2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Sheilbh]

Again I think it needs to be broken down - this is interesting on the US specifically (including on the gender gap on specific issues):
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-gender-gap-young-men-women-dont-agree-politics-2024-1?r=US&IR=T

It may change over time as you say through socialisation. But I think the trend is striking. (Edit: And present in other countries: South Korea, Poland, Germany etc.)

I'm generally very suspicious of "demographics is destiny" arguments of political inevitability - I remember them in the W Bush years and the Obama years and I don't think they're any more likely to be right now. Also I think the inevitable product of that argument is passivity. If all you need to do is wait, what's the point of getting out and organising politically now. And I think the UK has a particularly extreme age gap that we shouldn't read into the rest of the world.

In terms of demographics though if I was a Democrat I'd be more concerned about the polling for Latinos and Black men than comfortable in the oncoming youthquake.

[Valmy]

In terms of demographics though if I was a Democrat I'd be more concerned about the polling for Latinos and Black men than comfortable in the oncoming youthquake.

The Black men thing is laughable. For 40 years there has been this thing about how the black men are going to vote for Republicans ANY MINUTE NOW but it never really goes anywhere. The only demographic more Democratic than Black Men are Black Women where it is almost unanimous. However I think it would be wrong to say that black people just love the Democrats and that is why they vote for them, so I could certainly see anti-Democratic party opinions coming from that group but they sure as hell aren't going to start voting Republican.

Latinos are a different deal but that is very normal for immigrant groups who can pass for white people. The Democrats have always been the immigrant party and as groups cease to see themselves as immigrants and are accepted into the majority white culture they tend to move to the Republicans. That is an ancient story and generally how things probably should go.

In any case I am not sure what specific politics the Democrats would need to shift towards to really capture those groups to a greater extent. The Republicans are so anti-black and so nativist that it is kind of hard to position yourself to capture people who like those aspects. But maybe you have some other ideas. The Democrats cannot out-Republican Republicans despite their best efforts.

[The Minsky Moment]

Even Jon Stewart, on his first day back on the daily show, had a 10 minutes segment on "haha omg both of these guys are so old and terrible".

 

I saw the segment, it was far, far from both-sidism.  But there is taking a side, and there is denying what the eyes see and ears hear.

[Barrister]

Again I think it needs to be broken down - this is interesting on the US specifically (including on the gender gap on specific issues):
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-gender-gap-young-men-women-dont-agree-politics-2024-1?r=US&IR=T

It may change over time as you say through socialisation. But I think the trend is striking. (Edit: And present in other countries: South Korea, Poland, Germany etc.)

I'm generally very suspicious of "demographics is destiny" arguments of political inevitability - I remember them in the W Bush years and the Obama years and I don't think they're any more likely to be right now. Also I think the inevitable product of that argument is passivity. If all you need to do is wait, what's the point of getting out and organising politically now. And I think the UK has a particularly extreme age gap that we shouldn't read into the rest of the world.

In terms of demographics though if I was a Democrat I'd be more concerned about the polling for Latinos and Black men than comfortable in the oncoming youthquake.

Just saw an interesting article on Canadian polling results:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-thanks-to-women-tories-on-course-for-largest-landslide-in-canadian-history

The take-away is that if you went back one year there was a 20 point gap between men and women: between the ages or 35 and 54 men supported Poilievre at 47%, while women only at 27%.

But now the numbers are 47% men, 38% women.  And the Conservatives have one of the biggest leads we've seen for a long, long time.

Also - under 34s are the group of the population most likely to vote Conservative.

All of which goes to show these kinds of trends are not etched in stone...

[crazy canuck]

And yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.

[Jacob]

And yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.

It's kind of interesting.

While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.

It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.

[Admiral Yi]

It seems to me that the Liberals are the natural governing party of Canada but every four or five elections the country decides to take a break.

[Sheilbh]

It's kind of interesting.

While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.

It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.

Interesting phrase as from a British perspective "sea change" is very associated with Jim Callaghan just before the 1979 election:

You know there are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of.

I suspect there is now such a sea change and it is for Mrs Thatcher.

FWIW I think there is a sea change in Western politics right now (as there was in the 70s) - although I've no idea yet yet who it is for.

[crazy canuck]

And yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.

It's kind of interesting.

