The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bret Stephens (N.Y. Times) on the Causes of Harris's Defeat
I liked this piece (by someone who "voted reluctantly for Harris"), and thought I'd pass it along. An excerpt:
How, indeed, did Democrats lose so badly, considering how they saw Donald Trump — a twice-impeached former president, a felon, a fascist, a bigot, a buffoon, a demented old man, an object of nonstop late-night mockery and incessant moral condemnation? The theory that many Democrats will be tempted to adopt is that a nation prone to racism, sexism, xenophobia and rank stupidity fell prey to the type of demagoguery that once beguiled Germany into electing Adolf Hitler.
It's a theory that has a lot of explanatory power—though only of an unwitting sort. The broad inability of liberals to understand Trump's political appeal except in terms flattering to their beliefs is itself part of the explanation for his historic, and entirely avoidable, comeback….
Why did Harris lose? There were many tactical missteps …. But these mistakes of calculation lived within three larger mistakes of worldview. First, the conviction among many liberals that things were pretty much fine, if not downright great, in Biden's America—and that anyone who didn't think that way was either a right-wing misinformer or a dupe. Second, the refusal to see how profoundly distasteful so much of modern liberalism has become to so much of America. Third, the insistence that the only appropriate form of politics when it comes to Trump is the politics of Resistance —capital R.
There's more, though paywalled, sorry to say. I think the "inability … to understand Trump's political appeal except in terms flattering to their beliefs" point is a particularly important one, because it describes a facet of human nature that's broadly shared by many people of all political views.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think voters were looking for leadership and Kamala (no comment, no policies) did not seem up to the task in any policy area.
This is a dumb take. he MSM, often the "played ref," fed this silly GOP narrative. Harris often offered policies, Trump often offered only "concepts of a plan." The MSM, often the "played ref," fed this silly GOP narrative.
Thank you for illustrating the OP's point.
How does it? Did Harris not offer policies, did Trump not offer "concepts" of policies?
LOL!
Perfect.
"Harris often offered policies, "
I guess, "I can't think of a single thing that I'd do differently than Biden" is a policy.
I guess Sex Change Operations for prisoners wasn't that popular (wouldn't we popular with me if I was a prisoner)
Especially now that you get a free ticket to the henhouse just by self-identifying.
The policies she offered sucked.
You might review the last paragraph of Eugene's post. It seems it also applies to you.
Well no, she's a woman. And twice now the American people have opted to vote for someone who hates democracy rather than voting for a woman. (Which is particularly awkward given that the Tory Party, in all its garbage fire-ness, just chose a woman leader for the fourth time.)
Martinned2: What do you make of the fact that even the most conservative states routinely elect women as Governor and Senator? For Governors, see, e.g., Nikki Haley (S.C.), Kristi Noem (S.D.), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.), Kay Ivey (Ala.), Kim Reynolds (Iowa), and more; for Senators, see, e.g., Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Deb Fischer (Neb.), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.). To succeed, all of them had to defeat not just Democrats, but multiple male Republicans, right?
I've seen studies of this: Woman candidates, when they run, are successful as often as male candidates; The disproportion of male office holders is entirely due to women generally choosing to do something other with their lives than running for office. Not to any supposed bias against women in politics.
This. Or you could imagine a better world where Nikki Haley got the R nomination. I find it hard to imagine a scenario where she does not wipe the floor with either Biden or Harris.
"This. Or you could imagine a better world where Nikki Haley got the R nomination."
You could even imagine a scenario where the Dems recruit her after Biden drops out. She would have easily won, and we'd all be better off.
Lol!
Hey, if a Trump candidacy was really an existential threat, that would have made sense. Y'all knew that Harris was shaky.
And Hilary Clinton was shaky, and Liz Cheney is shaky, and Haley would have been shaky in the hypothetical scenario where the Democrats had nominated her. I wonder what they all have in common...
I don't think Haley would have been shaky.
But if y'all really think that, run men. I mean, if you want left-wing policies, and other voters want a candidate with a schlong, that seems like an easy compromise to make.
For the record, I don't want left-wing policies. I just want the US to stay a democracy.
Well, for that purpose it doesn't matter why people voted against Harris. In a democracy, if most voters want a dude, they get a dude.
He didn't mean that kind of democracy.
That's not imagining, it's hallucinating.
Before Biden dropped out, polls showed that a sizeable majority of voters in both parties wished that they had different candidates to choose from. While Harris was technically a "different candidate" from Biden, she was his VP and didn't distinguish herself from him on any policy or other meaningful issues. So she had all of the negative baggage of an unpopular incumbent president plus her own shortcomings.
A fictional candidate that perfectly aligns with your view always trumps a real person. There is a reason Kamala polled best when she was a stand-in for "generic Democrat" and dropped as she was called to confirm that and couldn't because anything she said alienated someone relative to an undefined position.
I would've voted for her until she said that she'd pardon Trump.
You're talking about a woman who couldn't even carry her own home state. The idea that she was ever going to get the Republican nomination was ludicrous.
Eugene,
He is illustrating your point made here:
"... to understand Trump's political appeal except in terms flattering to their beliefs" point is a particularly important one, because it describes a facet of human nature that's broadly shared by many people of all political views."
Of course he believes Kamala lost because everyone who voted against her a misogynist. Just like, of course, he believes everyone not in his tribe is a misogynist.
It's a foundational premise to their entire reality.
Martinned2 has been off his game lately and has been posting thoughtless drivel.
Quite unlike him in the past.
Eugene, what do you make of the fact that the country has NEVER elected a woman President?
Wait for it. Tulsi Gabbard will be the first and I don’t think Rs will have any trouble voting for her.
First as J.D.'s vp then as president (in 12 years she'll be 55, younger than Hillary and Kamala when they ran).
100%. Republicans will come out in droves to vote for Tulsi. Someone in the GOP should already be designing the Vance/Gabbard '28 logo.
Well of course voters in the past were much less likely to support women candidates, and women were vastly less likely to enter politics to begin with and reach the place where they could be credible candidates. That's why only a handful of women were elected Governor or U.S. Senator until the 1990s. I surely couldn't have said what I said of women routinely being elected Governor or Senator in conservative states if I were writing 35 years ago.
But now, when such elected women are commonplace even in the most conservative states, it suggests that it's far from clear that being a woman is a material handicap when running for office. That is especially so since presumably some people will vote for a candidate because she is a woman, though I am sure that there are also still some people who will vote against a candidate because she is a woman. It's thus far from clear to me that the net effect on a candidate's being a woman is negative; perhaps it still is, but I just don't see how we can simply assume it the way Martinned2 seemed to be doing.
I think it's an important distinction to consider that the Office of the President is expected to represent the entire country on the world stage, and the perception of projecting the required strength is likely higher for such a position than for any other political position in the country.
Some people believe women are incapable of that. They're wrong, but they don't care and had their own misogynist champion to vote for.
It's ridiculous to say that anyone who believes that women can't project the required strength is wrong. What the "required strength" looks like is in the eye of the beholder.
You're Exhibit A as to what Bret wrote. You are incapable of thinking that your political opponents can see things differently than you, and not be "wrong."
Try saying that without hiding behind your latest pseudonym, verochax.
Let the world know the proud speaker of such stupidity!
A woman gave birth to you and raised you without suffocating you in your sleep. That took strength you will never have.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm extrapolating from (admittedly limited) data.
and Kristi Noem might be VP Elect Kristi Noem if she wasn't "Shooting the Dogs!!!"
Those states would elect a literal horse if it had an R next to its name.
Martinned2: I think that's missing the point -- each female candidate didn't just spring full-grown from the head of political Zeus to run against a Democrat; she had to beat lots of Republican men to get the Republican nomination. And conservative Republican primary voters in those very conservative states seemed to have no trouble voting for those women.
Given the number and types of people who vote in an (off-year) gubernatorial primary, I don't think that tells us anything about the willingness of the entire right-half of the US electorate to vote for a woman.
When Haley won the South Carolina governorship in 2010 422,251 people voted in the first round of the GOP primary, and 359,334 in the second round. That's not a great sample if you're trying to understand the 1,478,850 people who just voted for Trump in South Carolina.
Unscientifically, I'd guess primary voters are better informed than the general electorate, because they care more about the issues. Which would make them less likely to not vote for someone because of their gender.
(Haley went on to win that 2010 race 51/47 against her male Democratic opponent, which is the closest the Democrats have come to winning the governorship of South Carolina this century.)
Well, I think it tells us something about the willingness of the right half of the U.S. electorate to vote for a woman, especially when you see it happen in state after state. On the other hand, I don't see any data that you've offered that tells us anything about the supposed unwillingness of American voters to vote for a woman (especially since, even if some voters may vote against a woman because she's a woman, others may vote for her because she's a woman, and what matters to an election is the net of those two effects). Do you have any data on that? Or is it just guesswork influenced by your dislike of some portion of the voters?
