US Politics

Had she had more time, then could she have distanced herself and come up with some better lines of defense?

I'd say the opposite, if anything she had too much time. She started quite well, distancing herself a bit from Biden on some areas, not turning up to an event with netanyahu, etc. But then she caved in, presumably under lots of pressure, and fell in as continuity Biden.

Her initial bounce was quite strong but it subsided as she had more time.

I don't think it was meant to be her turn either, she was only ever meant to be a VP.

turnout

I guess the numbers to check are popularity. Clinton and Trump were the two most unpopular nominees ever.

Where does Harris sit in that I wonder?

Someone better qualified discussing the question going round in my head: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4l5j2v9do.amp

etc.

Etc. including Israel/Gaza. American politics being what it is, there's not a stance they could have taken that wouldn't have hurt them on one side or another. Which does suggest they might as well have been a lot braver on that issue than they were, of course. If you're going to lose, lose with some pride.

Trump is broadly flat (72.7m votes versus 74.2m in 2020), while Biden got 81m in 2020, versus Harris getting 68m.

The only explanation I've seen so far is from the people who believe there was fraud in 2020. I'm sure there will be other explanations along soon and I hope they are better as I wouldn't like that to be the most credible one.

I sent that suggestion as a joke to a friend yesterday, but still haven't seen a serious one replace it yet. Apparently the voter rolls were 6 million higher this time as well.

I'm really interested to see detailed demographic breakdowns when they are available. A quick scan says black, Latino and Asian voters were down as percentage of total voters.

you don't half spend a lot of time picking rows on here!

No, I don't. Since the result came in, you've been treating even the mildestly expressed disagreement -or even request for clarification - as a personal attack, and responding with the bile you mistakenly imagine is being directed at you, so I do not think your judgement on this is sound.

Unsubscribing for the sake of my mental health. Please just leave me alone.

Down 13%

Over the last couple of years, around the world, the incumbents have lost, often considerably, taking the blame for Civid/Ukraine/inflation/fuel prices/ Middle East/immigration/whatever, even when they have handled some of these reasonably well.

With economy/immigration cited by voters as a major factor here, was this more inevitable than the widely predicted “too close to call” line (with the hindsight caveat plus anyone who “knew” Trump was going to win having cleaned up at the bookies and being too knee deep in considering new bike purchasing options to have time to post here)?

Also, apart from sorting out Ukraine and deporting 15m on day one, surely Trump will get to the bottom of the attempted assassination as a national security priority…..

I think the polls were within the margin of error, including in the swing states, which is where the too close too call came from. I would guess that the polling issue is that some demographic group or groups that pollsters expected to turn out for Kamala Harris didn't turnout in the way they did for Biden in 2020.

Add in that Trump was not a failed insurrectionist, adjudicated felon or convicted felon in 2020 (not listing all for brevity but cats/dogs and enthusiastic microphone horatio also notable), perhaps these appealed to the undecided/flipped a few Democrats….

I don't follow US politics that closely, but I'm not sure that anythings been reinforced to stand up to someone like Trump a second time.

Most memorable thing for me is that he [Biden] took 2 year to nominate someone as chair for the deadlocked FCC. Not get someone elected (which would be hard because of the split house), but to even nominate someone.

At best it was inept, but it makes it easy to see why people think the Dems aren't interested in anything more than sustaining the status quo

Yeah, it was like a short four year change of pace in the lunacy. Maybe you could be generous and say he perhaps he was running the presidency for the times that he would have ideally suited to it - 15 - 20 years ago and when he could have reliably expected 8 years at it.

I still can't help but blame the voters. The French seem to manage this every time they have a presidency election, it's always some right wing loon vs someone no-one really wants but the entire country manages to come out and hold their nose to make the vote. The Dems didn't help themselves, the choice wasn't good, but there's no excuse for failure to vote.

anyone who “knew” Trump was going to win having cleaned up at the bookies

I was pretty certain that Trump was going to win and did put my money where my mouth was, so made a few £ on betfair.

I set out my reasoning a few pages up on here a day or two before the election - that the polls always have underestimated trump's vote and that there was no reason to believe - other than faith - that it would be different this time. And that it wouldn't be as close as the polls were saying. I set it out here partly to see if anyone came up with anything I might have missed. There was one point someone made but I didn't think it was enough to change the whole hypothesis.

I believed that Harris was only going to win it if she was at least 3-4 points ahead in the polls and she just wasn't.

I didn't have a firm view on why she wasn't, as it wasn't necessary for my conclusion, but I did believe she was not a great candidate, and that genocide was probably a red line for a small but not negligible segment of the US population.

The French seem to manage this every time

They read the papers and they know some history. Maybe American voters would if their schools were up to scratch and they had more time. Working and commuting take up all their waking hours.

I would guess that the polling issue is that some demographic group or groups that pollsters expected to turn out for Kamala Harris didn't turnout in the way they did for Biden in 2020.

It's not that, it's that the polls have underestimated Trump in the past and they did so again. It's not everywhere all the time but it's enough places enough of the time. It explained the results in five out of the seven swing states.

It might be that as well, I suppose...

I still can't help but blame the voters.

Not sure if you are serious or satyrising the dems. But the electorate got the result that most of them wanted. It might not have been what you wanted, but why does 'blame' come into it?

The French system combines the worst elements of fptp and pr. And they can only keep that trick running so long. Who is macron's successor? Can you be as certain whoever he puts up is going to beat le pen next time?

I'll go and have a peek at the being on it now and report back..

OK, France. Le Pen is favourite. The macronist is second

1 Attachment

Well done, how much did you wager?

Good article. Oddly enough, I thought he'd win in 2016 but Harris would squeak it this time. Mencken proved forever right...

I think this is probably the first post-truth election. There is a substantial portion of the population that is entirely siloed in a Fox, alt-right, Facebook, X, right-wing podcast ecosystem. Taking out the genuine bad actors, I get there's an expectation that they should be able to believe what they're told. Mainstream media has told some whoppers over the years but it's hardly Pravda...Now we have a fully developed alternate universe. It's hard to see going forward how you beat the alliance of an autocratically minded incumbent, and the billionaire media gods. You can extrapolate a parallel with Russia, post the election of Putin in 2000. Billionaires were only protected and allowed to thrive as long as they supported Vlad, the others experienced misfunctioning windows. The idea this admin will be constrained by law is insane, given track record and the supreme courts immunity decision. Wonder how long it will be before they punt the filibuster to get unpopular policies through the Senate? Depressing all around.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-is-america-not-a-fluke/

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-is-america-not-a-fluke/

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-is-america-not-a-fluke/

A bit - mainly on the swing states and on a couple of safe ones. The odds on most of them were pretty short so needed to stake ££ to win a little bit. Still waiting for the last two states to be called and the electoral college to be finalised, so hopeful of a bit more to come.

I thought Harris would win the popular vote though, would have done a lot better if she had!

Do you bet on lots of things? And/or work in the markets?

Mainstream media has told some whoppers over the years but it's hardly Pravda

I disagree with that, I think mainstream media owned by oligarchs like murdoch is horrifically propagandised and new media actually opens things up a bit. Sure there are risks, but I think that, rather from coming to a bad place from a good one, we are coming to a bad place from a horrendous one.

No. I just fancied a punt on this as it seemed like easy money!

I made a little bit betting on Biden last time. But I well remember having a 3am panic when it looked like it was a lot closer than I expected!