←back to thread

Trump wins presidency for second time

(thehill.com)
1796 points koolba | 3 comments | 06 Nov 24 06:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.522s | source
Show context
drawkward ◴[06 Nov 24 15:33 UTC] No.42063854[source]▶
It's the economy, stupid:

-Inflation is not prices; it is the rate of change in prices. Low inflation doesn't imply low prices. -Aggregate statistics don't necessarily explain individual outcomes.

The Dems failed on this count massively, and have, for maybe the last 40 years, which is about the amount of time it took for my state to go from national bellwether (As goes Ohio, so goes the nation) to a reliably red state. This cost one of the most pro-union Senators (Sherrod Brown) his job.

replies(37): >>42063943 #>>42064224 #>>42064690 #>>42066206 #>>42066419 #>>42066536 #>>42066822 #>>42066913 #>>42067069 #>>42067564 #>>42067838 #>>42067963 #>>42068126 #>>42068182 #>>42068271 #>>42068402 #>>42068430 #>>42068606 #>>42068733 #>>42069182 #>>42069400 #>>42069554 #>>42069652 #>>42070319 #>>42070599 #>>42070710 #>>42070781 #>>42070796 #>>42071522 #>>42071614 #>>42072387 #>>42072420 #>>42073867 #>>42075648 #>>42079964 #>>42080368 #>>42088729 #
UncleOxidant ◴[06 Nov 24 18:23 UTC] No.42066822[source]▶
> The Dems failed on this count massively

What was their failure here? The failure to explain to the economically illiterate that while inflation is now about where it was prior to covid that prices won't be going down (unless there's some sort of major recession leading to deflation)?

replies(19): >>42066848 #>>42066861 #>>42066959 #>>42066984 #>>42067112 #>>42067177 #>>42067270 #>>42067493 #>>42067618 #>>42067754 #>>42067895 #>>42068013 #>>42068042 #>>42068079 #>>42068425 #>>42069294 #>>42069341 #>>42069886 #>>42087968 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[06 Nov 24 18:26 UTC] No.42066861[source]▶
> What was their failure here?

One, that last round of stimulus. Two, not agreeing to cutting spending when prices continued going up. Three, not massively greenlighting permitting around new energy and fossil fuels to bring energy prices into a deflationary stance. (Note: this is Monday-morning QB’ing from me.)

replies(4): >>42066870 #>>42066963 #>>42068481 #>>42072014 #
1. tunesmith ◴[06 Nov 24 18:31 UTC] No.42066963[source]▶
That stimulus thing seemed like a double bind. Lower stimulus would have meant less inflation but worse unemployment, right?

The whole pattern feels like a repeat of the country using Democrats to clean up messes (in this case, the mess was more Covid's than Republicans'), at which point they kick out the Democrats again. I don't think another massive tax cut (or extension of the last one) is a good idea.

replies(2): >>42067045 #>>42067054 #
2. UncleOxidant ◴[06 Nov 24 18:35 UTC] No.42067045[source]▶
> Lower stimulus would have meant less inflation but worse unemployment, right?

Yes, this is likely what would have happened. And in that case the Dems would still lose because people would be upset about the high unemployment.

3. JumpCrisscross ◴[06 Nov 24 18:36 UTC] No.42067054[source]▶
> Lower stimulus would have meant less inflation but worse unemployment, right?

Yes, but you can target where that unemployment goes.

Democrats were probably too fair in distributing the pain. (As well as the fruits. Both the IRA and CHIPS Acts massively invested in counties that would have always voted Republican. That boosted turnout in an adversarial way.)