America

[Son of Mathonwy]

The dems aren’t talking the language of many of their traditional supporters. Trump has now nicked them.

They aren’t addressing the needs of those communities. Labour has much the same problem.

Yep, the Dems and Labour could get away with it with traditional Republicans or Tories, but with Trump and Farage and their post-truth, easy solution, anti-immigrant lines, they need to change their approach. But will they? Labour have a better chance* - some of them actually are working class(!) - but the Democrats look totally clueless. I can't see their sponsors allowing anyone vaguely left-wing to rise to the top.

* having said that, under Starmer, I think Labour will not rise to this particular challenge and will be wrong-footed by Farage for the next 5 years. Starmer is banking on Farage and the Tories to still be at each others' throats at the next election - I don't think he has a plan B.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The dems aren’t talking the language of many of their traditional supporters. Trump has now nicked them.

They aren’t addressing the needs of those communities. Labour has much the same problem.

What needs are they that you don't think they are addressing?

Health? Maybe it would be useful if someone negotiated a decrease in prescription costs and got 10s of millions of them healthcare.
Jobs? Maybe it would be useful if they got job growth every month of the presidency and had full employment with real wages growing more than inflation. Maybe it would be useful if they realised that people without college degrees were being needlessly kept out of jobs and had some sort of plan to make sure that the Federal government didn't do so. Maybe it would be useful if they invested a fucking fortune in manufacturing in the US and brought an entire industry to the country that has never been there in any size before?

Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Honestly I wish people would pay attention. There's a world of difference between not indulging their supposed grievances and prejudices and not doing anything for them. What exactly did Trump offer them? What exactly have the republicans ever offered them?

[Puja]

The dems aren’t talking the language of many of their traditional supporters. Trump has now nicked them.

They aren’t addressing the needs of those communities. Labour has much the same problem.

What needs are they that you don't think they are addressing?

Health? Maybe it would be useful if someone negotiated a decrease in prescription costs and got 10s of millions of them healthcare.
Jobs? Maybe it would be useful if they got job growth every month of the presidency and had full employment with real wages growing more than inflation. Maybe it would be useful if they realised that people without college degrees were being needlessly kept out of jobs and had some sort of plan to make sure that the Federal government didn't do so. Maybe it would be useful if they invested a fucking fortune in manufacturing in the US and brought an entire industry to the country that has never been there in any size before?

Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Honestly I wish people would pay attention. There's a world of difference between not indulging their supposed grievances and prejudices and not doing anything for them. What exactly did Trump offer them? What exactly have the republicans ever offered them?

And did they focus on that in the election, or did they have celebrity-endorsements and attacking his character?

Puja

[Sandydragon]

The dems aren’t talking the language of many of their traditional supporters. Trump has now nicked them.

They aren’t addressing the needs of those communities. Labour has much the same problem.

What needs are they that you don't think they are addressing?

Health? Maybe it would be useful if someone negotiated a decrease in prescription costs and got 10s of millions of them healthcare.
Jobs? Maybe it would be useful if they got job growth every month of the presidency and had full employment with real wages growing more than inflation. Maybe it would be useful if they realised that people without college degrees were being needlessly kept out of jobs and had some sort of plan to make sure that the Federal government didn't do so. Maybe it would be useful if they invested a fucking fortune in manufacturing in the US and brought an entire industry to the country that has never been there in any size before?

Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Honestly I wish people would pay attention. There's a world of difference between not indulging their supposed grievances and prejudices and not doing anything for them. What exactly did Trump offer them? What exactly have the republicans ever offered them?

‘Do you feel better off after four years of Biden?’

The answer was apparently no. The more evidence comes in the more it was perceived that Biden had been a failure and the Dems needed to be ousted.

The economy was seen to be weaker than it was under Trump, facts and figures seems to be irrelevant, people ‘felt’ worse off. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and failure to put Israel in check and stop the Russian invasion were signs of American weakness.

[Sandydragon]

The dems aren’t talking the language of many of their traditional supporters. Trump has now nicked them.

They aren’t addressing the needs of those communities. Labour has much the same problem.

What needs are they that you don't think they are addressing?

Health? Maybe it would be useful if someone negotiated a decrease in prescription costs and got 10s of millions of them healthcare.
Jobs? Maybe it would be useful if they got job growth every month of the presidency and had full employment with real wages growing more than inflation. Maybe it would be useful if they realised that people without college degrees were being needlessly kept out of jobs and had some sort of plan to make sure that the Federal government didn't do so. Maybe it would be useful if they invested a fucking fortune in manufacturing in the US and brought an entire industry to the country that has never been there in any size before?

Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Honestly I wish people would pay attention. There's a world of difference between not indulging their supposed grievances and prejudices and not doing anything for them. What exactly did Trump offer them? What exactly have the republicans ever offered them?

And did they focus on that in the election, or did they have celebrity-endorsements and attacking his character?

Puja

And Harris was seen very much as continuity Biden. She seemed very policy light, mostly I think due to her late nomination and lack of primary process, but also she didn’t want to stab Joe in the back.

[Stom]

The dems aren’t talking the language of many of their traditional supporters. Trump has now nicked them.

They aren’t addressing the needs of those communities. Labour has much the same problem.

What needs are they that you don't think they are addressing?

Health? Maybe it would be useful if someone negotiated a decrease in prescription costs and got 10s of millions of them healthcare.
Jobs? Maybe it would be useful if they got job growth every month of the presidency and had full employment with real wages growing more than inflation. Maybe it would be useful if they realised that people without college degrees were being needlessly kept out of jobs and had some sort of plan to make sure that the Federal government didn't do so. Maybe it would be useful if they invested a fucking fortune in manufacturing in the US and brought an entire industry to the country that has never been there in any size before?

Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Honestly I wish people would pay attention. There's a world of difference between not indulging their supposed grievances and prejudices and not doing anything for them. What exactly did Trump offer them? What exactly have the republicans ever offered them?

‘Do you feel better off after four years of Biden?’

The answer was apparently no. The more evidence comes in the more it was perceived that Biden had been a failure and the Dems needed to be ousted.

The economy was seen to be weaker than it was under Trump, facts and figures seems to be irrelevant, people ‘felt’ worse off. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and failure to put Israel in check and stop the Russian invasion were signs of American weakness.

Well, I see the mistake. I feel Eugene only addressed one part of your original post:

"They aren't addressing the needs..."

When they absolutely did do so.

But your point of not using the language...that's another question.

The problem is and was that they let the narrative get away from them. They were not in control of their version of the truth or what they wanted Americans to feel when they looked at their policies or candidates.

How easy would it have been to come out and talk about how hard it has been since Covid. About how fractured our communities feel. About how "we feel like we did so much, but it wasn't enough, and we want to do more. We want to listen and do better." And then to actually address grievences.

Talk about how politics can feel distant from people. They had an absolutely ideal opportunity because Harris got Tim Walz as VP pick, and that guy is incredible. The perfect all-American dem.

But did they use that after the first flurry of press? No, they did not. They let the narrative be wrest away.

I do think they addressed the issues of many of the people (not tech bros, they're beyond saving). But they didn't get that message accross.

Actually on that point...tech bros is a big problem. BIG problem. Because these people really don't care about anyone but themselves. They're the final form of libertarians and they're scary because they have access to information sources unlike the libertarians from before, and they're just as easily led astray by real sounding fake news.

[Sandydragon]

Stom,

Not quoting you as the post was getting too long. But in response to your listening point, do you think the democrats are listening to those people who were once loyal supports but have just voted Republican?

The cost of living seems to have been as big an issue in the US as it was here. Did the dems make any noise about significantly raising the minimum wage for example?

As much as I detest the man, Trump seems to have engaged with the working poor far better and even if his policies are utter nonsense, they seem to be trying to fix problems they are experiencing around the economy.

[Mikey Brown]

This feels quite relevant.



A lot of the things people want are there, but they failed to reach people with it in a really impactful way.

[Stom]

Stom,

Not quoting you as the post was getting too long. But in response to your listening point, do you think the democrats are listening to those people who were once loyal supports but have just voted Republican?

The cost of living seems to have been as big an issue in the US as it was here. Did the dems make any noise about significantly raising the minimum wage for example?

As much as I detest the man, Trump seems to have engaged with the working poor far better and even if his policies are utter nonsense, they seem to be trying to fix problems they are experiencing around the economy.

Yes, I think their policies at large would have led to better circumstances for the majority.

But that's my point: they completely failed to articulate this, to tap into the prevailing noise, and to take control of the narrative.

There was zero distancing from the Biden administration.

There was no apologizing for the fact people feel worse off, even if they can quite reasonably point every single negative figure back to Trump's presidency.

This was a comms failure, not a policy failure.

[Puja]

This was a comms failure, not a policy failure.

Nail -> Head.

Kamala needed to have the minerals to absolutely shove Biden under the bus. Might not be noble, might not be moral, might not be friendly, but she could've blamed anything and everything on him and claimed credit for anything else. Being correct is trumped by sounding correct (no pun intended).

