@ He was a political advisor to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election and came up with 'It's the Economy, Stupid', as the US was in the middle of a small recession. He defeated George HW Bush and was President 1993-2001, when George W Bush became President.
I do agree that it was a difficult election for the Democrats but I do think that if a democrat (even Harris) ran a more economic populist campaign they could of won. And it didn’t help that they didn’t have a primary and swapped out their candidate 4 months before the election.
yeah i agree, this was a low turnout election at the end of the day. Nonvoters were once again the largest voter bloc, if Kamala went harder on her actually popular progressive policies I feel she wouldve done much better
@@MichaelRoberts9000 this ignores reality. How on earth were they supposed to hold a primary 100 days before the actual election? This is one of the most ridiculous takes. I’ve heard yet. Fucking primary?
There's a lot of factors here, but there are four things that are sticking with me through all of this. 1. This comes from the streamer Destiny. Essentially the blame game is everyone picking their pet issue and arguing that as to why the Dems lost in the short time. True and risks us getting lost in the weeds. 2. Philip DeFranco recounted his experience with trying to set up and interview with Sen. Bob Casey and the Senator's apprehension to engaging with him and later pulling out due to being new media. In which case, no wonder he lost. The Dems really need to get over themselves with respect to that and communication is probably one of the more fundamental issues that need to get addressed if they want their message to get through or hold the Republicans accountable. And definitely if they want to start addressing the other issues. A lot of people didn't hear about it or even know their or Trump's policy really. Dems have the policy but not the politics which is what is actually losing them the working class in my opinion because of how core it is to everything else. 3. Talking to my parents was indicative of how the average person engages. They just looked at the fact that they were doing better under Trump and voted accordingly. They didn't have much knowledge outside of that. 4. I was worried about the global anti-incumbency bias and thought the switch to Harris would have solved that problem. That ended exaserbating the problem for her as she has less room to carve out a path for herself and her vision.
We need to run someone that can talk to normal people & get on podcasts. Maybe someone like John Stewart. It doesn't even matter that he doesn't have political experience (just like Trump). He knows how to talk and market himself and sell a populist vision.
Probably, I don't think we should do a carbon copy of whatever the Republicans do because it misses the point of what the Dems have and can leverage. Walz, for example, is someone who has the policy and politics. Maybe Shapiro, maybe Whitmer, maybe Beshear. But tiktok, youtube, podcasts are definitely where it's at if they want to win. The right is extremely good at not making their values look like politics through new media.
Man, the propaganda game is always the same. Buy out public media, spread distrust and misinfo, get scared electorate. Dems literally pivoted so hard to the right that there was no difference between voting for them or Republicans. Which no voter wants.
Point 3 is missing something critical: *things weren't actually better under Trump* 4 years ago, the economy was on life support as everyone was on lockdown. It was an absolutely awful time, and voters kicked Trump out because of how bad it was. But what Trump and right wing media successfully did is convince the majority of voters that the President in 2020 was Biden and thus all the problems caused by COVID are Biden's fault.
Too many people treat politics like sports. When their team loses, they immediately jump to find things their team did wrong, but politics isn’t like that. Politics isn’t some merit based system where the party who runs the best campaign wins. In reality, the main factors in a loss rarely have much to do with the campaign, and are often completely out of your party’s control.
She was already seen as too progressive. And she was perceived on weak on issues like immigration and the economy. Running to the left would not have fixed this. Especially with the entire country shifting right. Like homie in the video said, this was not a policy issue. Being attached to the incumbent administration across the GLOBE has been a kiss of death.
@@iang7244 More people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2024. If the democrats had not lost some 12 million voters since 2020 while Trump lost only 3 million, this election would have been very different. If the democrats had turned away from backing Israel, maybe promised something like a higher minimum wage or universal healthcare, you know actually appealing the progressive base of the party and getting them to vote, this election wouldn't have been the stomp it was. It is just a fact that America as a country wants a higher minimum wage, wants universal healthcare, and wants many policies seen as being leftist or socialist, and doesn't care much about social issues. When the average wage is (accounted for inflation) LOWER than in 1970, and the democrats don't campaign much on the economy, obviously Trump who at least has the popular perception of being better for the economy is going to win. If we didn't pick JOE BIDEN of all people, a figurehead for the liberal establishment of the party which has time and time again ignored the American working class, I see it as extremely likely that Trump would've been smoked in 2020 and smoked in 2024 as long as they did something to aid the American working class. (If you couldn't tell I'm a Bernie stan WHY DIDN'T WE GET HIM IN 2016!!!!!)
@@Monkeyman-pt6gs I voted for Bernie in the 2016 and 2020 primary. I was frustrated after the DNC shenanigans in 2016 and the consolidation of liberals in the 2020 primary. I am very frustrated with the Democratic establishment. With that being saidHarris running in the context that she did was never going to win, even with the most Bernie-esque messaging and policy. Maybe a Bernie or Bernie type figure wins with a proper 2024 primary and a year of campaigning. But that would be evidence that going against incumbency is the winning strategy, not policy. This is highlighted in global trends. Americans put economy as the number 1 issue, but the US economy has recovered the quickest in comparison to other liberal democracies. Trumps proposed tariffs will be highly inflationary. It’s vibes and what people perceive to be the problem. Harris had no time to campaign and couldn’t realistically distance herself from the Biden administration when she is literally second in command.
