2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Sheilbh]

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

Rick Perlstein the great historian of the American right (Nixonland, The Invisible Bridge, Reaganland) has a story from Reagan's gubernatorial run in 1966. Reagan was obviously surrounded by consultants and spin doctors etc - and they kept telling him to stop talking about law and order/disorder on college campuses because it did not come up as an issue anywhere in the polling. It was bread and butter issues people cared about and that was what he should talk about. Reagan was generally a pretty pliable candidate but pushed back on this because if there's one thing he was vastly better at than them, it was reading a crowd - and he said that it might not show up in the polls but it was the thing that went down best whenever he did a speech. It was the issue that got a crowd animated. So he was going to keep talking about it.

I think there's something similar with Trump. So much focus is on social media and microtargeting etc - but I think Trump's rallies are really key to him because I think that's how he works out the messages that work with his audience and it's the same thing as Reagan did then (and I'd note there's always been lots of reports of people around Trump trying to handle him and saying certain messages don't work etc but him going off their reception at his rallies).

While I think the Democrats (and other parties in the Western world) are still fighting traditional elections. They are fighting campaigns using the techniques honed above all by the Clintons in the 90s. It's about micro-targeting, very specific focused policy offers to help assemble a lego-brick coalition, with strong message discipline all of it backed by very strong consultant advice. I think that approach is not working very effectively anywhere - I think we're in an age like the transition to radio or to TV and what works in a campaign is shifting.

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

Yeah I've moaned about this before because there is a type of American liberal/Democrat (think Chris Hayes) who seriously thinks showing one more chart of how America's economy has done well will convince people on this issue.

What matters is their lived experience and from 2021-23 (at least), real wages were falling. Cost of living and inflation were a big problem - but also very spotty so certain goods (particularly food staples) were particularly hard hit. If you're reasonably comfortable you might not notice so much because it would balance out, but if you're just about getting by and spending more of your money on those staples then the increase in food costs is really obvious.

I think it's really tough for the Democrats and for every other incumbent party in the world. I'm not sure there's an easy answer - but the one more chart approach is, if anything, just a red rag to a bull.

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

Yeah - I also think it's why the Democrats have become a little embroiled on identity politics is that it allowed them to "outflank" some anti-corporate left populism.

I hate to use the phrase because of all its connotations but I think the Democrats are and seem too Professional Managerial Class. A slightly insane fact I only read this week: Tim Walz is the first person on a Democratic presidential ticket since Jimmy Carter to have not attended law school. So Mondale, Ferraro, Dukakis, Bentsen, Clinton, Gore, Liberman, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kain and Harris in a row is a lot. I think that plays into class but also the type of politics Democrats do (and think they can do).

Obviously many Republicans also have law degrees but there's people with military or intelligence backgrounds (Bush Sr, McCain, Cheney - arguably Vance who is also a lawyer), people from the world of business or entertainment, even union leaders (Reagan ) among GOP candidates.

I don't think it's insurmountable or impossible. But that's a big gap between the educational and career backgrounds of Democratic elites (both funders and senior politicians) and the people Democrats aspire to represent and who form their traditional base.

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

I think this is interesting and I'm not sure.

In part I think there is a specific American angle to this. Partly because of the Presidential system which means you can come in and only ever run for the top job, while in a parliamentary system (at least a Westminster system), in order to be PM you need first to be an MP. There is an outsider-y route but I can't think of any examples of someone like Trump or, say, Macron setting up his own party and winning the Presidency. It is structurally very difficult.

But also America has a history of these candidates - typically from the military. But all through the twentieth century there is talk of running government like a business, needing an outsider CEO to get a grip etc - and there are candidates who play into that. I find it interesting because I think there is a particular American desire for an outsider.

And also I think there is a mirror image of this on the sort of EU model. There has been moves to "depoliticise" issues - we remove them from politicans, or the pressures of electoral politics. Instead we want decisions made by independent, neutral experts. Peter Mair's Ruling the Void is fantastic on this from a Euro-perspective.

It seems to me that both of those angles are basically saying that politicians and democratic politics can't be trusted - and perhaps what we have is the politics you get and deserve in that context?

[Syt]

I would push back a bit on the last point - it may be conincidence, but in all major elections this year around the world, incumbents have been losing. FT has an info graphic. I'm aware that there is often a trend to push back on parties in power (especially in the US, e.g. during mid-terms), and overall the number of elections seems low this year compared to previous years (potentially cherry picked?), but there seems to be a general sense of "the ones in power at the moment are not making things better".

https://www.ft.com/content/e8ac09ea-c300-4249-af7d-109003afb893

See also Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/nov/10/kamala-harris-is-just-the-latest-victim-of-global-trend-to-oust-incumbents

(Might still be coincidence, but the perceived economic situation/challenges seem growing, and trust in ruling parties in this year's elections to solve them seem low - next index point will likely be Germany and their early elections)

[Josquius]

[
Rick Perlstein the great historian of the American right (Nixonland, The Invisible Bridge, Reaganland) has a story from Reagan's gubernatorial run in 1966. Reagan was obviously surrounded by consultants and spin doctors etc - and they kept telling him to stop talking about law and order/disorder on college campuses because it did not come up as an issue anywhere in the polling. It was bread and butter issues people cared about and that was what he should talk about. Reagan was generally a pretty pliable candidate but pushed back on this because if there's one thing he was vastly better at than them, it was reading a crowd - and he said that it might not show up in the polls but it was the thing that went down best whenever he did a speech. It was the issue that got a crowd animated. So he was going to keep talking about it.

