The 2024 Election —What did we learn?

Dr. Strangelove said:
This is going to be hard to answer I think. Personally, I think that this is multi-faceted:

1. COVID led to record high voter turnout that was going to be hard to replicate for either party.

2. For low propensity Democrats, they were probably unenthusiastic about their candidate. Joe Biden was extremely unpopular with the Democratic base when he dropped out, and they replaced him with somebody who consolidated that support within the party but still not all of it. Having a President that is clearly in decline due to his age, followed by a secondary candidate that was not selected through a primary - and not getting much needed name recognition - depressed internal Democratic turnout. Republicans did not have this issue. For the record, I think any candidate they picked would've suffered the same as Harris did. As annoying as it is to have a year long nominating process, it certainly helps get your name in the news cycle that reaches all Americans eventually, no matter how much they don't pay attention. 

3. Inflation brought in new low propensity voters for the opposition party. This happened everywhere in the world; Trump probably ended up with several million votes from the people who did not participate in 2020. Thus, inflation acted much like COVID in driving voter turnout to one party single handedly while having the opposite effect on the other party.

For 2024 so far, Trump managed to win all 7 swing states but will end up only winning a single Senate seat in them. Similarly, despite causing a MASSIVE swing in New Jersey, for example, Republicans aren't really going to do damage there down ballot. I actually don't think they'll flip a single Republican held seat there despite the largest gains in that state in a generation. Similar events unfolded in other states. In Nevada, Trump will win but Democrats will retain all their house seats. This was the case in pretty much all the states.

Thus, millions of voters in those states showed up and voted for Trump but didn't vote down the ballot. 
Click to expand...
All good points to consider for both parties.   I do think every election has its number of people who only vote for President and this probably happened more for Trump than Harris.  Similar to the Obama election.  And in AZ there was some obvious crossover vote for Gallego 

 
Enhance said:
Either everybody was in on the joke or we actually landed on the moon. Either everybody was in on the joke or Trump lost.
Click to expand...
It could also be that it wasn’t fraud that year because laws were changed for that single election and ballots were harvested but any other year, you coulda/woulda kinda call it semi-cheating.   
 

Voting Fraud is pretty broad subject and I agree that the people thinking voting machines changed votes is silly, or that election workers at polling places changed votes or filled out empty voting cards.    But it’s entirely different thing to believe voting collection that normally isn’t legal took place and ended with people who never would have voted, had their ballot collected with a vote that someone told them how and who to fill it out for.   Quasi-ballot harvesting fraud that was looked the other way on because of Covid. 

 
knapplc said:
You're talking about a tiny slice of the country. The Washington DC population is twice the size of the Lincoln, NE metro population. A statistically insignificant amount of America.

What does this chart even show? What is the source of this chart? 
Click to expand...
It shows that the folks voting in DC are 85% Democrat. I was joking about them all working for the government. You can find voting data anywhere. I assume it comes from voter tabulation.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I'm finding nothing BUT Dem strategists speculating on what the party did wrong and how they need to reconnect with American voters. 

There's still a healthy anger at Donald Trump for selling a combination of misinformation, fear, and dementia, but there's no denying that it resonated with more voters than ever. That's the sobering part.

What I'm not finding are Democrat leaders claiming widespread electoral fraud and fomenting resistance to the results. But that's just because the Democrats are big pussies. 
Click to expand...
The last part is great and I appreciate it. Can't go through that again. As I stated in a post before the election, I hope it's a blow out either way. 

As for connecting with the voters, one example might be prop 36 in Cali. I heard that prop 36 in Cali passed by 70%. Did Newsome oppose it?

Not sure if that is true, but if so it sounds like a big disconnect. 

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
What's the proof for any of that? Just that you don't like it and want it to be the issue?
Click to expand...
Proof of what? What the Dem strategist is saying in the video to CNN? You would have to ask her, where her proof is. I can only say that it resonated with me big time. Some of things the progressives prioritize don't make sense to me at all.

 
nic said:
It shows that the folks voting in DC are 85% Democrat. I was joking about them all working for the government. You can find voting data anywhere. I assume it comes from voter tabulation.
Click to expand...


Why would it matter if they were 85% democrat? It's not like our DC politicians are wandering around town asking the locals for advice.

 
nic said:
The last part is great and I appreciate it. Can't go through that again. As I stated in a post before the election, I hope it's a blow out either way. 

As for connecting with the voters, one example might be prop 36 in Cali. I heard that prop 36 in Cali passed by 70%. Did Newsome oppose it?

Not sure if that is true, but if so it sounds like a big disconnect. 
Click to expand...


Every issue on the California ballot that even vaguely leaned tougher on crime, won. A measure that would have prevented prisons from using prisoners as forced labor was defeated, despite having no organized backers or listed supporters. A modified "three strikes and your out" referendum encouraging longer prison sentences passed. The moderate liberal San Francisco mayor was replaced by a slightly more moderate candidate. Progressive DAs continued to lose elections or face recalls. 

Listen, people are going to be dissecting this election forever, and some will contend the answer is simple. It's not, but the closest I can come is a global pendulum that is swinging towards autocrats and nationalism in the face of immigration and cultural protectionism. Donald Trump energized his base by making them the kings (and bullies) of their birthright. Kamala Harris energized her base almost entirely by not being Donald Trump. We figured that should be enough, but it clearly wasn't. 

While Donald Trump's victory was huge, and Californization was repudiated, it's entirely conceivable that Gavin Newsom becomes President in four years. Because that's also how America works. We're pretty funny that way. 

 
Apsu said:
Nope.
The best Bernie Sanders died on July 25, 2016.
Click to expand...


Riiiiight. But that Bernie Sanders was the uncompromising socialist Democrat who advocated for single payer healthcare, free community college and daycare, higher taxes on the super wealthy, tax credits for the working poor, pro-Union, pro-Green, pro-public education, pro-Social Justice. 

If I'm understanding correctly, you just voted for a President who opposes everything the best Bernie Sanders supported. And if you did indeed vote Green Party in the past, like you said, many consider them to the left of Bernie. 

So yeah, I'm still wondering how and why you made that journey to the far right. It may be the Rosetta Stone for what happens next. 

We keep talking about what the ascendence of Donald Trump says about America, and most interpret it as a new conservative mandate. Yet many believe in that pivotal year of 2016 that Bernie Sanders could have defeated Donald Trump when Hillary Clinton could not. They represented opposite ends of the political spectrum, yet many Americans embraced them both as outsiders and agents of change. What was that all about? 

p.s. Bernie is still advocating the same things he did on July 24, 2016.

 
knapplc said:
Why would it matter if they were 85% democrat? It's not like our DC politicians are wandering around town asking the locals for advice.
Click to expand...
Matter? It simply shows the DC voters are more left than Cali, Oregon, Washington you name it...by almost 3x. It's surprising, but maybe it's just a metro area like all other metro areas. I am surprised they don't want new leadership, given the decline of other metro areas but maybe DC is immune.

 
Back
Top