@@iang7244 yep, its a pretty paradoxical situation. For the right, Kamala is a communist, but the left saw her as too centrist and hypocritical on Gaza etc.
@@Monkeyman-pt6gs Minimum wage increase was voted down. Nobody cited Israel as an issue. Universal healthcare is not popular. Leftist policies across the US were roundly defeated. It was political moderates downballot who survived more.
Biden not raising the minimum wage definitely didn’t help. Give the working class specific policy you can point to that made their life directly better
And this right here is exactly what the video is talking about. The President does not have the power to change the federal minimum wage. That power rests largely with Congress, who has to pass a bill that the President then signs. In Biden's first 2 years, he had the slimmest "majority" in the Senate at 50-50, with multiple DINOs who would never increase the minimum wage. In Biden's third and fourth year, the House was controlled by the Republicans, who shot down bipartisan bills solely to make Biden look bad.
@@diepie5144 dems controlled the presidency, the house, and the senate for two years under Biden. If Biden had pushed hard enough he could have got it passed.
@@4ScoreSlappy the difference is, Germany actually had a poor economy at the time. Not just high inflation and low wages. Which is the US’ problem… these “economy” voters who “feel” the economy is failing, despite all evidence, are the same people who were yelling “facts over feelings” a few years ago, too.
Yeah and they also had a decade of severe economic inequality prior to the Great Depression when liberal 'elites' where seen as decadent, and gender norms got very queer. With all this anti-immigrant sentiment going around it feels like it won't take much for the state sanctioned violence against the left liberal immigrant trans 'Marxist' agenda to start (Hitler's playbook). People usually say history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes - this time it feels like Trump's gotten a bit lazy and stolen the German fascists homework.
So in your opinion, this was the best expected result due to Americans being unhappy with the current climate? I think the same could potentially be true in 2020 when we voted the current party out.
There’s a pattern emerging. Many Americans are angry. They’re gonna keep voting out the incumbent party every election until something fundamentally changes.
PERCEPTION IS REALITY when the layman complains about the economy being bad, economists and policy makers shouldn't be saying "nuh uh stupid, look at the stock market!". They should be able to piece together that the layman is essentially talking about COST OF LIVING vs his wages, not the economy as a whole. This is exactly how I perceive it too - I went and specifically read about the economy to understand why people keep saying that it's doing so well, and my takeaway from that is "cool story, doesnt do me any good". And the average voter is not going to do the amount of research that I did (which wasn't very much) The democrats could tout their good economy but they needed a way to convince voters that continuing their plans (or amending their plans in whatever ways harris planned to) would actually produce meaningful results for the average everyday person. Trump just had to smear the current administration and whatever messaging harris put out, with zero elaboration beyond "ill tariff china and fix everything, trust me bro" and it was GG EZ It also helped that trump was backed by a massive rightwing propaganda machine, that was itself bolstered by the richest man in the world and by a sustained russian disinformation campaign. but i think the issue about messaging on the economy needs to be addressed separately, because otherwise people will come away thinking that every detraction of the economy was just lies, which isn't a fair assessment
To some extent I agree with you but I think if democrats had put a much greater effort in messaging to people that the economy was good and was getting better. If we had put out messages saying that "deflation is here prices WILL go down" even if that was not a promise we would deliver on, it might have worked to low info voters. If American voters had felt that their economic concerns were being acknowledged more, maybe this election would have been winnable. Because America has had an amazing economic recovery.
It's hard to say. I think if Harris ran around trying to convince people the economy was actually good it may have put more people off, no one who is going through a hard time like their experience invalidated and it's extremely difficult to foster the critical thinking needed in voters to get them to understand how their day to day life might be seperate from the health of the economy
@ the economy IS ACTUALLY GOOD. Inflation is what’s bad. And that isn’t controlled by the government. Can’t wait to watch “economy” voters find out the hard way…
This is it, this is literally it. Republicans crushed the Democrats in the messaging war, that's all there is too it. Politics is literally all just vibes and posturing, you don't actually need to be correct, you just need to make it seem like you're more confident and sure of your own position thus more right in people's eyes.
I will say there was a lot more going on with the tory loss in the uk than just what you've said but yeah, more or less. About the question in the title though... I don't think the democratic party could have ever won this election but more because I don't think that the dems ever would have ran an anti-establishment candidate - and that's the only thing that could have worked. Most people care about vibes (and Trump, unfortunately, has vibes that resonate with a lot of the electorate) not policy - and when the economy is bad people want the vibes of change. Now I don't know if an anti-establishment dem (even waiving reality and assuming that one could both be found and accepted by the party leadership) would have won - but in retrospect I think it would have been the only thing with the chance for significantly different outcomes.
