Languish.org

So, what do you think will happen?

oooh....our poll is too close to call.

Quote from: Josephus on November 02, 2024, 06:01:20 AMoooh....our poll is too close to call.

10 to 5 to 2 doesn't seem that close

Texas is going blue, baby.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 02, 2024, 07:54:22 AM

Quote from: Josephus on November 02, 2024, 06:01:20 AMoooh....our poll is too close to call.

10 to 5 to 2 doesn't seem that close

It was even for a while.

No option for trump wins fair and square by the biggest landslide ever but "Harris" behaves like a typical losercrat and uses the powers of the deep state to seize power like the communist nazi she is?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 02, 2024, 07:54:22 AM

Quote from: Josephus on November 02, 2024, 06:01:20 AMoooh....our poll is too close to call.

10 to 5 to 2 doesn't seem that close

It was early on, I guess the mail-ins.

300+ EV win for Harris. 10 million+ vote difference.

Quote from: Zoupa on November 02, 2024, 04:20:31 PM300+ EV win for Harris. 10 million+ vote difference.

I hope so, brother.

She's up by 5 in Iowa. She's within 5 in freaking Kansas. It's not gonna be close. Keep the faith!

Surprising win for brain worms. All hail our brain worm overlords!

In case anyone is curious, in my southeastern Iowa district, which was decided by like 14 votes in the midterm, the Democrat is running abortion and insulin price cap commercials, and the Republican is running mostly defund the police ads.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the latest wave of good news for Harris is legitimate and representative.  I hope this isn't a false dawn before the ultimate kick in the nuts on Tuesday.

I think Harris. But I thought Clinton and Biden with far more confidence than was justified. So....:ph34r:

Bad sign today, I saw a car with a #Resist sticker on it.

While I would be happy to be proved wrong, I think Trump will win; though by a very narrow margin.  Judging by the past week, the stock market seems to think so as well.

You guys are getting wobbly. Harris will win.

The closing week has been interesting.

Smart people saying most of the polling has been herding and that it doesn't make sense in light of the  early voter compositions we've been seeing. An R pollster for Michigan admitted yesterday that their weighting was wrong in that they've underweighted women and voters in Detroit for this cycle and their last poll still showed Harris +2. The Selzer poll showing big movement in Iowa of all states, especially among women.

The vibes from the campaigns are instructive. The Harris campaign insists they are still the underdog but they also seem confident, and their ground operation is massive. Trump's campaign almost looks like it is on life support. Apparently they have almost zero ground game in some of the battleground states? And his rallies are a pale imitation of 8 years ago, both in attendance and in performance. He looks physically finished. There appears to be an enthusiasm gap.

I think Harris wins. I want to believe most of the polling is massively wrong and she wins a landslide, but I'll take a squeaky bum win.

From my observations in reality, albeit in a different country, I do think we've crossed a certain pivot point this past decade.
Go back to the early noughties and there was a big "Shy tory" factor. People wouldn't admit they were racist pieces of shit even if they were. I certainly remember reading Trump had this factor going for him a lot in 2016 which the pollsters just didn't see coming.
Though where we are now this shit has been so normalised that I do believe in many circles (e.g. working class white guys) its quite the opposite. You are far more expected to outwardly pretend to be a horrid misogynistic racist piece of shit... whilst in private and the polling booth things are quite different.
Basically a complete flip.

Lots of mentioning that for women this will be even more so. Women staying quiet and looking like they're just following their Trump loving husbands fully intending to tick the other box. Going out to do their daily chores and popping in to vote for Harris on the way home whilst their boyfriend doesn't vote. That sort of thing.

Quote from: FunkMonk on November 04, 2024, 09:59:34 AMThe closing week has been interesting.

Smart people saying most of the polling has been herding and that it doesn't make sense in light of the  early voter compositions we've been seeing. An R pollster for Michigan admitted yesterday that their weighting was wrong in that they've underweighted women and voters in Detroit for this cycle and their last poll still showed Harris +2. The Selzer poll showing big movement in Iowa of all states, especially among women.

The vibes from the campaigns are instructive. The Harris campaign insists they are still the underdog but they also seem confident, and their ground operation is massive. Trump's campaign almost looks like it is on life support. Apparently they have almost zero ground game in some of the battleground states? And his rallies are a pale imitation of 8 years ago, both in attendance and in performance. He looks physically finished. There appears to be an enthusiasm gap.

I think Harris wins. I want to believe most of the polling is massively wrong and she wins a landslide, but I'll take a squeaky bum win.

The fact that the GOP ground game was contracted out to Musk, combined with the fact he has no idea how to run a ground game but thinks he can, also gives me a lot of hope.

Quote from: FunkMonk on November 04, 2024, 09:59:34 AMThe closing week has been interesting.

Smart people saying most of the polling has been herding and that it doesn't make sense in light of the  early voter compositions we've been seeing. An R pollster for Michigan admitted yesterday that their weighting was wrong in that they've underweighted women and voters in Detroit for this cycle and their last poll still showed Harris +2. The Selzer poll showing big movement in Iowa of all states, especially among women.

The vibes from the campaigns are instructive. The Harris campaign insists they are still the underdog but they also seem confident, and their ground operation is massive. Trump's campaign almost looks like it is on life support. Apparently they have almost zero ground game in some of the battleground states? And his rallies are a pale imitation of 8 years ago, both in attendance and in performance. He looks physically finished. There appears to be an enthusiasm gap.

I think Harris wins. I want to believe most of the polling is massively wrong and she wins a landslide, but I'll take a squeaky bum win.

Pretty much what I've been seeing and thinking for the last few days as well. Reminds me of Corbyn in 2017, which the pollsters underestimated support for as well.

Unlike may of you I won't catastrophize a result I don't like, but I lean towards believing Harris will win. The poll herding concerns me and actually makes me suspect we are collectively overestimating Trump. I think this will be a huge win for Islamism in the world. Trump losing will be the biggest win Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran will have had in the last 30 years. There will be positives of a Harris Presidency, particularly in regards to domestic policy (just as there would have been negatives of a Trump one, albeit many exaggerated by the left.)

The non-response bias of Trump voters, while still a thing, appears to be less than 2020, but pollsters appear to be making far more forceful adjustments to over-represented Trump voters than they did in 2020, which just gives me some technical indicator the situation isn't what it superficially seems to be.

I also do give (limited) credence to the "vibes" argument, rumormongering suggests the reason the Trump campaign is giving so many signs of desperation is they have a lot of internal indicators showing he may not be doing as well as they were boasting just 2 weeks ago.

I will note though--there were similar campaign vibes in Trumpworld in November of 2016. It will still be a fundamentally close election, and some effect could be at play that could give either candidate a win, but if we're prognosticating, my guess is Harris wins.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 04, 2024, 12:39:15 PMUnlike may of you I won't catastrophize a result I don't like, but I lean towards believing Harris will win. The poll herding concerns me and actually makes me suspect we are collectively overestimating Trump. I think this will be a huge win for Islamism in the world. Trump losing will be the biggest win Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran will have had in the last 30 years. There will be positives of a Harris Presidency, particularly in regards to domestic policy (just as there would have been negatives of a Trump one, albeit many exaggerated by the left.)

In terms of catastrophizing the election results, which is normally something I really push back against (in particular here in Canada) - it sure seems to me that Trump has by far the largest risk of "catastrophe".

I'm just going to accept at face value your belief that Trump will be better for Israel than Harris, though I don't personally believe it.  But I see zero chance Harris is just going to abandon Israel (hell - she's married to a Jew!).  But okay, sure, maybe Trump takes a harder line on Islamic terrorism.  But no catastrophe from Harris.

But what am I worried about Trump doing?  Withdrawing from NATO.  Cutting off Ukraine aid.  Implementing tariffs at a rate unseen since Smoot-Hawley.  Pursuing nakedly political prosecutions of his enemies.

Post your maps!

I think this one is reasonable

https://x.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1853495625834541068?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbjpRimWIAAUGL2?format=jpg&name=large)

Don't need more.

(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/xRAev.png)

 :lol:

#Blexas

#Beto's Revenge

I mean, if we're going to dream, then to heck with it...
Untitled.png

Ohio. You are optimistic.

