pull down to refresh
465 sats \ 7 replies \ @freetx 6 Nov \ parent \ on: The US elections offer many lessons Politics_And_Law
There is an element to truth to that. But, a specific dislike of Harris doesn't explain also capturing Senate + House + Governors......probably many state legislatures also flipped....It was a complete repudiation of the status quo.
Having said that, I agree that it wasnt necessarily a vote of support of DJT the person, however its really just semantics after a point.
From an economic-theory standpoint: The whole debacle really highlights the classic command-control economy vs decentralized free-market. I mean that in the sense, that a tiny group of wealthy power brokers ran the democrat campaign, there was no real grassroots support....thus they were burdened with making all the decisions and they over-estimated their ability to do so.
That small group of ultra-wealthy are fairly tone deaf and evidently are "on the spectrum" in terms of social IQ. Their resulting attempt went heavy on over-the-top rhetoric and the very obvious emotional manipulation. It was sort of like watching a hysterical high schooler argue her point....People just don't react well when you simultaneously try to arrest/kill a candidate and sanctimoniously preach about "preserving democracy" at the same time. Obvious retard is obvious.
My real hypothesis is just that people are sick of the all the leftist nonsense we've been subjected to for the past decade. The extent to which people really like Trump seems to be related to him not bowing to the left.
reply
sick of the all the leftist nonsense
Once the CNN panel realized Trump was likely to win, Van Jones' reaction was to grieve for a bunch of identities, black women "whose head will be held lower tomorrow" because they continue to not be seen and trans kids. Not escalations of war or economic issues. The identity stuff isn't irrelevant, but expecting the federal government to fix whatever plight black women experience is off base, and giving it maximal priority is out of touch.
Another democratic panelist mentioned that their party believed abortion rights would carry the election. Maybe when you're so privileged that the economy doesn't impact you, or you're confident your money and connections will allow you to escape the impact of all of our wars, abortion is your chief concern. But come the fuck on.
reply
There's a concept in economics called "lexicographic preferences". It's basically when someone has such a strong preference for something that they won't make any tradeoffs regarding that thing: i.e. they'll take whatever amount of that thing they can and then move on to their less preferred goods.
My sense is that many women have a lexicographic preference for pro-abortion policies and they'll vote for the pro-abortion option, regardless of what else it's bundled with.
I don't know how the left achieved this trick, but it's a very strong political force. Where I think they may have screwed up this election is allowing abortion protections onto state ballots. That allowed women to separate their abortion preference from Kamala. They could secure the abortion policy they wanted, without having to opt into all the other bad economic and social policies that normally come with it.
I think what you said is the right angle....
By not obsessing over "never offending anyone", DJT displayed confidence. He is not going to pander because he is not a slave to your opinion of him.
Meanwhile the duplicitous leftist candidate, who painfully crafts messages designed to be "inclusive to all" winds up appearing weak and needy. They are in a sense a slave to public opinion.
Simple laws of attraction, as exemplified by boy-girl interactions, show that people are repelled by weakness and are attracted to strength.
reply