What it sounds like to me, is that the people casting the deciding vote feel that the system isn’t doing well, and want radical change. So they’re voting for the candidate who’ll promise to bring change (in the US, Trump). I think it was possible for Kamala to win, had she reinvented her political campaign, and started making more radical proposals (like overhauling Medicare or, you know, lowering the wait time for migrants to anything below 18 months so they don’t feel the need to immigrate illegally)
She only had 100 days. She didn’t have policy proposals for several weeks and a lot didn’t get proposed until the end of her campaign. There were people who showed up on Election Day who didn’t even know Biden dropped out. My suggestion to the next Democratic nominee is make some popular policy proposals, and give them time to land with the general public.
@ totally agree. She should have been preparing policy behind Biden’s back when he was only being pressured to drop out. I think it was a bit inept to not have anything prepared (especially considering she was being groomed to run in 2028 if Biden won in 2024, right?), and especially considering how everyone knew that Biden was unpopular with the median voter, and like you said, with the limited time to differentiate herself from her boss.
To my understanding and warranting further looking in to: a devastating amount of people, just didn’t vote… there are various ways and whys but several millions from 2020 just sat it out this time. Between economic pessimism and election cynicism enough people burnout and tune out and that may well have been the underestimated factor. There’s a lot that could’ve been done, but it doesn’t look like it would’ve cumulatively been enough given the current gov’t set up.
It's not suitable to compare it to the UK. The 14 years of Tories saw rising taxes, same-sex marriage legalized, historic levels of both legal and illegal immigration, 2 female prime ministers, 1 foreign-born PM, 1 Asian/Indian/Hindu PM, the chance for Scotland to become independent, the country turning atheistic, and so on.
This video sounds really good, but it doesn’t seem like you’re responding to the scenario that actually happened. This result wasn’t about people choosing Trump, it was about Democrats not showing up to vote.
In the USA ( and most optional-voting democracies) not showing up is as emphatic a choice as showing up and voting. Fact is 2024 was a pretty high turnout by US standards, and don't forget the figures you're seeing aren't complete: there's at least 10 million votes in just the 3 West Coast states alone that haven't even been counted yet. Trump will win the popular vote, but the final figures will be much closer than what's currently tallied.
@ I agree that not voting IS voting, but I disagree that Democrats who didn’t vote for Harris did so because they wanted Trump to win. That’s not the sentiment I heard or saw from any protest nom voter.
@@blue_wolfproductions12 tbf if Trump had gone for a 2nd debate it would have narrowed it some, if it was anything like the first. Political momentum definitely comes in knee jerk reactions and people were given time to forget the 1st debate.
@@blue_wolfproductions12 If it was about policy Kamala would've won. Nobody gives a shit about policy, they care about narrative, and the narrative is "the economy sucks, I blame the establishment." You either play into that narrative or you lose.
The other example I’d identify in Australia is that there’s been 4 elections in 2024, 3 with incumbent Labor governments and 1 with an incumbent Liberal government and in all four the incumbents did poorly resulting in two of them being forced into minority and another two resulting in a change of government.
I mean it wouldn't be a bad bet given Trump's plans, and I honestly wouldn't mind them to keep their messaging and politics right where they are because the electoral incentive seems to be to move to the right
@@small.clover But things shifting rightward means the center is even more of a dead zone. You can't outflank Republicans on immigration or social issues. Voters will simply go for the real deal and not bother with half-hearted moderation.
Leftists make a big deal out of playing hard ball with the democratic party at the worst times. Not that they don't have a point to make but they are extremely poor at leveraging their support and power which is why they struggle a lot. The vibes of hating both candidates (even though the way they do so looks different), but encouraging like minded participate anyway is not a recipe for turning out the people who are most in the Democratic camp by default.
Showing my ass a little here, but as a straight white man I've always been of the opinion that continued success in progressive representation was always going to lead the "white male lead-ification" of gay media. I've always been exasperated in conversations of representation by the statement that white guys have sooooo much representation. By volume, yeah, absolutely but the quality is atrocious. I'm not surprised if people are unironically longing for the days where queer media wasn't quite so mainstream.
What they should've done was go hard on contractionary fiscal policy in 2022 to limit inflation and then hope the voterbase forgets by the time of the electio
This all makes complete 100% sense and you are definitely correct but.... bro.... dont act like you werent saying harris was the favourite a few weeks ago when all of this was clearly known
He's allowed to be wrong, and said it was a toss-up closer to the election. Besides, literally no one say the extent of Trump's victory, even Trump himself, so I forgive him because with the information at the time it was a reasonable conclusion.
Political talking heads - particularly British ones - use the expression: "perceived economy...". by which they mean: "we need to alter people's perception of thinking the economy is bad ( when some indicators are trending positively)". I would rephrase it as: "it's not the economy, stupid: it's WHOSE economy ... stupid ... I don't give a flying eff about YOUR economy, what I'm facing is MY economy, and it's crap." Harris had a decent chance, against a liar and criminal like Trump it should have been better. But she couldn't bring herself down to the level of daily reality. And she needed to put the boot into Biden, from day 1. "Thank you, Joe" at the Democratic National Convention: what a sick refrain that was.