Quote from: Habbaku on November 04, 2024, 09:34:06 AMYou guys are getting wobbly. Harris will win.

I'm holding you personally responsible for this. :P

It's gonna be a Trump win.  Sadly.

May Heaven help us.

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 08:18:55 PMDon't need more.

(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/xRAev.png)

Obviously a total wipeout would be best. Both for petty and very real reasons.
But there is a certain beauty in the thought of Trump winning all the swing seats but then Texas unexpectedly turning blue.

Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2024, 10:58:58 AMIt's gonna be a Trump win.  Sadly.

May Heaven help us.

I don't know. Musk can't canvass offline and actually get people to the polling places.

Quote from: Josquius on November 05, 2024, 11:02:55 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2024, 08:18:55 PMDon't need more.

(https://www.270towin.com/map-images/xRAev.png)

Obviously a total wipeout would be best. Both for petty and very real reasons.
But there is a certain beauty in the thought of Trump winning all the swing seats but then Texas unexpectedly turning blue.

I joke a lot about it but the last time Texas voted Blue, California voted Red. It'll be quite a surprise.

I think Harris will have a clear voter majority; but the electoral college is worrisome.

538 has Harris winning 50 out of a hundred times and Trump 49 with no clear winner 1.

I'm not worried.  Trump has said he would be a dictator on day one.  American gun owners have been telling us that they need their weapons to keep tyranny at bay.  When a guy comes to power and out right says they will be a dictator all those gun owners will have no choice but to rise up and remove him from power.

Like the pollsters, we got this baldly wrong

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2024, 07:47:01 AMLike the pollsters, we got this baldly wrong

Might have been hope against better judgement too.
Cause clearly all the crap did escape Pandoras box

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 06, 2024, 07:57:21 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2024, 07:47:01 AMLike the pollsters, we got this baldly wrong

Might have been hope against better judgement too.
Cause clearly all the crap did escape Pandoras box

Agreed

Quote from: Savonarola on November 03, 2024, 04:18:16 PMBad sign today, I saw a car with a #Resist sticker on it.

While I would be happy to be proved wrong, I think Trump will win; though by a very narrow margin.  Judging by the past week, the stock market seems to think so as well.

10 points for Slytherin.  I'm even better than that guy who picked the last 13 (or whatever it was) presidential elections in a row.  (Although I thought the margin would have been much narrower, and that Trump could never win a popular vote.)

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 06, 2024, 07:47:01 AMLike the pollsters, we got this baldly wrong

The pollsters got it right this time no?
I do recall the day before they were saying it was near 50-50 to be either a clear Harris or clear Trump victory (albeit with slightly more for Harris).
Which is a bit of a cop out but... Yeah.
In the weeks before hand things were definitely going trumpwards.
 
It was the commentators saying the polls were off and over estimating Trump because x who were wrong.
Though yes. I definitely believed these people. The arguments made sense. And I had too much faith in there being enough sensible Americans, this being the moment for women to step forth , etc...

On polls - I've seen comments that Trump supporters are much more likely to refuse answering polls or give false answers. Any truth to that? Obviously something like that might be hard to quantify/account for?

It a handy excuse for pollsters getting it wrong again. But it is becoming clear that the weighting was off again.

They just didn't see the historic bedrock of Democratic support shifting to Trump.  Workers.

The Dems are going to have to reflect on how they lost that core support.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 08:03:16 AMIt a handy excuse for pollsters getting it wrong again. But it is becoming clear that the weighting was off again.

They just didn't see the historic bedrock of Democratic support shifting to Trump.  Workers.

The Dems are going to have to reflect on how they lost that core support.

The working class no longer sees their economic interests to be served by the Democrats, so they no longer feel they have to put up with the progressive (for DG: woke) stuff the party represents, can vote on cultural grounds.

Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 08:49:05 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 08:03:16 AMIt a handy excuse for pollsters getting it wrong again. But it is becoming clear that the weighting was off again.

They just didn't see the historic bedrock of Democratic support shifting to Trump.  Workers.

The Dems are going to have to reflect on how they lost that core support.

The working class no longer sees their economic interests to be served by the Democrats, so they no longer feel they have to put up with the progressive (for DG: woke) stuff the party represents, can vote on cultural grounds.

Which is just so bizarre as where is the evidence the Republicans actually care about then vs. "We will bring back manufacturing" empty promises?

Yeah, and from the outside looking in, Biden's industrial policy didn't look too bad, but these things take time to take root.

I guess the thing is Trump really pressed the "who can honestly say they are better off under Biden than they were me?", which I'd imagine definitely holds true for the majority. Because the west's economy is in a constant decline which Covid, Ukraine, and Trump really sped up.
Definitely true Biden did a good job with recovery. The American economy is the envy of the world.
But in the land of the blind the one eyed man...doesn't give a shit about the blind and is just pissed he only has one eye?

Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 08:49:05 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 08:03:16 AMIt a handy excuse for pollsters getting it wrong again. But it is becoming clear that the weighting was off again.

They just didn't see the historic bedrock of Democratic support shifting to Trump.  Workers.

The Dems are going to have to reflect on how they lost that core support.

The working class no longer sees their economic interests to be served by the Democrats, so they no longer feel they have to put up with the progressive (for DG: woke) stuff the party represents, can vote on cultural grounds.

There is no need to lean into something that you guys label as woke for the explanation.  That is as much as your axe To grind as it is, what you were projecting onto the working class.

I actually think, having been poor myself, that the working poor don't give two shits about your culture war.  They care a lot more about where they're going to get their next job. They're going to pay for the next meal and how they're going to put a roof over their family.

Adam talk a lot more about equality in terms of how we're going to make elite jobs equal for all who are highly educated. They have completely lost the thread that their reason for being is economic opportunity for the working class and to better their lives.

It's actually a conceit to think that the working poor have the economic ability to make the sort of trade-offs that you were talking about. Nobody who is poor is sitting there thinking, "I wonder if I should put up with a woke agenda a little bit longer".

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 10:02:03 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 08:49:05 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 08:03:16 AMIt a handy excuse for pollsters getting it wrong again. But it is becoming clear that the weighting was off again.

They just didn't see the historic bedrock of Democratic support shifting to Trump.  Workers.

The Dems are going to have to reflect on how they lost that core support.

The working class no longer sees their economic interests to be served by the Democrats, so they no longer feel they have to put up with the progressive (for DG: woke) stuff the party represents, can vote on cultural grounds.

There is no need to lean into something that you guys label as woke for the explanation.  That is as much as your axe To grind as it is, what you were projecting onto the working class.

I actually think, having been poor myself, that the working poor don't give two shits about your culture war.  They care a lot more about where they're going to get their next job. They're going to pay for the next meal and how they're going to put a roof over their family.

I disagree.
I'm working class, I'm still firmly in touch with many who remain pretty damn poor.

Worth considering is that many people believe in a zero sum world.
Somebody having less means there's more available for them to try and grab- uppity women, foreigners, queer folk, people with degrees, etc... are taking from the share that rightfully belongs to working class white guys.
In this twisted world view that folk like Trump are keen to cultivate culture war nonsense actively connects to improving their economic situation.

They've given up on the idea that the future might possibly become a better place. Adding more people just means the same amount has to stretch further, the pie can't grow.
So they grasp for a rose tinted past where everything was better and the pie was shared out more to their advantage.
Somebody else suffering means things get better for you.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 10:02:03 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 08:49:05 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 08:03:16 AMIt a handy excuse for pollsters getting it wrong again. But it is becoming clear that the weighting was off again.

They just didn't see the historic bedrock of Democratic support shifting to Trump.  Workers.

The Dems are going to have to reflect on how they lost that core support.

The working class no longer sees their economic interests to be served by the Democrats, so they no longer feel they have to put up with the progressive (for DG: woke) stuff the party represents, can vote on cultural grounds.

There is no need to lean into something that you guys label as woke for the explanation.  That is as much as your axe To grind as it is, what you were projecting onto the working class.

I actually think, having been poor myself, that the working poor don't give two shits about your culture war.  They care a lot more about where they're going to get their next job. They're going to pay for the next meal and how they're going to put a roof over their family.

