2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[crazy canuck]

So if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right".  You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have.  So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.

But if you're a commentator, or political scientist, or whatever - you can certainly criticize the voters themselves.  It's not hard to find fault with the voters of 1930s Germany after all - Hitler did a pretty good job of telling people exactly what he wanted to do, and then doing it once in power.

But for obvious reasons it's a terrifically bad idea for a politician to criticize the voters.  Or even be vaguely critical - think of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "makers and takers".

This sums it all up nicely 

[Josquius]

So if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right".  You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have.  So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.

But if you're a commentator, or political scientist, or whatever - you can certainly criticize the voters themselves.  It's not hard to find fault with the voters of 1930s Germany after all - Hitler did a pretty good job of telling people exactly what he wanted to do, and then doing it once in power.

But for obvious reasons it's a terrifically bad idea for a politician to criticize the voters.  Or even be vaguely critical - think of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "makers and takers".

If you're in power you can make the voters you want via policy.

And criticising voters...I'm not sure why pointing the finger at Clinton and the deplorable comment is apt when Trump does this to a far greater degree. He's always othering a portion of the electorate. Its part of how populism works.

It is fair to say that every election result in a liberal democracy is the fault of electorate.  Whether or not you think the result was good or bad.

So you just ignored what I said

[grumbler]

Voters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.

It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.

Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.

Can you expand on this?  I think that it is certainly debatable but could be convinced otherwise.

[Barrister]

Voters being responsible for whom they elect and Harris running a poor campaign can both be true at the same time.

It can be. I don't think she has run a poor campaign though.

Oh, yes she has and I don't even think it's debatable.

Can you expand on this?  I think that it is certainly debatable but could be convinced otherwise.

You didn't ask me of course... but I think she's run an okay campaign, but by no means amazing.  She was definitely handicapped by coming into the race mid-way through (and taking over from Biden who seems like a fine person, didn't mind him as Pres, but was running a bad campaign).

I give her full credit though for NOT running a Hillary-style campaign which revolved around her being the first female president.

[Admiral Yi]

Obviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?

I draw it right there.  Coercion.  I don't blame blacks under Jim Crow for not voting.

[Admiral Yi]

Obviously voters decide at the end, but at the same time, it's also obvious that on population level, voters can be influenced.  That's why we can blame both the smokers for taking up the deadly habit as well as the tobacco companies for effectively marketing it.  Individual decisions are always influenced by external factors to some extent.  For some people, these external factors don't tip the balance, but for others it does.

People still make the choice about which external factors influence them.

[Valmy]

You didn't ask me of course... but I think she's run an okay campaign, but by no means amazing.  She was definitely handicapped by coming into the race mid-way through (and taking over from Biden who seems like a fine person, didn't mind him as Pres, but was running a bad campaign).

I give her full credit though for NOT running a Hillary-style campaign which revolved around her being the first female president.

It is funny. I get that she came in "late" but it still seems like this Harris vs. Trump thing has gone on forever.

God I will be so glad this stress and nonsense will be over in a short time.

Of course if Kamala wins I guess we get months more of Donnie trying to become President anyway.

[crazy canuck]

So if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right".  You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have.  So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.

But if you're a commentator, or political scientist, or whatever - you can certainly criticize the voters themselves.  It's not hard to find fault with the voters of 1930s Germany after all - Hitler did a pretty good job of telling people exactly what he wanted to do, and then doing it once in power.

But for obvious reasons it's a terrifically bad idea for a politician to criticize the voters.  Or even be vaguely critical - think of Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "makers and takers".

If you're in power you can make the voters you want via policy.

And criticising voters...I'm not sure why pointing the finger at Clinton and the deplorable comment is apt when Trump does this to a far greater degree. He's always othering a portion of the electorate. Its part of how populism works.

It is fair to say that every election result in a liberal democracy is the fault of electorate.  Whether or not you think the result was good or bad.

So you just ignored what I said

No, I disagreed with what you said.

[Josquius]

I draw it right there.  Coercion.  I don't blame blacks under Jim Crow for not voting.

Where?
Literal gun to the head?
How about vague "show up to the polling booth and you might get beaten" or "if candidate x wins we will beat group y"- different between it being outright said and strongly implied?
Drawing a specific line is hard. It's not something where there really is a hard and fast rule (as much as the law has to dry and draw one)

No, I disagreed with what you said.