As to Haley's close win in the 2010 general election, that wasn't particularly unusual during that time in South Carolina: Her vote percentage (she won 51.4% to 47.1%, with a third-party candidate getting 1.5%) was just 1.5% below that of Mark Sanford in his first gubernatorial victory in 2002 (52.9% to 47.0%). Indeed, the election before Sanford's first victory, in 1998, a Democrat was elected (by 53.3% to 45.3%). In her 2014 reelection campaign, Haley did slightly better than Sanford had in his 2006 reelection campaign.
"On the other hand, I don’t see any data that you’ve offered that tells us anything about the supposed unwillingness of American voters to vote for a woman [...]"
A 100% loss record isn't data?
Don't confuse having excuses for the data with the data not existing.
Since we’ve had two women as major party presidential candidates and they both lost it must be misogyny. It couldn’t possibly be that Hillary’s campaign was that she deserved it and it was her turn or that Kamala only had two positions (I’m not Biden and I don’t know what I would do differently than Biden).
Oh, no. It has to be that those dumb white men can’t possibly vote for a woman.
Please re-read the second line again.
Prof V, stop feeding the troll. Martinned2 is a perfect example of the thesis of the article above - completely unable to fathom that someone might legitimately disagree with his own "self-evident" policy preferences and therefore determined to attribute every political loss to bigotry/racism/misogyny or other moral failing.
Let's start by observing that we disagree about whether wanting the US to stay a democracy is a "policy preference".
"each female candidate didn’t just spring full-grown from the head of political Zeus to run against a Democrat; she had to beat lots of Republican men to get the Republican nomination."
Mind, the same is true of the male candidates, typically.
Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States (2022)
Looking at local elections, if women run, they are slightly disfavored relative to men for Mayoral positions, and significantly FAVORED relative to men for city council and school board positions.
All the studies I've seen on this topic say that the only reason there are fewer women in office than men is that there are fewer women running; Statistically, they are under no disadvantage getting elected.
"Those states would elect a literal horse if it had an R next to its name."
They have twice elected (half) a horse as President.
Which half?
You mad, Bro?
Eugene
Have you noticed that almost all of these women are Republicans? Only when the woman is a Democrat does the right wing misogyny machine start to blow smoke over the electorate.
If Tulsi had been on the ballot I would have voted for her. The same with Haley.
If you keep running women with policies that I severely disagree with expect me to keep voting against them. Just like I do with men.
captcrisis: I didn't just notice it -- I deliberately gave Republican examples, because they illustrate that even conservative Republicans (the people most often accused of sexism) seem quite willing to vote for women over men (their male primary opponents).
Now of course conservative Republicans won't vote for Democrat women, but they also won't vote for Democrat men, for the obvious reason. The success of Democrat women politicians shows that Democrats in primaries are willing to vote for women; the success of Republican women politicians shows that Republicans in primaries are willing to vote for women.
Democrats do not demonize Republican women. There are not two sides to this.
Were you perhaps in a coma in 2008?
Democrats demonise idiots, even if they're women. Are they supposed to not do that?
And look at Wisconsin. Tammy Baldwin won the Senate race on the *exact same day* Harris lost. That would have to be an awfully specific brand of misogyny.
As others have observed, the stereotypes are not the same for a President and a legislator.
"Hates democracy" and "misogyny".
Perfect. You parrot.
Your ignorance is a choice.
One you should keep making.
Misogyny was absolutely the most important reason Kamala lost. Her track record, leadership and policies were superior to Trump. Dems don’t need to recalibrate. They should run the same winning plan against DeSantis or Vance in 2028 after more of those Boomers die off.
This sounds like a winning plan for me. Double down on the identity and gender politics while you're at it would you.
"And twice now the American people have opted to vote for someone who hates democracy rather than voting for a woman. "
A man beat Trump. I guess you shouldn't send a woman to do a man's job.
I also looked at the Dutch PM list, no women there. Take the beam out of your own eye.
They're still in shock, Bob. It hasn't set in yet.
You're still talking about 2008?
I voted for a woman to be PM on a number of occasions. What can I say, many of my compatriots are far right misogynists too.
If that were true, the left could get a lot of what it wants by running men instead of women.
We'll probably see in 2028. Of the past three elections (all agaisnt Trump), Democrats have tried two women and a man. The man won, the women lost. So yeah, I wouldn't bet on a woman in the 2028 Democrat primary.
Tim Walz has got to be the preemptive frontrunner at this point, right?
You a funny guy (or gal)?
Wouldn't that be funny, a presidential debate in 2028 between Vance and Walz?
But I hadn't bothered considering who the nominee may be in 2028: I'm just not that up-to-speed on politics.
That said, shooting from the hip... while I can imagine Walz deciding to buckle down and really work on his national image for 2028, I can also imagine him going the Sarah Palin route and saying that national politics wasn't for him. Throw in that in 2028 the #1 thing on Democrat primary voters mind is almost certainly going to be "electabilitiy", voting for someone with a track record of losing probably won't happen.
Okay, I've talked my way around to it. I think it's unlikely both tha the would try for the nomination, and that if he did try, he would win it.
But this is based on like 30 seconds of pondering, so it's not worth the bytes used to store it.
Since enough Democrats voted for a man to beat Trump but not enough voted for women (twice!) to beat Trump it sounds like the Democrats are the misogynists instead of the Republicans.
The inverse of how I could trim payroll by 25% by only hiring women.
Yeah, the same principle.
They say that in the bad old days women would do the same work as men for less pay and could be extorted for sexual favors to boot.
If that's true, I wonder how men were able to find work at all.
A problem with the sexism theory is that all of the losses in opinion and changes in favorability were apparent in the polling when Biden was still the candidate. Harris probably (although hard to say definitively,) improved from the position Biden was in when he dropped out. I just don’t think there is strong evidence that Harris lost because of her sex.
That said, I still have a hard time understanding the through-line for Trump’s popularity. My recommendation would be that the Democrats adopt every policy position that I am in favor of, but there is obviously heavy perspective bias that comes with that recommendation. I have seen and will continue to see people arguing that Harris lost because she didn’t run far left enough or didn’t support Palestinians enough, because that is what the author wanted to happen. It’s the nature of political beliefs. We have an underlying expectation that the policies we personally favor are correct and popular (or at least should be popular if other voters were educated on the issue).
There are other differences between Harris and Biden, other than gender.
Not according to Harris.
Name a few.
22 years of age, for one.
Hey now, age only mattered until Biden dropped out, whereupon it was ageism to talk about age.
Didn't you get the memo?
Funny the old cognitively impaired candidate had the stamina and ability to do a 3 hour unscripted interview/conversation on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Kamala wanted to limit it to 45 minutes.
You seem to be confused.
Perhaps there was someone calling Trump a "old cognitively impaired candidate" in a different thread you meant to respond to? Because what you did respond to was someone pointing out that age was never a serious concern.
No, until Biden dropped out, they were functionally the same age. He was sharp as a tack.
That is certainly true. But the fact that Biden and Harris are different candidates doesn’t explain why the gains Trump was showing with traditionally Democratic favoring demographics predate Harris’ nomination as the candidate.
Martin, the problem was that she showed she is an empty suit and as stupid as I always thought she was when viewing her as an elected official in CA.
‘the "inability … to understand Trump's political appeal except in terms flattering to their beliefs" point is a particularly important one, because it describes a facet of human nature that's broadly shared by many people of all political views.‘
You hear that, Ilya?
Just wondering.
No chance at all that a lot of the voters could remember life under Trump and compare it to all the current disaster(s)?
Just for the record, a lot of people vote for policies, not the specific candidate.
agree. A fair number of Trump voters dislike Trump, but think his policies make more sense
They are going to be in for a shock when he crashes the economy.
Not going to happen. It did not happen last time and it won't happen now. Incidentally, Ms Harris had the same ideas with respect to tariffs on China.
And if Israel bombs Iran's oil enterprise that will still be on Biden's watch.
Not going to happen. It did not happen last time and it won’t happen now. Incidentally, Ms Harris had the same ideas with respect to tariffs on China.
It will if Trump follows through, which he may not. And I don't recall Harris talking about 100% tariffs on Chinese goods, or claiming that they would be paid by. the Chinese, just like Mexico paid for the wall.
Appropriate time to distinguish between people who take Trump literally but not seriously, and those who take Trump’s words seriously but not literally?
Nobody could even agree what Trump's policies were. I've asked, both on this blog and elsewhere. The only agreement was that Trump says whatever his audience at any given moment wants to hear.
