreciating asset in the west, I think we'll always have problems. (Especially in the Anglosphere as our NIMBY laws come from English colonial days)
I feel bad for people who bought at the peak, but unfortunately past performance is not an indicator of future success, right? If a home is an investment, investments carry risk. And if you're...
I feel bad for people who bought at the peak, but unfortunately past performance is not an indicator of future success, right? If a home is an investment, investments carry risk. And if you're going to use housing as a societal Ponzi scheme eventually its going to become so inflated that normal people can't live anywhere and that's when really bad things happen and I think generally speaking people don't want, like, large scale societal unrest.
I feel bad for individual people but housing deflation is clearly necessary for home ownership to once again be in reach for most of the middle class. There just isn't another way to do it, either you devalue the currency or you trigger a market crash. Low rates are just going to make everyone go insane again and send inflation high so I just don't see another way to make people feel better than to actually materially improve their economic standing by letting them pay less as a fraction of their income for housing by making the price of houses and rent go down.
For better or worse, most every study I've seen shows that upzoning decreases rents but does not drop single family home prices. I feel like that's as good of a way forward as any. Even if voters...
For better or worse, most every study I've seen shows that upzoning decreases rents but does not drop single family home prices. I feel like that's as good of a way forward as any. Even if voters might prefer a flat, I think they'd settle for a nice condo.
I'm mixing a few region's vocabulary. I was talking about the difference between a stand-alone single family home and an apartment with units that are owned by the residents. In-between the two...
I'm mixing a few region's vocabulary. I was talking about the difference between a stand-alone single family home and an apartment with units that are owned by the residents. In-between the two there are also townhomes or rowhouses or multiplexes (duplexes, triplexes, etc).
It's the Economist, so of course the economy is front and center in their thinking, but while all their points about economic performance impacting election cycles is certainly valid based on...
It's the Economist, so of course the economy is front and center in their thinking, but while all their points about economic performance impacting election cycles is certainly valid based on historical analysis I feel like we're very much in the definition of "past performance does not guarantee future results."
We're WAY off the reservation in terms of analysis on the last 50 or 75 years of voting patterns because a lot of the societal conditions are radically different. You can't compare bread and butter issues from the 80s or 90s to current conditions when we are pretty steadily moving down the list of civil war risk factors. Which to note I'm not saying is absolutely happening, but the immense societal instability that an literal attempted coupe and simmering, explicitly stoked hatred and borderline-to-explicit insurrection is going to have a massively distorting effect on all aspects of the political process.
Nothing is over until all the votes have been cast. Every presidential election season the Republican party opens its wallets and bombards us all with impressive and targeted advertising. It...
Nothing is over until all the votes have been cast. Every presidential election season the Republican party opens its wallets and bombards us all with impressive and targeted advertising. It noticeably changes the polling every single time.
I don’t know. Biden sounds pretty bad sometimes, and as crazy and nonsensical as Trump is, I think Trump would bully Biden in a debate and make him sound weak and senile. This article came out...
I don’t know. Biden sounds pretty bad sometimes, and as crazy and nonsensical as Trump is, I think Trump would bully Biden in a debate and make him sound weak and senile.
My recollection is last time they had a debate Trump got wrecked though? "Would you shut up man?" was a really good line, and many of my friends and family noticed how much more empathetic Biden...
My recollection is last time they had a debate Trump got wrecked though? "Would you shut up man?" was a really good line, and many of my friends and family noticed how much more empathetic Biden was when talking about the scourge of drug addiction.
So much of this perception is driven by the narrative pushed by right wing media that Biden is senile, which unfortunately gets reputation laundered by more reputable sources under the guise of...
So much of this perception is driven by the narrative pushed by right wing media that Biden is senile, which unfortunately gets reputation laundered by more reputable sources under the guise of stories framed as "the american people are concerned about biden's competence!". There is no reflection about how this perception is driven by the very same media stories.