While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.

It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.

I think there is a strong argument that the Trudeau broke every major promise he made and is just flat out bad at governing.  Just look at my post about what the Federal Court did today to rebuke them for their failure to appoint judges.  That has been going on this government for years.  And it to have the Federal Court and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada rebuke them like that is unprecedented in Canada.

I agree with Sheilbh.  There is a sea change coming. And I too don't know who will win in the end.  But I do know its not going to be Trudeau.

[grumbler]

He can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general.  That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do. 

The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness.  Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".

He is a comedian, and popular comedians say comical things.  If that makes you cynical and want to give up on politics, that's on you.

[crazy canuck]

He can reach more people on the left than Rupert, and when he reaches them, he's very good at engendering cynicism towards politics in general.  That's not his intention, I'm sure, but when your job is mocking politicians, mocking politicians is all you can do. 

The problem with cynicism is that it's toxic to democracy, because at high enough dose it makes people give up on trying to gauge levels of crookedness.  Instead of punishing the worst actors and slowly inching up the standard of what's acceptable, people give up and leave everyone unaccountable, and/or go "both parties are pretty much the same, and just serve corporations".

He is a comedian, and popular comedians say comical things.  If that makes you cynical and want to give up on politics, that's on you.

I have now seen the clip - he was making fun of the Dems for not doing a better job on social media - i.e. rather than just saying Biden is on top of his game, show it.

If that sort of criticism prevents people from meaningfully engaging in the democratic process, as DGuller suggests, then there are bigger problems than cracking a joke.

[Barrister]

And yesterday the Globe published their polling results which showed a whopping 3% of Canadians think Canada would be best served if Trudeau ran in the next election.

It's kind of interesting.

While I'll happily admit that Trudeau isn't amazing or anything, I can't see any substantial reasons for such a sea change other than the relentless "Trudeau sucks amirite" campaign apparently working really well.

It'd certainly be something if the Libs can turn this around.

I think his act has just worn thin?  He came in with his talk of "sunny ways", but anything really positive from his time as PM was pretty early on - child care benefit, legal cannabis.  Now he comes across as more scolding.

Plus there's Sheilbhs favourite issue - housing costs.  I posted that link above on how under 35s are now the age group most likely to vote Conservative, and you have to think housing is the reason why.



By the way - I've been enjoying Poilievre's schtick, but he has to be careful as well - the attacking the media can play very well when the media is being dumb, but if he runs across a well-prepared reporter he could get into trouble and look either like a bully or just ill-informed.

[Sheilbh]

Of course there's something a little ironic about John Stewart, a comedian whose glory days were 20 years ago and who has returned to that show now, complaining about American gerontocracy.

Haven't seen the joke but I'm with DG on the cynicism point. Often think of Jonathan Coe's piece on satire in Britain:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea

[garbon]

Of course there's something a little ironic about John Stewart, a comedian whose glory days were 20 years ago and who has returned to that show now, complaining about American gerontocracy.

Haven't seen the joke but I'm with DG on the cynicism point. Often think of Jonathan Coe's piece on satire in Britain:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea

But he's only 60 something and I've on good authority old only starts at 80.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't actually think there is a sea change coming to American politics, I think we are looking at continual gradual changes.

I think the biggest "miss" on viewing a sea change was Obama's unique appeal to working class whites in purple rust belt states--that largely evaporated completely by 2016 when Obama was no longer on the ballot (and it had evaporated somewhat between 2008 and 2012.) I think that is just a lesson that certain generational candidates can pull some weird votes, but the longer trendlines were that working class whites in the rust belt have been trending GOP since the 80s.

As union work got gutted out, and as those groups consequently no longer felt a strong economic tie to the Democrats, they were left with caring about social issues--and working class whites have always disproportionately disliked immigrants, minorities, gay people etc. They were at home in the GOP other than the GOP's anti-labor rhetoric, so once the labor unions got killed off they became a natural constituency for Republicans.

The other gradual change is the complete flight from the Republican electorate of educated people (which reliably voted Republican for like 100 years--although 100 years ago the % of the electorate who had a college education was very small.)

I also think most of the changes around these demos has already happened--like I don't think we're going to see dramatic shifts in working class white or educated people's voting patterns in the coming years, I could be wrong though.