Saturday’s Forum

OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon or making a one-time contribution via PayPal. Thanks for your consideration.

FILED UNDER: Open Forum
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Kathy says:

    No idea whether this analysis of last week’s catastrophe is correct, but at least it involves several factors rather than the One True Thing that did it.

    6
  2. Jen says:

    @Kathy: People in general and losing campaigns look for a One True Thing because it is perceived as “fixable” if they just [insert adjustment here].

    It’s always going to be multiple factors why one campaign lost, and multiple factors why the other campaign won. That’s unsettling, because it means trying to figure out what to dial up, what to dial down, and how to win the next time.

    4
  3. Kathy says:

    ON more solid footing, there’s this analysis of pilot salaries at regional airlines

    TL;DR pilots at regionals made poverty wages in the 90sa nd for a long time thereafter, but now make very high salaries due to a persistent pilot shortage, itself caused by the very low wages in the past.

    What’s salient is this bit:

    The justification for the lousy pay was always one of thin margins. The regionals made so little, we were told, they simply couldn’t afford to pay their workers beyond a bare minimum. Except now they somehow can, even as airfares have come down. Makes you think.

    The libertarian ideal is that employers will compete for workers by offering good wages and working conditions. Over time I’ve found this to be mostly false. To be sure, there are employers who pay generous salaries and benefits when they don’t have to. That is, when they could have a perfectly good workforce with lower pay.

    But by and large, most employers will pay market wages, just as they charge market prices for their goods or services, and pay market prices for supplies and other essentials. This tends to lead to lower wages.

    Sellers have limits on how high a price they can charge their customers, unless they have a monopoly or operate in a market that’s not competitive (like the Boeing Airbus duopoly). They have more leeway in costs. One cost that tends to loom large in many industries and that can be controlled is wages and benefits. So the overwhelming trend is for lower pay, until and unless there’s a compelling reason to pay more.

    The latter is well exemplified by the pilot shortage. But this may be a temporary situation. One should think positions that require a high skill set and that manage a great deal of risk on a company’s capital, like airline pilots, should be well compensated. But not when supply and demand and shareholder value let you get away with paying your pilots less.

    In the end, employees are at the mercy of their employer’s generosity or sense of fairness. But employers are at the mercy of the law. If the law mandates a high minimum wage, employers mostly have to pay it (of course there will always be loopholes and workarounds, and these change all the time). And the same goes for benefits, down to paid sick leave and such.

    3
  4. Jim Brown 32 says:

    Jim Brown 32 is doing well despite disappearing mostly from the comments threads. Ended up on the EddieInCA path. Too much life out there to be lived to make the gameshow known as politics a primary attention getter.

    A little perspective from my view in case anyone GAF: I said before that Harris had little chance of beating Trump although I took was caught up is a false media cycle that to the situation on the ground had changed. The initial analysis was correct.

    A sizeable portion of Black Men are patriarchal and will never take a back seat to a black women — They voted for Trump.

    Most Latinos–sans Puerto Ricans and Dominicans have no solidarity with African Americans. They are tribal and if given an non-latino choice while go with the white choice. They voted Trump.

    Finally–and most importantly. White women and black women ARE RIVALS. I kinda feel stupid that the media coverage sucked me into thinking something had changed. It didn’t. The average white women will choose a mediocre rich white man over an overachieving black women almost every single time. White women voted for Trump.

    Of course–nearly all the advocates of sack Joe Biden, the only Democratic Candidate to ever beat Donald Trump–are in full Lost Cause and ‘Kamala Bad Candidate’ mode to justify themselves and their short sighted. I’m sure they meant well but human nature is to avoid accountability and admission of stupidity at almost all costs.

    Democrats, like Republicans, are gullible — only in different ways. The Democratic way of gullibility is to sincerely believe their Party is an organization built to win–it is not. Republicans believe almost anything–but their beliefs caused them to hold people accountable for why they weren’t doing anything about their fears.