If you actually watch extended clips, press conferences, and interviews with Biden it is clear that he still has his faculties. Yes, of course he slips up every now and then. Everyone does. Trump does it all the time and it gets 0 press coverage. He was saying Nikki Haley was responsible for capitol security on Jan 6th. He 'forgets' who he ran against in 2016 sometimes. Half of the things he says are incoherent mushes of words. All of this is to say, there is a narrative that Biden's faculties are declining but I really encourage you (the general "you" reading this, not you specifically @heh) to take the time to watch and listen to extended engagements with him. Not 20-30 second gifs highlighting his gaffes. And even then, compare to Trump and question why the former's gaffes are "a cause for concern" among the voters and not the latter's.
Doesn't Biden also have a stutter? Im gonna take a stab in the dark and say that a stutter probably becomes a little harder to manage as you get older.
Doesn't Biden also have a stutter? Im gonna take a stab in the dark and say that a stutter probably becomes a little harder to manage as you get older.
What's the purpose and point of a debate? From the voter perspective, it's to hear the plans, thoughts, and intentions of the candidates. From the candidate perspective, in theory, they should be...
What's the purpose and point of a debate? From the voter perspective, it's to hear the plans, thoughts, and intentions of the candidates. From the candidate perspective, in theory, they should be looking to articulate those plans and perspectives. To articulate their thought processes, their ability to react and respond to questions and proposals.
At least, that's what a good faith debate looks like. Where everyone actually is debating, actually does want to participate in an honest debate. To explore the issues, to hear and consider and respond to the points and proposals of their opponent(s). Who would also be similarly engaging in good faith, seeking to stay on the issues, with the matter at hand.
In the modern era, debates are just a performance. Candidates at the federal level study for weeks, memorizing answers, investigating attack vectors and how to defend against those of their opponents. Practicing how to project calm confidence, how to remain unflustered and 'leader-like'.
And with Trump involved, it's just a shouting match. Even without Trump, it's still a waste of time. No one actually debates. There's no thought, there's no response. There's just canned attacks, canned defenses. They simply want to repeat their "message" over and over.
This is why "the parties" argue about the debates. They don't want the debates. They consider it a waste of time. That's what marketing is for, which is campaign advertising. They film tv and radio, assemble written material for newspapers, magazines, and the internet, and blast it out. "Campaign stops" are just an excuse to deliver "the message".
A debate is your opponent's chance to make you look foolish, or off balance, or uncertain. They hate debates. They don't want surprise questions. They don't want to be caught off guard.
Maybe if some decorum and good faith intent comes back into politics a debate might be worth something. But not until the candidates actually debate, actually engage, rather than just perform while deflecting questions and lobbing softball bullshit back.
Anyone who wants to hold their breath until good faith comes back into modern politics is going to end up with chronic hypoxia. Politics is a show. And it's just cringe when the process tries to pretend it isn't, which is what modern debates are. Pretending.
I agree it's a show, but I still think it's important to see what kind of show they put on. Even if a candidate has great ideas, they absolutely must be able to project those ideas and get buy-in....
I agree it's a show, but I still think it's important to see what kind of show they put on. Even if a candidate has great ideas, they absolutely must be able to project those ideas and get buy-in. Elected leaders aren't dictators that just need to have the right ideas. I want to see how they talk and what they focus on.
Do they bring up issues important to me? Do they have an attack line that makes me uncomfortable? Does anything beneath the pomp and pageantry show through?
I kinda wish there were fewer articles like this. The last thing we need is voters feeling complacent this election.
If it’s any consolation:
I subscribe to The Economist in print and they’ve run numerous stories on how Biden appears doomed, it’s made the cover more than once.
I'm not reading The Economist, but I did just see this headline shared on a social media platform.
Yeah but on the other side, the doomerism also present in the media could lead to defeatism. "Well, if Biden is going to lose, what's the point?" I've known people like that, too.
I don't know if one's worse than the other, but I feel like I tend to see more defeatist articles than these "he's got this" articles.
