2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[DGuller]

If the values were really rooted in stoicism then right wing grievance populism like Trump wouldn't be popular. Guys like McCain and Romney would still be running the Republican Party. But they aren't.

I think these ideas are just the kind of centrism that has been firmly rejected by both Republican and Democratic voters.

I get these ideas appeal to you and Yi, but I think they are political values from the 1990s and are currently losers all over the world.

I'm ambivalent about stoicism.  I just don't have sympathy for people who play down opportunities that this country offers.  That doesn't mean that we don't need a safety net to protect against bad luck, bad genes, or bad parents, but for fucks sake some people make it sound like US does nothing right, and this negativity by default is super toxic.

[Admiral Yi]

The farm bill is a clear area where the right has built a myth that simultaneously provides free money and doesn't undermine their identity as rugged individualists.

[DGuller]

On a separate subject, I just checked the election maps of NYC, precinct by precinct.  They even have a comparison between 2020 and 2024.  Boy, that was depressing.

If you walk around many neighborhoods in south Brooklyn, you'll still see many Ukrainian flags, almost 3 years into the war.  The immigrant community from USSR is definitely on the side of Ukraine, by all observable signs.  And yet despite Trump giving every indication that he'll abandon Ukraine, the south of Brooklyn goes Alabama red, more so than in 2020.

I get that geopolitics isn't at the top of many people's reasons for voting, but you'd think it would have some impact on the margins, that it would make some people break out of the spell of Trumpism.  Judging by some precincts going 90/10, I would say that didn't happen all that often. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes there are still opportunities left in America.

However it is also true that social mobility has declined.

The GOP has figured out how to exploit that decline without doing anything to fix it or even trying

The Democrats say they want to fix it but haven't come up with the formula to do it or convince voters they know how

[DGuller]

I'm reminded of one episode in one of my prior companies.  It was 2020, after the notorious events.  The mandate came down from senior leadership that all teams should openly and frankly discuss social justice issues as they affect us.

At the time we had two people in our group working out of China, a guy and a young woman.  The guy went all "I don't know nothing about nothing.  I have no opinion on anything.  People should get along and stop not getting along".    The young woman was a lot more outspoken, and sounded bemused by the whole exercise.  She went "In the US, if you're willing to work hard, you'll get what you want.  I don't get what you're all complaining about."

I don't have a point, but I thought it was funny how some people living in China had a more positive view of the US than what was fashionable in the US at the time.

[Zoupa]

This idea of going to the center never works unless you're Macron. Trump got 93 % of registered republicans in 2020. He got 93% in 2024, despite the Lincoln Project, Cheney, Kinzinger, and the 40+ previous members of Trump's administration coming out against him.

You have to increase turnout and you have to get independents. These are folks that are low information. You need simple messaging that actually reaches them.

[Admiral Yi]

Independents are usually thought to inhabit the center, liking some ideas from the left and some from the right.

It is conceivable that they are equally happy on either fringe.  Like the Berniebros who voted Trump.

[Tonitrus]

Something I have been thinking about for a while is the role played by stoicism.  The belief that when life deals you lemons, you suck it up and make the best of it.  Very related in my mind to rugged individualism.  No handouts please, I can handle this.

This relate very closely to the emerging consensus view that the optimal political strategy for Democrats is to target the white working class.  A handout conflicts with their self identity.

It also relates to identity politics.  If an oppressed minority bitches about their life sucking the response of the stoic is not going to be, yeah, my life sucks too, let's band together and fight The Man.  It's going to be that y'all are a bunch of whiners. Or in the profound words of P.J. O'Rourke, pull up your pants, put your hat on straight and get a job.

The most successful human rights campaigns were built on stoicism.  Gandhi said we will go to prison and bear it.  We will get our skulls cracked and bear it.  We will get gunned down at Amritsar and bear it.  Eventually you (the British) will see our stoicism and respond to it, because you are good people.  MLK followed the same course.  Our 14 year old daughters will put on their one good Sunday dress and be attacked by dogs and fire hoses and we will bear it.

The left needs to develop more stoicism.  Or at least treat stoicism with more respect.

That is more the modern "pop-stoicism", which only takes one part of it and chucks the rest.  Now that is fine when using philosophy...but it leaves out some of the other useful parts. 

[Valmy]

I don't think he meant the philosophy of Stoicism. Or at least I don't recall that part of Marcus Aurelius' meditations.

I think he meant stoic in the emotionless through hardship sense.

[Syt]

Some commentators on the weekend mentioned that Democrats failed to connect on a personal level - whatever you think of Trump, he connects emotionally to his electorate.

Secondly, lack of focus on the economic experience - the economy may be doing well, in actual terms, but people don't feel that it does. Needs better addressing than, "Your feelings are wrong, actually."

Third, no compelling narrative. Trump: "You're worse off because of Democrats and immigrants." Democrats could of course say, "Not the immigrants, it's billionaires and corporations," which is something that I see e.g. on my family's facebook pages and could be a useful angle. Problem is, though, that you then also have billionaire Mark Cuban as a surrogate and huge chunks of your campaign funds come from corporations and billionaires.