There is something to note about the recent Conservative defeat in the UK. My belief is they did as badly as they did for two reasons - the first past the post voting system - they weren't effective in suppressing illegal immigration These two factors worked very closely together. Their failure to control illegal immigration spurred the rise of the Reform party - who flanked them to the right on this (and other) issues. This split the right wing vote. Even a small split, on either side, in a first past the post system can cause drastic swings. Result. Reform got about 6 seats. But may, because of our voting system, have cost the Conservatives over a hundred seats (possibly over two hundred. But I'm more dubious of that). Now. The economy definitely also played a part. It definitely drove more voters to Reform. But immigration drove their rise in the first place. Immigration seems to be the defining issue of the modern right. Admitadly, one they tie to the economy, but I wonder if it isn't more central.
I suppose we're told by the media that our woes are caused by immigrants. I wish people realised that most of the problems in the UK are caused by greed being left to become a national pastime. The housing situation caused by neoliberal deregulation / reforms in the 1980s + falling productivity driven by a lack of govt and private investment has caused us all to suffer and the fabric of our cities to decline. I think a similar story carries globally, across developed countries which have experienced the whole neoliberal financial experiment. But the right wing media never talk about real economic issues. People don't learn about why the country is falling behind or look for real solutions, they just continue to vote right wing (which drives away investment and productivity gains because it makes our economy look unstable & a bad place for reliable future returns). It seems the easiest thing to do is be told what to think by selfish people who own the media and don't actually have the nation's best interests at heart. The middle class are struggling, but so long as their pensions and the housing market isn't rocked they'll continue to vote for national decline. (If we kicked out all the immigrants, got rid of the ECHR, and reformed the voting system we wouldn't be gaining an idealised sense of sovereignty - we'd be crushed by the same boot of unregulated international capitalism which is already reeking havoc across our national infrastructure) Solutions? Idk. Seems like most people are a bit myopic in this country and we don't have a real sense of neighbourliness or empathy either in left or right wing media circles. It would be cool if people need to talk more about how we can make this country a great place to live. The right need to learn how to feel ok with equality + emotional intelligence, rather than bootlicking and thinking that voting Reform is a 'protest' vote. But people are understandably in the main concerned about their families, their income, and their housing. So, I don't think much will change while people have no reason to see the bigger picture. I think we're in for more gradual decline, and anti-immigrant sentiment generated by mostly young men's anxieties about not being able to make a stable living / sense of identity in this country thanks to the housing situation caused by decades old rent reforms & under investment etc etc. In sum, a continued shift to the right while the extremely wealthy profit from our misery.
You are completely wrong about the Conservative Party, they are in no way as competent as the Republican Party and most of their policies were just infinity pensions.
The small silver lining is that the tipping point state and the popular vote margin are roughly even. If that trend holds, Democrats won’t need to win the popular vote by a large margin in 2028 to win the electoral college.
@@Dan_Kanerva Reperations have still not been given to Black Americans despite them having to endure all the hate and vitriol they did (and still do) for the vast majority of the country's history.
@@helios2664 where is the reparations to the arabs for being sold by the Ethiopians during the punic wars. where is the reparations to the Baltic people for being sold by the arabs during the Bizantine rule. where are the reparations to the natives for what they endured under Spanish rule. Exactly, greater pain and evil has been inflicted on many other groups and NEVER have they cried reparations. LOL
That's not true, most Trump supporters don't even know what Trump's policies are elections come down to vibes and messaging and that's where Trump excels at
@ you don’t understand that tariffs will push more jobs into the country. Look at the tariff on pickup trucks, that’s the only reason Toyota tacomas are made here.
That's incredibly well said, people feel they are so economically devastated they will choose the other side no matter what
The American economy is technically doing really well compared to most countries. But people hate paying higher prices, and thats all it is....
The problem with America they don't like social policies. Social policies would have fixed this but they don't want those. It's too liberal
@@diablosv36 wait till they find out that the president you choose doesn’t affect inflation… 😂😂😂
Mr James Carville in '92. Yes, I'm old enough to remember it.
Elaborate?
@ He was a political advisor to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election and came up with 'It's the Economy, Stupid', as the US was in the middle of a small recession. He defeated George HW Bush and was President 1993-2001, when George W Bush became President.
@@small.clover”It’s the economy, stupid.”
Agreed. This had nothing to do with policy and all to do with perceptions imo.
I do agree that it was a difficult election for the Democrats but I do think that if a democrat (even Harris) ran a more economic populist campaign they could of won. And it didn’t help that they didn’t have a primary and swapped out their candidate 4 months before the election.
yeah i agree, this was a low turnout election at the end of the day. Nonvoters were once again the largest voter bloc, if Kamala went harder on her actually popular progressive policies I feel she wouldve done much better
@@MichaelRoberts9000 this ignores reality. How on earth were they supposed to hold a primary 100 days before the actual election? This is one of the most ridiculous takes. I’ve heard yet. Fucking primary?
There's a lot of factors here, but there are four things that are sticking with me through all of this.
1. This comes from the streamer Destiny. Essentially the blame game is everyone picking their pet issue and arguing that as to why the Dems lost in the short time. True and risks us getting lost in the weeds.
