yes, this is interesting

[mellowtigger]

Indeed, the demographics are already interesting.

I've been saying for many years already that economic times are bad out there "on the street".  I try to document my opinion with occasional news from the warzone.  Pundits on television and news sites keep insisting that metrics are doing great.  Metrics can be inaccurate, maybe even disconnected from the reality of lived experience.  Can you look at these statistics for "issues" (you'll have to scroll down near the bottom) and say that anything other than economic factors played the largest role in this election cycle? I can no longer accept racism and sexism as the core cause of Trump's support either, although they likely still play a part.  Can you look at these metrics by race and gender and say that racism or sexism are the primary motivator?  As a percentage, Trump gained votes in every segment except maybe black women.

Not all votes have been counted yet, but it looks like Trump won the popular vote, not just the Electoral College vote.  That's a proper "win", the first for Republicans in a very long time.  I think this election was rather decisive.

Maybe someday, Democrats will stop sending annointed candidates to an electorate that's hungry for a populist leader, as I've been shouting into the void for nearly a decade? Maybe someday, Democrats will accept that they have to contribute something concrete (especially economic) to the day-by-day experience of most Americans?  I maintain that my top 4 list of priorities are essential as goals, but leaders have to stop relying on "metrics" (which can be gamed) and start listening to the populace for what they have to accomplish while striving for those 4 goals.

No, I don't for one moment think Republicans are honestly doing any of that either.  Worse, they are actively hostile to my goals.  Once again, however, in many locations "The Unimpressed" are the largest voting bloc in the American electorate.  Appealing to them would change election outcomes.

As a reminder ("Not now, Brian"), we more than once had a potential populist leader who consistently talked about economic and healthcare issues while appealing to liberals and conservatives alike.  That moment has passed.  Maybe AOC can be the next iteration of that needed figurehead?  That possibility, however, I don't have any good feel for yet.

Comments

[mallorys_camera]

AOC??? Oh, God, no!

Inflation is a lagging indicator. And once price hikes get baked in, they remain—-even as the inflation index falls. Yes, people were struggling with rising prices under Biden. They were a result of staggeringly huge deficit increases under Trump coupled with abnormally low Federal Reserve interest rates.

I also suspect the whole "identity politics" thing played a role although we're not reading a whole lot about that. Mainstream America does not like identity politics.

[mellowtigger]

What is the down side for AOC as a choice? She was a key figure in the Green New Deal, which was just a resolution and not law, but as she noted in her 2-minute summary, some places did change their laws based on its example.

Yes, I think identity politics as currently practiced is flawed, with the one exception being the excellent reminder, "Representation matters." Instead, it should be something always in the background as part of community goals and basic functioning society, recognizing that not all families are the same. The DFL in Minnesota tries to remind itself (with that "F" and "L" in the party name) that farmers and laborers matter, and they do. National Democrats really should do the same, as Bernie keeps reminding them.

[mallorys_camera]

AOC's public persona is strident agitator. Whether that's a correct or incorrect characterization, I don't know. But it's enough to keep her from getting significant votes in the heartland.

[rebeccmeister]

I think I was reading a year or two ago, that one of Biden's major shortcomings is that he does a terrible job of talking about how the policies he has implemented will have a direct and positive impact on the people of this country. There are a lot of major and long-overdue infrastructure projects now getting underway, and a lot of major changes to manufacturing in parts of the country that have been hurting for a really long time. I don't think 45 deserves credit for any of that. But also, I don't see the direct effects of those changes showing up in the cost of butter at the local grocery store.

I suspect that failing has been extraordinarily costly, especially when coupled with peoples' recent lived economic experiences. It might be as important to do the work to highlight accomplishments, as it is to actually accomplish things, especially when you consider how long it takes to actually implement things. I agree with some of mallorys_camera's observations about how people misattribute the current state of the economy to actions of the current president, when it's pretty clear that there's a lag period. So it wouldn't surprise me if there's a shift in sentiment towards the middle of the next presidency, where people think things are getting better, because the full reality of the next set of policy changes hasn't been felt yet.

And I really have no idea who will be left cleaning out the horse stalls at that point.

(I do also unfortunately agree with M_C that AOC won't be broadly accepted...but I definitely agree with you that there DO need to be some major political changes if we are to retain any sense of hope for the future of this country).