←back to thread

1796 points koolba | 5 comments | | HN request time: 1.018s | source
Show context
drawkward ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.42066984[source]
Yup, there's nothing they could have done. That's the tragedy of it.

You can't just educate people in a campaign that the President doesn't cause inflation, when it's the result of a global pandemic. They just don't listen and don't care. The different campaign messages get tested among focus groups. The ones that try to teach economics or explain inflation perform terribly.

This isn't a failure of Democrats at all. This is just pure economic ignorance among voters.

replies(8): >>42067092 #>>42067104 #>>42067176 #>>42067263 #>>42067571 #>>42067706 #>>42067787 #>>42067798 #
drawkward ◴[] No.42067092[source]
To paraphrase Rumsfeld: "You go to elections with the populace you have."

If the Dems don't/won't/can't account for it by changing their messaging, devising better or more readily understood platforms, then it is on them. You have to meet people where they are, not where you think they should be.

replies(5): >>42067206 #>>42067401 #>>42067956 #>>42068437 #>>42070254 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.42067206[source]
But the Dems did. They did everything you're asking for. Their messaging was totally different from 2020, everything was clear and understandable.

That's what's so sad. The Democratic campaign was A+ in execution. The Republican campaign was a disaster in execution, but they won anyway.

The message of this election isn't that Democrats did something wrong. It's that they did everything right, and a majority of voters simply still don't care. They don't think the insurrection mattered, and they think Trump will fix inflation because he's a strong businessman. And they don't listen to anyone who says otherwise.

I don't see anything the Dems could have done about that. You can't force people to listen, you can't force people to understand economics. That's not something campaigns can do.

replies(9): >>42067290 #>>42067292 #>>42067304 #>>42067416 #>>42067543 #>>42067703 #>>42067857 #>>42068227 #>>42070705 #
drawkward ◴[] No.42067304[source]
>The Democratic campaign was A+ in execution.

Objectively untrue; Harris lost.

>You can't force people to understand economics

You're correct. So you have to reformat the message. The Dems failed to do this. I can tell you have never been a teacher: teachers are forever having to change their messaging because different people understand in different ways.

replies(3): >>42067467 #>>42067782 #>>42069363 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.42067467[source]
This teaching thing is a terrible comparison. As a teacher you have a captive audience with a (somewhat) agreed upon goal: the student(s) are going to learn something.

This is absolutely not the model for candidate<->electorate relationships in any way. If anything, the elector(ate) wants the candidate to simply tell them things that confirm what they think they already know.

replies(1): >>42068378 #
1. aydyn ◴[] No.42068378[source]
Are you serious? The entire nation was fully captivated this election cycle.
replies(1): >>42068951 #
2. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.42068951[source]
Captivated is not captive, and even if it is etymologically adjacent, most of the electorate did not expect to have to learn about stuff like econometrics ...
replies(1): >>42069811 #
3. aydyn ◴[] No.42069811[source]
Then I meant captivated AND captive. Why are you being pedantic?
replies(1): >>42071047 #
4. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.42071047{3}[source]
How was anybody captive? I didn't see a single campaign ad or watch a single rally, except for a couple of brief excerpts that I chose to.

You're missing the critical point: it's not about captive, it's just that this helps with the critical point, which is an expectation of learning taking place, rather than worldviews/prejudices confirmed.

replies(1): >>42071976 #
5. aydyn ◴[] No.42071976{4}[source]
I see, I missed that nuance in your point.