2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[crazy canuck]

I think Garbon is representative of most voters. The appeal of Trump is that many of his supporters, the Evangelicals for example, think he is the best candidate for the country as a whole.

The difficulty is there is a dramatic divergence of opinion about what is in the best interests of the nation largely caused by misinformation and social media bubbles.

The Evangelicals support him because the majority of them think that the world will end in their lifetimes and the election of Trump will accelerate that.

There's no explaining the love of so many working-class dudes like, say, the members of the Teamsters, for a man who has stated quite openly that he hates unions, hates to pay for overtime, and would, were it in his power, immediately fire every worker who went on strike.  The only conclusion one can draw is that they know a Trump administration will suck for them, but will suck even more for those damn woke bastards.

Their view of what is best for all is very different from yours, and mine for that matter.  But that does not necessarily mean that they are motivated by ill intent.

There are explanations for those differences that don't require a conclusion that 50% of the American population don't care about the public good.

[Josquius]

From my personal interactions with Trump supporters, who unfortunately make up the majority of my extended family, I think what happens is that they believe him selectively.  In their minds, Trump lies about the things they disagree with, and is honest about the things they agree with.  When it's not about words but about actions, they settle.  Trump may be a jerk and may write mean tweets, but the alternative is unpalatable.  Frankly I've lost all hope when my extended family came back to the fold even while being strong supporters of Ukraine.

I've learned this recently.
Trumpies often say "Orange man bad!" to mock people who are anti-Trump. The logical response to this is one of "...yes. He's pretty bad. Duh?".
But they actually mean something quite different in saying this. They're of the belief that the only reason people oppose him is that he is an offensive dick, nothing to do with any of his actions or how competent of a leader he is.

I think Garbon is representative of most voters. The appeal of Trump is that many of his supporters, the Evangelicals for example, think he is the best candidate for the country as a whole.

The difficulty is there is a dramatic divergence of opinion about what is in the best interests of the nation largely caused by misinformation and social media bubbles.

The Evangelicals support him because the majority of them think that the world will end in their lifetimes and the election of Trump will accelerate that.

There's no explaining the love of so many working-class dudes like, say, the members of the Teamsters, for a man who has stated quite openly that he hates unions, hates to pay for overtime, and would, were it in his power, immediately fire every worker who went on strike.  The only conclusion one can draw is that they know a Trump administration will suck for them, but will suck even more for those damn woke bastards.

Their view of what is best for all is very different from yours, and mine for that matter.  But that does not necessarily mean that they are motivated by ill intent.

There are explanations for those differences that don't require a conclusion that 50% of the American population don't care about the public good.

I've definitely heard this evangelicals (and their Islamic brethren) wanting to hasten the end of days thing way too often for it to be untrue.
Their view of what is best is mystical fairies weaving their magic and saving our immortal souls...So you could argue they're still noble in intent... but we can be pretty certain that they're working on very faulty information here.
Like, you could argue many of those actively engaging in genocides have noble intents in doing so- believing this other group is some really terrible evil and getting rid of them is for the good of the world. But they're still doing something awful.

Definitely not 50% of America here of course. Not even all Trump voters. But a significant chunk....

[Solmyr]

Yeah but the outgroup can be rich people as well.

And yes apart from economical benefit and general tribal reflexes the only thing that makes people coalesce is someone to hate, or at least fight.

Maybe the left should get back to its roots.

[garbon]

From my personal interactions with Trump supporters, who unfortunately make up the majority of my extended family, I think what happens is that they believe him selectively.  In their minds, Trump lies about the things they disagree with, and is honest about the things they agree with.  When it's not about words but about actions, they settle.  Trump may be a jerk and may write mean tweets, but the alternative is unpalatable.  Frankly I've lost all hope when my extended family came back to the fold even while being strong supporters of Ukraine.

Yeah, I think that would be a fair summary.

[Valmy]

What is most disturbing to me is older people who I used to know who I once respected now posting like infants on Facebook complete with CAPITALIZING random WORDS and using punctuation like this!!!!!

Worse, they are saying the most absurd things with absolute fear and terror that blacks and browns are going to come murder and/or rape them in their sleep thanks to the non-existence open border policies of the Democrats.

I find myself completely baffled by this. How did this person become this fear mongering, cowardly, brainless buffoon? It's bizarre. I don't really know how to process it. I just sadly move on. I don't even want to engage anymore.

It does kind of feel like if suddenly somebody you knew started telling you about how you need to join Scientology or how only the Jehovah's Witnesses can save you from Armageddon.

I really have to hand it to Trump and the Republican propaganda machine. It is amazing. They clearly know how to get people into their thrall.

[Valmy]

I also find it amazing beyond belief that people think that Trump was an economic genius.  Only 2 presidents since 1870 have finished their term with fewer American employed than at the start of their term: Hoover and Trump.  Some genius.  Some plan.

He tells them he is. What actually happens goes down the memory hole and his version of events becomes what they remember.

[Barrister]

If the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid.  Can't have it both ways.

For fucks sakes Joan.

I literally called Trump a child molester and said "He's totally disqualified from being president IMO".  I very gently called out your one specific criticism of Trump (jobs - due to covid), and you have to pivot to not criticizing Biden about inflation.

I haven't criticized Biden about inflation.  How on earth am I trying to "have it both ways".

In my own country if I'm going to criticize Justin Trudeau (and I do!) I don't think inflation makes the top 50.  Because of covid.

I sometimes understand the "Trump derangement syndrome" argument because it's not enough to just be against the guy (and again - Fuck Trump. #NeverTrump) but you have to be totally, 100%, against Trump with every fibre of your being or else you get criticized for it.

[garbon]

If the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid.  Can't have it both ways.

For fucks sakes Joan.