Adam talk a lot more about equality in terms of how we're going to make elite jobs equal for all who are highly educated. They have completely lost the thread that their reason for being is economic opportunity for the working class and to better their lives.

It's actually a conceit to think that the working poor have the economic ability to make the sort of trade-offs that you were talking about. Nobody who is poor is sitting there thinking, "I wonder if I should put up with a woke agenda a little bit longer".

I obviously can't talk about how the US is on the ground but the entire reality of Hungary is one big evidence against what you are saying. A lot of poor people have been in desperate situation because of the mismanagement of the economy since Covid and before. They are still a solid fortress and source of Fidesz votes. Because of war in Ukraine, because of migrants, because of transgender rights, because of Brussels forcing all those on them with Orban as their first and last line of defense.

They have been convinced to care about nothing else but culture war.

Quote from: Josquius on November 07, 2024, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 10:02:03 AM

Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 08:49:05 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2024, 08:03:16 AMIt a handy excuse for pollsters getting it wrong again. But it is becoming clear that the weighting was off again.

They just didn't see the historic bedrock of Democratic support shifting to Trump.  Workers.

The Dems are going to have to reflect on how they lost that core support.

The working class no longer sees their economic interests to be served by the Democrats, so they no longer feel they have to put up with the progressive (for DG: woke) stuff the party represents, can vote on cultural grounds.

There is no need to lean into something that you guys label as woke for the explanation.  That is as much as your axe To grind as it is, what you were projecting onto the working class.

I actually think, having been poor myself, that the working poor don't give two shits about your culture war.  They care a lot more about where they're going to get their next job. They're going to pay for the next meal and how they're going to put a roof over their family.

I disagree.
I'm working class, I'm still firmly in touch with many who remain pretty damn poor.

:lol:

Quote from: Josquius on November 07, 2024, 10:37:26 AMI disagree.
I'm working class, I'm still firmly in touch with many who remain pretty damn poor.

No, you are not. University educated UX designers are not working class, especially not in the USA context.

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 07, 2024, 11:05:28 AM

Quote from: Josquius on November 07, 2024, 10:37:26 AMI disagree.
I'm working class, I'm still firmly in touch with many who remain pretty damn poor.

No, you are not. University educated UX designers are not working class, especially not in the USA context.

Just because you rise out of working class doesn't mean your friends and family all follow you out. You can still have regular contact with the working class.

As I understand it class is a big part of identity in Britain, so while GF is 100% right that by any economic indicator JOs is hardly working class (let's not forget he studied abroad, and his Swiss wife/girlfriend), that's how he grew up identifying as so it makes a certain amount of sense that's how he seems himself.

Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 11:31:37 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 07, 2024, 11:05:28 AM

Quote from: Josquius on November 07, 2024, 10:37:26 AMI disagree.
I'm working class, I'm still firmly in touch with many who remain pretty damn poor.

No, you are not. University educated UX designers are not working class, especially not in the USA context.

Just because you rise out of working class doesn't mean your friends and family all follow you out. You can still have regular contact with the working class.

True, I should have cropped his quote even more.  :blush:

Your class doesn't change the second you seem to have things going well in life. Its largely your upbringing which determines your class.
If my career and everything stays on track my kids won't be working class (though hopefully they can keep the values) but I very much remain so.
The debate would come in when this theoretical succesful future me is approaching retirement and has known longer in comfort than poverty. That person identifying as working class will be a bit odd.

Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2024, 11:34:34 AMAs I understand it class is a big part of identity in Britain, so while GF is 100% right that by any economic indicator JOs is hardly working class (let's not forget he studied abroad, and his Swiss wife/girlfriend), that's how he grew up identifying as so it makes a certain amount of sense that's how he seems himself.

Switzerland has poor people too you know. :p

Quote from: Josquius on November 07, 2024, 12:03:32 PMYour class doesn't change the second you seem to have things going well in life. Its largely your upbringing which determines your class.
If my career and everything stays on track my kids won't be working class (though hopefully they can keep the values) but I very much remain so.
The debate would come in when this theoretical succesful future me is approaching retirement and has known longer in comfort than poverty. That person identifying as working class will be a bit odd.

But that's a very British attitude.

North America it doesn't matter how you grew up - if you're doing well you're doing well.

Quote

Quote from: Barrister on November 07, 2024, 11:34:34 AMAs I understand it class is a big part of identity in Britain, so while GF is 100% right that by any economic indicator JOs is hardly working class (let's not forget he studied abroad, and his Swiss wife/girlfriend), that's how he grew up identifying as so it makes a certain amount of sense that's how he seems himself.

Switzerland has poor people too you know. :p

Could've fooled me - it's one of the most expensive places around. :p

Jeff Bezos: Middle Class Man^TM :P

Quote from: Tamas on November 07, 2024, 10:43:55 AMI obviously can't talk about how the US is on the ground but the entire reality of Hungary is one big evidence against what you are saying. A lot of poor people have been in desperate situation because of the mismanagement of the economy since Covid and before. They are still a solid fortress and source of Fidesz votes. Because of war in Ukraine, because of migrants, because of transgender rights, because of Brussels forcing all those on them with Orban as their first and last line of defense.

They have been convinced to care about nothing else but culture war.

That is a fair point, but isn't Hungary a separate case from the world's strongest liberal democratic country?

How long has Josq been affluent?  10 years?  20?  He's an out of touch white guy who wants to think of himself as poor because the poor are more moral than the rich.

Me, I'm solidly middle class.  While I live on social security and dwell in the cheapest apartment in town, 16 generations ago one of my ancestors owned a grocery store.  So, you know, I still keep to my roots.  That doesn't change the second you change your economic standing.

QuoteCould've fooled me - it's one of the most expensive places around. :p

Well yeah. A street cleaner from Canada is a king in Mali.
But Switzerland isn't a great country in which to be poor.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2024, 03:11:03 PMHow long has Josq been affluent?  10 years?  20?  He's an out of touch white guy who wants to think of himself as poor because the poor are more moral than the rich.

Me, I'm solidly middle class.  While I live on social security and dwell in the cheapest apartment in town, 16 generations ago one of my ancestors owned a grocery store.  So, you know, I still keep to my roots.  That doesn't change the second you change your economic standing.

:lol:
I don't want to think of myself as poor. I'm not poor. I'm working class. Different thing.

I've been in the higher tax bracket for 3 years on which I'm supporting 4 people.
 I live in a two bedroom house in a neighbourhood ranked in the top 5000 out of 33,000 in the country for deprivation - and it's the nice bit of this part of the city, some top 1000 areas a few minutes walk away.
I'm doing alright. I'm not struggling with bills. But I'm far from rich.

Most importantly through my childhood and early adult years. Ie the formative years which make you as a person. Where your attitudes are formed. I ranged from getting by to dirt poor, always overdrawn and seeing having a bag of crisps every so often as an extra special treat.
Research backs me up on this. There's a huge divide between those who grew up middle class and those who grew up working class even when they are able to go to the same unis and crack into the same careers.

But again this is the problem with this sort of trumpian attitude in working people. The crabs in bucket mentality. Anyone who manages to break out and crack on with life? They're not one of us anymore. They're to be hated. Efforts are to be made to knock them down.
Somebody else having something means you miss out.

Sorry, the working class are more moral than the affluent.  My mistake :rolleyes:

Yeah, this is a British thing.  I kinda thought you guys grew out of this rigid social class thing, but I guess not.  In American an affluent person does not typically think of themselves as still part of the trailer park.

Again, under that criteria Jeff Bezos is middle class.  Maybe even lower class since his daddy abandoned him and he lived rough until his step dad came along.

QuoteSorry, the working class are more moral than the affluent.  My mistake :rolleyes:

What does this even mean? What does this have to do with anything I said?

QuoteYeah, this is a British thing.  I kinda thought you guys grew out of this rigid social class thing, but I guess not.  In American an affluent person does not typically think of themselves as still part of the trailer park.

British and, you know, science.
Eg. https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/24/poorer-children-twice-as-likely-to-be-out-of-work-in-later-life

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/6-ways-growing-poor-impact-170042913.html

Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2024, 04:06:45 PMAgain, under that criteria Jeff Bezos is middle class.  Maybe even lower class since his daddy abandoned him and he lived rough until his step dad came along.