I think there's something similar with Trump. So much focus is on social media and microtargeting etc - but I think Trump's rallies are really key to him because I think that's how he works out the messages that work with his audience and it's the same thing as Reagan did then (and I'd note there's always been lots of reports of people around Trump trying to handle him and saying certain messages don't work etc but him going off their reception at his rallies).

While I think the Democrats (and other parties in the Western world) are still fighting traditional elections. They are fighting campaigns using the techniques honed above all by the Clintons in the 90s. It's about micro-targeting, very specific focused policy offers to help assemble a lego-brick coalition, with strong message discipline all of it backed by very strong consultant advice. I think that approach is not working very effectively anywhere - I think we're in an age like the transition to radio or to TV and what works in a campaign is shifting.

Trumps rallies... he's putting on a show for his base. He's not going to win many new supporters doing this. Just really nail down those that he's got. Which is important. But still, I don't think these big rallies are the key useful way to do that. Its more him enjoying the power.

"Micro targeting" of segments and all that may be age old and its certainly what the Dems are still heavily reliant on, but Trump and co go further than that, they're nano-targeting, heavily around social media. Doing more than just direct campaign messaging with it too but actively playing the big game to subtly tweak people's thinking before they even encounter the ads.
The dems may be leaning too heavy into putting out ads every election saying "Hey you're a black 40-something woman so you care about this" but the Trumpies of the world are constantly throwing out doubt and messaging about villains in your own town, when the targeted message hits you its far more calculated not on you fitting into a particular category but hey, this guy is gullible, likes dogs and gets upset about bad things happening to dogs, hit him with the Haitians.

This is the core of where all the Russian interference stuff comes in. Its not just with clever machine learning tools they're doing this stuff. There's a lot of workers controlling the accounts that do the ground work in building trust then subtly pull things in the desired direction.

[The Minsky Moment]

I would push back a bit on the last point - it may be conincidence, but in all major elections this year around the world, incumbents have been losing. FT has an info graphic. I'm aware that there is often a trend to push back on parties in power (especially in the US, e.g. during mid-terms), and overall the number of elections seems low this year compared to previous years (potentially cherry picked?), but there seems to be a general sense of "the ones in power at the moment are not making things better".

If there is one thing that Americans push back against, it's the suggestion that we are not our own little unique national snowflake, but maybe are impacted by global level trends.

[Sheilbh]

I would push back a bit on the last point - it may be conincidence, but in all major elections this year around the world, incumbents have been losing. FT has an info graphic. I'm aware that there is often a trend to push back on parties in power (especially in the US, e.g. during mid-terms), and overall the number of elections seems low this year compared to previous years (potentially cherry picked?), but there seems to be a general sense of "the ones in power at the moment are not making things better".

No I think that's absolutely true and I think it s a huge issue everywhere now. I don't fully understand why but it's clear even before this electoral cycle that voters absolutely hate inflation and punish incumbents in an inflationary environment in a way that they don't with unemployment. I don't know why.

Although I think this has actually been a year with a huge number of elections - I saw lots of pieces about the "year of democracy" but I'm not sure I've got the stats.

I think the US is distinct on this but I think in Europe, certainly (and maybe the US), the institution that has most atrophied and that used to be core to the connection between governed citizens and governing politicians is the political party. I think that used to be absolutely core to our democratic system in Europe as democracies with mass membership parties and in the US I think more with various associated groups (even if they were seen negatively as machine politics). And I think that was an important line of communication between voters and politicians that has substantially disappeared in the last 30 years - and I don't think it can be revivified.

I think that may lead to more personalist candidacies as the party, which already matters less in our societies also starts to matter less to our politics.

[HVC]

I don't fully understand why but it's clear even before this electoral cycle that voters absolutely hate inflation and punish incumbents in an inflationary environment in a way that they don't with unemployment. I don't know why.

Unemployment affects some, inflation affects all.

[Syt]

No I think that's absolutely true and I think it s a huge issue everywhere now. I don't fully understand why but it's clear even before this electoral cycle that voters absolutely hate inflation and punish incumbents in an inflationary environment in a way that they don't with unemployment. I don't know why.

I think in case of unemployment it's easier for politicians to spin the narrative to put the fault either on the unemployed (too lazy, unemployment benefits too attractive, "nobody wants to work anymore", welfare queens ... ) or deflect to an outgroup (foreigners stealing jobs), or the current administration (wages/taxes too high and causing corporations to go somewhere more competitive ... ). Inflation doesn't offer such attractive narratives, so the government gets saddled with the responsibility.

[Syt]

Unemployment affects some, inflation affects all.

Yes, but fear of being unemployed can also be a powerful motivator.