I do think it's important for voters to not feel complacent on election day. Before then, maybe it's fine? There's no voting to do, and there's more to life than politics. For many Democrats, ignoring the whole thing until November seems like a mentally healthy choice.
(Though, from another perspective, people who volunteer for campaigns might have more opportunities to do stuff. That's not something I know much about, though.)
While these articles do give me some hope, I'm terribly afraid of it being another 2016 incident. Where everything looks to be going for the Democrats and then there's a major upset, but then again I might just be jaded after that. Apathetic voters not getting their perfect unicorn of a candidate scares me the most.
Personally, I freaked out when Trump won because I knew it would be an immediate attack on women's reproductive issues. At first my reaction felt overblown, I had just finished reading The Handmaid's Tale, but I was distraught that the "grab 'em" remark or mocking a disabled journalist wasn't enough to prevent Trump from being elected. To me those were huge red lines that were crossed, but such violations just made Trump fans all the more excites. Lo and behold my fears become true when Kavanaugh and Barrett were placed as justices and Roe was overturned. Now every backwards state is in a race to the bottom for how cruel they can be to women.
I blame voter apathy for why I can't find a decent OB in my red state. All the good practitioners moved to blue states to avoid the nightmare that unfolded in hyper pro-life states. There are millions of women in the same position as me, but might be pregnant and face even scarier possibilities. Reproductive rights activist were screaming of this reality happening in 2016 and that still wasn't enough to convince voters to vote for Hillary. It was worth it to prove a point versus preventing this destruction. I've lost some faith in the American populace due to that too.
I want to be optimistic that the fervor to restore abortion rights is enough to bring Biden another win, but I am prepared to have a plan if Trump returns. It's not just Reproductive Rights on the line here but minority, Trans, religious, and more. I sincerely believe democracy will die if Trump is reelected and I hope that's enough to convince so called moderate and independent voters.
Speaking to the 2016 election, I wonder how much of that outcome was born out of what appeared to be entitlement and indifference coming from the Hillary campaign, somewhat acting as if she had already won. I’m glad that Biden has brought respect back to the nations highest office with his ‘restraint’, for lack of a better word.
Could you please elaborate on why you think Hillary came off as entitled, but Biden displays restraints?
While I do agree that there were some faults in her campaign, she was a highly qualified candidate in comparison to Trump. She wasn't an idle First Lady due to her efforts with healthcare reform and international diplomacy. She was also a New York State Senator for 8 years, was Obama's Secretary of State, and was even a member of the impeachment inquiry staff during Watergate. Sure she didn't have the governorship or military experience of other presidents, but she had incredible foreign policy experience and understood the workings of DC.
I feel like this intensly negative interpretation of her was due to years of the media machine creating such an image. Was this entitlement a misunderstanding of the strengths of her own background due to literally going against an absolute buffoon who made cruel statements? I didn't think she was the best candidate, but I knew she was the best at the moment to keep my rights and other people's rights are not attacked. Not voting for her because you don't like certain aspects about her personality (that are small potatoes in comparison to Trump's) as a protest and allowing someone like Trump to be elected just screams of privilege. It fails to recognize the greater reverberations that can happen due to a tyrant being put in such a position of power.
Not who you asked, but I have some thoughts.
Most people hate to be talked down to. I got the impression at the time that H Clinton was so busy proving that she was intelligent and qualified that she forgot to ask what voters wanted and listen and make related promises while she campaigned. Running for president is different than applying to be executive staff like a cabinet member. W Bush beat Kerry and Reagan beat Carter and in both cases the smart candidate lost.
Also the electoral college is known and understood. Clinton could have done more personal campaigning in contested territory.
But sexist voters might still have rejected her. We don't know and can't.
At the time it was too harsh of a reminder that the party nominees get to be on the general election ballot not because they’re the best pick, but largely because they’ve been in the party schmoozing and trading deals for decades. Hillary won the primary on her own merits and was clearly a popular pick among voters. But I never liked that I could see the DNC pulling strings to help out Hillary where they could against Bernie.