Build the wall, no tax on tips, continue tariffs to protect domestic industry, you know, the policies Cums-a-lot stole for her own.
You just aren’t listening.
I’ve talked before about his business tax cut, and the effect it had on investment and wage growth.
His crackdown on illegal immigration also tightened labor markets, and increased domestic, and especially low skilled minority employment.
And the covid vaccines developed under Trumps vaccine initiative saved 1.15 trillion and 3 million lives.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/report-covid-19-vaccines-saved-us-115-trillion-3-million-lives
Holy claiming credit for what other people did, Batman!
Everything the President does is done through other people. Congress, ambassadors, agencies, judges.
Presidents like to pretend that they can govern by executive order, but if the agencies and judges don't go along, nothing happens.
"through other people" is one thing. Most of the things Kazinski was talking about had nothing to do with the president in the first place. (Or even the US, in one instance.)
Didn't you know? Trump set up a lab in Mar a Lago to develop a vaccine that he worked on personally.
I’ve talked before about his business tax cut, and the effect it had on investment and wage growth.
You have, and you were wrong as a matter of plain fact.
Agreed that many people vote for policy over the person
Eugene makes two very good points that sum up the bubble that many democrats live in. Those two points sum up the beliefs of many of the leftist commentators.
"First, the conviction among many liberals that things were pretty much fine, if not downright great, in Biden's America—and that anyone who didn't think that way was either a right-wing misinformer or a dupe. Second, the refusal to see how profoundly distasteful so much of modern liberalism has become to so much of America"
Those were Bret Stephens' points, not Eugene's.
While I think Democrats would need to change, I think Stephen's take is not much warranted. Around the world incumbent or "establishment" candidates are losing (Argentina, England, France, Japan, etc.,). There's a general protest vote vibe going on, it's impressive Harris made it as close as it was.
That’s true. This was always going to be a tough race for Kamala, just going by fundamentals. People are upset. Elections are up-or-down snapshots. Americans wanted something different, and they’ll get it. Whether it’s what they were expecting remains to be seen.
Partly, though I honestly feel like she wasn't a particularly strong candidate. She wasn't bad, but she didn't really have the charisma that a Presidential candidate typically has.
Heck, Biden wasn't that strong 4 years ago (already too old). The downside of Biden leaving when he did is there wasn't any primary. If he stepped back earlier they could have had a proper primary and it would have been a much difference race.
"Around the world incumbent or “establishment” candidates are losing..."
Maybe running the incumbent VP wasn't a great move then.
And if you do run an incumbent VP, prime her with some answers about what she'd do differently than the current president.
She lost because more than 10 million Biden voters simply did not vote.
I don't agree with Bob much, but this explanation currently seems quite strong.
It's not correct, though. Many many votes remain to be counted.
Just to be precise, as best I can tell the difference between the Biden votes and Harris votes is likely to be considerably less than 10M once the votes are counted. Right now, Harris is at 67M, but 45% of California votes aren't yet counted, plus 30% of Oregon votes, 35% of Washington votes, 35% of Arizona votes, and some more in other states. I went through the N.Y. Times map and entered the data from the states which weren't listed as >95% reporting, and projecting from current totals, it seems like Harris is likely to get probably about 9M more, for a total of about 76M; Biden got 81M. (Trump's popular vote total will likewise likely grow considerably beyond his current 72M, to about 79M.) Or am I missing something?
Didn't realize they were so slow counting out west. Many more votes than I expected still to be counted.
You’re not missing anything. We don’t know exactly what the participation rate will be, but it looks like it will end up comparable.
Progressive partisans are still under the outdated view that they would win everything if voter turnout is higher. That seems to have flipped. As college educated voters have moved heavily into the Democratic camp and Trump has made inroads with minorities while dominating the white non-college educated voters, the low-propensity voters favor Trump all things being equal. Higher turnout is bad for the Democrats currently. Whether that will stay the same after Trump is gone is an open question. Love him or hate him, Trump feels kind of unique and unreplicable.
When all is said and done (in terms of counting all the outstanding votes); I'll be interested in seeing: (a) what percentage of the vote Trump actually got from blacks, (b) the size of the decrease in the black vote overall, (c) the black men vs black women breakdown in the Trump vote; (d) the increase in Trump's Latino support.
I suspect that the complete record will show that Trump improved his support from Blacks, but marginally so; that his black-male support vastly vastly outnumbers his black-female support. And that he made huge inroads in attracting Latino voters.
If I were a Democrat politician, I'd be most concerned by that last one. Since Latinos are an increasing percentage of the population; losing a sizable chunk of them will make future elections much more difficult for Dems. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if Latinos (esp young, male, Latinos) stick with Trump, if Trump follows through with his plan to deport 10,000,000 people.
(I, of course, assume Trump was lying about doing this, due to the huge political advantage of making this promise before the election. But if I'm wrong, and Trump actually does go through with this plan...I don't think anyone knows how it will shake out, politically-speaking.)
This is indeed what I expect to see as well. But it is very much worth waiting. The quick release exit polls have the same problem as reviewing the cross-tabs on regular polls. Too much noise to be very helpful.
But it’s worth remembering that low propensity voters does not directly equate to minority voters.
That's a really good way of putting it, and what I've been trying to say for a while. If you cast everything the other side does as purely motivated by hate, it's easy to just dismiss it as something no one but the evil can support. But if you actually try to talk to people and figure out why they support the person in THEIR terms, you'll learn a whole lot more.
Sure, but after 20+ years of trying to do exactly that, both on this blog and elsewhere, I have to ask: If the shoe fits?
If the shoe doesn't fit, force it on anyways.
"If you cast everything the other side does as purely motivated by hate, it’s easy to just dismiss it as something no one but the evil can support. But if you actually try to talk to people and figure out why they support the person in THEIR terms, you’ll learn a whole lot more."
When it comes to the Trump cult, "THEIR terms" are that Trump hates the same people that they hate.
I was reared by, and grew up among, fundamentalist Bible thumping Christians. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways." I Corinthians 13:11 RSV. Hatred and hypocrisy are central to that mindset.
"But if you actually try to talk to people and figure out why they support the person in THEIR terms, you’ll learn a whole lot more."
Yes, that's why I'm here. I mostly get called slurs, watch a lot of people reveal that they sincerely believe absurd conspiracy theories, or admit that they don't actually care about principle and just care about their 401k.
I think Prof. Kerr has it right, from his twitter:
And his follow up:
Agree with you and Prof. Kerr.
And I miss his regular posts here. He was a true (Burkean) conservative.
True story- when this was on the Washington Post, I was talking to Kerr in the comments when Cruz and Trump were running. Of the two, I wanted Trump to win the GOP nomination, because I thought he would lose, it would be entertaining, and the GOP could finally reset to conservative principles. He disagreed strongly.
Yeah, he was right. And I was so very, very wrong.
Orin Kerr was on record in 2016 as voting for Hillary Clinton.
I disagree with various things he has said but he has some basic limits that are respectable.
Trump should give him a judicial slot.
We can’t be right all the time.
Gen Z rejected the woke, anti-male, feminist, anti-Christian agenda. When Democrats become the party of ultra-wealthy urban cat ladies, they sealed their own fate.
Better to be the party of ultra-wealthy dudes?
Are you suggesting the Democrat's are filled with ultra-wealthy lefty dudes?
Because if you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.
The Democrat’s what are filled with ultra-wealthy lefty dudes, JHBHBE?
PACs.
Welcome back!
Lower case l. in name, obvious parody account by semantics. (If you were joking, Poe's law beat me)
What exactly is the difference between this:
and this?
The judgements made by liberals about the country and her population, aren't shared by her population. In fact, the majority believes those judgements are not only incorrect, they are utterly distasteful.
Your failure is that you're assuming your premise to be true. When the rest of us aren't.
The reason modern liberalism has become distasteful to so much of America?
That could, in theory, be because America is a nation prone to racism, sexism, xenophobia, and rank stupidity.
But it could also be because modern liberalism has gone nuts, and just dismisses any objections to its obsessions as such rather than engaging with them. For instance, attacking as "racism" any objection to racially discriminatory public policies.
I'm going to assume that your preferred explanation is the one that's more flattering to your beliefs. Am I wrong?
No, which is why we should set aside the flattery, and discuss the actual positions.
For instance, IS it 'racist' to advocate that people be treated entirely without regard to race? If so, exactly how did you have to define 'racist' to arrive at that conclusion? In a way people ordinarily would?
how profoundly distasteful so much of modern liberalism has become to so much of America
There is some truth here, but Stephens needs to take into account how much of that is due to endless demagoguery and lies from the right. Does he think that's a good thing?
And are we interested in how profoundly distasteful so much of modern conservatism has become to so much of America?