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Stom,

Not quoting you as the post was getting too long. But in response to your listening point, do you think the democrats are listening to those people who were once loyal supports but have just voted Republican?

The cost of living seems to have been as big an issue in the US as it was here. Did the dems make any noise about significantly raising the minimum wage for example?

As much as I detest the man, Trump seems to have engaged with the working poor far better and even if his policies are utter nonsense, they seem to be trying to fix problems they are experiencing around the economy.

Yes, I think their policies at large would have led to better circumstances for the majority.

But that's my point: they completely failed to articulate this, to tap into the prevailing noise, and to take control of the narrative.

There was zero distancing from the Biden administration.

There was no apologizing for the fact people feel worse off, even if they can quite reasonably point every single negative figure back to Trump's presidency.

This was a comms failure, not a policy failure.

I’d largely agree with that. Especially when someone like Trump is very good at being the insurgent and attacking the incumbents records with some brutal one liners. It’s hard to defend detail when there’s that much noise.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The dems aren’t talking the language of many of their traditional supporters. Trump has now nicked them.

They aren’t addressing the needs of those communities. Labour has much the same problem.

What needs are they that you don't think they are addressing?

Health? Maybe it would be useful if someone negotiated a decrease in prescription costs and got 10s of millions of them healthcare.
Jobs? Maybe it would be useful if they got job growth every month of the presidency and had full employment with real wages growing more than inflation. Maybe it would be useful if they realised that people without college degrees were being needlessly kept out of jobs and had some sort of plan to make sure that the Federal government didn't do so. Maybe it would be useful if they invested a fucking fortune in manufacturing in the US and brought an entire industry to the country that has never been there in any size before?

Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Honestly I wish people would pay attention. There's a world of difference between not indulging their supposed grievances and prejudices and not doing anything for them. What exactly did Trump offer them? What exactly have the republicans ever offered them?

And did they focus on that in the election, or did they have celebrity-endorsements and attacking his character?

Puja

They spent a fuck ton of money on pushing ads to that effect. Funnily enough the billionaires in charge of the media weren't massively interested in the finer aspects of policy. Even the likes of cnn would report a fake controversy over a lack of policy without reporting that there was an 85 page economic policy and that the other guy was lying about tariffs.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I've come to the conclusion that the Dems have to just accept that, at least for them, there's no such thing as un-earned media. Instead of spending 1 billion dollars in a 6 month election period they need to spend ¼ billion every year on promoting their positive policies and tearing down the inaction of the republicans. The old adage "when you're explaining you're losing" only works if you want to prescribe glib solutions for everything, like Trump. If they want their electorate to behave like grown ups the Dems are going to have to be in constant explanation mode and put serious money behind it.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

This was a comms failure, not a policy failure.

Nail -> Head.

Kamala needed to have the minerals to absolutely shove Biden under the bus. Might not be noble, might not be moral, might not be friendly, but she could've blamed anything and everything on him and claimed credit for anything else. Being correct is trumped by sounding correct (no pun intended).

Puja

The problem with that is that she doesn't disagree with his policies. To a large extent the American people don't either, until they know they are his policies.

[morepork]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

[Mikey Brown]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

[J Dory]

If MP likes to flagellate himself while watching Taylor Swift music videos, well, it's none of our business. Here you go buddy....

[Puja]

I've come to the conclusion that the Dems have to just accept that, at least for them, there's no such thing as un-earned media. Instead of spending 1 billion dollars in a 6 month election period they need to spend ¼ billion every year on promoting their positive policies and tearing down the inaction of the republicans. The old adage "when you're explaining you're losing" only works if you want to prescribe glib solutions for everything, like Trump. If they want their electorate to behave like grown ups the Dems are going to have to be in constant explanation mode and put serious money behind it.

You're not wrong there. The Republicans get a constant drip-drip feed of their talking points every day of every year and it's going to take something incredible to counteract it.

This was a comms failure, not a policy failure.

Nail -> Head.

Kamala needed to have the minerals to absolutely shove Biden under the bus. Might not be noble, might not be moral, might not be friendly, but she could've blamed anything and everything on him and claimed credit for anything else. Being correct is trumped by sounding correct (no pun intended).

Puja

The problem with that is that she doesn't disagree with his policies. To a large extent the American people don't either, until they know they are his policies.

Those policies weren't helping large swathes of the electorate though. You referenced wages growing above inflation earlier, but a) that appears to be only just, if at all, b) there was a fairly significant gap between the peak of inflation and wages rising, meaning people already tight on budgets spent a lot of time cursing the economy and the President in charge of it, and c) not every income bracket had the same increase in wages, so lower income brackets saw 4% lower income rise than inflation over the last 4 years. When Trump leaned on, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago," it wasn't just vibes - there were a lot of people that were worse off.