But she might have been the best president of the 21st century had she won the general.
Possibly. There is a difference between intelligence and good judgement. Emotional intelligence matters in a president
US President is one of those roles where having better qualifications actively hurts candidates, as it gives them a larger paper trail of the usual scandals that are inherent to politics. People disliked Hillary because of what she (allegedly) did with her résumé, not because she would have been too green to handle the job.
Wasn’t her slogan “My Time”? That felt a little presumptive, at least.
The initial one was “Stronger Together”, but the one everyone remembers (which I believe was unofficial at first) was “I’m with her”.
"I'm with her" still hurts me with how bad it is. It plays into the tropes about her having an ego. She's just never been as likeable as her husband unfortunately (even going back to their Arkansas days).
No ? In 2016 Wikileaks released an e-mail from 2015 supposedly from the Clinton campaign (they never confirmed it was authentic, but also did not deny it) with a list of 80+ slogans they were supposedly testing/considering, and some of them were pretty terrible. Among them was "It's your time", "It's your turn", "It's about you" - but addressed to her voters, not herself.
Her actual official slogan ended up being "Stronger Together"
There was a book published in 2016 as well which was titled "My Turn: Hillary Targets the Presidency" - but it was a critique of Clinton and made a point that she should not be elected. But this was a common critique against her, that she acts "entitled" and like she is owed the position - not that she outright said "its my turn", "my time" or whatever.
But doesn't every presidential candidate act like this ? Seems like there is a very thin line between "confidence" and "arrogance" that has to be balanced by a presidential candidate in the US, and the difference in perception probably has more to do with charisma than anything else. Trump has exhibited far more arrogance and entitlement than Clinton, but it has never really been held against him the same way. There is probably an element of sexism here as well - as a female candidate, Clinton's attempts to act confident and assertive were likely perceived negatively by some who might interpret the same actions by a more typical old male candidate more positively. She just didn't seem to have enough charisma to overcome this handicap in perception, at least in my opinion (for example Obama always projected utmost confidence bordering on arrogance, and was often perceived as condescending, talking down to people - yet he was also very charismatic and used this very effectively to counter the negative impact of such perceptions, to his opponents great frustration)
Who knows what I was thinking of then? 🤷🏻♂️
There was a certain "Clintonian Strategy" that started in earnest with her husband and her campaign had (by that point) perfected. Our shorthand for it was "Raise, Spend, Bury": You raise a lot of money early from donors, buy paid media, and drown out your opponent. No one did it better. In a way, she had every right to feel entitled: she outraised Trump by a huge margin. If the system worked the way it always had for the last 30 years, it was over before it ever began.
It sounds cheap to say it now and everyone is a genius in hindsight but I remember very specifically quoting Apollo Creed's trainer from Rocky to my friends and colleagues who worked on that campaign: "This guy is all wrong for us baby". In a way, Trump's campaign was very much like Rocky in that movie... he stepped into the ring with an entirely different plan than Apollo/Hillary: just stand there and absorb the punishment. Who cares if you you get buried in paid media if you can control the coverage with your antics? The show is 55 minutes of content and 5 minutes of ads. Let Hillary have the ads and focus on winning the content. You "win" by "going the distance with the champ", simple as that.
If the Trump/Rocky analogy holds, I hope this election goes worse for "Rocky" than it did in Rocky 2.
So, like Apollo Creed, to answer your question: Hillary was entitled/complacent but it's easy to understand how. By convention,they were both the "best that ever stepped into the ring".
My husband and I have been debating making that move, but we also live in the state we do due to family. We're still on that fence due to some personal circumstances, but if Trump is reelected we are certainly jumping to a blue stronghold. I know I will also need a specialist in the future for another health condition and those folks just don't exist in this state. Nor do I trust our failing hospitals to properly perform that type of surgery. We also have one of the highest cancer mortality rates out of any state, so as I consider our future as we get older, I do realize we won't get the care we need here.
