American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

What I meant was he gained in every demographic across America in comparison to 2020.

That was going to happen even if Harris won. 2020 was a blowout in terms of popular vote by modern standards, 2nd only to 2008 Obama in the 21st century.

There are some longer-term demographic shifts that are noteworthy (particularly young men, latino, and education level differences), but to a large extent a lot of that is just reverting to a more normal range. For instance, Trump's support among whites and men is no different than Romney's was in 2012.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I really don't know how the Dems will get their message/brainwash Americans by next election when Republicans are doing it so well with no end in sight.

Twitter, Joe Rogan, Facebook, Fox News, etc...........the right has a massive edge in misinformation/conspiracies/lies that reach a huge audience. That's tough to beat, and will be again in 2028.

Democrats should go on Rogan (and other shows) and spread their message, like totally book him for the next 4 years. He's pretty much an empty vessel.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Because economic policies, in general, take time to see their effect. Until Trump institutes his tariffs it's going to look like there is continued economic growth because of the Biden policies. Biden spent his first couple of years dealing with the mess that Trump's policies introduced, plus you know.. a global recession and inflation due to a global pandemic.

Think about it this way. If you pass a bill that is intended to stimulate manufacturing, how long does it take for a factory to be built? Likely somewhere in the range of 3-7 years. You have to find the land, deal with zoning, public hearings, get alignment from local government and state government, RFPs for the building, source materials, build the factory. All of that stuff takes time. Look at the Flames new building as a good example of that. It's taken more than a decade to get alignment on all of those things with several starts and stops along the way.

Similarly, making cuts takes time to see the effect as capital dries up and workers are displaced.

Now, if Trump does things like mass deportation.. that's going to severely impact the labour force because small businesses that have slim margins have resorted to finding cheap labour to try and continue to be profitable. Small business owners who voted for Trump are going to have some serious regrets when they have to raise prices to compensate for higher prices on imported goods that they enhance and sell, and they're going to have a hard time finding labour to work for them.

Like, the Hatian migrants for example, they're taking jobs that NO ONE wanted to work. A strong economy has money moving around, but since Reganomics it's been concentrating into less hands.

So you're trying to tell the American electorate that the following policies had zero negative effect to the economy until Biden took over, then they had a negative effect? In fact, the economy actually got better over the term, even though many of these changes were made in the first 1-1.5 years, but then they made everything worse?

- Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (December 2017), where the standard deduction was doubled (something everyone seems to ignore when talking about the tax cuts)
- Opportunity Zones (December 2017)
- Re-negotiation of NAFTA (signed in 2018)
- Tariffs on steel & aluminum (signed in early 2018, and Biden hasn't made any move to remove them)
- Regulatory Rollbacks, including the 2-for-1 rule

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I really don't know how the Dems will get their message/brainwash Americans by next election when Republicans are doing it so well with no end in sight.

Twitter, Joe Rogan, Facebook, Fox News, etc...........the right has a massive edge in misinformation/conspiracies/lies that reach a huge audience. That's tough to beat, and will be again in 2028.

You gotta scare these people. Fear motivates. Thats exactly what the redhats did. Show ads of scenes from the USSR and communism - gulags, food shortages, massive armies marching across Europe, violence, government oppression, etc.

Drive home the point that this is coming to America if we don't stop the Russian horde in Ukraine and hammer them into submission. Russia will take away your 2A rights.

Finish with a scene of an American suburban neighborhood with houses flying the crimson of the Soviet Union instead of the American Flag.

~fin~

[Jason14h]

The issue that the dem's underestimate / miss-estimate is the impact of the message that Tax Cuts = Less Services = Poor People Poorer = You're voting against your interests

This message is commonly said on this board as well

There's an idea that all taxes are used optimally and used on services. The reality is very little tax money/new tax money ever actually reaches people to make their lives better or worse.

Most of it 'disappears' into the machine that is government. And it's an easier message that government is taxing people to death and lower taxes = more money in my pocket.