    Democrats are much more discriminating in what they believe– but they are gullible to their leaders’ constant excuses and equivocation for losing. Hence they will accept the ‘Lost Cause’, ‘Biden would have done worse’, ‘Kamala should have been more Liberal’ smoke blowing and continue to be lead by the same pied pipers that lead them into the ditch.

    11
  5. Kathy says:

    @Jen:

    Not only in political campaigns. You may recall I harped constantly against the obsession for the one right thing that would end the trump pandemic.

    I wonder if the one right way to drive is by using the steering wheel only…

    1
  6. Paine says:

    This comment from Kevin Drum’s site by Josef really resonated with me:

    “When Republicans win its fair, when they lose its rigged and the other side cheated. This is their reality now. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have more integrity in their fingernails than Trump and Vance have in their entire bodies. Trump never conceded the 2020 election, never called to congratulate Biden and Harris and didn’t participate in the peaceful transfer of power. He actively tried to stop it. And what did our fellow Americans do? They rewarded the bloated orange clown with another term.”

    This is truly where we are at. Assuming we have free and fair elections in the future anytime a democrat wins the Republicans will scream voter fraud, deploy teams of lawyers, and possibly use violence to get their way. But anytime a Republican wins, Democrats will graciously concede and pledge to a peaceful transition. And the democrats will get zero credit for it from the voters. It’s quite infuriating.

    9
  7. Kurtz says:

    @Kathy:

    That piece is fascinating, unsurprising, and depressing.

    Economy first voter:

    I have written here about the drawbacks of aggregate numbers in large datasets. People are more sensitive to price increases than discounts. That asymmetry is difficult to message around.

    Naturally, my explanation would go deeper–I understand their feelings about this. Obviously, I do not reach the same conclusion, but I am a political junkie. And a learning addict. I see it as reflective of a structural problem in the economy that can only be worked around by politicians. @HarvardLaw92 pointed this out a while back in a discussion of the pitfalls inherent in comparing solutions to things like healthcare delivery in France to America.

    Moreover, I tend to think that most politicians have little incentive to push for major changes for a whole host of reasons. The most discussed is the direct incentive of financial backing. And that is certainly important. But campaigns–Trump says it more directly than others–have to present their candidate as an indispensable part of the solution. Take a way a salient problem, and you have to find another one to build your message around.

    Very often, I spoke to small business owners who would talk about the price of gas or bread, rendering any attempted explanation of global pressures responsible for that ineffective at best, and at worst condescending.

    Ugh. Is it arrogance? Laziness? A natural result of placing individual self-interest, one of, if not the central, founding myths of America, as a moral and practical good? I do not know. I know what I think, but the question is probably unanswerable.

    What I do know is that I find it condescending to have someone take the mic and tell me there is a simple solution to a complex problem. (See the above junkie comment.) Of course, as @MR has pointed out, if a candidate is explaining, they are losing.

    The above paragraphs speak to this:

    Multiple times, I was told that Harris was a “communist”

    I do not know if I want to cry or scream. What does one do with that? Define something for someone and you are condescending and you’re explaining, so you lose. Let them hold on to their misunderstanding of something basic and obvious and you lose. W…T…F?

    Some spoke of Harris’s tough stance on crime as the district attorney of San Francisco. Others, very often of Latino origin, would tell me that she was soft on law and order.

    Now I know what to do. Scry. I am scrying.

    I started calling voters five weeks ago and especially then, many voters said they didn’t know who Harris was or what she stood for. It is said that an open primary process would have given Harris the chance to separate herself from Biden, but not a single person I spoke to suggested that they would have preferred a different candidate.

    You know how we keep imploring the Trump supporters here to make an actual argument? Well, this is why they do not. Because so many people hear something like, “it was a coronation” and that is all they need. Whether it matters, whether the situation was extraordinary, whether anyone can articulate why it was such a bad thing, doesn’t matter. Joyner was uncomfortable with it, I may disagree, but he can at least explain a downside.

    I feel like “I stubbed my toe” is a complete three act story to some people.