2. Philip DeFranco recounted his experience with trying to set up and interview with Sen. Bob Casey and the Senator's apprehension to engaging with him and later pulling out due to being new media. In which case, no wonder he lost. The Dems really need to get over themselves with respect to that and communication is probably one of the more fundamental issues that need to get addressed if they want their message to get through or hold the Republicans accountable. And definitely if they want to start addressing the other issues. A lot of people didn't hear about it or even know their or Trump's policy really.
Dems have the policy but not the politics which is what is actually losing them the working class in my opinion because of how core it is to everything else.
3. Talking to my parents was indicative of how the average person engages. They just looked at the fact that they were doing better under Trump and voted accordingly. They didn't have much knowledge outside of that.
4. I was worried about the global anti-incumbency bias and thought the switch to Harris would have solved that problem. That ended exaserbating the problem for her as she has less room to carve out a path for herself and her vision.
We need to run someone that can talk to normal people & get on podcasts. Maybe someone like John Stewart.
It doesn't even matter that he doesn't have political experience (just like Trump). He knows how to talk and market himself and sell a populist vision.
Probably, I don't think we should do a carbon copy of whatever the Republicans do because it misses the point of what the Dems have and can leverage. Walz, for example, is someone who has the policy and politics. Maybe Shapiro, maybe Whitmer, maybe Beshear.
But tiktok, youtube, podcasts are definitely where it's at if they want to win. The right is extremely good at not making their values look like politics through new media.
Man, the propaganda game is always the same. Buy out public media, spread distrust and misinfo, get scared electorate.
Dems literally pivoted so hard to the right that there was no difference between voting for them or Republicans. Which no voter wants.
Point 3 is missing something critical: *things weren't actually better under Trump*
4 years ago, the economy was on life support as everyone was on lockdown. It was an absolutely awful time, and voters kicked Trump out because of how bad it was.
But what Trump and right wing media successfully did is convince the majority of voters that the President in 2020 was Biden and thus all the problems caused by COVID are Biden's fault.
@@jeremyjackson7429 Would Jon Stewart even want to be president? I think Pete Buttigieg would be a good candidate
Too many people treat politics like sports. When their team loses, they immediately jump to find things their team did wrong, but politics isn’t like that. Politics isn’t some merit based system where the party who runs the best campaign wins. In reality, the main factors in a loss rarely have much to do with the campaign, and are often completely out of your party’s control.
She wasted Walz. They couldve barely won the blue wall if Kamala didnt run towards the right. Just my opinion.
She was already seen as too progressive. And she was perceived on weak on issues like immigration and the economy. Running to the left would not have fixed this. Especially with the entire country shifting right.
Like homie in the video said, this was not a policy issue. Being attached to the incumbent administration across the GLOBE has been a kiss of death.
@@iang7244 More people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2024. If the democrats had not lost some 12 million voters since 2020 while Trump lost only 3 million, this election would have been very different. If the democrats had turned away from backing Israel, maybe promised something like a higher minimum wage or universal healthcare, you know actually appealing the progressive base of the party and getting them to vote, this election wouldn't have been the stomp it was. It is just a fact that America as a country wants a higher minimum wage, wants universal healthcare, and wants many policies seen as being leftist or socialist, and doesn't care much about social issues. When the average wage is (accounted for inflation) LOWER than in 1970, and the democrats don't campaign much on the economy, obviously Trump who at least has the popular perception of being better for the economy is going to win.
If we didn't pick JOE BIDEN of all people, a figurehead for the liberal establishment of the party which has time and time again ignored the American working class, I see it as extremely likely that Trump would've been smoked in 2020 and smoked in 2024 as long as they did something to aid the American working class.
(If you couldn't tell I'm a Bernie stan WHY DIDN'T WE GET HIM IN 2016!!!!!)
@@Monkeyman-pt6gs I voted for Bernie in the 2016 and 2020 primary. I was frustrated after the DNC shenanigans in 2016 and the consolidation of liberals in the 2020 primary. I am very frustrated with the Democratic establishment.
With that being saidHarris running in the context that she did was never going to win, even with the most Bernie-esque messaging and policy.
Maybe a Bernie or Bernie type figure wins with a proper 2024 primary and a year of campaigning. But that would be evidence that going against incumbency is the winning strategy, not policy. This is highlighted in global trends.
Americans put economy as the number 1 issue, but the US economy has recovered the quickest in comparison to other liberal democracies. Trumps proposed tariffs will be highly inflationary. It’s vibes and what people perceive to be the problem.
Harris had no time to campaign and couldn’t realistically distance herself from the Biden administration when she is literally second in command.
@@iang7244 yep, its a pretty paradoxical situation. For the right, Kamala is a communist, but the left saw her as too centrist and hypocritical on Gaza etc.
@@Monkeyman-pt6gs Minimum wage increase was voted down. Nobody cited Israel as an issue. Universal healthcare is not popular.
Leftist policies across the US were roundly defeated. It was political moderates downballot who survived more.
Bernie Sanders
I agree, but Bernie Sanders is not a democrat.
lol
Biden not raising the minimum wage definitely didn’t help. Give the working class specific policy you can point to that made their life directly better
Since when did the president raise the minimum wage?
And this right here is exactly what the video is talking about.