That's a pretty rubbish disagreement as it just read like ignoring and repeating a basic claim.
Why do you say everything is entirely down to individuals? Why doesnt education, social influence, etc... matter?

[Admiral Yi]

Where?
Literal gun to the head?
How about vague "show up to the polling booth and you might get beaten" or "if candidate x wins we will beat group y"- different between it being outright said and strongly implied?
Drawing a specific line is hard. It's not something where there really is a hard and fast rule (as much as the law has to dry and draw one)

As with any abstraction, there will be ambiguous edge cases.  That doesn't mean every decision in life is coerced.  The vast majority of decisions in life are uncoerced, hence the vast majority of voters are responsible for their own choice.

[Sheilbh]

So if you're a politician, or working in politics, you have to take as a matter of faith that "the voters are always right".  You have to appeal to the voters you have, not the voters you wish you have.  So on that level yes - if you run a losing campaign the fault is with you, not with the voters.

From a UK perspective I generally think that even if I would (or did) vote in a different way, that of the choices presented to them the voters either made the right or a very understandable call (my one big exception is 1970).

I can't apply that to the US at all, especially in recent years. There are people who shouldn't be in public life (and frankly some who shouldn't be at liberty in private life) achieving very great success. I think there is more continuity than rupture in Trump's success, but even so.

Having said that I'm broadly not in the blame voters camp. I think if you've been out there pounding the pavement and knocking on thousands of doors then you can take a bit of a "the people have spoken, the bastards" approach. If not then you're no more or less culpable than others.

[Barrister]

Obviously voters are responsible for how they vote. They ultimately were the ones that crossed the box.
But even in a theoretical of a literal gun to the head, put your mark here or else, this still holds true. Where is the line drawn here?

I draw it right there.  Coercion.  I don't blame blacks under Jim Crow for not voting.

I go back and forth on this.

So they just had an election in Georgia.  Lots of allegations of fraud by the Russian-aligned government.  We'll see what happens.

But looking elsewhere in former-USSR.  On the one hand you have Ukraine.  Twice they've had massive protests in favour of democratic legitimacy - in 2004 with the "Orange Revolution" and again in 2014 in the EuroMaidan / "Revolution of Dignity".  Certainly in 2014 protestors were being shot at.  But at the end of the day they walked away with a functioning democracy.

But next door you have Belarus.  In the last Presidential elections in 2020 there were again wide-spread allegations of fraud.  There were protests for months.  But in the end Lukashenko remains in power.

Do I fault the people of Belarus for not protesting more vigorously?  No.  It's a pretty rational decision to not want to get arrested / put into exile / killed.  But - they don't have a democracy.

Even going with the Jim Crow south - very logical for blacks not to try to vote.  I can't blame people for those choices.  But it was (amongst many other things) by blacks who did try to vote (or go to an integrated school, or sit at the front of the bus, or any of a number of other acts) who did bring an end to segregation.

[Admiral Yi]

I go back and forth on this.

So they just had an election in Georgia.  Lots of allegations of fraud by the Russian-aligned government.  We'll see what happens.

But looking elsewhere in former-USSR.  On the one hand you have Ukraine.  Twice they've had massive protests in favour of democratic legitimacy - in 2004 with the "Orange Revolution" and again in 2014 in the EuroMaidan / "Revolution of Dignity".  Certainly in 2014 protestors were being shot at.  But at the end of the day they walked away with a functioning democracy.

But next door you have Belarus.  In the last Presidential elections in 2020 there were again wide-spread allegations of fraud.  There were protests for months.  But in the end Lukashenko remains in power.

Do I fault the people of Belarus for not protesting more vigorously?  No.  It's a pretty rational decision to not want to get arrested / put into exile / killed.  But - they don't have a democracy.

Even going with the Jim Crow south - very logical for blacks not to try to vote.  I can't blame people for those choices.  But it was (amongst many other things) by blacks who did try to vote (or go to an integrated school, or sit at the front of the bus, or any of a number of other acts) who did bring an end to segregation.

These are all nice and reasonable things to say, but I don't get what they have to do with me.

[Admiral Yi]

Ballot drop off boxes burned in Oregon and Washington.

[Admiral Yi]

Philadelphia DA has filed suit to stop Musk's lottery;