    For reasons that I’m sure will be studied for decades, when he speaks, people listen. When he speaks, people believe him. After all those calls, I can be shocked at this result, but hardly surprised.

    Yeah, the guy who regularly contradicts himself within a minute of speech-time, and who cannot not lie about the most innocuous things, is believable to fsr too many Americans.

    I guess it is true that a sucker is born every minute. Unfortunately for us, the highest concentration of them seem to be American.

    Maybe Sam Harris was right when he said it’s in the genes of Americans, considering that so many were lured to the colonies with false promises.

    Yup, I am scrying.

    3
  8. Jim Brown 32 says:

    Democrats have no viable messaging appartus in this Country that can challenge RW messaging. Period. The messaging they do have, is in a completely different language than what most of the country speaks–and is easy to counter message.

    Most of the people in this country are Simpletons (I say this not as as insult) they live their lives at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy. Having more stuff and money available to us does not change ones Psychology. Perceived threats to one’s safety, lifestyle (however shitty) and freedom of movement to access: food /housing /sex are the predominant motivation of most Americans and indeed Earthlings. SYSTEMS–the methods and means by which the aforementioned things are delivered are a level higher–and although systems are the key to modern society– only a minority of people can understand them enough to develop an emotional attachment to them and their proper creation and understanding.

    A great irony is that although RW messaging hits exclusively at the bottom of Maslow–they built a SYSTEM to deliver that message at multiple layers of society. Conversely, the LW and centrist speak Latin to Italians in the town square — so that even a villager that happens to be passing by with their mules has no idea what the hell is being blabbed about.

    If Democrats want to get the power to execute their agenda–the message cannot only be for the true believers, the inner circle. If fact, MR should hate the message–but like the outcome of more rural Americans voting Blue. Republicans have accepted this. Don’t you think JD Vance would prefer a different message? I’m sure he would — but he knows Italians only understand Italian.

    This is not trolling people –its meeting them where THEY are. The majority of the Country cannot meet intellectuals on equal ground. You cannot educate psychology. Maslow’s rungs are only climbed by experience–experience it’s not possible for the majority of a large population to receive.

    The good news is that Democrat can play the same game–if they hold leaders accountable to results. Results start with counter messaging in Churches, Local News. Results start with understanding that primary objectives (i.e DEI) can only occur indirectly. The primary objectives being to force Republican to defend their Maslow bottom rungs failures on their home turf–with their own constituents.

    Why is it that Rural people are afraid of the city but not fired up about their own squalor. Could it be because of Sinclair and the Local Preachers? These places could do better but don’t, because they don’t have to as long as their is an unchallenged message of an outside enemy at the gate. If you live on the bottom rungs of Maslow–this is a real and pervasive threat– however imaginary to people at higher rungs.

    8
  9. Lucysfootball says:

    I think the most effective message Trump sends to his supporters is that there are people, (the “others”) out there who are better off than you are and you are more deserving. I’ll take them down a peg, and you’ll be better off. And even more importantly, they will be worse off. Very appealing to a lot of people,
    As far as actual solutions to problems, the Republicans offer none, but they don’t want any. If you lie about everything all the time, you can just have your own reality. The main reason Trump lost to Biden was he committed the cardinal mistake: he was so objectively horrible there was no way to sugar coat it. And four years later people forgot how bad things were and believed him when he said the economy was great under his presidency and Biden destroyed it. If people believe easily debunked lies how do you combat that?

    4
  10. Matt Bernius says:

    @Jim Brown 32 it’s good to hear from you!

    3
  11. Rick DeMent says:

    I think at this point there really in no great secret. I didn’t want to believe it but I have come to the conclusion that almost any man would have attracted more vote then any woman give the realities of the US electorate. Trump didn’t even try for the union vote, and in some instances blatantly craped all over them but rank and file union members broke for Trump. The huge margins from woman didn’t really show up other then a few demo groups.