He's 60 and has been a big shot businessman for nearly 30 years - with the 10 before that looking like he quickly became pretty senior.
Then to consider he is stratospherically wealthy. The more you progress in that direction the stronger the tug away from your upbringing is.

If he'd had a normal working class childhood that would be long gone in the rear view by now. Though it seems he had a pretty well off family albeit with messed up relationships?

Yeah, I don't know what your article proves.  That people who are poor grow up to be poor?  That's true in the US as well.  Of course that's not YOU.  You worked overseas for God sakes.  Working class people only work overseas when they are in the military.

So in America, we have white guilt.  Do they have class guilt in Britain?

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2024, 04:04:14 PMYeah, this is a British thing.  I kinda thought you guys grew out of this rigid social class thing, but I guess not.  In American an affluent person does not typically think of themselves as still part of the trailer park.

Ish - I mentioned this to Tamas as I think there's something to the American critique. As I say according to polls of how people identify we are a more working class society now than we were in the twentieth century. Which is not true.

But in some ways I think it's just the British version of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Americans perhaps emphasise how far they've gone in doing that (and anyone else can too!), while Brits emphasis that it hasn't changed them (and it was them, uniquely, that did it!).

We do have politicians like, like Vance who try to emphasis their working class upbringing.  Which is what I think of when Josq talking about being working class.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2024, 04:49:00 PMYeah, I don't know what your article proves.  That people who are poor grow up to be poor?  That's true in the US as well.  Of course that's not YOU.  You worked overseas for God sakes.  Working class people only work overseas when they are in the military.

So in America, we have white guilt.  Do they have class guilt in Britain?

Read the articles again.
Even with the same educational outcomes, the same jobs, in theory all being the same as middle class peers, there's still noticeable differences in how people from working class backgrounds perform.
Your upbringing absolutely does impact on your adult life.

And sure. Working class people never work overseas. It's not like people wanting to do this is one of the big issues of our age is it?

Again you're playing the crabs in a bucket game. You have a degree don't you? You can go teach in Asia too if you can peel your arse out of your chair. It's not some super priveleged opportunity locked away for the rich.

Though there does tend to be a big lack of awareness about the opportunities available amongst working people - which brings me back to the core issue of how your upbringing defines you into adulthood.
It's not that middle class people are especially capable of getting a job abroad. It's that they're more likely to know what opportunities are out there and for various reasons have the mindset to do it.

(And lest you forget the reason I originally went to Japan was I couldn't afford to do an internship)

Quote from: Josquius on November 07, 2024, 05:05:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2024, 04:49:00 PMYeah, I don't know what your article proves.  That people who are poor grow up to be poor?  That's true in the US as well.  Of course that's not YOU.  You worked overseas for God sakes.  Working class people only work overseas when they are in the military.

So in America, we have white guilt.  Do they have class guilt in Britain?

Read the articles again.
Even with the same educational outcomes, the same jobs, in theory all being the same as middle class peers, there's still noticeable differences in how people from working class backgrounds perform.
Your upbringing absolutely does impact on your adult life.

No one disagrees that your upbringing impacts your adult life.

But what sounds very bizarre to North American ears is your insistence that you're "working class" just because that's how you grew up, when your finances very clearly aren't.

Please just accept this and move on.

Don't think it's a continental view either. Might be purely British (or Josquish :P )

I get what you're both saying - and I'm 90% with you.

But I also think a lot of what Jos and Brits mean when they're talking about class in that way is basically what Americans (and maybe Canadians?) call cultural capital.

Think Nixon or LBJ v the Kennedys, or (Bill) Clinton's pitch as a boy from Hope who feels your (economic) pain v Bush. In the UK I think all of that would be described in class terms. As is often the case in the US I think there's often a similar but more racial discourse about this - say the impact your upbringing has on someone who later reaches university and feels alienated, not welcome, unsure of how to behave etc - in the UK that's often class-based.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2024, 05:26:51 PMI get what you're both saying - and I'm 90% with you.

But I also think a lot of what Jos and Brits mean when they're talking about class in that way is basically what Americans (and maybe Canadians?) call cultural capital.

Think Nixon or LBJ v the Kennedys, or (Bill) Clinton's pitch as a boy from Hope who feels your (economic) pain v Bush. In the UK I think all of that would be described in class terms. As is often the case in the US I think there's often a similar but more racial discourse about this - say the impact your upbringing has on someone who later reaches university and feels alienated, not welcome, unsure of how to behave etc - in the UK that's often class-based.

But Josq says there a time limit (30 years of affluence at the upper limit) where one can no longer claim an original class. So at what point in time does one switch class?

We also have a term for newly affluent. "New Money", I'm sure you have it too. Upper class cash with lower class vulgarity :D . But I'd never classify them as lower or middle class.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2024, 05:26:51 PMI get what you're both saying - and I'm 90% with you.

But I also think a lot of what Jos and Brits mean when they're talking about class in that way is basically what Americans (and maybe Canadians?) call cultural capital.

Think Nixon or LBJ v the Kennedys, or (Bill) Clinton's pitch as a boy from Hope who feels your (economic) pain v Bush. In the UK I think all of that would be described in class terms. As is often the case in the US I think there's often a similar but more racial discourse about this - say the impact your upbringing has on someone who later reaches university and feels alienated, not welcome, unsure of how to behave etc - in the UK that's often class-based.

We would say, "comes from a working class background" not "he is working class"

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2024, 05:26:51 PMI get what you're both saying - and I'm 90% with you.

But I also think a lot of what Jos and Brits mean when they're talking about class in that way is basically what Americans (and maybe Canadians?) call cultural capital.

I'm not trying to tell Jos he's "wrong" for calling himself "working class" - but that he would be wrong in many parts of the world and it's only a particularly English sort of notion of class that he's using.

Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2024, 05:31:09 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2024, 05:26:51 PMI get what you're both saying - and I'm 90% with you.

But I also think a lot of what Jos and Brits mean when they're talking about class in that way is basically what Americans (and maybe Canadians?) call cultural capital.

Think Nixon or LBJ v the Kennedys, or (Bill) Clinton's pitch as a boy from Hope who feels your (economic) pain v Bush. In the UK I think all of that would be described in class terms. As is often the case in the US I think there's often a similar but more racial discourse about this - say the impact your upbringing has on someone who later reaches university and feels alienated, not welcome, unsure of how to behave etc - in the UK that's often class-based.

But Josq says there a time limit (30 years of affluence at the upper limit) where one can no longer claim an original class. So at what point in time does one switch class?

We also have a term for newly affluent. "New Money", I'm sure you have it too. Upper class cash with lower class vulgarity :D . But I'd never classify them as lower or middle class.

It's amusing.  I pointed out J.D. Vance, who on the campaign leaned heavily into his working class background, but is a venture capitalist.  So he would certainly be "working class" or even poor by Josq's reckoning.  In the US he simply a rich bastard in a suit.  You pointed out Jeff Bezos but we could also put in John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.

Like I've heard the stories of my parents growing up.  They grew up a couple block from each other in a very working class neighbourhood of Winnipeg - all within sight (and smell) of a meat-packing plant.  My maternal grandfather was crippled from polio and worked in a carpet warehouse.  My paternal grandfather was a drunk and frequently unemployed (plus my paternal grandmother died when my dad was young).

That deeply effected their upbringing, and in its own way, effected mine.  I'm very aware of inter-generational trauma.

But I'm a lawyer making a salary in the top tenth percentile.  If I told someone who truly was "working class" that I was working class I'd get a hearty scoff at best, a punch to the mouth at worst.

Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2024, 05:31:09 PMBut Josq says there a time limit (30 years of affluence at the upper limit) where one can no longer claim an original class. So at what point in time does one switch class?

Oh I'm with you on mainly seeing it as economic (although I think it maybe has something to do with your relationship to production...:ph34r:)

QuoteWe also have a term for newly affluent. "New Money", I'm sure you have it too. Upper class cash with lower class vulgarity :D . But I'd never classify them as lower or middle class.

Right but it's not talking about new money or vulgarity really - if anything the opposite. Because they're both kind of trying to be something they're not.