I'm more than aware that not all of this was Biden's fault, but he was the man at the helm and by saying, "I wouldn't change anything," Kamala left herself wide open to being pinned as being "more of the same" when for a lot of people that meant worse.

She might not disagree with the policies. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't've been politic to put distance between her and them, rebranding the things she wanted to keep and evading Trump's attacks instead of trying to explain them away.

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I suspect it was the Cheneys that were the more damaging endorsement.

Puja

[Stom]

If MP likes to flagellate himself while watching Taylor Swift music videos, well, it's none of our business. Here you go buddy....

Ah, you reminded me of the great mashup...

[Sandydragon]

I've come to the conclusion that the Dems have to just accept that, at least for them, there's no such thing as un-earned media. Instead of spending 1 billion dollars in a 6 month election period they need to spend ¼ billion every year on promoting their positive policies and tearing down the inaction of the republicans. The old adage "when you're explaining you're losing" only works if you want to prescribe glib solutions for everything, like Trump. If they want their electorate to behave like grown ups the Dems are going to have to be in constant explanation mode and put serious money behind it.

You're not wrong there. The Republicans get a constant drip-drip feed of their talking points every day of every year and it's going to take something incredible to counteract it.

Nail -> Head.

Kamala needed to have the minerals to absolutely shove Biden under the bus. Might not be noble, might not be moral, might not be friendly, but she could've blamed anything and everything on him and claimed credit for anything else. Being correct is trumped by sounding correct (no pun intended).

Puja

The problem with that is that she doesn't disagree with his policies. To a large extent the American people don't either, until they know they are his policies.

Those policies weren't helping large swathes of the electorate though. You referenced wages growing above inflation earlier, but a) that appears to be only just, if at all, b) there was a fairly significant gap between the peak of inflation and wages rising, meaning people already tight on budgets spent a lot of time cursing the economy and the President in charge of it, and c) not every income bracket had the same increase in wages, so lower income brackets saw 4% lower income rise than inflation over the last 4 years. When Trump leaned on, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago," it wasn't just vibes - there were a lot of people that were worse off.

I'm more than aware that not all of this was Biden's fault, but he was the man at the helm and by saying, "I wouldn't change anything," Kamala left herself wide open to being pinned as being "more of the same" when for a lot of people that meant worse.

She might not disagree with the policies. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't've been politic to put distance between her and them, rebranding the things she wanted to keep and evading Trump's attacks instead of trying to explain them away.

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I suspect it was the Cheneys that were the more damaging endorsement.

Puja

Exactly. Given the global issues, its perfectly legitimate to argue that things could have been far worse under another administration. But it was Biden's presidency and people felt skint. That's a hard hurdle to overcome.

I dont buy the publicity thing. Obama cut through with the 'Yes we can' optimism message. Explaining things in detail is always a risky bet with the electorate who just arent that interested for much of the time. But better to push a message of 'we can fix this' rather than 'the other lot are weird/Nazis etc'. It might be correct to point out the authoritarianism of Trump and his supporters. But why should voeters vote for the Democrats? Thats the message that seemed to be lost in everything the Dems pushed out. Trump had plenty of pops at Harris, but he also provided simple messages on what he would do that appeals to many voters.
The weird guys thing cut through, it needed to be followed up with something positive but adly wasnt.

[Puja]

The weird guys thing cut through, it needed to be followed up with something positive but adly wasnt.

The weird thing was effective, because it drew attention to the Republicans being out of touch by talking about shit that nobody cared about like culture wars and abortion instead of talking about how they would fix the country. Unfortunately, following that, the Republicans started talking/lying about the economy and the Democrats promptly went on to look out of touch by talking about culture wars and abortion.

Puja

[morepork]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

Celebrity endorsement over policy dialogue. I have no beef with the Swiftess. People here, in the USandA, were very tired of celebrity endorsement at an early point in the campaign. My hangup is the lack of policy dialogue at the considerable expense of presenting celebrities. George Clooney given space in the New York Times can funck off also. How about spending that money on hammering the fact that wages have kept up with inflation and federal support for small business grants for US companies have been fought for over the last four years? The "rally" is sacrosanct, apparently.

[Mikey Brown]

Thank god for that Taylor Swift endorsement. Way to read the room.

I really don't understand your hangup about her.