    The other people is that campaign like Trump will never work for Democrats. In fact I would go father and say only Trump can campaign like Trump did. My wife is pretty engaged in the local democratic party activities and she told me something interesting. They discovered there there was a spike in the number of ballots with Trump selected for president and the rest of the ballot blank. It was enough that MI elected Elisa Slotkin Senator and two other statewide races by the slimmest of margins. A lot of ticket splitting went on as well.

    But the good news is Trump gets to slide into anther economy on the mend. When was the last time a Democrat took over a economy on the mend? 92?

    4
  12. Lucysfootball says:

    @Jim Brown 32: I think you give way too much credit to the idea that the Democrats can craft an effective message to counter the RW message. The Republicans have two secret weapons, one of which the Democrats would never use and the other they are hesitant to use. The first is that the Republicans will use their position in Congress to help their cause at the expense of the country. Trump told them to tank a good immigration bill, they did. When the Democrats have control of the House under Republican presidents they do not conduct endless investigations for the sake of damaging the president (or as with Hillary Clinton, a potential presidential candidate). The party as it is currently constructed would not go there.
    The second is the lying. As you point out, many Americans are Simpletons. Lying works with them. When Trump describes Manhattan as a crime-ridden hellhole they are happy to believe it. They love it when he produces a litany of made-up stats to justify saying the US is on its way to becoming a third-world country. And although Trump is the master of this, it’s not just him. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and others can hardly utter three sentences without lying, and the Republican House members are far worse.
    These are the Republican superpowers: putting power over the country and a complete disregard for the truth. All messaging solutions need to account for this reality.

    8
  13. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Jim Brown 32: Yes, it is good to hear from you.

    I solidly endorse your stuff about meeting people where they are and speaking their language.

    I personally am disinclined to blame black men for what happened, as there are a lot more white women, who voted for abortion rights but not Kamala, and white men, who voted for some downticket Democrats more than they voted for Kamala. And there’s all those people who stayed home, most of whom were white.

    It looks to me like there was about a 5 percent Bradley effect in polling. Or maybe it’s just that the turnout models were way, way off. Which again, might be a Bradley effect.

    I endorse your ideas about communication – mostly. This needs work, for sure. I think Harris, by reducing the focus on traditional media and elevating “content creators” was moving in the right direction.

    One big problem is that Harris has trained herself to speak like a lawyer (for good reason!), and people hear that. It activates all the suspicions that everyone hears about lawyers.

    A critique about manner of expression such as yours can sound as if you expect academics to not sound like academics, though. Politicians need to learn this, definitely.

    All of the above matters. And yet, it seems quite likely that everything above had little effect on the outcome – that the result was baked in once we had that global round of inflation.

    2
  14. Scott says:

    Apparently. it is abundantly clear that Democrats don’t understand the working class and shouldn’t give a damn about this:

    Texas Federal Judge Appears Poised to Strike Down DOL Overtime Rule

    A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held oral arguments on cross motions for summary judgment in a challenge to the DOL’s rule that raised the minimum salary to be exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements.

    The state of Texas and a group of business organizations are seeking to expand a preliminary injunction to block the DOL’s overtime rule on a nationwide basis.

    Among other things, the rule will increase the minimum salary to be exempt to the equivalent of an annual salary of $58,656 on January 1, 2025.

    2
  15. Mikey says:

    @Scott: Appointed by Trump, of course.

    And so many Americans still think he’s on the side of the worker.

    3
  16. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Kurtz:

    Multiple times, I was told that Harris was a “communist”

    I do not know if I want to cry or scream. What does one do with that? Define something for someone and you are condescending and you’re explaining, so you lose.

    In person, I would ask questions. I’m not sure I understand why you would call Harris a “communist”? Could you clarify? Be genuinely curious, not challenging. Usually, they will soften. They aren’t using “communist” as a term of art. (or “word salad”). It’s a very sloppy, careless use of words that means something to them which is not the same as it means to you, so the task is to find out what it means to them. This is in person, not a campaign. I’ve done it, it’s helpful. Don’t know that I’ve changed votes, but that’s hard.