Convincing the US electorate to give in to their lesser demons is leadership too. (See below.)
Brett Stevens' full opinion piece for the poor schlubs here that cannot afford a Time's subscription
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/opinion/donald-trump-defeat-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.X04.dDLp.YCvUoDgOJHBk&smid=url-share
More likely they consider it a waste of money rather than not being able to afford it.
And you get your legitimate reporting (as opposed to opinion) from where exactly?
Thank you hobie.
The liberal "elite" does tend to have that problem, I think - unable to grasp the basic complaints of Americans except in self-serving ways.
I think people who work for a living and are struggling to get by in today's economy saw, in Democratic establishment politics, the exact same thing they saw, in Republican formerly-establishment politics, which is a basic incapacity to deliver on needed relief. In the last weeks of the campaign, Kamala started talking about raising the minimum wage to $15. The obvious response: Well, where was that, in the past four years? Democrats had it in a bill. They didn't fight to get it done. And now, $15/hour isn't enough anyway.
The solace I am taking in this election is this: Trump must deliver. If he doesn't, people will elect Democrats in 2026 and try again. If he does, then we're all better off. What Democrats need to start doing is working for the people. Not running fundraising schemes off of Trump panic. Not running hearings investigating Trump (though they should be prepared to do that for actual malfeasance). They need to get organized and make their work felt in the lives of voters - and today, not in a few years after a factory's built or a bridge refurbished.
Upthread I've been promised that people voted for Trump because of his policies. Does that mean people think those import tariffs are going to reduce inflation? Or that Trump will increase the minimum wage?
I think they voted for him because he said the words: "I will fix everything that bothers you." And they believed him, because they credit him for a time when they felt that the economy was better (while giving him a pass for the COVID months).
For millions of voters, that's really just as far as the analysis goes.
Many probably haven't thought all that much about his promised tariffs. A number who have, wrongly believe that they'll just hurt other countries. Another group have bought the more complicated but still wrong argument that tariffs plus mass deportation of immigrants will push prices lower.
Personally, I hope that Trump loses interest in governing once he has safely pardoned himself. He'll step aside and Vance will control the show. That'll be bad for a whole host of reasons, but Vance isn't stupid, and he'll have a vested interest in not crashing the economy.
I don't think that's right. I thing Trumpists typically believe that all politicians are liars, but they prefer this liar over the one that tells them they're wrong every once in a while.
Depends what they lie about. I don't think Trump is lying when he says he wants to control the border and send back most of the people who came without visas.
But I do know Trump lies a lot, its just not usually about what policies he favors.
I do think Harris was lying about her changes in policies, fracking, controlling the border, and I think everyone else thought she was lying about at least those positions too.
I don’t think Trump is lying when he says he wants to control the border and send back most of the people who came without visas.
Sure he is. The only thing he actually "wants" in any real sense is to benefit himself. Everything else he might, occasionally, "want" in the sense of "this will help me achieve my ultimate goal of enriching myself and staying out of prison". Hence the habit of telling audiences what they wanted to hear. And in this election, lots of people wanted to hear Trump say that he would kick out the immigrants. So that's what he told them.
(I mean, there's plenty of evidence, going back to the 1970s, that Trump is a racist, but I don't think he actually cares about immigration if it wasn't for the fact that his voters care about it. It doesn't really affect him.)
Agreed. Trump rejected a bipartisan bill to build the Wall because it didn’t reduce quotas for legal immigration--or maybe just because Steven Miller opposed the bill. He opposed the 2020 border bill, apparently because he was opposed to controlling the border.
You go to a doctor with a broken leg and diabetes, and he puts you on insulin; Do you mock him for thinking a shot will fix your broken leg, before he can get around to setting it?
The goal of the import tariffs isn't primarily to lower inflation, it's to increase national self-sufficiency, reshore industry. That's important to improve our balance of trade deficit, and increase employment.
You want to reduce inflation, you have to reduce the rate at which the money supply is being increased relative to the size of the economy. That is, categorically, the only way to reduce inflation, because as was famously said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. There are only three ways to do that:
1. Increase taxes without increasing spending.
2. Reduce spending without reducing taxes.
3. Increase the size of the economy without increasing spending.
Tariffs are, of course, a tax increase, so, yes, all things being equal they would lower inflation. But tax increases are the least desirable way of reducing inflation, because they do nothing to reduce the crowding out effect of government growth on the private sector.
Tariffs are, of course, a tax increase, so, yes, all things being equal they would lower inflation.
No, Brett. As usual your bold economic statements are ill-informed nonsense. What do you think tariffs do to the price of domestic goods? Tariffs may help domestic industry selectively, but they are not a boon to the economy, whatever your autarkic fantasies.
Or you a moron, like your cult hero, who thinks the exporting countries pay the tariffs?
That’s important to improve our balance of trade deficit,
Why would they do that? Do you think there might be retaliation from countries that import American goods?
There are only three ways to do that:
Have you ever heard of the Federal Reserve? Go look up Paul Volcker. You might learn something.
The tariffs Biden kept in place or the ones that existed when inflation was under 2% when Trump left office?
Who are you and what did you do with SimonP?
I think you may be surprised that my actual beliefs do not match the caricature.
Part of the reason I am here is so that I can gain some insight into how "the other side" thinks. I have learned that a lot of MAGA supporters are basically morons. But that doesn't mean their frustrations aren't coming from a genuine place.
To be fair, you are the one that drew the caricature.
You come across as a (1) very bright, (2) highly-educated, (3) insufferably smug (4) gay man from NYC that (5) always assumes the worst about people with whom he disagrees. If you leaned into 1, 2 and 4, and eased up on 3 and 5, you'd be one of the best commenters on here with an interesting perspective.
I'll admit that I tend to fall into those categories myself (absent the gay part), but have tried to work on the negatives over the years.
To be fair, you are the one that drew the caricature.
Just because I am smug, and because I am not charitable towards others who engage me in bad faith, does not mean I am incapable of seeing political reality for what it is, preferring instead my own mirror-reflected view of it. That is an attribute you have associated with me, because those other attributes (in your view) align with the caricature of a member of the "liberal elite," which I don't entirely fit.
Huh? Your insufferable smugness makes you unpleasant to interact with, but it does not make me dismiss your observations out of hand. As this exchange demonstrates....
I took your initial response to be insinuating that I had displayed an unexpected clarity of view. If all you meant to say was, "oh, you're not smug and insufferable here," then I see what you're driving at.
I try not to be smug and insufferable toward people unless and until they've earned it. Still, it becomes second nature in this cesspool of a comment section.
Well stripping away the insufferable smugness does have a tendency to make one's underlying point clearer.
Anyhoo, one thing I have learned about the interwebs is that you are not just replying to the d-bag moron that made a particular point, but to everyone else that reads your comment.
The liberal “elite” does tend to have that problem, I think – unable to grasp the basic complaints of Americans except in self-serving ways.
How do you fix that, meaning, instill empathy?
Yes, empathy, that is definitely what Trump voters want from a politician.
You ask the question like MAGA voters don't have the same problem.
But for me, the question is essentially empirical. Given everything we know about Trump, with great certainty, how can anyone support him? If your hypothesis requires assuming that the majority of Americans are hateful racists, it seems unlikely to be correct. One need only be honest with what one sees in front of one's face. Most Americans are not hateful racists.
Perhaps ironically, for me, my study of critical race and legal theory, and of Foucault, has inclined me to look beyond the individual choices that people make, to the structures in which they make them. What people struggle to understand is how essentially decent people can come together and do monstrous things. If we are always looking at that question as though we are aggregating individual moral decisions, we will always locate the fundamental moral failures in the individual. But if we recognize that essentially decent people in certain kinds of structures will act a certain kind of way, it becomes easier to understand.
A person who votes for affordable groceries and a return to life before the pandemic is not, fundamentally, a bad person. A politics that gives them only two choices, either the status quo or something else (however fantastical), is what makes a victory by a notable con man possible.
I didn't ask about MAGA voters, I asked about the liberal elite you mentioned.
The liberal “elite” does tend to have that problem, I think – unable to grasp the basic complaints of Americans except in self-serving ways
How would you suggest fixing that? Assume I agree with your diagnosis. What is your prescription?
Professor Volokh may be raising a deeper issue, prevalent today not only in terms of this election. My law school experience taught the necessity of understanding the different ways to look at legal issues, opinions, facts, the law. Not only in Moot Court where both sides were argued by the same team but in the classroom where opinions were challenged and dissected. Learning to question one's views. I had the same experiences in college arguing the meaning of Shakespeare's plays and in high school science classes and experiments where every possible explanation for a chemical reaction was explored. Research papers on Shakespeare (or another author) showed the variety of possible meanings and science papers explored the likely to the possible.