The President does not have the power to change the federal minimum wage. That power rests largely with Congress, who has to pass a bill that the President then signs.
In Biden's first 2 years, he had the slimmest "majority" in the Senate at 50-50, with multiple DINOs who would never increase the minimum wage.
In Biden's third and fourth year, the House was controlled by the Republicans, who shot down bipartisan bills solely to make Biden look bad.
@@TheFinalChaptersokay, biden and Kamala still didn't do shit for the working class because they don't give a shit.
@@diepie5144 dems controlled the presidency, the house, and the senate for two years under Biden. If Biden had pushed hard enough he could have got it passed.
This is the absolute best explanation of the election that I’ve heard.
I know people hate the comparison, but Hitler rose to power because of a poor economy.
@@4ScoreSlappy The American economy is better than it has ever been, The rich are as rich as ever…
@@4ScoreSlappy the difference is, Germany actually had a poor economy at the time. Not just high inflation and low wages. Which is the US’ problem… these “economy” voters who “feel” the economy is failing, despite all evidence, are the same people who were yelling “facts over feelings” a few years ago, too.
Yeah and they also had a decade of severe economic inequality prior to the Great Depression when liberal 'elites' where seen as decadent, and gender norms got very queer.
With all this anti-immigrant sentiment going around it feels like it won't take much for the state sanctioned violence against the left liberal immigrant trans 'Marxist' agenda to start (Hitler's playbook). People usually say history doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes - this time it feels like Trump's gotten a bit lazy and stolen the German fascists homework.
So in your opinion, this was the best expected result due to Americans being unhappy with the current climate? I think the same could potentially be true in 2020 when we voted the current party out.
There’s a pattern emerging. Many Americans are angry. They’re gonna keep voting out the incumbent party every election until something fundamentally changes.
It seems a lot of people forgot about COVID and why it was so bad in the US.
@ this…
I could have won
you should’ve saved us😔
The media was horrendous. I blame the media and how they focused on Trump constantly and REFUSED to point out all his issues and lies.
It was the fault of the democratic party. They suck. Their consultants suck.
PERCEPTION IS REALITY
when the layman complains about the economy being bad, economists and policy makers shouldn't be saying "nuh uh stupid, look at the stock market!". They should be able to piece together that the layman is essentially talking about COST OF LIVING vs his wages, not the economy as a whole. This is exactly how I perceive it too - I went and specifically read about the economy to understand why people keep saying that it's doing so well, and my takeaway from that is "cool story, doesnt do me any good". And the average voter is not going to do the amount of research that I did (which wasn't very much)
The democrats could tout their good economy but they needed a way to convince voters that continuing their plans (or amending their plans in whatever ways harris planned to) would actually produce meaningful results for the average everyday person. Trump just had to smear the current administration and whatever messaging harris put out, with zero elaboration beyond "ill tariff china and fix everything, trust me bro" and it was GG EZ
It also helped that trump was backed by a massive rightwing propaganda machine, that was itself bolstered by the richest man in the world and by a sustained russian disinformation campaign. but i think the issue about messaging on the economy needs to be addressed separately, because otherwise people will come away thinking that every detraction of the economy was just lies, which isn't a fair assessment
To some extent I agree with you but I think if democrats had put a much greater effort in messaging to people that the economy was good and was getting better. If we had put out messages saying that "deflation is here prices WILL go down" even if that was not a promise we would deliver on, it might have worked to low info voters.
If American voters had felt that their economic concerns were being acknowledged more, maybe this election would have been winnable. Because America has had an amazing economic recovery.
Bullshit
It's hard to say. I think if Harris ran around trying to convince people the economy was actually good it may have put more people off, no one who is going through a hard time like their experience invalidated and it's extremely difficult to foster the critical thinking needed in voters to get them to understand how their day to day life might be seperate from the health of the economy
@ the economy IS ACTUALLY GOOD. Inflation is what’s bad. And that isn’t controlled by the government. Can’t wait to watch “economy” voters find out the hard way…
This is it, this is literally it. Republicans crushed the Democrats in the messaging war, that's all there is too it. Politics is literally all just vibes and posturing, you don't actually need to be correct, you just need to make it seem like you're more confident and sure of your own position thus more right in people's eyes.
give us more Australian political takes please. I'm dying to know what your takes are.
I will say there was a lot more going on with the tory loss in the uk than just what you've said but yeah, more or less.
About the question in the title though... I don't think the democratic party could have ever won this election but more because I don't think that the dems ever would have ran an anti-establishment candidate - and that's the only thing that could have worked. Most people care about vibes (and Trump, unfortunately, has vibes that resonate with a lot of the electorate) not policy - and when the economy is bad people want the vibes of change.
Now I don't know if an anti-establishment dem (even waiving reality and assuming that one could both be found and accepted by the party leadership) would have won - but in retrospect I think it would have been the only thing with the chance for significantly different outcomes.
What it sounds like to me, is that the people casting the deciding vote feel that the system isn’t doing well, and want radical change. So they’re voting for the candidate who’ll promise to bring change (in the US, Trump).
