←back to thread

Trump wins presidency for second time

(thehill.com)
1796 points koolba | 4 comments | 06 Nov 24 06:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.527s | 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 #
ironman1478 ◴[06 Nov 24 19:28 UTC] No.42067895[source]▶
I think that's the wrong way of thinking about it. The prices of goods are high, people hate it and want it fixed. What plans do the Dems have for actually addressing the high prices? They can say this instead: "I know things are expensive now, here is how I will do X, Y, Z to fix it". It could be saying they'll raise the minimum wage to reduce the effects of the inflation, provide some sort of tax break, straight up give people money, or something (I know that the ideas I proposed aren't necessarily good. Inducing demand is bad, etc, etc). What doesn't win is telling people why we got to where we are and what does win is telling people what you're gonna do about it. Trump does that, even if it's all lies or based on bad information and that gets people excited. Are the tariffs gonna be bad? Most likely, but hey it's doing something and to most people, that is enough for them since there is a lot of nothing happening.
replies(2): >>42068577 #>>42068674 #
1. quonn ◴[06 Nov 24 20:17 UTC] No.42068674[source]▶
Wouldn't that just be lying to people?

Most of the measures you suggested, especially straight up give people money will just increase inflation further.

replies(3): >>42068822 #>>42069050 #>>42070174 #
2. ◴[06 Nov 24 20:28 UTC] No.42068822[source]▶
3. gitremote ◴[06 Nov 24 20:43 UTC] No.42069050[source]▶
People don't really care about inflation. They care about not affording groceries. If they won 1 million dollars from Elon Musk by voting for Trump, inflation becomes irrelevant, because their problem is solved.
4. ironman1478 ◴[06 Nov 24 22:03 UTC] No.42070174[source]▶
Sure, but what are they gonna do? Fact check you after you win? We already see that nobody cares about that. If the dem's actually cared about the people they say they represent, they would be trying to win even if it meant overpromising or getting down in the mud. How is it helpful for trans people that that the people representing them are getting voted out? How is that helpful for laborers, poor people, rural people, etc? Just say you'll give em money, get elected, don't give them money (they'll just forget so whatever) and then try to do some good from the inside by enacting policies that will help people out. I think this article spells out the problems with the democrats: https://www.economist.com/1843/2024/11/01/why-arent-harris-a... Why couldn't they just support the buyout? I don't care if US Steel is owned by a foreign company and I bet most people don't, so they aren't getting votes by being protectionist. If they support it and it doesn't work out (because let's be real, how much could the government do here), then just blame the republicans or something. Boom, you get to support something good, then get ammunition to show how the republicans messed something up due to their protectionism if the deal falls through.

Obviously I'm frustrated, but it's truly wild how ineffective the democrats are. I think them trying to be so upfront and politically correct all the time is a losing strategy for them.