I literally called Trump a child molester and said "He's totally disqualified from being president IMO".  I very gently called out your one specific criticism of Trump (jobs - due to covid), and you have to pivot to not criticizing Biden about inflation.

I haven't criticized Biden about inflation.  How on earth am I trying to "have it both ways".

In my own country if I'm going to criticize Justin Trudeau (and I do!) I don't think inflation makes the top 50.  Because of covid.

I sometimes understand the "Trump derangement syndrome" argument because it's not enough to just be against the guy (and again - Fuck Trump. #NeverTrump) but you have to be totally, 100%, against Trump with every fibre of your being or else you get criticized for it.

I'm not sure Joan was saying that you've said that re:inflation but rather speaking about Trumpers, which you certainly are not.

[Sheilbh]

If the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid.  Can't have it both ways.

I think that's fair in terms of blame. But I think you will face political consequences for it regardless of allocating responsibility - and I think Trump did in 2020 and I think cost of living/real wages is a challenge for the Democrats.

My theory is that the Left won the post-WW2 decades of the 20th century. Broadly speaking, their economic goals have been achieved (obviously not completely and plenty left to do but look at say conditions in 1900 and 2000) and have become accepted defaults that not even the Right challenges anymore.

Perhaps although I also think that part of how the "left won" is because of a post-war anti-fascist consensus which is now breaking down and anti-communism. It was that the mainstream right and left were united on the external challenge which produced a form of consensus. The political trade-off of maintaining high military spending, national service, huge deployments of forces along the Rhine etc was strong unionised industry to supporting it and a welfare state.

Not at all. What's the point in that. But there must be ways to restore the economic incentives for votes which they had.

Doing it? I think Biden's come closest to that in the Western world but as I say for three years real wages have declined.

In the Eurozone there's no space for a left-right difference - basically you're allowed the fiscal policies between, say, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel. The UK doesn't look promising. And "austerity but we're sad" is not a different offer.

I think it's breaking down in the US but in Europe there is absolutely a governing, liberal consensus on fiscal, trade and regulatory policy. De-politicising an issue doesn't mean it'll go away, it just means the political energy will be displaced (like squeezing one bit of a balloon) - like culture or immigration. Because when the economic difference between Labour/Tory, CDU/SPD etc is how we do austerity then the fight will move from the centre to the outside and you'll end up instead not with left v right but establishment v insurgents.

Or, basically, if you want to restore the economic incentives for those voters, or for Yi's wolves to outvote the sheep, then at some point they need to actually get to eat the sheep

Many people vote for ideology, and not for narrow self-interest.

Yeah - I always find it really weird how this is normally seen as baffling for the trend poorer people voting for a party of the right, but not well-off, well-paid, well-educated people increasingly voting for the left. In both cases I don't think it's really material self-interest.

[The Minsky Moment]

If the Trump admin gets a pass on jobs because of Covid then the next admin gets a pass on the global inflation resulting from the transition out of Covid.  Can't have it both ways.

For fucks sakes Joan.

Not a criticism of you personally. 

[Barrister]

Yeah - I always find it really weird how this is normally seen as baffling for the trend poorer people voting for a party of the right, but not well-off, well-paid, well-educated people increasingly voting for the left. In both cases I don't think it's really material self-interest.

I always get a little bit frustrated at the "it's against their self-interest" argument.

I may strenuously disagree with someone's position - but people are entitled to have priorities above and beyond their financial well-being.

Not that is what you said Sheilbh - just riffing on a point.

[Josquius]

To an extent.
Though someone who is comfortable can afford to take a few blows to their finances for the greater good.
When you're on the bread line then you really do need to be looking out for yourself. You can't afford to become much worse off. Every little improvement is necessary.
It's the basic hierarchy of needs.

[Barrister]

To an extent.
Though someone who is comfortable can afford to take a few blows to their finances for the greater good.
When you're on the bread line then you really do need to be looking out for yourself. You can't afford to become much worse off. Every little improvement is necessary.
It's the basic hierarchy of needs.

But that's just it - Maslow's hierarchy of needs is basically shit.  Because people don't think that way.

Let's go to Ukraine.  If people genuinely operated according to Maslow the Ukrainians would be surrendering.  After all their basic need to survive is more important than some more abstract right to live in a free and democratic society, right?  Yet that's not how people think - and I think most people would agree with that.

You can think of countless examples of self-sacrifice in the name of some greater ideal.

And look - lots of times I think people doing so are loony.  Take the 9/11 terrorists - they voluntarily killed themselves in the name of a murderous ideology.  But if you listen to Maslow they'd never do so, because their physiological need to life should trump any more abstract need.

[Razgovory]

Yeah - I always find it really weird how this is normally seen as baffling for the trend poorer people voting for a party of the right, but not well-off, well-paid, well-educated people increasingly voting for the left. In both cases I don't think it's really material self-interest.

I always get a little bit frustrated at the "it's against their self-interest" argument.

I may strenuously disagree with someone's position - but people are entitled to have priorities above and beyond their financial well-being.

Not that is what you said Sheilbh - just riffing on a point.

I'm not keen on self-interest arguments either.  Something that is in your self interest maybe very wrong for other people.  Having a permeant minority underclass is in the self-interest in the people not in that underclass.

[Sheilbh]

I always get a little bit frustrated at the "it's against their self-interest" argument.

I may strenuously disagree with someone's position - but people are entitled to have priorities above and beyond their financial well-being.

Not that is what you said Sheilbh - just riffing on a point.

Oh totally. And I think most people do - I think very, very few vote on that sort of basis. I think it was perhaps different when you had a more explicitly class-based politics, but that's gone.

I just find the whole "I'm nobly putting my economic self-interest aside for the greater good, you are a mouth-breathing pleb who's been hoodwinked to voting against yours" thing particularly annoying