| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4779 Posts
"The number one *stated* issue for Republicans was the economy. Their real number one issue was something else" You don't get to decide what people actually voted for. This type of speech polarizes. I'm telling you to stop that kind of engagement because it's not helping anyone other than making sure you lose forever. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The number one issue for Republicans was the economy. Trump is objectively worse for the economy than Biden/Harris. Therefore, yes, a large number of Trump voters voted against their primary interest. For most people, when they talk about 'economy' they don't care about GDP, CPI, or inflation numbers that government presents to them. What they care about is whether their expenses go up or down in relation to their earnings; so when Democrats talk about how Biden totally navigated the inflation so well and how GDP is growing and economy is doing oh so well, I'd imagine that feels like a huge spit in the face to all the people who are, simply put, worse off than they were a year or two ago -- of which there are very, very many. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11513 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Because you said that GDP increased by 0.5% when it actually increased by 12.6%. From one week ago: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/10/30/gdp-issue-brief/ And if "the economy" isn't about GDP, but about how much of it normal people get instead of the super rich and the large corporations, then we are talking about redistribution of wealth. From the rich to the poor. That doesn't sound like a Trump policy either. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:58 Uldridge wrote: I'm not Republican. You say: "The number one *stated* issue for Republicans was the economy. Their real number one issue was something else" You don't get to decide what people actually voted for. This type of speech polarizes. I'm telling you to stop that kind of engagement because it's not helping anyone other than making sure you lose forever. Calling a dumbfuck a dumbfuck is bad. Got it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44342 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:59 Salazarz wrote: For most people, when they talk about 'economy' they don't care about GDP, CPI, or inflation numbers that government presents to them. What they care about is whether their expenses go up or down in relation to their earnings; so when Democrats talk about how Biden totally navigated the inflation so well and how GDP is growing and economy is doing oh so well, I'd imagine that feels like a huge spit in the face to all the people who are, simply put, worse off than they were a year or two ago -- of which there are very, very many. And for that reason, Democrats need to be able to better communicate the context and voters need to be willing to listen and/or learn. Democrats failed at communication, and voters failed at understanding how this works. As was cited before, all of the ideal policies in the world unfortunately don't matter if the optics are inferior. (Also, Harris didn't run on GDP growth; she ran on reducing the costs of groceries and medicine and childcare and housing, etc. oBlade brought up GDP growth.) | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4779 Posts
Build bridges. Try to understand them. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2695 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:42 Uldridge wrote: I'd grant you the vaccine thing if every pharma company did it with 100% transparancy. Don't think they did so though. Brain machine interfaces already exist for many years. Chatbot: I'm more pro than contra, but now the hype died down and many people shared their insights, I've adjusted my expectations accordingly. As for roughly 3%. That's people admitting to fraud. That doesn't include people making mistakes and getting away with it. If you want science to accurately represent reality, you can't really get away with, oh but 3% of reality is made up because it fed my agenda. I don't like that number at all. Reasonably we can't expect 100%, I get that, but I think we could also expect an empirical process devoid of ideology or power or clout. Is AI going to solve every problem? No. Is AI one hell of a tool? Yes. Is it a major advancement over what already existed to the point where people are worried bout their jobs? Yes. I am struggling to see how the constant introduction of disruptive technologies over the last 2 decades can be defined as 'stagnation'. I grew up sticking my finger in a rotating wheel to call my friends over the phone, yet since about 15 years ago we have smartphones that we can use to ignore each other now! I am genuinely confused by this. I am confused by your second paragraph. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. I understand that you take issue with the fact that academics are people and therefore have ideologies and power/clout. I do not understand the point about making a mistake -- shit does happen sometimes. The scientific process is iterative -- if someone gets a surprising result, many people get on the bandwagon and try to go further. If the original experiment was flawed, then the follow ups don't work, people report on it and move on to something else that works. The system is designed to work in this way. There are indeed instances of respected scientists doing dodgy stuff, and this can derail a field of research for some time, but this is normally uncovered pretty quickly when nobody else can achieve the same results. A classic example of this is the Wakefield 'vaccines cause autism' research. Other people jumped on that straight away and proved conclusively that there was no link between autism and vaccines within the span of a year or so. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5589 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Because you said that GDP increased by 0.5% when it actually increased by 12.6%. From one week ago: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/10/30/gdp-issue-brief/ Not at all what I was saying. My point is very simple. You don't know what "the economy" means so your reductive, and also ironically deductive, syllogism misses both what the economy is and what part of it people are concerned about. People do not give a shit about the GDP. Like another posted explained to you before. If you never had TV or talk about politics, you wouldn't have known who Drumpf was from 2017-2021. If you are a citizen under President A when GDP goes up 10% vs. President B when GDP is predicted to go up (theoretically) 20%, even if that actually happens, it doesn't mean President B is twice as good or that your life improves 20% or that you even feel a fucking thing at all or for all you know your life became shit. One of the policies that affects GDP is immigration. One of the factors calculated in GDP is employment. If you have more people, you have more workers (usually). That means the sum total of people earning money has increased. That (usually, but not necessarily, but in this case we'll assume for simplicity) means the sum total of earned money has increased. That means GDP has increased. That does not mean the "economy" is better. This has multiple orders of effects. This affects different things. This has detrimental effects on other aspects of the economy which is what people actually consider when voting. The point is that "Voter want economy, and GDP go up, therefore vote Kamala" is reductive nonsense and you should broaden your horizons. They aren't voting against their interests. They quite frankly know something you don't. The lesson we can all learn is we aren't as smart as we think we are. I've noticed this. People on the right usually understand the left but disagree. People on the left just don't bother understanding the next level of analysis. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44342 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:02 Uldridge wrote: It's bad if he votes in spite of you, yeah. Look at where it's getting you. Build bridges. Try to understand them. I think that's important. Democrats should start surveying people as early as today to find out what the biggest reasons were for Harris's loss. And keep doing it for four years, so that they have some robust information on how best to appeal to voters and effectively communicate that appeal. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44342 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:05 oBlade wrote: Not at all what I was saying. My point is very simple. You don't know what "the economy" means so your reductive, and also ironically deductive, syllogism misses both what the economy is and what part of it people are concerned about. People do not give a shit about the GDP. What is this projection you're doing? Harris didn't run on GDP. I'm not talking about GDP. You're the only one talking about GDP. In terms of her economic plans, Harris ran on everyday, quality-of-life improvements for families and individuals. Either those policies weren't valued by the voters, or Harris failed to effectively communicate those policies to voters, or both. This is so not about GDP. People do not give a shit about the GDP. One of the policies that affects GDP One of the factors calculated in GDP You're obsessed. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5589 Posts
| ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
So mainly 2 things. What's good about him? What's bad about kamala? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25352 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah this is entirely the wrong take. Here's the thing about Trump: He does say some outrageous stuff that demonizes 'the other'. No question about that. But the way he phrases himself doesn't make you afraid of the other party - it makes you angry at them, and then - he provides a vision for how to fix it. It might be a stupid vision with no realistic plan for how to get there, but he's not making you afraid of the future. He always focuses on that he's going to make everything great, it'll be the best it's ever been. Meanwhile his opponents are talking about how dangerous electing this nutjob to a greater degree than they focus on how great things will be if they win. Brexit was the same thing. Obama - that's someone who offered hope and change. Democrats following him haven't been. To be fair, this type of messaging is much easier when you're not in charge. To be fair to Trump he'd probably have won 2020 if not for covid, but I also think campaigning is much easier for him, in general, when he's not the incumbent. Incidentally, my wife happens to do a PhD on political communication and in particular what types of messaging evokes what type of emotion, and what type of emotion creates political engagement. She's generally not one to blurt out predictions with any type of confidence. But she was highly confident in a Trump victory. Brexit IDK, it was effectively a vote on policy itself, rather than parties or candidates, of course there’s parties involved. So I think the fear/anger dynamic is a bit different then The messaging was more mixed than that between benefits/downsides of leaving than people recall now. The messaging wasn’t even that bad 1. People are incredibly economically illiterate, especially at a state level not a criticism particularly. 2. Some people also don’t trust experts, so they’ll go with the gut ‘hey we’re the UK we’ll kick ass’ instead. 3. People had down groundwork for decades constantly complaining about Europe. Often total bullshit, it had a lot of cumulative weight. It’s difficult to employ bullshit to justify the status quo or current state of affairs in the same manner. Not impossible, but I mean you or the entity is there in situ, it’s no longer hypothetical I think maybe the campaign could have been a little more aspirational. But not really fundamentally flawed. I’m not going to go full Yoda but anger leads to fear, they feel rather similar. But yeah more largely in terms of communication interesting points. Sometimes there’s good reasons for it, sometimes you just lose. Maybe with another candidate, Biden departing earlier idk. But I just don’t see how Harris could have made a relatively big overhaul on messaging and communication alone. Let’s say some snappy slogan, a little less focus on Trump and a few better-known policies. Does that move the needle enough? The Democrats are doubly hampered on bullshit. They can’t overpromise realistically because they’re already incumbents. And, to a degree