Finally, there's a general feeling (in many countries, I think) that things are getting worse and established politicians aren't able to change things or representing their constituency, so "outsiders" (real or perceived) are gaining votes "to shake things up". I'm torn on this. Modern politics and running of countries has become incredibly complex, so I do see a need for career politicians and a big legislative/executive apparatus to handle this. However, the link of communication between those politicians and voters seems broken; voters don't feel taken seriously, while politicians fail to explain what they do and why in a soundbite media landscape, leading to frustrations on both sides. Add the perception that politicians only do things to get voted in again (just how corporations are perceived to only look at their corporate results) instead of long term strategies. All of this is of course partly true, partly not, depending on each politician and voters, but that's the general perception, I feel.

[Barrister]

I wasn't dismissive. I knew they were working, I just thought that reflected badly on us. That we just hate and fear trans people so much.

I was glad the Democrats didn't stab the trans people in the back.

They might have found a better way to deal with it than they did but I am glad they didn't just panic and start attacking their own supporters. I don't give a damn how Unpopular those people are, they shouldn't be tossed to the wolves.

While there is some right-wing opposition to trans-people based on their very existence, I think most opposition to "trans" issues revolves around three points:

-youth medical transitions
-trans people in sports
-cost to government (aka the trans prisoners)

I think it is VERY possible to say you're opposed to all three, but that trans people still deserve respect and empathy.  I don't think being opposed to transwomen in female sports is "stabbing people in the back" or "throwing them to the wolves".

This is the "no enemies to the left" kind of politics, which is almost always wrong.  One can be very supportive of, lets say, black rights, without endorsing "defund the police".

As for immigration, that is an issue where the Democrats were politically unable to do the right thing: real immigration reform. And politically unable to do the wrong thing: just cave to the right, because the right wouldn't let them.

Either way they are bad on that issue.

I thought Harris and the Democrats did very well on immigration, precisely because they did move to the middle.  Harris said "I'll sign the bipartisan immigration bill" which included significant border enforcement.

[Barrister]

Something I have been thinking about for a while is the role played by stoicism.  The belief that when life deals you lemons, you suck it up and make the best of it.  Very related in my mind to rugged individualism.  No handouts please, I can handle this.

This relate very closely to the emerging consensus view that the optimal political strategy for Democrats is to target the white working class.  A handout conflicts with their self identity.

It also relates to identity politics.  If an oppressed minority bitches about their life sucking the response of the stoic is not going to be, yeah, my life sucks too, let's band together and fight The Man.  It's going to be that y'all are a bunch of whiners. Or in the profound words of P.J. O'Rourke, pull up your pants, put your hat on straight and get a job.

The most successful human rights campaigns were built on stoicism.  Gandhi said we will go to prison and bear it.  We will get our skulls cracked and bear it.  We will get gunned down at Amritsar and bear it.  Eventually you (the British) will see our stoicism and respond to it, because you are good people.  MLK followed the same course.  Our 14 year old daughters will put on their one good Sunday dress and be attacked by dogs and fire hoses and we will bear it.

The left needs to develop more stoicism.  Or at least treat stoicism with more respect.

So I want to believe in this virtue of stoicism, but I think most evidence points to the contrary.

I wish I could find the anecdote, but I remember reading a story of John McCain being at a town hall in I think his 2004 campaign.  Some voter was complaining about how his son couldn't get a job down at the local mill or factory or whatever.  McCain responded "Sir, I think both you and I were hoping for better for your son".

That's a great response, as far as I'm concerned.  But The story was being retold in 2008, and the McCain advisors were like "that sounds great, but it's actually a terrible response".

Because Trump's campaign had absolutely nothing to do with stoicism.  It was all about grievance.  And it worked - or worked well enough.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trumpism is about if you lose, you don't take it like a man, you whine and bitch and deny it happened like a 2-year-old throwing a tantrum.  It's about trolling on the internet and complaining how unfair the media is.  It's about sending massive stimulus checks but you make Treasury substitute your name on the check for the USA so you can brag about how you personally gave everyone free money instead of it coming from the taxpayer.  It's about subsidies for coal and oil and farm products. It's about handing out tax break to foreign companies to build factories and then walking away after the ribbon is cut and nothing gets built.

Trumpism is as Stoic as it is Christian

[DGuller]

Guys, please, stop with "the X campaign did not" responses, because they never address what is being discussed, the talk way past the point being made every time.  Even Jon Stewart did this, and it was fucking annoying, because he (or his script) seemed to be on the verge of saying something meaningful.

Just because Kamala says she owns a Glock and uses it as a sex toy every night doesn't suddenly take guns issue off the table.  Just because Trump says something populist doesn't meant he takes the "Republicans are crony capitalists" vibe off the table.

Candidates get stuck with the policies of their camp, unless they actively renounce them in a way that's difficult to walk back.  It's not illogical either, would Trump saying "I will get rid of government corruption during my second term" make all the arguments about who will be more corrupt irrelevant?

[Admiral Yi]

Trumpism is also about 50% of his voters having a negative opinion of him.