If we actually enter a dictatorship state I'll go so far as to leave the country. Thankfully I appear to qualify for a NZ resident visa which would be nice. Getting a job would be the main hurdle.
Been working on a bachelor’s myself to qualify for a visa and eventually residency in a country where I have some experience and connections. Just hope I can get that wrapped up in time, should the option become necessary.
TL;DR voters are "goldfishes" who tend to vote based on how they are feeling at the moment (instead of evaluating an incumbent over their whole term).
Which is why the DeepFake of Biden doing something pedo-creepy that will be released and amplified by Russian bots 2 days before the election is going to screw us all over.
It’s a shame, because somehow I believe deepfakes of Trump doing the same would only make his supporters vote for him harder.
The truth about Trump is worse than things that we could make up, and his supporters love him for it. So I fear that you're correct, his supporters literally do not care about anything he does, he will never, ever lose them. He could issue an executive order to make guns illegal and his poll numbers wouldn't change.
Thankfully, he's pissed off enough of the inbetweeners that I think things will be okay.
They think that he's their means to direct influence over the government. I suppose to a degree this is true (granted, I don't think Trump was required for Roe to get overturned - and the policies he signed would have landed in front of any other Republican president). From where I'm sitting it looks like he's just terrorizing the government for fun. But his supporters think he's really pulling the strings to make them succeed long term.
Perhaps those deepfakes could be used to motivate the apathetic to vote against Trump.
I'm struggling to think of things you could make up that would be worse than his actual behavior.
I believe this is pretty much the case. Even then, the eight or so months between now and the election are an eternity in political terms, and there is no telling what huge events may happen that will significantly dominate public discourse. I want to remind people that the prevailing news story the week of Feb 9th in 2020 was Trump's acquittal in the Senate in his first impeachment. How relevant was that by November?
No matter how many articles I read about Biden doing this or that, doing well or poorly, I just can't shake the notion that they are all ignoring the elephant in the room. I don't see how this election will be anything other than a referendum on abortion rights. I think barring a historical-level news story between now and November, something along the lines of 9/11 or COVID-19, the election will be framed by the repeal of Roe. It's an easy drum for the left to beat, Trump is as directly responsible for the repeal as any president could've been, and most Americans haven't gotten the chance to vote in a consequential election since the repeal happened.
Maybe this part is overly optimistic of me, but I'm willing to bet there are a lot of voters out there who aren't fans of Biden but will absolutely turn out to defend abortion rights. I mean, if abortion can win in Ohio and Kansas, surely it can get a couple percentage points in Wisconsin and Arizona.
It’d be foolish for the Democrats to not beat that drum, especially now that men and women in affected states have been living with the consequences of the repeal for a while now. lt has the potential to pull blue votes even in historically red areas.
at the end of the day it will come down primarily to the economy. If the election was today I'm pretty confident Biden would lose just because people on average feel worse than they did 4 years ago even if this doesn't match reality.
however there's a long time to go before November. I think Bidens October surprise still be cannabis rescheduling which will definitely help a lot. and for all the problems we're facing, real wage growth is up across the board.... I'm just not sure it's enough considering how greedy corporations have been during the pandemic recovery.
For the real wages being up, is that based on median or mean? If they’re both up, is the mean up by significantly more than the median?
Wages are up at every quartile: https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker (click on 'wage level' to see the wages by quartile)
If you notice the first 2 quartiles (the poorer 50%) saw stronger growth than the last two. Maxes at 7.5% in November 2022.
The problem is that if you look at rent CPI over the past 5 years it spiked as high as 9%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1g4T5
Wages might be growing strongly, and if you're lucky and bought a home before THAT went crazy, you're pretty happy. But if you're like most poorer Americans and you rent, you've lost a significant amount of your purchasing power to rent inflation, used cars are stubbornly more expensive now despite decreasing wholesale prices, all of the basic economic indicators are showing that people need more than just some amount of deflation in durable goods. This isn't even getting into how inflation just kinda sucks to deal with. Inflation and shrinkflation are just annoying. It's irritating that a container of ice cream is 1.5 qt instead of a half gallon. Even if the wages grow enough that it doesn't matter this is still a negative for people subconsciously because people hate change.