I do not see those same learning experiences, the same reverence for doubt, for asking questions in today's world.
Picture if you will, a place where literacy is achieved by high school, and students all take debate classes, and are required to argue both sides of each issue.
Nowadays debaters are prohibited from arguing certain sides of issues:
"I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, imperialist war good, fascism good, bourgeois (like US) nationalism, normalizing Israel or Zionism, US white fascist policing good, etc."
Good lord ... what you've quoted isn't even the worst of it.
Hey, when I was in LS, 35 years ago, there were certain subjects not open for debate - notably Roe v Wade. The (otherwise leftist) Con Law professor tried to get some women to debate the anti side. Not only did they refuse, they also got over half the class to formally protest it with the dean.
His appeal is that of charismatic voice for blue collar folks who feel abandoned by the establishment. He’s a false prophet, but no one has been successful in making that case.
Do not crucify me on a toilet of gold!
Josh R, I would just remind you that a majority of the electorate does not agree with your view. After yesterday, that should have been blindingly obvious to you but perhaps it is not. Maybe they (meaning the majority of the American electorate) aren't wrong. Mind-blowing, I know.
But....have you considered that possibility? Of course, just as an intellectual exercise. Not as an exercise of personal introspection.
If you change your perspective, your interpretation of reality will change also. That is what I have noticed.
The whole point of politics it to convince people of things they don't already believe. Wondering whether they might be right is the wrong way to think about it.
"The whole point of politics it to convince people of things they don’t already believe."
Is the whole point of a CEO to convince the board of things they don’t already believe, or to do what the board wants done.
And if you are a (board member|voter) do you (hire|vote for) the person who will do what they want, or who will do what you want?
I sense your view is that the government is management and the citizenry the employees. For a democracy, that's backwards: the citizenry are the employer and government is the employee.
A CEO can replace the board, so he doesn't have to convince them. And everyone else who works for the company he can fire, so again no convincing necessary.
As for politicians, they are meant to do some actual leadership. Otherwise, what fucking good are they?
A CEO can replace the board
Is this some sort of Dutch corporate weirdness? That's exactly the opposite of how it works in this country.
Actually, while in the abstract a CEO cannot replace the board, the way corporate governance works here in the US means that the CEO can quite often replace the board, or at least the members he finds troublesome.
The textbooks are notably inaccurate on this topic.
Can you give some details of how that works in practice?
On the contrary. That's exactly *not* how it works in the Netherlands, where we have two-tier boards. But in the US most companies are run by a CEO who puts his friends on the board, and gets rid of them if they become inconvenient.
"A CEO can replace the board, so he doesn’t have to convince them"
Ummm.......
As to the rest, sure, there is nothing the matter with a CEO trying to convince the board of something ("look, these new automobile thingys are taking off ... we better diversify away from harnesses"). And there is nothing wrong with a politician trying to convince the voters of some unpleasant reality ("We all want higher benefits and lower taxes, but we can only borrow so much"). But a politician (in a democracy!) ultimately needs to convince rather than ignore. The people may be wrong, but they can vote you out.
Yes, that's what I was saying.
Here is conservative hero Edmund Burke (in the Netherlands they named a conservative think tank after him), making a related but slightly different point:
Churchill had some words on the topic too, by the way:
Of course the electorate does not agree with my view he is a false prophet. I acknowledged that when I said, “but no one has been successful in making that case.” Are they right and I’m wrong? Unlikely from what I have seen and know of Trump.
In the OP, Eugene homed in on liberals being unable to “understand Trump’s political appeal except in terms flattering to their beliefs.” The example given was liberals believeing the electorate is a bunch racists and rubes that fell victim to a demagogue.
To the contrary, my argument respects Trump supporters’ leigitimate anger at the establishment even though I believe Trump is a phony.
... are you seriously asking people to consider that Trump, a known conman, purveyor of snake oil, and inveterate liar, isn't a conman?
I mean, even if you support Trump, you shouldn't lie to yourself that he isn't a conman. You should just be arguing that you're his confederate, not his mark.
Meh.
It's easy to come up with excuses. But the bottom-line is that the loss-streak is 1, and Democrats haven't had a losing streak of 2 since 2004. So you can do all the navel-gazing you want (and many, many people will) but the party isn't going to go through a major shift before it's got a losing streak of at least two.
You're probably right, though it's not efficient to only learn when you lose consistently, and just blow off one off losses. Democrats probably will have to do badly in several successive election cycles before being reduced to trying something different, instead of doubling down.
But y'all lost to Trump.
That would be the loss-streak of 1, yes.
Yeah, but they did get lucky in not losing 2, I think if the pandemic hadn't disrupted Trump's first term he would have won in 2020.
It was his performance in his first term that made the voters want overlook his many shortcomings in order to reclaim the benefits they perceived from his policies.
"I think if the pandemic hadn’t disrupted Trump’s first term he would have won in 2020."
A feeling I share, actually.
"It was his performance in his first term that made the voters want overlook his many shortcomings in order to reclaim the benefits they perceived from his policies."
An argument that amounts to Trump getting the incumbent advantage (even though he wasn't)... which would then pit a non-incumbent loser against an incumbent winner, whereupon the incumbent winning shouldn't be surprising at all.
Which is to say... if you believe this, then the Democrats have even less reason to freak out and fuss over "why did we lose?!", because they lost on fundamentals, not on anything they had control over.
After learning that their parents voted for Trump yesterday, I wonder how many school-age kids are challenging their parents today to explain how they could vote for a convicted felon who has cheated on multiple wives and who has bragged about sexually assaulting women. And I wonder how parents are explaining that ethics and morals and character only matter sometimes, not all the time.
MoreCurious: I expect the answer to "how many" is "very few." But if they do ask that, I think many parents will say: Ethics and morals and character always matter, but when it comes to politics other things matter, too.
This of course doesn't resolve how one should balance these factors in this particular election. But I would hope that, especially by the time the kids get old enough to "challeng[e] their parents" as to their votes, many parents would appreciate the opportunity to tell those kids that political decisions are complicated, and can't easily be resolved through bright-line categorical rules.
Care to share how you voted, Professor? I voted for Harris in part because I have never and will never vote for anyone for any position who has a record of felonies and/or sexual assault.
Given that Eugene doesn’t seem to think he’s talking about a scenario where a German child is asking why their parents voted as they did in 1932, from the perspective of the events of WWII, I think we can guess.
“Sure – our vote helped usher in a war across Europe and a shocking genocide, while doing little to actually address our material concerns at the time. But you have to understand, sometimes you have to ignore what the candidate clearly signals they plan to do, and vote for the fantasy.”
I voted for the Libertarian candidate (Chase Oliver). But that was my choice; other people, including ones who take a very dim view of Trump's character, may make a different choice.
Ethics and morals and character always matter, but when it comes to politics other things matter, too.
True, but those things are not independent of one another. A politician's ethics and morals and character may easily influence his policy choices - and pretty generally do.
You may like what a candidate promises in the way of policy, but if he is a liar and a crook you may not get what you expect, and you may get a lot of stuff you weren't counting on.
Do you remember why Reagan Democrats didn't vote for Jimmy Carter?
No. Remind us.
Jimmy Carter was (still is, bless him) a good man. He could not convince the electorate that his policies were effective.
Actually, me and my wife have routinely discussed politics with our 16 year old son, so he's not at all confused. Like the difference between saying somebody won't object to your doing something, and having confessed to committing assault, or that when you're voting for the lesser evil, yes, you understand that you're voting for evil, just lesser.
Nothing you said will convince me that it's okay to vote for someone who has been adjudicated to be evil. But you do what feels good to you.
Seriously? No capacity for independent judgement at all? Amazing.
Independent judgment about what? Whether a man who has sexually assaulted women -- and bragged about it -- is evil and not qualified to hold any public office?
About whether or not he is in fact evil, as opposed to having been adjudicated to be evil.
Where the fuck is my Calgon?!
"I don't understand how Trump won! I mean, didn't the rubes see how we painted him?".
Yeah, we did.
You realise you're the rube in that scenario, right?
He realizes. He should have put "rubes" in quotes. The left consistently displays contempt for the electorate, and then wonders why they don't play along.
"Hey, you! You're too stupid to know what's good for you. Which is voting for me."
That message is very poor politics. Which I hope the left keeps up for decades.
I'm not a politician. One of the (many) reasons for that is that I like being able to call stupid people stupid.
The issue here is why did Harris lose. She was running for president, and so she IS a politician. Ditto for her party and other candidates.
The left has an abiding contempt for a large swathe of the country. Some hide it better than others. (Bill Clinton comes to mind.) Others don't. In this election, it came out clearly, and cost them dearly.