So while it philosophically (and to an extend technically) is correct collecting less taxes impacts services, people voting don't care/believe and it isn't driving the votes of the lower income lower educated voters

The reactions on this board in 90% of posts shows the elitist disconnect (yes people who can sit on a message board during working hours are elitists!) vs many trump voters , especially males in blue collar industries

They don't sit on twitter 24/7, they don't research statements, they don't watch podcasts. They do to work 40-60 hrs a week, then home to their family and try to buy groceries and pay they rent. They don't care about most of the Dem's messages or even know what they are

This message board DOES NOT represent the 'common' voter at all. This is what I don't understand that all the "intellectuals" on here have such a hard time wrapping their heads around.

This board is very close to how i imagine the Democrats discussions go "I don't understand how we didn't win. Don't people know XYZ." They don't.... And they don't care

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The thing is, there will probably be a bit of lag time getting some of these policies in place (there's no ideological momentum in favour of tariffs for example and a lot of the people in charge of implementing them will probably approach that task with more nuance than Trump would), and once they're in place in whatever form, there will be another lag before the bill comes due and the bad impacts are really felt... it should be perfectly timed for the next guy to get tagged as being responsible.

Yeah, if he even follows through with it, I guess. Seems just as likely he threatens tariffs, gets paid off in one way or another by China, and slaps a tariff on something completely irrelevant from like Venezuela instead. It's not like Trump has a real ideological preference for protectionism. Just flows nicely with his various other xenophobic messages.

But if they do actually craft some serious tariffs with teeth - yeah, that'll hurt years later.

[opendoor]

Just to reiterate that demographic preferences aren't all that different than in the past, here's the 2004 vs. 2024, which are decent comparisons as the popular vote margins are similar:

Men: Bush 55%; Trump 55%

White: Bush 58%; Trump 57%

Black: Bush 11%; Trump 13%

Hispanic: Bush 44%; Trump 46%

Asian: Bush 44%; Trump 39%

18-29: Bush 45%; Trump 42%

30-44: Bush 53%; Trump 45%

45-64: Bush 51%; Trump 56%

65+: Bush 54%; Trump 49%


Other than Gen X going right and younger people and seniors going left, those are basically indistinguishable.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The issue that the dem's underestimate / miss-estimate is the impact of the message that Tax Cuts = Less Services = Poor People Poorer = You're voting against your interests

This message is commonly said on this board as well

There's an idea that all taxes are used optimally and used on services. The reality is very little tax money/new tax money ever actually reaches people to make their lives better or worse.

Most of it 'disappears' into the machine that is government. And it's an easier message that government is taxing people to death and lower taxes = more money in my pocket.

So while it philosophically (and to an extend technically) is correct collecting less taxes impacts services, people voting don't care/believe and it isn't driving the votes of the lower income lower educated voters

The reactions on this board in 90% of posts shows the elitist disconnect (yes people who can sit on a message board during working hours are elitists!) vs many trump voters , especially males in blue collar industries

Eh, overall taxation levels have fallen consistently ever since the 80s all over NA. The working and middle classes have seen their share of the wealth dwindle, and the rise of mega wealthy oligarchs. Wealth inequality is approaching the levels of the 1890s.

Elitist disconnect, maybe. But don't go telling me lower taxes are good for poor people.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Eh, overall taxation levels have fallen consistently ever since the 80s all over NA. The working and middle classes have seen their share of the wealth dwindle, and the rise of mega wealthy oligarchs. Wealth inequality is approaching the levels of the 1890s.

Elitist disconnect, maybe. But don't go telling me lower taxes are good for poor people.

I didn't say it was better.

I'm saying people aren't buying more tax = better services anymore either because services don't improve (in their opinions) and it's a lot easier to see a lower net pay in your bank account

So lower tax = more money in my pocket is an easy message to understand

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

So you're trying to tell the American electorate that the following policies had zero negative effect to the economy until Biden took over, then they had a negative effect? In fact, the economy actually got better over the term, even though many of these changes were made in the first 1-1.5 years, but then they made everything worse?

- Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (December 2017), where the standard deduction was doubled (something everyone seems to ignore when talking about the tax cuts)
- Opportunity Zones (December 2017)
- Re-negotiation of NAFTA (signed in 2018)
- Tariffs on steel & aluminum (signed in early 2018, and Biden hasn't made any move to remove them)
- Regulatory Rollbacks, including the 2-for-1 rule

TCJA - significantly contributed to the increased deficit, was responsible for removing 13M people from ACA coverage, no impact to wages or job growth as corporate savings were largely invested in stock buy backs. You could try to explain this, but apathetic electorate eyes would glaze over.

Opportunity Zones - also likely contributed to increases to the deficit due to deferred capital gains taxes. Electorate wouldn't understand this at all.

Removing the tariffs would be a lose-lose situation. You get hammered being soft on China and prices likely don't come down because people are now used to paying more.

Regulatory rollbacks are something that obviously take time to have an impact.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Eh, overall taxation levels have fallen consistently ever since the 80s all over NA. The working and middle classes have seen their share of the wealth dwindle, and the rise of mega wealthy oligarchs. Wealth inequality is approaching the levels of the 1890s.

Elitist disconnect, maybe. But don't go telling me lower taxes are good for poor people.

depends what kind of tax

Corporate tax increase (21 -> 28) hurts small businesses, which people own and hire workers.

And I thought Harris wanting to tax unrealized capital gains was insane.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by kermitology

TCJA - significantly contributed to the increased deficit, was responsible for removing 13M people from ACA coverage, no impact to wages or job growth as corporate savings were largely invested in stock buy backs. You could try to explain this, but apathetic electorate eyes would glaze over.

Opportunity Zones - also likely contributed to increases to the deficit due to deferred capital gains taxes. Electorate wouldn't understand this at all.

Removing the tariffs would be a lose-lose situation. You get hammered being soft on China and prices likely don't come down because people are now used to paying more.

Regulatory rollbacks are something that obviously take time to have an impact.

You didn't answer my question and you especially ignored my comment on doubling the standard deduction, something that basically only affects the lower/middle class. Definitely not something that the "apathetic electorate" would glaze over.

And very disingenuous point about the ACA. The TCJA removed the individual mandate that penalized people for not having health insurance. So people "removed" from the ACA were people who chose not to enroll in the ACA.

[Johnny Makarov]

The only way the Dems can beat Trump next time is by putting out lies themselves.

"Trump grabbed my *ussy in the elevator" or "Trump raped me in the back of the Limo" or "Trump forced me to get an abortion" won't cut it. Those are nothing burgers for his deplorables.

You need to go really low.... They need to put out monstrous lies like "Trump is going to implement a 5% GST!" or "Trump is going to lower taxes for the middle class!"
Those are fighting words!

[CliffFletcher]

This election wasn’t about Trump’s popularity.

Democrats need to understand: Americans think they’re worse

If you think Donald Trump is too crass or cruel or incompetent to be president—if you are disappointed or even astonished that, having tried and failed to subvert the will of the people in the last election, he has come back to win fair and square—you should be asking yourself this question: why, to so many Americans, does the Democratic Party seem worse?

… Unlike Reagan—or the other two-term presidents since, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama—Mr Trump has never been very popular, though he managed, in this third run as the Republican nominee, at last to win the popular vote. Unlike those predecessors, Mr Trump has relied upon division, not addition, for his electoral maths. In his first term his average approval rating of 41% was the lowest ever measured by the Gallup Poll, which began tracking the statistic under Harry Truman. Democrats have good reason to think Mr Trump repels many voters when he calls adversaries “vermin” or “the enemy from within” or says illegal immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country”.

Yet, after this victory, whatever disdain Democrats have for Mr Trump should be cause only for humility and self-scrutiny. As in 2016, Mr Trump’s broad support will present his adversaries with a Rorschach test in which they can see their preferred image of America, and it will be ugly. For some, white supremacy and misogyny will explain Mr Trump’s success, while others may attribute it to tax cuts and greed. Some will conclude that poor, non-white or female Americans have been ensorcelled into voting against their self-interest. Rather than retreat into some grand theory, they would so better ro think through how, in a divided country, President Joe Biden might have nudged the balance a few points away from Mr Trump, rather than to him.