If people's rent starts coming down significantly in real terms this year I think he still stands a chance. But between that and his stance on Palestine I think Biden has sufficiently frustrated a large part of his supporters AND subconsciously made a lot of his 2020 voters feel worse off. Remember, just because the numbers say something doesn't mean that people will go along with it. They have to feel it too.
More so than mere resistance to change, I strongly believe that the vast majority of humanity uses just price economics as the basis for their instincts. Inflation is a rude reminder of the nihilistic reality of “prices are whatever the market says they are.”
Perhaps we’re using the wrong sets of numbers. That or, much as all politics is local, the national unemployment rate is junk: the numbers that matter are the un(der)employment rate among your close family and friends, which is highly regional. Further, if underemployment is counted in a nation where 80% of the populace views themself as above average, it’s no wonder everyone is pessimistic.
Rents are on their way back down, but the most unaffordable coastal cities are still cursed by NIMBYs.
Home values are on the way down overall, but that market is sticky downward. People really don't want to sell if they can avoid it. If something happens that triggers panic selling or some other wave of forced sells then we'll see those prices slide much faster but for now people are just trying to hold their investment and wait until rates are low again so they can sell at an absurdly high price.
There's also the frustrating fact that decreasing home values also takes time to decrease rents. Same with new construction. I'm not sure a market system can handle these problems quickly, it'll take years.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any quick solutions that would make everyone happy.
Falling home prices would be a boon to anyone looking to buy, and a bane to anyone that thinks their home's value should appreciate forever. Unless housing becomes a depreciating asset in the west, I think we'll always have problems. (Especially in the Anglosphere as our NIMBY laws come from English colonial days)
I feel bad for people who bought at the peak, but unfortunately past performance is not an indicator of future success, right? If a home is an investment, investments carry risk. And if you're going to use housing as a societal Ponzi scheme eventually its going to become so inflated that normal people can't live anywhere and that's when really bad things happen and I think generally speaking people don't want, like, large scale societal unrest.
I feel bad for individual people but housing deflation is clearly necessary for home ownership to once again be in reach for most of the middle class. There just isn't another way to do it, either you devalue the currency or you trigger a market crash. Low rates are just going to make everyone go insane again and send inflation high so I just don't see another way to make people feel better than to actually materially improve their economic standing by letting them pay less as a fraction of their income for housing by making the price of houses and rent go down.
For better or worse, most every study I've seen shows that upzoning decreases rents but does not drop single family home prices. I feel like that's as good of a way forward as any. Even if voters might prefer a flat, I think they'd settle for a nice condo.
English is not my primary language. What's the difference between a flat and a condo?
I'm mixing a few region's vocabulary. I was talking about the difference between a stand-alone single family home and an apartment with units that are owned by the residents. In-between the two there are also townhomes or rowhouses or multiplexes (duplexes, triplexes, etc).
Thanks!
It's the Economist, so of course the economy is front and center in their thinking, but while all their points about economic performance impacting election cycles is certainly valid based on historical analysis I feel like we're very much in the definition of "past performance does not guarantee future results."
We're WAY off the reservation in terms of analysis on the last 50 or 75 years of voting patterns because a lot of the societal conditions are radically different. You can't compare bread and butter issues from the 80s or 90s to current conditions when we are pretty steadily moving down the list of civil war risk factors. Which to note I'm not saying is absolutely happening, but the immense societal instability that an literal attempted coupe and simmering, explicitly stoked hatred and borderline-to-explicit insurrection is going to have a massively distorting effect on all aspects of the political process.
Nothing is over until all the votes have been cast. Every presidential election season the Republican party opens its wallets and bombards us all with impressive and targeted advertising. It noticeably changes the polling every single time.