Yes, which is why Harris carefully avoided calling anyone stupid. (Unlike Trump, who loves the uneducated.)
The left has an abiding contempt for a large swathe of the country. Some hide it better than others.
Like the right doesn't?
I think right-wing politicians convey a very similar contempt for a large swathe of the country. It's practically part of their platform. The difference is that they don't simultaneously need the votes of those people. The contempt for those people is part of the point.
It's all just a massive inferiority complex. Trumpists somehow *feel* like Harris calls them stupid, simply by existing, and by saying things like "What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump's plan would actually explode the deficit. Sixteen Nobel laureates have described his economic plan as something that would increase inflation and by the middle of next year would invite a recession." All those big words are just a different way of calling Trumpists stupid.
B.L.,
I think it's fair to say the right has an abiding contempt for a large part of the country. It sometimes emerges as a sense that they are the only "real Americans," and everyone else is in on sufferance.
For all the flag-waving I think there are many on the right who do not in fact love their country as it actually exists.
Oh no, Trumpists have contempt for the "real Americans" too. Arguably even more than for the rest. The "real Americans" are their gullible marks, after all.
Maybe its time to put down the brush and let the natural grain shine through.
There are aps you can use to get past paywall blocks. Hint hint.
Archived copy of the article
https://archive.ph/XOsV4
Michigan Exit Poll Among Latino Voters:
Trump: 60%
Harris: 35%
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1854005642509390182
So this will be interesting to follow in say 2years. The latino voters who are voting are citizens. But if/when Trump starts deporting millions of hispanics; reducing immigration from latin america, and who knows what else... (slapping tariffs on everything from Mexico by 50%?) we will see where they land.
I can see the leapords eating faces party having a banner year at the midterm.... 'I voted for Trump but i didn't think he would deport MY cousins!'
Trump needs to deliver on his promise of ushering in the greatest economy the world has ever seen, lowering taxes, etc... basically do for the middle class what he has already done for the upper class/corporate tax cuts. Or I think these same voters will abandon the GOP. There are some hard core social conservatives/catholics that will stay red... because they align with that. But I guess we will see how effective Team red, with at least a majority senate, will be in carrying out Trump's promises. The dude promised A LOT. And will likely spend 50% or more of his term golfing.
How much do you associate with legal immigrants, I wonder? I'm a member of the Phil-Am association, and in my experience, legal immigrants REALLY dislike "line jumpers", or being mistaken for them.
They went to the trouble to enter the country legally, and have nothing but contempt for people who entered illegally.
+1,000
Spouse is legal immigrant, and this is exactly how she feels = They went to the trouble to enter the country legally, and have nothing but contempt for people who entered illegally.
Those who are here illegally were not able to go through the process.
Matt 25:40
we will see where they land.
They may well land in Mexico. Every other time the US has mass-deported Latinos they ended up deporting lots of citizens too. It turns out that might happen if you abolish due process.
Stop pulling stuff out of your ass. When was the last "mass deportation"?
1954
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback#Operation_Wetback_(1954)
Or, if you prefer a non-Wikipedia description: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/11/455613993/it-came-up-in-the-debate-here-are-3-things-to-know-about-operation-wetback
And before that there was another such mass deportation during the Great Depression:
https://www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation
Let's all get up and dance to a tune that was a hit before your mother was born...
"How, indeed, did Democrats lose so badly, considering how they saw Donald Trump — a twice-impeached former president, a felon, a fascist, a bigot, a buffoon, a demented old man, an object of nonstop late-night mockery and incessant moral condemnation"
You really want to know how? Because they can't understand that calling Trump "a twice-impeached former president, a felon, a fascist, a bigot, a buffoon, a demented old man, an object of nonstop late-night mockery and incessant moral condemnation" was never going to convince anyone who wasn't already part of the choir.
And then they have the gall to complain about Trump referring to "the enemy within".
If Democrats want to understand how they lost, they need to take a good long look in the mirror.
So you're saying that President Biden calling Donald Trump's supporters "garbage" didn't convince them to vote for Kamala Harris?
Sadly, no. But maybe if POTUS Biden had said that Trump supporters were deplorable garbage, instead of just garbage, that might've sealed the deal.
So you're saying that had they been polite and nice to Trump, the hayseeds would have considered their options? He digitally raped a woman, tried to steal a national election through fraud and showed military secrets to his resort guests. How do you sugarcoat shit like that?
On the first count, the average person is not impressed with evidence free, politically convenient accusations of decades ago crimes. Even if it IS possible to get a conviction if you prosecute them in an area where the jury pool is hostile enough.
On the third count, Biden shared national security secrets with his biographer. I don't notice you being particularly enraged about that. So maybe you're just dealing with the fact that people are on some level aware that sort of thing is regrettably routine, and know selective complaint when they see one.
So the only one you had much hope with was count #2, and maybe you should have cried wolf less before trying it.
So, what do you have to say to someone who doesn't like the national security secret violations of Trump OR Biden OR Hillary Clinton? They should ALL have been charged and tried. For my money, Trump's violations were by far the worst.
Everyone knows he betrayed the country and committed acts of treason on so many levels. However, knowing that and still voting for him because of the price of eggs...well...there's nothing one can do about it. Welcome to the new normal I guess
You have no clue what the legal definition of treason is. Go read Article III of the US constitution.
What a ridiculous argument.
If people would vote against a candidate because the candidate is just too mean, then Trump wouldn't have won his primaries in 2016 or 2024.
The fact that he did shows that the electorate doesn't punish a candidate for being mean.
Well yeah, clearly the country hates it when politicians engage in name-calling. That's why they voted for Trump.
But seriously, the whole ideology of Trumpism can be summed up in one line: Trump can do whatever he likes, and nobody else can.
And so it is entirely logical that the Democrats got punished for doing things that Trump does worse.
Trump is objectively every bad thing that he was called. The people decided they do not care.
Yes, democracy sucks.
Maybe they see it from a different perspective based on Trump's four years as President.
"If Democrats want to understand how they lost, they need to take a good long look in the mirror."
Unfortunately, they do not cast a reflection - - - - - - - - - - - -
The final paragraph resonated with me:
"I voted reluctantly for Harris because of my fears for what a second Trump term might bring — in Ukraine, our trade policy, civic life, the moral health of the conservative movement writ large. Right now, my larger fear is that liberals lack the introspection to see where they went wrong, the discipline to do better next time and the humility to change."
(I also fear the R's are going to go all 'massive mandate for radical change!' on us. I don't think that's true, e.g. see the various abortion initiatives that passed)
“I voted reluctantly for Harris because of my fears for what a second Trump term might bring — in Ukraine.”
Personally, I strongly support Ukraine, and if Biden were doing a better job on that issue, that would have carried some weight. But it's hard to see a path to victory given the West's current policies, and I don't know if Trump will do worse.
I support Ukraine, too, and I am utterly unimpressed with Biden's Ukraine policy. Which seems focused on making sure that the war remains as much of a stalemate as possible, and that at all costs Ukraine doesn't actually win.
Which, come to think of it, describes his Middle East policy, too.
All the while 10’s of thousands pf people on all sides continue to be killed or injured.
Remember when Russia invaded he called it a “minor incursion”.
So did the Russians and their American friends.
Biden let the cat out of the bag when he said it all goes back to Obama. At this point, there is no end game. While it's a bitter pill to swallow, the best solution, IMO, is that Ukraine agree to give up some territory in exchange for the rest being admitted to NATO.
Why would Ukraine agree to that if NATO is completely worthless?
What makes it "completely worthless?" Ukraine is not now a member of NATO. Has any NATO member been invaded by Russia?
And if it's "completely worthless," why should the US remain a part of something like that, which costs it billions?
NATO protects the region. Clinton went through NATO to stabilize the Bosnia situation. Bosnia was not part of NATO.
NATO protects the region.
NATO protects NATO members. That is your first mistake.
You're talking about the 1990s, before the US blew up NATO.
BL, it is extremely unwise to admit UKR to NATO. They are not even a member of the EU.
Isn't it enough to stop the killing of UKR and RUS youth? = cut a deal w/RUS, and UKR accept land loss to end war. Going forward, UKR can be a European issue. The US belongs to NATO, and upholds NATO treaty obligations.
Non-EU members, non-NATO members, maybe not so much.
"Isn’t it enough to stop the killing of UKR and RUS youth? = cut a deal w/RUS, and UKR accept land loss to end war."
What's the evidence that a deal would end the war? I mean, they can promise not to invade again, but they weren't supposed to invade in the first place.
Exactly. I really don't understand why anybody would think a peace deal with Putin would be worth anything. He's never kept any previous peace deal. Why would he start now?