It's more like codeswitching - so you may earn more but you've not changed your culture, your identity, your accent, your worldview. Which in previous generations you would have changed - that was part of social mobility. Although I am dubious on how true this is now and I think it's often more another type of performance - and reflects how our society is now.

I'm not even sure how true it was in the past when there was an actual upper class that was difficult to break into - David Edgerton is good on this and how there wasn't that strong divide between the upper class and trade that we think. The classic historic example was the factory owner who would always be from trade no matter how rich and titled he became, but could by buying the country house, the estate and sending his son to private school move him up the ladder. But as I say David Edgerton very strongly undermines that stereotype.

QuoteBut I'm a lawyer making a salary in the top tenth percentile.  If I told someone who truly was "working class" that I was working class I'd get a hearty scoff at best, a punch to the mouth at worst.

I think you would in the UK too and it's 99% people uncomfortable with becoming middle class. Sometimes I think because it slides into regional identities but also I think because they don't want to feel a distance from where they came from (and, quite possibly other parts of their family) - but I think actual working class people would react in exactly the same way.

My father grew up in a rented apartment that was bulldozed to make room for a bridge where he use newspaper for toilet paper.

I grew up in a suburban house that still exists where I had regular toilet.

In Britain, what's my class?

I can kinda see Josq's point. If Lord Largebottom is destitute or Charles III needs to start selling off islands to creditors, they would still be members of the upper class aristocracy because of their birth. George McDirteater who was born to a long line of chamber pot cleaners, on the other hand, will always be "lower class" in the minds of the gentry, even if he has more wealth than the rest of the country combined.
At least that's what it looks like from my American perspective.  :bowler:

I think Shelf touched on something when he mentioned regionalism.  Would a first generation member of the white collar class from Yorkshire react the same as a person from Essex?  The guy from Yorkshire has an unemployed uncle who's drinking himself to death so still internalizes grievance.  Does Essex girl have the same thing?  I get the vague impression Thatcherism was very good for cockneys.

Quote from: hmbI can kinda see Josq's point. If Lord Largebottom is destitute or Charles III needs to start selling off islands to creditors, they would still be members of the upper class aristocracy because of their birth. George McDirteater who was born to a long line of chamber pot cleaners, on the other hand, will always be "lower class" in the minds of the gentry, even if he has more wealth than the rest of the country combined.
At least that's what it looks like from my American perspective.  :bowler:

A big part of it yes. Though that's more tradition than the key factor these days.
These days it'd be more in the words of our lord JC.

QuoteOh, rent a flat above a shop
And cut your hair and get a job
And smoke some fags and play some pool
Pretend you never went to school
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your dad he could stop it all, yeah

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what ever common people do
Never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view

If Lord Largebottom falls on hard times then he just has to call his old pal Charlie from school and he'll put him up in his Kensington flat- it'd be slumming it but one must get by.

Brand new money George (more likely Jenson or the like. George is a pretty posh name) puts it all on Tesla then the inevitable happens however....then he's fucked. He doesn't have this safety net.

Quote from: yiI think Shelf touched on something when he mentioned regionalism.  Would a first generation member of the white collar class from Yorkshire react the same as a person from Essex?  The guy from Yorkshire has an unemployed uncle who's drinking himself to death so still internalizes grievance.  Does Essex girl have the same thing?  I get the vague impression Thatcherism was very good for cockneys.

You still get wealthy people down there claiming to be working class. I get the impression its a big part of cockney identity- see Alan Sugar for instance, host of the British version of the apprentice. A pretty successful and wealthy businessman who still identifies as working class.

I think this is on average more of a male thing though, stereotypical Essex Girls absolutely do dream of selling out.
Perhaps part of the whole toxic gender roles thing where the boys are raised on the idea of working hard and making a good life whilst these girls are taught to just marry a footballer?

Quote from: HVC on November 07, 2024, 05:31:09 PMBut Josq says there a time limit (30 years of affluence at the upper limit) where one can no longer claim an original class. So at what point in time does one switch class?

We also have a term for newly affluent. "New Money", I'm sure you have it too. Upper class cash with lower class vulgarity :D . But I'd never classify them as lower or middle class.

Like most things there's no strict "rules". Its largely about self-identity.

With Bezos it was less about the 30 years as a random number plucked out of the air than that being half his life.
If you've lived half your life as a mil/billionaire and are claiming to be working class, that obviously looks like a very dubious claim indeed.
The more money you have and for longer the more your attitudes drift- I notice this myself as time goes by in stable employment the habits from when I had nothing are increasingly overcome (for positive and for negative).
Though money is such a small part of the equation. Loads of traditionally middle class jobs don't earn very good money at all whilst quite famously archetypical working class jobs such as plumbers can earn great money.
You've also got factors coming in like postcode, hobbies, the company you keep, and so on; see where Cameron and Sunak got their football supporting credentials questioned.

Quote from: SheilbhI think you would in the UK too and it's 99% people uncomfortable with becoming middle class. Sometimes I think because it slides into regional identities but also I think because they don't want to feel a distance from where they came from (and, quite possibly other parts of their family) - but I think actual working class people would react in exactly the same way.

It depends who these poor working class people are.
If they're fully bought into the modern Trumpy nonsense then absolutely. In the UK they really make this huge active effort to claim working class identity for themselves and anyone else is an imposter. The second somebody steps foot in university they're out of the club (unless they're a fascist, then thats fine). It helps to dismiss people who can provably think when one of their core tactics being to dismiss anyone who actually thinks as being metropolitan liberal elites.
More traditional working class people though would accept it with more of a "good on you managing to make it"

I think I have retained a lot of the values I  had before I had money, even though I have spent more than half my life with money.

What has dramatically changed is my level of comfort and security.  That is why I would never call myself working class.  Not because I want to have a different identity now, but because I know how much of a struggle it is not to have money.

It may be that what you are trying to say is just that.  It's difficult to forget the time in your life when you didn't have money?

I have no idea what class I am, I used to be very poor (two meals a day poor) and now I'm wll-off. But I do remember what it was like, which many/most people with this level of wealth have not even experienced. So, it is a bit curious, as I get better-off I have started moving further back to the left. Also it has become obvious that once one has a certain amount of money making more is very easy, and as you get more it gets even easier. The always well off like to think they somehow earned it all through merit, I now think it is largely luck.

Here is a case in point of the Dems needing to get back to their core constituents and stop being the party of the educated elite.

From the NYT

QuoteIt's not always fun to say I told you so.

For two years, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from a rural, red district in Washington State, has been criticizing her party for being too dismissive of working-class voters.

QuoteMs. Gluesenkamp Perez, 36, who owns an auto shop now run by her husband, has angered progressives for sometimes crossing party lines, like when she voted with Republicans to repeal President Biden's student loan forgiveness initiative. She argued that it didn't do much for her district, where most people don't have college degrees.

From her interview

QuoteThe fundamental mistake people make is condescension. A lot of elected officials get calloused to the ways that they're disrespecting people.

QuotePeople are putting their groceries on their credit card. No one is listening to anything else you say if you try to talk them out of their lived experiences with data points from some economists.

It's a lengthy interview and I highly recommend it.

Gifted link

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/08/us/politics/marie-gluesenkamp-perez-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YU4.Tsr4.ZwLWgr-36bjf&smid=url-share

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 08, 2024, 07:02:05 AMI have no idea what class I am, I used to be very poor (two meals a day poor) and now I'm wll-off. But I do remember what it was like, which many/most people with this level of wealth have not even experienced. So, it is a bit curious, as I get better-off I have started moving further back to the left. Also it has become obvious that once one has a certain amount of money making more is very easy, and as you get more it gets even easier. The always well off like to think they somehow earned it all through merit, I now think it is largely luck.

Amen brother  :)

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2024, 07:05:45 AMHere is a case in point of the Dems needing to get back to their core constituents and stop being the party of the educated elite.

From the NYT

QuoteIt's not always fun to say I told you so.

For two years, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from a rural, red district in Washington State, has been criticizing her party for being too dismissive of working-class voters.

QuoteMs. Gluesenkamp Perez, 36, who owns an auto shop now run by her husband, has angered progressives for sometimes crossing party lines, like when she voted with Republicans to repeal President Biden's student loan forgiveness initiative. She argued that it didn't do much for her district, where most people don't have college degrees.