I think it was possible for Kamala to win, had she reinvented her political campaign, and started making more radical proposals (like overhauling Medicare or, you know, lowering the wait time for migrants to anything below 18 months so they don’t feel the need to immigrate illegally)
She only had 100 days. She didn’t have policy proposals for several weeks and a lot didn’t get proposed until the end of her campaign. There were people who showed up on Election Day who didn’t even know Biden dropped out.
My suggestion to the next Democratic nominee is make some popular policy proposals, and give them time to land with the general public.
@ totally agree. She should have been preparing policy behind Biden’s back when he was only being pressured to drop out. I think it was a bit inept to not have anything prepared (especially considering she was being groomed to run in 2028 if Biden won in 2024, right?), and especially considering how everyone knew that Biden was unpopular with the median voter, and like you said, with the limited time to differentiate herself from her boss.
Please, I think Liz Truss found that big button for the economy.
It was just the big red, do not touch, destroy the economy button.
To my understanding and warranting further looking in to: a devastating amount of people, just didn’t vote… there are various ways and whys but several millions from 2020 just sat it out this time. Between economic pessimism and election cynicism enough people burnout and tune out and that may well have been the underestimated factor. There’s a lot that could’ve been done, but it doesn’t look like it would’ve cumulatively been enough given the current gov’t set up.
campaigining with liz cheny and not focusing on price goughing lost it
It's not suitable to compare it to the UK. The 14 years of Tories saw rising taxes, same-sex marriage legalized, historic levels of both legal and illegal immigration, 2 female prime ministers, 1 foreign-born PM, 1 Asian/Indian/Hindu PM, the chance for Scotland to become independent, the country turning atheistic, and so on.
This video sounds really good, but it doesn’t seem like you’re responding to the scenario that actually happened. This result wasn’t about people choosing Trump, it was about Democrats not showing up to vote.
In the USA ( and most optional-voting democracies) not showing up is as emphatic a choice as showing up and voting. Fact is 2024 was a pretty high turnout by US standards, and don't forget the figures you're seeing aren't complete: there's at least 10 million votes in just the 3 West Coast states alone that haven't even been counted yet.
Trump will win the popular vote, but the final figures will be much closer than what's currently tallied.
@ I agree that not voting IS voting, but I disagree that Democrats who didn’t vote for Harris did so because they wanted Trump to win. That’s not the sentiment I heard or saw from any protest nom voter.
Unfortunately yeah.
Prolly Walz tbh
Agreed
no, he let JD vance humiliate him at that debate after talking so much shit.
@ Debate doesn’t move the needle though. Kamala beat Trump in her debate and she still lost the presidency. It was about policy all along.
@@blue_wolfproductions12 tbf if Trump had gone for a 2nd debate it would have narrowed it some, if it was anything like the first. Political momentum definitely comes in knee jerk reactions and people were given time to forget the 1st debate.
@@blue_wolfproductions12 If it was about policy Kamala would've won. Nobody gives a shit about policy, they care about narrative, and the narrative is "the economy sucks, I blame the establishment." You either play into that narrative or you lose.
The other example I’d identify in Australia is that there’s been 4 elections in 2024, 3 with incumbent Labor governments and 1 with an incumbent Liberal government and in all four the incumbents did poorly resulting in two of them being forced into minority and another two resulting in a change of government.
Perhaps they could stop being neoliberals
This just gives Democrats license to not do anything to change their messaging or politics and just hope the economy tanks in four years.
I mean it wouldn't be a bad bet given Trump's plans, and I honestly wouldn't mind them to keep their messaging and politics right where they are because the electoral incentive seems to be to move to the right
@@small.clover But things shifting rightward means the center is even more of a dead zone. You can't outflank Republicans on immigration or social issues. Voters will simply go for the real deal and not bother with half-hearted moderation.
@@SuperPal-tr3go Yes, but they'll capture a lot more votes if they're closer to Republicans on xeno issues and propose better economic policy.
Leftists make a big deal out of playing hard ball with the democratic party at the worst times. Not that they don't have a point to make but they are extremely poor at leveraging their support and power which is why they struggle a lot. The vibes of hating both candidates (even though the way they do so looks different), but encouraging like minded participate anyway is not a recipe for turning out the people who are most in the Democratic camp by default.
@@small.cloveryes that worked so well this election???
Who else is excited for the next recession in like 2 years
Very well said
Wow, that's the opposite conclusion I hope people had about this election.
Bernie would have, either of the last 3 elections.
Showing my ass a little here, but as a straight white man I've always been of the opinion that continued success in progressive representation was always going to lead the "white male lead-ification" of gay media. I've always been exasperated in conversations of representation by the statement that white guys have sooooo much representation. By volume, yeah, absolutely but the quality is atrocious. I'm not surprised if people are unironically longing for the days where queer media wasn't quite so mainstream.
no idea y but i had no idea u were australian
But...his accent...how could you not?
What they should've done was go hard on contractionary fiscal policy in 2022 to limit inflation and then hope the voterbase forgets by the time of the electio
This all makes complete 100% sense and you are definitely correct but.... bro.... dont act like you werent saying harris was the favourite a few weeks ago when all of this was clearly known
He's allowed to be wrong, and said it was a toss-up closer to the election. Besides, literally no one say the extent of Trump's victory, even Trump himself, so I forgive him because with the information at the time it was a reasonable conclusion.