NATO is completely worthless because nobody believes that Trump would protect the other NATO member states, as art. 5 of the NATO treaty requires him to do. Without the US, all that's left is basically the EU, which also has a mutual military assistance provision in its treaties. The EU will now have to step up. (Although with the upcoming German elections it's anybody's guess whether it will.)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012M%2FTXT#:~:text=7.%20If%20a,certain%20Member%20States.
why should the US remain a part of something like that
It doesn't matter. NATO is already dead letter.
which costs it billions
NATO costs the US nothing. On the contrary, it's a means to get Europeans to pay for US defence spending. The money the US spends on its own defence budget is money it would spend anyway, for domestic and global domination reasons.
Come on Martin. Europe needs an army and it ought to raise one and stop being played as a colony of the United States
It sure needs a bigger army now.
"IMO, is that Ukraine agree to give up some territory in exchange for the rest being admitted to NATO."
If the US and Europe are willing to go to war to protect Ukraine, they should do that. If they're not, it seems pointless to admit them to NATO.
Wow, look at that.
You and I actually agree on something. It’s reprehensible that we’ve been drip-feeding the support and restricting them from taking necessary actions to actually re-establish territorial control of their country and end the war.
The problem is that Trump claims he'll end the war within days, but refused to say how. So either you believe him for some reason, or he's full of shit, because nobody keeps a way to end a war killing hundreds of thousands of people to themselves as a secret political bargaining chip.
At least, a decent person would not.
I don't think Kamala ever had much of a chance, because she needed to move to the center to win the election and she couldn't credibly pull that off.
The reason the election was as close as it was was because of Trump's enduring unpopularity, and his own inability to move to the center, at least rhetorically.
Kamala spend her whole political career going as far left as she could on every issue, there is no other way to explain her embrace of reparations, free sex change operations for prisoners and illegal aliens, gun confiscation, and other radical positions.
She had no chance to convince enough voters she really did believe in a border wall, controlling illegal immigration, fracking and promoting domestic energy production, not mandating 100% EV's by 2030's, etc.
And everyone also knew if she could get in and pass another giant 2 trillion spending bill to further whatever was on the progressive agenda she'd pull out all the stops to get it done.
Kamala already started in the centre. That's where Biden and Harris are, and have always been. From their immigration policies to their policies on crime to their economic policies to their foreign policy, all of it is the far right of the Democratic Party, and well to the right of a number of recent GOP presidential nominees.
I've remarked before about the Ptolemaic fallacy, where somebody assumes, despite all evidence, that the center is wherever they happen to be. But in the case of Harris, it that old quip about denial not just being a river in Egypt seems more apropos.
Kalinski recounts the considerable evidence of Harris being well to the left of America's political center, as you would expect of a politician whose entire career was in California. That evidence doesn't just vanish because she was VP for a guy who was a bit less extreme for a few years.
Given that Harris (more or less unavoidably) stuck with the Biden line on most policy issues, her origins in California aren't very informative of anything. Her actual stated policies, on the other hand...
Given a past record vs recent expedient statements, no sensible voter goes with the recent expedient statements.
Trump is the one who is expedient. He only says what his crowd wants to hear. He tried to advocate for the Covid vaccine and was booed. Never mentioned it again.
I'm glad she didn't pick Shapiro.
Same here.
The New York Times reports that Kamala Harris has called Donald Trump to congratulate him on winning the election and is preparing to deliver a concession speech at 4 p.m. Eastern time at Howard University. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/11/06/us/trump-election-harris-news?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20241106&instance_id=138902&nl=from-the-times®i_id=59209117&segment_id=182453&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f
I hope that the contrast between her post-election behavior and Trump's 2020 shenanigans will not go unnoticed.
The only people who care are the people who won't get to run the country for the next four years, and possibly ever again.
There is also a report that Smith is considering how to "wind down" his cases against Trump.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/doj-moving-wind-trump-criminal-cases-takes-office-rcna178930
He is aware that Trump will obstruct justice by firing him — and unlike Nixon, face no consequences — and is preparing for it.
A concession speech and a call to Mr Trump is certainly an honorable way to end a nasty campaign by all parties. I give her credit for that
To paraphrase James Carville:
It's the economy and the lying, stupid.
The rest is commentary.
The economy is fine by every objective measure.
As for the lying — you can’t be serious as to the comparison.
A lot of people in their personal experience feel it is anything but "fine." That's how they judge the issue, not whether some statistics tell a different story.
As for lying, there are lies and there are lies. "The president of the United States is perfectly fine mentally and fit for office" is a pretty important factual assertion. When it became clear that that was a lie, then those asserting it lost much credibility.
A lot of people in other people's personal experience felt that it was anything but "fine". Their own experience usually wasn't the issue. (See also everyone on this blog complaining about the economy while being perfectly fine themselves, financially.)
...and you know they were perfectly fine themselves financislly because?
Just got my insurance renewals (homeowners and auto), both up 15%.
And yet you still have time to spend hours each day on this website.
(Which reminds me, apparently Elon Musk is even more weird and useless than we already thought. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/11/06/elon-musk-says-hes-a-global-top-20-diablo-4-player-and-its-actually-true/ )
"And yet you still have time to spend hours each day on this website."
As do you.
What does that have to do with anything?
In 2019, Monmouth University conducted a poll to see how approval of Trump matched up with other characteristics. The correlation between prejudice (as measured by a 20 item scale) and approval of Trump was 0.812. The correlation between saying that one benefited from recent improvements in the economy and approval of Trump was 0.660. The latter probably overstates the role that the economy played in support for Trump because the correlation between prejudice and feeling that one had benefited from the Trump economy was 0.554, but even if it doesn’t overstate the importance of the economy, the economy is less important than prejudice in explaining support for Trump.
https://cdn2.mhpbooks.com/2020/08/Authoritarian-Nightmare_Appendices.pdf
As for lying, Trump had a long career as a con man before going into politics. A Gallop poll shows 41% of registered voters believe Trump is “honest and trustworthy,” suggesting a lot of people believe his lies. And anecdotally, there seem to be a lot of people who know that Trump doesn’t have an honest bone in his body, but don’t care.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651692/voters-choice-character-leadership-skill.aspx
Trump won because people wanted a fascist strong man to fix their problems. They will quickly see that Trump is just a fascist who will make everything worse. There is no deep reason for Trumps win other than hate and idiocracy won. Morons all of them.
Wow, Pravda is still in business? Who knew?
These next four years are going to be quite a ride.
Damage control all the way, and hoping that it's actually going to be only four years.
Pay more attention and fix the mess that is the UK now under Herr Starmer.
What mess might that be? The only problem with Keir Starmer is that he doesn't seem to have realised that he already won the election, and can stop with his Ming Vase strategy.
All Starmer needs is a Mao suit to complete his personal ensemble that matches his political proclivities.
WTF are you talking about?
Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.
You can say that again. Ms Godiva had better put her clothes back on.
Just off the airplane where I saw the recent Barbie movie.
“It is literally impossible to be a woman. You are so beautiful and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we’re always doing it wrong. You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You’re supposed to love being a mother but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining. You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you’re supposed to be a part of the sisterhood. But always stand out and always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful. You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault. I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us.”
Much of this reminded me of the expectations Stephens and many others placed on Kamala Harris. Meanwhile Trump did not suffer for his total lack of self awareness and juvenile lack of self control.
Oh, is it sexism, misogyny, and then unrealistic expectations that elected President Trump? Do you really believe that?
Voters held Harris (and Hillary before her) to impossible standards that, it hardly needs to be said, they did not hold Trump to.
They held Trump to the standard of winning his party's primary.
The last time Harris ran in a primary, she failed to meet standards that Warran, Klobuchar, and Gabbard were able to meet.
Maybe you can tell me specifically, captcrisis, what those standards actually were that were so impossible to meet. Do you mean impossible expectations like the ability to hold an unscripted conversation for 3-hours? Or speaking extemporaneously for more than 5 minutes? Or, heaven forbid, holding a press conference?
Do you have a daughter? Would you routinely tell her that setbacks occur from the impossible expectations of others, and not deficient personal performance that can be improved?
In 76 days, Kamala becomes a historical footnote.
This was a choice, between Harris and Trump. Trump was worse than Harris in all the respects you mention. Didn’t you notice?
I do have two daughters, and I would be very upset if they studied, prepared, and did their best, not always perfect but serviceable, yet got lower marks than a boy who called them bitches, low-IQ, trash, actually boasted about not studying, sent bullies around to beat people up, and rambled about anything that came to his mind, including still being mad about the girl who bested him in a spelling bee four years ago.
"Impossible standards."
Keep shoveling it. She was the worst candidate of either party that I can remember.