From her interview

QuoteThe fundamental mistake people make is condescension. A lot of elected officials get calloused to the ways that they're disrespecting people.

QuotePeople are putting their groceries on their credit card. No one is listening to anything else you say if you try to talk them out of their lived experiences with data points from some economists.

It's a lengthy interview and I highly recommend it.

Gifted link

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/08/us/politics/marie-gluesenkamp-perez-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=1.YU4.Tsr4.ZwLWgr-36bjf&smid=url-share

Of course from those blurbs it sounds like she is worthy of contempt.

But also no evidence she was talked down to.

What do you find worthy of contempt?

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2024, 07:30:06 AMWhat do you find worthy of contempt?

"I'm a pig who only likes it when politicians are giving me enough free money, not other people."

So let's dig into that. Should the state be subsidizing people who are highly educated and will go on to earn high incomes, or those who are working class.

The Dems' policies spoke to the former and not the latter. That is the point.

It's worth noting that the Democrats did not control congress, so the extent to which they could do anything for anybody was almost nothing.

Quote from: frunk on November 08, 2024, 08:02:57 AMIt's worth noting that the Democrats did not control congress, so the extent to which they could do anything for anybody was almost nothing.

Absolutely. But nothing stopped them from saying what they wanted to do.  And what they said they wanted to do was privilege the educated elite even more than they already were.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2024, 08:11:53 AM

Quote from: frunk on November 08, 2024, 08:02:57 AMIt's worth noting that the Democrats did not control congress, so the extent to which they could do anything for anybody was almost nothing.

Absolutely. But nothing stopped them from saying what they wanted to do.  And what they said they wanted to do was privilege the educated elite even more than they already were.

I'd say Biden's semi-failed infrastructure bill was very blue-collar friendly.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2024, 08:11:53 AM

Quote from: frunk on November 08, 2024, 08:02:57 AMIt's worth noting that the Democrats did not control congress, so the extent to which they could do anything for anybody was almost nothing.

Absolutely. But nothing stopped them from saying what they wanted to do.  And what they said they wanted to do was privilege the educated elite even more than they already were.

Here's what Kamala Harris said she wanted to do. These are all the section headers in her policy document that make it abundantly clear that she wasn't just talking about helping the elite.

QuoteSECTION 1: Lower Costs for Middle-Class Families 
1. Cut Taxes for Working People 
2. Lower Food and Grocery Costs
3. Lower Health Care Costs
4. Lower Prescription Drug Costs
5. Lower Energy Costs
6. Lower Costs by Protecting Consumers From Fees and Fraud

SECTION 2: Build an Opportunity Economy to Help Americans Get Ahead and Build Wealth
7. Help Americans Buy a Home and Afford Rent
8. Invest in the Small Businesses That Drive Growth, Innovation, and Jobs
9. Invest in American Innovation and Industrial Strength Powered by American Workers
10. Create Security and Opportunity for Workers and Build a Care Economy
11. Strengthen Opportunity in Communities Across America
12. Protect Americans' Ability to Retire With Dignity
13. Make Our Tax Code More Fair and Promote Growth

Nobody reads that shit.  That's a big part of the problem.  Like, I've seen some election post-mortems where the columnist was like "But when Kamala was on the view, she was given the opportunity to say 'x' and she said 'y' instead!"  Joe Sixpack either doesn't watch The View, or didn't remember what she said there.  The average person doesn't pay attention to the details like that.

Quote from: Caliga on November 08, 2024, 09:59:57 AMNobody reads that shit.  That's a big part of the problem.  Like, I've seen some election post-mortems where the columnist was like "But when Kamala was on the view, she was given the opportunity to say 'x' and she said 'y' instead!"  Joe Sixpack either doesn't watch The View, or didn't remember what she said there.  The average person doesn't pay attention to the details like that.

If they don't watch her performances or look up any information her campaign is putting out then yeah of course the message doesn't cut through. Doesn't mean she was being elitist.

Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2024, 10:11:01 AMIf they don't watch her performances or look up any information her campaign is putting out then yeah of course the message doesn't cut through. Doesn't mean she was being elitist.

Yeah, I agree.

Which is why I said traditional political campaigning is mostly meaningless.  Harris ran a working class focused campaign, in fact it was hyper focused on it.  However nobody paid it much attention beyond the attendees and reporters, so much so that many people seem to think it was something else entirely.

Meanwhile Trump has a dumpster fire of barely attended campaign rallies that got a lot of headlines precisely because it was a mess.

I think a traditional campaign can cost you votes, but it won't win you any.  The rallies only matter if you can get publicity, and the only publicity you get is from car crashes.

The hyper focus of the campaign I think is the biggest mistake Harris made.  We live in a fragmented and diverse media ecosystem, and the ability to customize the message to the listener is much more powerful.  You need to use the scattershot approach of a hundred reasons why your candidate is better than the other one and make sure the right reason gets to the person that is receptive to it.

Caliga's example isn't going to respond to an economic/working class message because they've already made up their mind about the economy and what to do about it.  But if they heard about one of the hundred other reasons why Trump is terrible one of them might resonate and make the difference.

It is interesting how much history is being rewritten already with so many commentators, professional and randomers, going on about how Harris lost because she was all about "woke" and helping the elites rather than working people... which is completely the opposite of reality.

Though really shows what the problem actually was. The right message but terrible delivery.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2024, 07:41:03 AMSo let's dig into that. Should the state be subsidizing people who are highly educated and will go on to earn high incomes, or those who are working class.

The Dems' policies spoke to the former and not the latter. That is the point.

Policies?  I don't think that is true at all.

Just focusing on Biden: the stimulus package targeted direct payment only to low and moderate income people, lowered prescription drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid, he repealed a Trump era regulation limiting overtime payments to blue collar workers, he cracked down on overdraft and junk financial fees which disproportionately impact the poor, he targeted billions of aid to small farmers and rural small business owners, he tightened enforcement against employers who violate the labor bargaining rules, he was the first President in history to march with workers on a strike picket.

That's not even including the big infrastructure and reshoring legislation, which is not specifically targeted but clearly benefits the less affluent, who are usually the most impacted by substandard infrastructure.

In terms of concrete legislative achievements with impact for working people, Biden is probably the most consequential 4-year term since LBJ 64-68. But while LBJ had huge Congressional majorities, Biden faced seemingly impossible odds in Congress.  It's really an impressive achievement.

And yet you see the pundits say - in virutally the same breath - that Harris screwed up because she didn't emphasize her support for workers too much *AND* that she screwed up by not distancing herself from the administration's policy.   That's why I can't and don't take political punditry seriously.  It's of bunch a people with nicely styled hair leaning into their own subjective prejudices and then just grabbing whatever ad hoc "evidence" they can to support it.

(And it's also why the one pundit I'll listen to is Carville. He may not be any wiser, but at least he's bald and has the Cajun accent).

Quote from: Caliga on November 08, 2024, 09:59:57 AMNobody reads that shit.  That's a big part of the problem.  Like, I've seen some election post-mortems where the columnist was like "But when Kamala was on the view, she was given the opportunity to say 'x' and she said 'y' instead!"  Joe Sixpack either doesn't watch The View, or didn't remember what she said there.  The average person doesn't pay attention to the details like that.

Yeah, that's exactly how I was going to respond. The people that read that are the highly educated elite that the Democrats actually cater to.  The highly educated elites read it and feel good that the poor are also getting a bit of a break, but nobody else is t
Reading it.

And it's the loan forgiveness for college students that everyone hears about.

Quote from: celedhring on November 08, 2024, 09:02:58 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2024, 08:11:53 AM

Quote from: frunk on November 08, 2024, 08:02:57 AMIt's worth noting that the Democrats did not control congress, so the extent to which they could do anything for anybody was almost nothing.

Absolutely. But nothing stopped them from saying what they wanted to do.  And what they said they wanted to do was privilege the educated elite even more than they already were.

I'd say Biden's semi-failed infrastructure bill was very blue-collar friendly.

Yes, that would be a good argument. And how many times did you hear that in any stump speech during the election?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2024, 10:26:02 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2024, 07:41:03 AMSo let's dig into that. Should the state be subsidizing people who are highly educated and will go on to earn high incomes, or those who are working class.