[crazy canuck]

The incumbency effect doesn't hold a lot of water.  Lots of Democratic incumbents won.  And pointing to the downfall of right of centre governments around the world isn't that persuasive either.  In BC a left of centre government remained in power and retained its historic share of the vote.  They did that by never abandoning their core constituency.

The problem with US politics isn't that incumbents have trouble getting elected.  Quite the opposite.  The real challenge occurs in mid-terms, not general elections.

There are lots are articles being produced over that last week remarking on the shift occurring in US politics.  Ignoring those changes is not wise.

[crazy canuck]

Unemployment affects some, inflation affects all.

Yes, but fear of being unemployed can also be a powerful motivator.

Being employed matters less if your employment income is not enough to put food on the table.

[Syt]

True

[Valmy]

I knew we were fucked early on when it became clear that COVID was going to create worldwide inflation. The Republicans were already blaming Biden for it before he even came into office.

But I thought we had weathered the storm in 2022. Despite inflation running wild, the Democrats managed to politically weather the storm.

But I was clearly wrong. Even years after the inflation was managed, it was still coming for Biden and those from his administration. And it could be the Democrats were always going to be doomed in this election just because of that.

But I guess we will never know for sure.

[The Minsky Moment]

The incumbency effect doesn't hold a lot of water.  Lots of Democratic incumbents won.

In the House, which the Democrats did *not* control, and where historically ticket splitting is fairly common. I.e. the House may be full of bastards but my guy/gal is the one that's OK.  That dynamic doesn't work for President.

[Sheilbh]

Trumps rallies... he's putting on a show for his base. He's not going to win many new supporters doing this. Just really nail down those that he's got. Which is important. But still, I don't think these big rallies are the key useful way to do that. Its more him enjoying the power.

He's over 50% and has added votes.

But my argument is that it's like gigs for a comedian working on his set. He uses the rallies to workshop his material.

"Micro targeting" of segments and all that may be age old and its certainly what the Dems are still heavily reliant on, but Trump and co go further than that, they're nano-targeting, heavily around social media. Doing more than just direct campaign messaging with it too but actively playing the big game to subtly tweak people's thinking before they even encounter the ads.

I just don't buy this - and I never have. Part of that is, possibly, spending most of my working life working in some way with online, personalised/behavioural advertising and the entire industry is riddled with fraud and unverifiable claims. Have a drink with anyone in it and they'll basically all admit that in many ways it is a bit of a con. It's also a dying and declining ecosystem. So I slightly struggle with that practical, professional experience of this stuff and the very hyperbolic claims about its impact in politics (which is, incidentally, very much like the salespitch you get from the companies about how effective they are ). I struggle to believe that the one area they've really, really cracked is politics.

But yes, Facebook will deny it but are very happy if you think they're so good they can win an American election. Steve Bannon and Dom Cummings etc want people to think they're geniuses in Bond villain lairs. I think it's a way for people to delegitimise democratic results they don't like (it was actually Russians/Cambridge Analytica etc) which is challenging after this election and to explain away defeat. We didn't lose because we weren't good enough, we were just too pure for this world.

The dems may be leaning too heavy into putting out ads every election saying "Hey you're a black 40-something woman so you care about this" but the Trumpies of the world are constantly throwing out doubt and messaging about villains in your own town, when the targeted message hits you its far more calculated not on you fitting into a particular category but hey, this guy is gullible, likes dogs and gets upset about bad things happening to dogs, hit him with the Haitians.

I also think, with this example, that it gets the internet wrong. I think the reason microtargeting doesn't work anymore is that everyone can see what you're saying across social media - I think one of the reasons for polarisation is that we can, suddenly, all see all the freaky little sub-cultures on all sides. The stuff on Haitians eating pets was in no way micro-targeted. It was at a rally, extensively reported for weeks on all the news channels, raised in the debate etc - Trump's very good at earning free media in the old media.

But I think Trump's effectiveness is precisely that he isn't surgically targeting the precise voter in Pennsylvania that he can swing. It's that he's broadcasting and that his message is not targeted it is, if nothing else, broad. And I think as Syt says prompts an emotional response (positive and negative). I've said it before but I think the internet phenomenon that's key to Trump is fan culture - it's the Messi v Ronaldo wars on social media (and I think a few other figures, like Corbyn have had similar) - and Trump's broad message is part of that because it allows for basically fanfic, fanvids, for a parasocial bond etc. And I think that's a new attitude to politics and a political leader which I think comes from internet culture.

In the House, which the Democrats did *not* control, and where historically ticket splitting is fairly common. I.e. the House may be full of bastards but my guy/gal is the one that's OK.  That dynamic doesn't work for President.

It feels like this election Trump actually has coat-tails which hasn't previously been the case, or am I wrong?

[Valmy]

It feels like this election Trump actually has coat-tails which hasn't previously been the case, or am I wrong?

Hilariously not really. The only real consequence downballot in this election was the Pennsylvania Senate seat.

Ohio and Montana were always going to be long shots for the Democrats.

And in the House, things are just so gerrymandered that the impact there is also rather small. The Republicans will probably narrowly maintain their majority.

So sure the Republicans did well in this election but it wasn't the massacre it feels like it was.