people actually expect them to try to do what they say they’re going to. Ukraine is rolling, inflation is settling a bit but same under this regime. And going back to economic illiteracy, folks don’t seem to understand that things can be out of an Executive’s control. Or even with judicious interventions, economies take some time to moves It we always gonna be a tough one. Not unwinnable, but perhaps harder than many of us thought. I think Dems have some longer-term strategic issues, I’ve been critical over the moons don’t get me wrong. In the last stretch or so of the campaign cycle, you can’t realllly do too much You have an opponent that 1. Can bullshit just with impunity 2. Will absolutely fear monger with impunity 3. Is believed. Or if not believed, people don’t really care And a wider problem that the Democrats have are all that fearmongering and anger-mongering are things they politically can’t really sidestep. If they go ‘hey we’re going to run a positive campaign. Maybe let’s tone down that DEI stuff and let’s shelve the whole trans thing’, while Trump is persistently attacking various groups, segments of their base will rightly feel pissed off either directly or vicariously that they’ve been abandoned for political expedience. I’m making it sound like Trump is nigh on invincible, it’s obviously not the case but it’s trickier than it should be. Occam’s Razor for me perhaps, Hillary was perhaps onto something with that deplorables gaffe, although she certainly made a mistake saying it. Not much has changed there. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2695 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:12 oBlade wrote: You said Drumpf is objectively worse for the economy, you cannot possibly know that. Trump's stated economic policy is to start a tariff war with every other major global economy. How do you think that will improve the US' economy? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44342 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:12 oBlade wrote: You said Drumpf is objectively worse for the economy, you cannot possibly know that. I know it's all buried from hundreds of new posts over the past 24 hours, but there have been a ton of discussions in the past on how we know exactly that lol. On that specific topic (the economy), the issue is more with the optics / messaging / communicating the facts to the average voter. Democrats definitely need to study the Republican playbook on optics and messaging. Republicans are successful when they communicate lies in desirable ways, so maybe there's a chance that Democrats can learn how to communicate the truth in equally desirable ways. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:12 oBlade wrote: You said Drumpf is objectively worse for the economy, you cannot possibly know that. It's literally the opposite. We had 4 years with Trump and almost went into a recession. The data is literally right there, we know exactly what he's going to do. Starting another tariff war isn't going to somehow end differently than the first one. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16710 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: What is this projection you're doing? Harris didn't run on GDP. I'm not talking about GDP. You're the only one talking about GDP. In terms of her economic plans, Harris ran on everyday, quality-of-life improvements for families and individuals. Either those policies weren't valued by the voters, or Harris failed to effectively communicate those policies to voters, or both. The Democrats did not discuss the American Dream. Working very hard in an environment of ample economic opportunity. That is a positive message. Lowering your costs because your income will never grow is depressing. Democrats seems to never discuss the difference a work ethic makes. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5589 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I know it's all buried from hundreds of new posts over the past 24 hours, but there have been a ton of discussions in the past on how we know exactly that lol. On that specific topic (the economy), the issue is more with the optics / messaging / communicating the facts to the average voter. Democrats definitely need to study the Republican playbook on optics and messaging. Republicans are successful when they communicate lies in desirable ways, so maybe there's a chance that Democrats can learn how to communicate the truth in equally desirable ways. While you have been attempting to communicate to voters that pantsuited socialism is economically good for the voters, the voters have been communicating that it isn't. That is a two-way street. You have also spent thousands of pages of your life deriding Republicans and their policies as simply benefiting the rich. Presumably the rich have different economic interests than the not rich. Did it not occur to you that even in your own bullshit logic that the economic interests of Republican voters and Democratic voters are simply different? Yes the people who rely on the government vote for more government programs. Yes the people who pay taxes vote for fewer. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1056 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:16 DucK- wrote: Eli5 please. I know nothing about us politics. All I know is the general sentiment outside US that Trump president is seen as not ideal. Yet us citizens voted for him. So mainly 2 things. What's good about him? What's bad about kamala? I just spent the last 30 minutes trying to explain to my 80+ parents who have witnessed world war 2 how it is possible for this person + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/trump-garage-truck-driver.jpg) | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The Democrats did not discuss the American Dream. Working very hard in an environment of ample economic opportunity. That is a positive message. Lowering your costs because your income will never grow is depressing. Democrats seems to never discuss the difference a work ethic makes. They literally ran on an "Opportunity Economy" and making housing affordable and increasing workers rights and lowering costs. They literally did exactly what you're saying they didn't do. | ||
| ||
|
|
DaveTesta Events
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