The Dems' policies spoke to the former and not the latter. That is the point.

Policies?  I don't think that is true at all.

Just focusing on Biden: the stimulus package targeted direct payment only to low and moderate income people, lowered prescription drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid, he repealed a Trump era regulation limiting overtime payments to blue collar workers, he cracked down on overdraft and junk financial fees which disproportionately impact the poor, he targeted billions of aid to small farmers and rural small business owners, he tightened enforcement against employers who violate the labor bargaining rules, he was the first President in history to march with workers on a strike picket.

That's not even including the big infrastructure and reshoring legislation, which is not specifically targeted but clearly benefits the less affluent, who are usually the most impacted by substandard infrastructure.

In terms of concrete legislative achievements with impact for working people, Biden is probably the most consequential 4-year term since LBJ 64-68. But while LBJ had huge Congressional majorities, Biden faced seemingly impossible odds in Congress.  It's really an impressive achievement.

And yet you see the pundits say - in virutally the same breath - that Harris screwed up because she didn't emphasize her support for workers too much *AND* that she screwed up by not distancing herself from the administration's policy.   That's why I can't and don't take political punditry seriously.  It's of bunch a people with nicely styled hair leaning into their own subjective prejudices and then just grabbing whatever ad hoc "evidence" they can to support it.

(And it's also why the one pundit I'll listen to is Carville. He may not be any wiser, but at least he's bald and has the Cajun accent).

We're talking about what the Dems are talking about and they're messaging not what one can come up with on a deep dive of their policy initiatives.

You were talking about things that  appeals to highly educated elite who are might be policy wonks.

You can't expect the electorate and particularly the working poor, who are working 2 to 3 jobs a week just to feed their families, to dig into this the way we have the luxury of doing here on Languish.

CC where I live I got all the Pennsylvania ads for the national campaign.
 
The Harris ads were all about lower costs and health care for working people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6bv6jYEVAs

The Trump ads were attack ads about immigrants and transgender.

Trump won PA

If the actual legislation doesn't matter, and concrete benefit doesn't matter, and messaging doesn't matter, what it is that would matter?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2024, 10:51:57 AMCC where I live I got all the Pennsylvania ads for the national campaign.
 
The Harris ads were all about lower costs and health care for working people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6bv6jYEVAs

The Trump ads were attack ads about immigrants and transgender.

Trump won PA

OK, I stand corrected then at least in the state of Pennsylvania.  All the ads I saw here from my American sources, were all about the danger to democracy and reproductive rights.

Don't get me not wrong. Those are important issues, but not issues that resonate with people who think that their economic well-being is the most important thing.

I share Minsky's frustration that we're clearly not dealing with rational people.  A lot of voters' logic, if we take it at face value, really is no smarter than Jews voting for Hitler because of anti-Semitism under Wiemar Republic.

That said, voters are like that, and if you're in the game of politics, you have to figure out how to deal with that, no matter how infuriating it is to have to deal with that.  Psychiatrists shouldn't go "how the fuck am I going to deal with my clients, they're fucking crazy", and neither should politicians.  That's not to say that psychiatrist's clients aren't fucking crazy.

Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2024, 11:03:06 AMI share Minsky's frustration that we're clearly not dealing with rational people.  A lot of voters' logic, if we take it at face value, really is no smarter than Jews voting for Hitler because of anti-Semitism under Wiemar Republic.

That said, voters are like that, and if you're in the game of politics, you have to figure out how to deal with that, no matter how infuriating it is to have to deal with that.  Psychiatrists shouldn't go "how the fuck am I going to deal with my clients, they're fucking crazy", and neither should politicians.  That's not to say that psychiatrist's clients aren't fucking crazy.

.

I don't know how you do it though. I'm not sure what is the stimulant that turns I'm going to focus on make life more affordable for you to as appealing as they are eating the cats and dogs.

I also don't know how to incentives news media to use editorial discretion to focus on actual news. After all when you have a crazy uncle, you don't have endless family discussions about every crazy thing he says.

Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2024, 11:10:40 AMI don't know how you do it though. I'm not sure what is the stimulant that turns I'm going to focus on make life more affordable for you to as appealing as they are eating the cats and dogs.

I don't know either.  This is why political talent is rare and valuable.  All I myself can do is not scorn people with political talent, but embrace them.

If I were to guess, we have to take lessons from marketing.  Good products with good marketing will do better than poor products with good marketing, but either will do way better than good products with poor marketing.  To me it has been very obvious that Democrats had a good product over the last four years, but clearly it hasn't been obvious to enough people.  Good products with poor marketing will always have some recognition among the highly interested groups, but they'll only have cult following, not a mass following.

I think the scattershot analogy makes sense. Democrats also need to enter the aternative media shitshow much more. Podcasts, youtube etc. But mostly I think they need an asshole who'll say anything to get elected, because that's where we are as western democracies. Just get Newsom to call them Nazis and promise everybody a unicorn. Who cares.

Quote from: Zoupa on November 08, 2024, 12:24:58 PMI think the scattershot analogy makes sense. Democrats also need to enter the aternative media shitshow much more. Podcasts, youtube etc. But mostly I think they need an asshole who'll say anything to get elected, because that's where we are as western democracies. Just get Newsom to call them Nazis and promise everybody a unicorn. Who cares.

Alternative media - totally agree.  Whether Harris should have agreed to go on Rogan will be debated for a long time, as just one example.  I get the argument of "she's the sitting VP, he should come to her", but, well...  FWIW I think she would have done well on Rogan, who is hardly a really tough interview.

Dems should also be flooding the digital "airwaves" with ads on social media next time around.

"Just say some crazy shit" I mean I disagree.  You do have to be somewhat careful about over-learning the lessons of the past.  A 2028 election is going to be different.  It's quite possible that in 2028 voters will be hungering for a truth-teller after the non-stop bullshit of Trump (just a reminder - it's been 3 days and the war in Ukraine is still going on, and that wall with Mexico never was built).

Yeah, the Joe Rogan thing was a bad move. Whatever I personally think of Rogan (he's an idiot) he has a huge audience. In this case she needed him, he didn't need her.

I think the Rogan mistake was part of a bigger mistake, and that is the old school strategy of being very careful with what you say, and controlling the environment of when and how you say it.  When you go a long-form podcast, it's very hard to keep saying something controlled for a couple of hours, especially when you're an over-coached politician of little substance (which Harris probably was).

I think one lesson that Trump taught us is that voters really find it refreshing when politicians speak their mind rather than engage in a carefully choreographed performance.  They'll forgive you a lot of gaffes, even the gaffes where you legitimately reveal ugly thoughts, if you do that.

Quote from: Zoupa on November 08, 2024, 12:24:58 PMI think the scattershot analogy makes sense. Democrats also need to enter the aternative media shitshow much more. Podcasts, youtube etc. But mostly I think they need an asshole who'll say anything to get elected, because that's where we are as western democracies. Just get Newsom to call them Nazis and promise everybody a unicorn. Who cares.

Yeah, I was going to post this the day after the election and I forgot.  I was talking to my (sobbing) wife after the election was called for Trump and telling her if I was the DNC, here's one thing I would consider doing:

1. Disband the Democratic Party.
2. Found a new party called "The Cut Taxes to -1,000%, Execute Everyone You Hate, and Ban All Behaviors You Dislike" Party.
3.  All ex-Democrats immediately join this new party.
4.  Do absolutely nothing different from before in terms of proposing legislation the Democrats would have proposed, etc.

I was joking of course, but I was speaking to the fact that a lot, maybe even the majority, of American voters only seem to care about what you say, even if it's a lie (and they might even know it's a lie, too!), not what you do.  So feed them the bile they want to hear, and you win, no matter what you actually have done and intend to do.

Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2024, 12:51:04 PMI think one lesson that Trump taught us is that voters really find it refreshing when politicians speak their mind rather than engage in a carefully choreographed performance.  They'll forgive you a lot of gaffes, even the gaffes where you legitimately reveal ugly thoughts, if you do that.

Do they love politicians like that, or do they just love Trump?

Because I can't think of any other examples out there.