The fact that campaign ads work to measurable effect is a top reason for my general dismissive attitude toward the automatic legitimacy of democracy.
I don’t know. Biden sounds pretty bad sometimes, and as crazy and nonsensical as Trump is, I think Trump would bully Biden in a debate and make him sound weak and senile.
This article came out today, it is worrying,
https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.7109811
if Biden has a “senior moment” at the wrong time it could be a disaster, a deciding factor for a lot of people who think Biden is slipping.
My recollection is last time they had a debate Trump got wrecked though? "Would you shut up man?" was a really good line, and many of my friends and family noticed how much more empathetic Biden was when talking about the scourge of drug addiction.
Yeah but that was four years ago. I hope you’re right but Biden’s decline seems to have steepened recently.
So much of this perception is driven by the narrative pushed by right wing media that Biden is senile, which unfortunately gets reputation laundered by more reputable sources under the guise of stories framed as "the american people are concerned about biden's competence!". There is no reflection about how this perception is driven by the very same media stories.
If you actually watch extended clips, press conferences, and interviews with Biden it is clear that he still has his faculties. Yes, of course he slips up every now and then. Everyone does. Trump does it all the time and it gets 0 press coverage. He was saying Nikki Haley was responsible for capitol security on Jan 6th. He 'forgets' who he ran against in 2016 sometimes. Half of the things he says are incoherent mushes of words. All of this is to say, there is a narrative that Biden's faculties are declining but I really encourage you (the general "you" reading this, not you specifically @heh) to take the time to watch and listen to extended engagements with him. Not 20-30 second gifs highlighting his gaffes. And even then, compare to Trump and question why the former's gaffes are "a cause for concern" among the voters and not the latter's.
Doesn't Biden also have a stutter? Im gonna take a stab in the dark and say that a stutter probably becomes a little harder to manage as you get older.
What's the purpose and point of a debate? From the voter perspective, it's to hear the plans, thoughts, and intentions of the candidates. From the candidate perspective, in theory, they should be looking to articulate those plans and perspectives. To articulate their thought processes, their ability to react and respond to questions and proposals.
At least, that's what a good faith debate looks like. Where everyone actually is debating, actually does want to participate in an honest debate. To explore the issues, to hear and consider and respond to the points and proposals of their opponent(s). Who would also be similarly engaging in good faith, seeking to stay on the issues, with the matter at hand.
In the modern era, debates are just a performance. Candidates at the federal level study for weeks, memorizing answers, investigating attack vectors and how to defend against those of their opponents. Practicing how to project calm confidence, how to remain unflustered and 'leader-like'.
And with Trump involved, it's just a shouting match. Even without Trump, it's still a waste of time. No one actually debates. There's no thought, there's no response. There's just canned attacks, canned defenses. They simply want to repeat their "message" over and over.
This is why "the parties" argue about the debates. They don't want the debates. They consider it a waste of time. That's what marketing is for, which is campaign advertising. They film tv and radio, assemble written material for newspapers, magazines, and the internet, and blast it out. "Campaign stops" are just an excuse to deliver "the message".
A debate is your opponent's chance to make you look foolish, or off balance, or uncertain. They hate debates. They don't want surprise questions. They don't want to be caught off guard.
Maybe if some decorum and good faith intent comes back into politics a debate might be worth something. But not until the candidates actually debate, actually engage, rather than just perform while deflecting questions and lobbing softball bullshit back.
Anyone who wants to hold their breath until good faith comes back into modern politics is going to end up with chronic hypoxia. Politics is a show. And it's just cringe when the process tries to pretend it isn't, which is what modern debates are. Pretending.
I agree it's a show, but I still think it's important to see what kind of show they put on. Even if a candidate has great ideas, they absolutely must be able to project those ideas and get buy-in. Elected leaders aren't dictators that just need to have the right ideas. I want to see how they talk and what they focus on.
Do they bring up issues important to me? Do they have an attack line that makes me uncomfortable? Does anything beneath the pomp and pageantry show through?
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/9kHk1