Political talking heads - particularly British ones - use the expression: "perceived economy...". by which they mean: "we need to alter people's perception of thinking the economy is bad ( when some indicators are trending positively)".
I would rephrase it as: "it's not the economy, stupid: it's WHOSE economy ... stupid ...
I don't give a flying eff about YOUR economy, what I'm facing is MY economy, and it's crap."
Harris had a decent chance, against a liar and criminal like Trump it should have been better. But she couldn't bring herself down to the level of daily reality.
And she needed to put the boot into Biden, from day 1.
"Thank you, Joe" at the Democratic National Convention: what a sick refrain that was.
"perceived economy" is a good term
There is something to note about the recent Conservative defeat in the UK.
My belief is they did as badly as they did for two reasons
- the first past the post voting system
- they weren't effective in suppressing illegal immigration
These two factors worked very closely together. Their failure to control illegal immigration spurred the rise of the Reform party - who flanked them to the right on this (and other) issues. This split the right wing vote. Even a small split, on either side, in a first past the post system can cause drastic swings.
Result. Reform got about 6 seats. But may, because of our voting system, have cost the Conservatives over a hundred seats (possibly over two hundred. But I'm more dubious of that).
Now. The economy definitely also played a part. It definitely drove more voters to Reform. But immigration drove their rise in the first place.
Immigration seems to be the defining issue of the modern right. Admitadly, one they tie to the economy, but I wonder if it isn't more central.
I suppose we're told by the media that our woes are caused by immigrants. I wish people realised that most of the problems in the UK are caused by greed being left to become a national pastime. The housing situation caused by neoliberal deregulation / reforms in the 1980s + falling productivity driven by a lack of govt and private investment has caused us all to suffer and the fabric of our cities to decline. I think a similar story carries globally, across developed countries which have experienced the whole neoliberal financial experiment.
But the right wing media never talk about real economic issues. People don't learn about why the country is falling behind or look for real solutions, they just continue to vote right wing (which drives away investment and productivity gains because it makes our economy look unstable & a bad place for reliable future returns). It seems the easiest thing to do is be told what to think by selfish people who own the media and don't actually have the nation's best interests at heart. The middle class are struggling, but so long as their pensions and the housing market isn't rocked they'll continue to vote for national decline.
(If we kicked out all the immigrants, got rid of the ECHR, and reformed the voting system we wouldn't be gaining an idealised sense of sovereignty - we'd be crushed by the same boot of unregulated international capitalism which is already reeking havoc across our national infrastructure)
Solutions? Idk. Seems like most people are a bit myopic in this country and we don't have a real sense of neighbourliness or empathy either in left or right wing media circles. It would be cool if people need to talk more about how we can make this country a great place to live. The right need to learn how to feel ok with equality + emotional intelligence, rather than bootlicking and thinking that voting Reform is a 'protest' vote.
But people are understandably in the main concerned about their families, their income, and their housing. So, I don't think much will change while people have no reason to see the bigger picture. I think we're in for more gradual decline, and anti-immigrant sentiment generated by mostly young men's anxieties about not being able to make a stable living / sense of identity in this country thanks to the housing situation caused by decades old rent reforms & under investment etc etc. In sum, a continued shift to the right while the extremely wealthy profit from our misery.
You are completely wrong about the Conservative Party, they are in no way as competent as the Republican Party and most of their policies were just infinity pensions.
The small silver lining is that the tipping point state and the popular vote margin are roughly even.
If that trend holds, Democrats won’t need to win the popular vote by a large margin in 2028 to win the electoral college.
The fact is Obama shouldn’t have said what he did about Trump, causing him to run.
Fuck that don’t blame Obama because america is racist.
@@shyviolets42 "America is racist" is as amazing as "Mexico is lazy". Well done, little bro
@@Dan_Kanerva Reperations have still not been given to Black Americans despite them having to endure all the hate and vitriol they did (and still do) for the vast majority of the country's history.
@@helios2664 where is the reparations to the arabs for being sold by the Ethiopians during the punic wars. where is the reparations to the Baltic people for being sold by the arabs during the Bizantine rule. where are the reparations to the natives for what they endured under Spanish rule. Exactly, greater pain and evil has been inflicted on many other groups and NEVER have they cried reparations. LOL
Markiplier could have 🙄🙄🙄
Yes. Your answers are rushed and very dumbing down of a complex reason.
No. The policies were why we voted. Trumps platform is NOT that far right leaning. Open your eyes.
That's not true, most Trump supporters don't even know what Trump's policies are elections come down to vibes and messaging and that's where Trump excels at
You're actually a brainlet if you think that Trumps policies aren't far right in terms of the modern world.
Trump has said he will institute tariffs that will raise prices. How will that benefit the working class?
@ you don’t understand that tariffs will push more jobs into the country. Look at the tariff on pickup trucks, that’s the only reason Toyota tacomas are made here.
@@FireBreatherMP1 more than half of the US is tired of this modern world…