… Most egregious, Mr Biden resharpened Mr Trump’s most effective political wedge by doing away with obstacles he had created to illegal immigration, with no alternative. By the time he restored some of Mr Trump’s restrictions this spring, more than 4m migrants had crossed the southern border, compared with fewer than 1m under Mr Trump. That was terrible for the Democrats as a party, and worse for people they want to help and the cause they believe in: under Mr Biden, Americans who say they want a decrease in legal immigration rose from a minority to a majority, as did the number who favour mass deportation...

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...k-theyre-worse

[Wastedyouth]

I'm not going to say that it's the only reason that this happened. But illegal immigration is a massive problem for the US for Canada and for many countries. And in many of these countries where illegal immigrants are entering and staying you're seeing this pretty dramatic shift to right wing support and governments being voted in.

Even at a municipal level we see this happening and it comes up often in public forums and interactions with residents. It's not always illegal immigration it's just foreigners, and by foreigners I mean just foreign to that specific community. It could be Urban moving into rural locations or people legally coming into smaller insular communities. But it doesn't matter it's just a microcosm of the mass of problem that these people are have with immigration. And until that sorted out, the Democrats have no chance. And we're going to see this same issue becoming the major voting issue in Canada moving forward.

Humans like many other animals are hardwired to want to follow a strongman. And as much as we hate him a significant portion of people see Trump as a strongman. For right or wrong he's the better choice to lead them when they are seeing so many strangers around them.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

I'm not going to say that it's the only reason that this happened. But illegal immigration is a massive problem for the US for Canada and for many countries. And in many of these countries where illegal immigrants are entering and staying you're seeing this pretty dramatic shift to right wing support and governments being voted in.

Even at a municipal level we see this happening and it comes up often in public forums and interactions with residents. It's not always illegal immigration it's just foreigners, and by foreigners I mean just foreign to that specific community. It could be Urban moving into rural locations or people legally coming into smaller insular communities. But it doesn't matter it's just a microcosm of the mass of problem that these people are have with immigration. And until that sorted out, the Democrats have no chance. And we're going to see this same issue becoming the major voting issue in Canada moving forward.

Is Illegal immigration a massive problem for Canada?

[activeStick]

#Recount2024 is trending on Twitter...

[Fuzz]

I'm still kind of amazed we haven't come up with an Americas regional plan, where we invest in countries south of us to help their economy and rely less on China. By boosting their economic systems, we'd provide more political stability, increase living standards and vastly reduce the "last hope" migrant influx. Like, if people are going to make the journey from South America on foot with young children, you've gotta assume #### is pretty bad, and it's worth the risks. A minor improvement for them would reduce these immigration problems.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is Illegal immigration a massive problem for Canada?

There is a perception among low information voters that immigration itself is a big problem, and that the current LPC is complicit by failing to put barriers in place to prevent people from coming into the country in droves - in other words, the idea is that it should be illegal for a lot more people. The message is basically the same as down south - "there's not enough of this country to go around, so get the hell out and stay the hell out so there's more for me and my family".

Now, there are obvious, glaring flaws with that simplistic view, but as we have just seen, those flaws do not matter because it takes longer than 15 seconds to explain them.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm still kind of amazed we haven't come up with an Americas regional plan, where we invest in countries south of us to help their economy and rely less on China. By boosting their economic systems, we'd provide more political stability, increase living standards and vastly reduce the "last hope" migrant influx. Like, if people are going to make the journey from South America on foot with young children, you've gotta assume #### is pretty bad, and it's worth the risks. A minor improvement for them would reduce these immigration problems.

I think this is a great idea in theory, but then you have stuff like Iran in the 50s where the Brits and Americans are staging coups to get the “friendly” governments back in power.

Not saying it can’t work, but history has shown us that politicians can’t help themselves and it turns into something more nefarious than plain ol’ investment. I guess Israel is a good example of it working? Depending on what your definition of “good” is?