I'll argue against that point a bit. Conservatives forgive GOP gaffs. No one forgives Democrat gaffs. Least of all liberals. Eating their young and what not.

That being said, Rogan isn't exactly a hard hitting interviewer. You tell him something and he believes you with the eagerness of a toddler.

Quote from: HVC on November 08, 2024, 12:57:22 PMI'll argue against that point a bit. Conservatives forgive GOP gaffs. No one forgives Democrat gaffs. Least of all liberals. Eating their young and what not.

That being said, Rogan isn't exactly a hard hitting interviewer. You tell him something and he believes you with the eagerness of a toddler.

Bernie went on Rogan 4+ years ago and Rogan just ate it up.

Quote from: Barrister on November 08, 2024, 12:57:02 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2024, 12:51:04 PMI think one lesson that Trump taught us is that voters really find it refreshing when politicians speak their mind rather than engage in a carefully choreographed performance.  They'll forgive you a lot of gaffes, even the gaffes where you legitimately reveal ugly thoughts, if you do that.

Do they love politicians like that, or do they just love Trump?

Because I can't think of any other examples out there.

I don't think that many tried.  It's a huge gamble to take with your political career, what if it does only work for Trump?  I imagine also that a lot of people who would try it would be authentic in a very coached and careful way, because that's all they know.

I do have a gut feeling though that this is the age of authenticity, and that carefully crafted talking points get in the way of emotional connection.  Maybe there is more to the formula than just authenticity, maybe you also an art to exactly how you tell people to fuck off when inevitably you do create a sound bite and get roasted with it.

Quote from: HVC on November 08, 2024, 12:57:22 PMI'll argue against that point a bit. Conservatives forgive GOP gaffs. No one forgives Democrat gaffs. Least of all liberals. Eating their young and what not.

I don't think that's true; most of our pundits were more than willing to excuse Biden's many, many, many gaffes.  Even his "Garbage" comment in the final days of this election was hand-waved away by almost all left of center pundits.  (Chris Cizilla being a notable exception.)

Chris Christie is very much like that.  He had some success but not as much as Trump, even though he is clearly brighter and more effective, and has achieved more concretely in public life. Yes there was bridgegate, which was pretty awful but in context wouldn't crack a top 10 of Trump scandals.

The secret to Trump is not just his "authenticity" though that is part of it.  Another part is that there is no substance to him, he is a political empty vessel that channels emotion and feel, so that others who share their feelings can project their own sentiments on to them.  It's why he draws support from plutocratic elites who want to keep the proles down, and working stiffs who want to flip the bird to the "elites"

I think I've already gone through the five stages of grief re a second Trump term. TBH, the denial was probably the week before the election giving me false hope. That lasted until I went to bed. By the following morning it was not so much anger, but a 'oh fuck not again' moment. I then had a brief bargaining period where I was hoping that Trump's win would be mitigated by the House results, but that soon evapourated. Then a long week or so of depression and now finally acceptance. Though I suspect I will vacillate between the two between now and inauguration day.

I fear many on the left will be stuck on the anger phase. I do think this is one thing they need to let go off. Certain sections have been too angry in recent years, and they need to be more sorrowful instead. Otherwise it will just antagonise and encourage the right.

Anecdotally I have not seen much if anything in the way of anger.  What I'm seeing more resembles stoicism.  ;)

Possible exception for Bernie Sanders.  I noticed, but did not view, a YT clip of him "blasting the Democrats" over something or other.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2024, 01:05:36 PMAnecdotally I have not seen much if anything in the way of anger.  What I'm seeing more resembles stoicism.  ;)

Yeah it's very different than 2016/2017.  No pussy-hat wearing protests.  Just "aw fuck here we go again".

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2024, 01:14:59 PMPossible exception for Bernie Sanders.  I noticed, but did not view, a YT clip of him "blasting the Democrats" over something or other.

I watched his "blasting"...seemed pretty constructive and tame. Not exactly the rant of righteous hysteria that was advertised.

Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2024, 01:17:52 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2024, 01:05:36 PMAnecdotally I have not seen much if anything in the way of anger.  What I'm seeing more resembles stoicism.  ;)

Yeah it's very different than 2016/2017.  No pussy-hat wearing protests.  Just "aw fuck here we go again".

I think back in the day they figured Trump and his kind just needed to be exposed and everybody would wise up.

I think it is dawning on the leftists that, in fact, people are fine with Trump and who he is and what he does.

I think the goofy polls in 16 played a part. 

I had a stronger negative reaction to Republicans swamping Iowa than to Trump winning because of that fucking Selzer poll.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2024, 01:35:00 PMI think the goofy polls in 16 played a part. 

I had a stronger negative reaction to Republicans swamping Iowa than to Trump winning because of that fucking Selzer poll.

I think it's pretty understandable why the poll went so wrong.  Normally the voting split between pre-election voting and election day voting isn't that big but it was absolutely massive this time. It's tough to correctly account for something like that.

Quote from: frunk on November 13, 2024, 01:58:41 PMI think it's pretty understandable why the poll went so wrong.  Normally the voting split between pre-election voting and election day voting isn't that big but it was absolutely massive this time. It's tough to correctly account for something like that.

I don't understand what you're saying.  Something about the voting split that only affected Iowa?

Quote from: frunk on November 13, 2024, 01:58:41 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2024, 01:35:00 PMI think the goofy polls in 16 played a part. 

I had a stronger negative reaction to Republicans swamping Iowa than to Trump winning because of that fucking Selzer poll.

I think it's pretty understandable why the poll went so wrong.  Normally the voting split between pre-election voting and election day voting isn't that big but it was absolutely massive this time. It's tough to correctly account for something like that.

So the reason people were gushing about the Selzer poll is it was actually very old-fashioned.

They just randomly dial people until they get responses.  They didn't attempt to correct for pre-election versus election day, or correct for who people voted for in 2020 (or 2016).  They didn't do anything fancy about likely voters versus not-likely voters (other than just asking "do you plan to vote").

The only thing they really adjusted for was very basic demographic and geographic information.

Lots of polls can adjust for all kinds of different data - but it then becomes an open question how useful the poll actually is.  Or you can do a more naked poll like Selzer did which is more likely to catch any unexpected change in voting, but is perhaps more at risk of just being flatly wrong.

Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2024, 02:08:52 PMSo the reason people were gushing about the Selzer poll is it was actually very old-fashioned.

They just randomly dial people until they get responses.  They didn't attempt to correct for pre-election versus election day, or correct for who people voted for in 2020 (or 2016).  They didn't do anything fancy about likely voters versus not-likely voters (other than just asking "do you plan to vote").

The only thing they really adjusted for was very basic demographic and geographic information.

Lots of polls can adjust for all kinds of different data - but it then becomes an open question how useful the poll actually is.  Or you can do a more naked poll like Selzer did which is more likely to catch any unexpected change in voting, but is perhaps more at risk of just being flatly wrong.

In that case, the Selzer poll was even worse than those "fancy" polls in that it would suffer more from the phenomenon of getting the pulse of people willing to answer unknown phone calls.  I think we have reached a point where random or semi-random phone polling just isn't as representative of the population as its boosters and executors think it is.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 13, 2024, 02:46:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2024, 02:08:52 PMSo the reason people were gushing about the Selzer poll is it was actually very old-fashioned.

They just randomly dial people until they get responses.  They didn't attempt to correct for pre-election versus election day, or correct for who people voted for in 2020 (or 2016).  They didn't do anything fancy about likely voters versus not-likely voters (other than just asking "do you plan to vote").

The only thing they really adjusted for was very basic demographic and geographic information.

Lots of polls can adjust for all kinds of different data - but it then becomes an open question how useful the poll actually is.  Or you can do a more naked poll like Selzer did which is more likely to catch any unexpected change in voting, but is perhaps more at risk of just being flatly wrong.

In that case, the Selzer poll was even worse than those "fancy" polls in that it would suffer more from the phenomenon of getting the pulse of people willing to answer unknown phone calls.  I think we have reached a point where random or semi-random phone polling just isn't as representative of the population as its boosters and executors think it is.

The Selzer poll had a long recent history of being shockingly accurate, that is why it generated attention. But that could have just been a coincidence, after all it is not a poll that is taken often and is only of Iowa.