Celebrity endorsement over policy dialogue. I have no beef with the Swiftess. People here, in the USandA, were very tired of celebrity endorsement at an early point in the campaign. My hangup is the lack of policy dialogue at the considerable expense of presenting celebrities. George Clooney given space in the New York Times can funck off also. How about spending that money on hammering the fact that wages have kept up with inflation and federal support for small business grants for US companies have been fought for over the last four years? The "rally" is sacrosanct, apparently.

Fair enough. I wasn't aware Taylor Swift had done anything more than (eventually) put out a tweet in support, or of any other celebrity involvements really. Though I was under the impression George Clooney was actually pretty well informed as celebrities go. His wife certainly seems like a real one.

I think the reality is people who actually care about details will seek them out, it's reaching everyone else that's the problem. Smart policy is obviously key but mobilising your potential supporters (especially a group as abnormally huge and disconnected from politics as Taylor Swift's fans) means grabbing people's attention. The Dems were running against a reality TV star with Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock at his side. The whole thing is a circus.

[Zhivago]

Trump won because his message is ultimately an optimistic one. Who wouldn't want their country to be great? You know I'd love Britain to be great. The details are important, sure, but who has time for the details in this hectic world.

Then you have the electorate of course. The average voter is a simple person. So things aren't great, right? There must be a reason for that. Someone's to blame. That's a simple message. As old as time. But, like it or not, immigration does cause problems that need adressing. At the very least it fragments society if people are not well integrated. And there has been high immigration in the US. If we look at the % of immigrant population in the USA it is close to levels seen in the late 19th century.



What I don't understand is why the left (which I would regard myself as being part of) ignore the impact of immigration on the average working man? And in fact have a tendency to tell the average voter to disbelieve his own experience.

Actually from a purely economic perspective, immigration is important. Reproductive rates have fallen massively, and immigration is the quickest fix. That's why politicians have encouraged/allowed it.

But we do need to address why reproductive rates have fallen. It is a prime signal that our society is broken. A healthy society wants to have children. And I mean this in the sense that if you consider why people don't have (many) kids, it will be heavily influenced by financial reasons. Like not having enough space/bedrooms for example, or being able to provide for the children.

The left seems not to care about this stuff. And it's a problem.

[Stom]

Trump won because his message is ultimately an optimistic one. Who wouldn't want their country to be great? You know I'd love Britain to be great. The details are important, sure, but who has time for the details in this hectic world.

Then you have the electorate of course. The average voter is a simple person. So things aren't great, right? There must be a reason for that. Someone's to blame. That's a simple message. As old as time. But, like it or not, immigration does cause problems that need adressing. At the very least it fragments society if people are not well integrated. And there has been high immigration in the US. If we look at the % of immigrant population in the USA it is close to levels seen in the late 19th century.



What I don't understand is why the left (which I would regard myself as being part of) ignore the impact of immigration on the average working man? And in fact have a tendency to tell the average voter to disbelieve his own experience.

Actually from a purely economic perspective, immigration is important. Reproductive rates have fallen massively, and immigration is the quickest fix. That's why politicians have encouraged/allowed it.

But we do need to address why reproductive rates have fallen. It is a prime signal that our society is broken. A healthy society wants to have children. And I mean this in the sense that if you consider why people don't have (many) kids, it will be heavily influenced by financial reasons. Like not having enough space/bedrooms for example, or being able to provide for the children.

The left seems not to care about this stuff. And it's a problem.

I know that I have a tendency to react viscerally to blanket "immigration is bad" comments, and then end up pushing a more extreme view the other way as a kind of counter to the extreme view I don't agree with. Even when I do understand the problem of immigration. I just don't feel like the societal problems that have come with immigration in the 2020s are BECAUSE of immigration. They're because of inequality, in my book.

If migrants are sold a vision of democracy, hope, freedom, and the ability to feed their family...they arrive, and are greeted with skyrocketing costs, rented apartments with very little controls on standards, and stagnant at best wages, not just for low skilled workers but for skilled workers outside of the tech bubble...what's going to happen to them? Are they going to integrate?

Or are they going to work hard and be isolated from wider society because their priorities are different from John Smith?

What if there actually was prosperity? What if there actually was the ability to better yourself?

Well then we'd really need to look at immigration policy as more and more people would want to get in. And the standard compared to home would likely be lower. So it would be beneficial to your own home economy to raise standards in the poorer countries so you could take the best of the best.

All it takes to communicate ALL OF THIS is saying:

Yes, we have an immigration problem and I want to fix it.

There's your soundbite. And then you explain it. Anyone interested can dive deep, anyone looking for a soundbite gets that.