Cas Mudde, one of the world's leading academic experts on populism and the far right, on Bluesky just now:
https://bsky.app/profile/casmudde.bsky.social/post/3lacndl6cug2v
...and on the fearsome news that Donald Trump has been elected President for a second term the Dow has closed up 1500 points (3.6%).
Four years of crony capitalism will do that. But the stock exchange isn't the economy. (And, for the record, the Dow isn't the stock exchange. Always look at the S&P 500 instead.)
S&P 500 Up 146 (2.53%)
I saw. I'm just (unrelatedly) annoyed at how mathematically illiterate the Dow is.
Actually watching Bloomberg this morning their analysis was the market is expecting higher growth rates in the economy, due to more certainty about tax rates not rising, and cutting the regulation burden.
Elon Musk maybe an early beneficiary, he's been pretty open about his frustration that he can design, build, and test new rockets in less time than it takes to get them permitted.
But that's just one example, maybe we can get some pipelines built and permitted too.
The Dow recently hit record highs under Biden. Didn’t you notice?
Elon Musk maybe an early beneficiary, he’s been pretty open about his frustration that he can design, build, and test new rockets in less time than it takes to get them permitted.
Well yes, he'll get to be his own anti-regulation czar. You can see why that might be good for his stock.
Are you forgetting that it got a bounce when Biden was elected too?
This is normal, and not special to Trump.
Stephens has Trump Derangement Syndrome. The NY Times hired him because is Jewish, supposedly conservative, and a Trump-basher. Nothing he says about Trump is worth reading.
You sure don’t seem to like Jews very much!
It is just a fact that the NY Times hires a lot of Jews, and caters to a lot of NY Jewish readers.
I think Kamala will summon us to D.C. for Jan6 and give an Elipse speech telling us to fight like hell. Then she'll round up Gaetz and Johnson and Jordan (since they like these kinds of things) and get them to nullify Trump's votes while she presides over the Senate. Should be wild. We know the hayseeds would approve
I mean, there were two months there, between November and January 6th 2020, where a certain brand of conservative assured us all that the vice president could simply exclude states from the electoral count if they wanted to.
There are a couple of things proposed by the Democrats that the new Republican Congress should consider taking up after Trump is sworn in. One, abolish the filibuster. Two, add six seats to SCOTUS. The Democrats proposed both, argued for both. And, of course, we must assume they did so in good faith about what is the best policies for the country, rather than their own short term partisan advantage. So, yes, let's enact those Democratic proposals.
{Brought to you by the Goose and Gander society}
I thought the proposal was term limits of 18 years.
https://newrepublic.com/post/186408/senate-wyden-bill-overhaul-supreme-court
There is a lot in that proposal, something for everyone to hate. How many supporters did it attract? As your article said, Biden endorsed term limits.
There are a bunch of proposals, but of course compromise means the Democrats won't get everything they want.
I think granting their proposal to add six seats to the court would be a good start, though. Bipartisanship means giving Democratic ideas a fair shot.
Great idea! What a classy way for Trump to reach across the aisle.
Go for it.
Stephens' first paragraph gives away his reasons (and his lack of reasoning): he is an uncritical consumer of TV news and other legacy media, nearly all of which are being actively poisoned against patriots by our three-letter agencies, under Operation Mockingbird and its successor operations, which make both those media and our "democratic" system a joke just as their weaponization of the DoJ has done. (And FBI, but FBI was always politically corrupt in favor of Democrats even when J Edgar Hoover ran it.)
If you don't understand that the US is every bit as corrupt as any other country in the Americas, and has been for at least a century, you are simply not paying attention.
Where does Trump fit into this? Trump is the only non-corrupt person in DC. Harry Truman said it: if you become a millionaire while in office, you are a crook. Trump lost money while in office. Q.E.D.
"And FBI, but FBI was always politically corrupt in favor of Democrats even when J Edgar Hoover ran it."
Always, jdgalt1? Can you say L. Patrick Gray?
There has never been a Democrat in charge of the FBI. They’ve always been Republicans or Independents.
I don’t find Bret Stephens a too convincing opinion writer.
The fact someone who “reluctantly” voted for Harris found fault with her losing is far from surprising. He set it up so the other side will be a problem. How dare we require him to vote for Harris!
He tosses in “various missteps” that are far from clearly so. For instance, her “progressive running mate” also had various qualities that reasonably could have helped to get some of the voters necessary to win that a Gov. Josh Shapiro might not have.
Likewise, underlining how he stacks the deck, he tosses in the idea her appointment (following the rules in place, authorized by the people chosen in a “democratic process”) was tainted.
The title of the piece underlines how much bullshit is involved: “A Party of Prigs and Pontificators Suffers a Humiliating Defeat.”
Prigs? A key theme in the Harris campaign was joy. If you want a damn “prig,” look to the governor of Florida. Or Vance.
Why shouldn’t we assume that a big part of his appeal was “racism, sexism, xenophobia”? Your fellow contributor is regularly attacked for his open immigration policies no matter what he says.
Multiple incidents of these things can be cited including the whole pet-eating bullshit. The fact that South Carolina voted for Nikki Haley and so on doesn’t erase all the rest.
The fact THIS specific person got so many votes could not just be explained by people disagreeing with some strawman that “things were pretty much fine, if not downright great, in Biden’s America.”
So great that Democrats wanted to win so they could make significant improvements! The lack of a need for change in fact can be verified by some of the early results.
After all, states that passed abortion protection measures were among those who voted for Trump. The people seem to have the typical split-ticket sentiments that welcome no major change. If the Democrats manage to win the House, that only helps the idea.
Democrats are aware of Trump’s appeals. Populism is often mixed with authoritarianism. Harris is damned for agreeing Trump was a fascist when his chief of staff did. When asked was she supposed to lie?
How about the “profoundly distasteful so much of modern liberalism has become to so much of America” part?
I’m not sure what evidence there is to that. The people have accepted lots of modern liberalism. Brett Stephens is not a median member of the public.
To the degree some subset finds it distasteful, it regularly is for reasons of racism, xenophobia, and so on. I realize some might not like to be associated with those things. But it doesn’t make it untrue.
For instance, though I appreciate that we will now have an openly trans member of the House of Representatives, trans people upset many people. It is sexist and transphobic. It’s unfortunately popular. It’s still sexist and transphobic.
I think the Orin Kerr tweet referenced in the thread is better counsel than this op-ed. The paywall is not too bothersome here.
"Why shouldn’t we assume that a big part of his appeal was “racism, sexism, xenophobia”? Your fellow contributor is regularly attacked for his open immigration policies no matter what he says."
But, setting aside a couple of admitted trolls, the attacks are not based on anything that would sensibly be described as racism, sexism, or xenophobia. They're based on the belief that his open immigration policy proposals would be socially and economically destructive.
I attack his proposals as much as anyone, and work for a multi-national corporation, regularly interacting with non-Americans, I'm married to a legal immigrant from the Philippines, and live in a mixed race neighborhood. The claim that I'm a racist or xenophobic is absurd. I just think that American immigration policy should be crafted to maximize benefits to existing American citizens, not the world in general.
As I like to put it, the Constitution may not have enacted Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics, but neither did it enact Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Ilya seems to have trouble accepting that.
I guess that'll teach Harris to call Biden a racist.
Harris appealed to what is best in us, and Trump appealed to what is worst. Usually Americans go with their baser instincts.
“It’s the same in any country. Convince them they’re being attacked, and anyone who opposes you is the enemy within.” Trump has not improved very much on Goering.
It’s like rain on your wedding day.
Trump ran on making America great. Harris ran on killing babies.
“Harris appealed to what is best in us, and Trump appealed to what is worst.”
Harris promised price controls and to scapegoat so-called greedy landlords. She promoted abortion with few if any restrictions. She reached out to blacks by promising them money and weed. etc.
Are you seriously going to say that these were appeals to voters’ better impulses?
What you're describing, in your own unique way, is an attempt to change society in the direction of more liberty, more harmony, and more equality. So yes.
The foundation was laid when the Dems, back in November of 2016, started behaving like the 1919 German ultrarightwing, complete with their own Stab in the Back®™ conspiracy theory which was based on the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
(My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, actually made this comparison in the Cleveland Plain Dealer comments section at the time)
I don't believe Stephens when he says he voted for Harris, and his post-mortem is as stupid as it is useless.
Democrats (not liberals) weren't saying everything was fine. They were countering a narrative that everything was the most terrible, horrible thing anyone had ever seen, and they'd never seen anything like it before. Haitians eating cats. America being overrun by invaders. Drugs everywhere. Ever other person in a women's bathroom a man and every other competitor in a women's sport a man. The country is in the midst of the greatest crime wave in history. In fact, more people were murdered in 2024 than live in the country.
Stephens is an apologist for fascism.