    A candidate can’t do that. What they can do is 0) use focus groups to find out what people mean by “communist” and then commit themselves to a course of action in a way that’s 1) Unequivocal and 2) something no “communist” would do.

    2
  17. Mike in Arlington says:

    @Lucysfootball: I don’t think that’s what @Jim Brown 32: was saying (please correct me if I’m out of line here). Democrats could create the perfect message, but the people who need to hear it won’t.

    There’s an entire set of conversations about policy happening that the democrats are not a part of. Also, a lot of people don’t think about policy the way we might think about it, and it doesn’t fall along traditional left/right lines. They aren’t reading OTB or other blogs, they aren’t following congress. So how to reach these people?

    The democrats need a way to both inject their messages into that conversation and disrupt that conversation, but they can’t because they don’t have anything equivalent to the media apparatus that the right has built over the past 20-40 years.

    Here’s an example: earlier this year, a smallish media company folded (I think it was owned by a holding company). I remember reading someone on Bluesky asking why it wasn’t bought by some wealthy liberal? It was basically a turnkey operation, it was already staffed by competent people who knew how to run a newsroom. They probably could have bought it for 50-70 cents on the dollar, but they didn’t. It wasn’t going to make money, or much money, but it would be a baby step in the right direction.

    2
  18. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Jim Brown 32:
    I agree with most of what you write, but if you think Biden would have done better, you’re getting better weed than I am. The man was not capable of campaigning, full stop. ‘Senile’ moves Biden out of the ‘White Male’ safe zone.

    And it’s good to have you back.

    4
  19. Kurtz says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    EDIT: I misread you. I was wondering why you would ask me of all people why I would call her that. Hahaha. Anyway, the rest is relevant.

    I didn’t call her a Communist. It was a quote from Kathy’s link.

    Within RW media, that trope was started immediately upon her becoming the nominee. But by association via her father.

  20. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Lucysfootball:
    The fact that we are the ‘non-simpleton’ party restricts our messaging. We are not comfortable lying. We aren’t comfortable abusing power. We aren’t comfortable harming the country for partisan advantage.

    But that’s not the essence of our messaging problem. We are snotty college kids talking down to the school janitor. We don’t mean to be, but we’ve never pushed a broom or had to choose between fixing the car and buying Christmas presents for the kids. So we do not understand ‘those people,’ and cannot talk to ‘those people.’

    And one more thing: we stymie any propaganda effort by insisting on consulting with every constituency and listening to the most rigid ideologues within each constituency. I’ve been bitching about this for years in my own little kidlit niche. I am handcuffed by the most extreme versions of political correctness. I am anathema for pointing out that no, it is not possible to write a complex scene involving multiple characters while using the singular, ‘they.’

    We cannot become the people who lie to counter lies. We have to stick to the truth. But we should find a way to talk to people who work with their hands, and we should tone down the self-censorship.

    7
  21. becca says:

    Back in the 1960s, some radical activists set on a quest to gain control of the Texas textbook publishing industry, which heavily influences all textbooks nationally. Ring any bells? Well, literally long story short- it went smashingly (also in the literal sense). They removed critical thinking skill sets, especially in history. They wanted our kids to be taught patriotic propaganda, whitewashing the truth and veiling the facts. They continue apace.
    I mentioned Wednesday that we are witnessing a long game playing out. All the gerrymandering, voter suppression, right wing media (endlessly funded by ideologues, not businessmen), the judiciary (most openly corrupt evah!), prosperity gospel keeping them “greedy in the pew”. etc.
    But, most of all, Citizens United. That decision opened the gates of hell. One thing the Bible is on the nose about is “Money is the root of all Evil “. Tax cuts and CU will be the the end of us. Wait- that sounds like the plan musk put out!
    Democrats don’t do propaganda. There are probably questionable outliers and there can be persuasive language, but no powerful voices.
    The dems fight with one hand tied behind their backs- trying to combat a lavishly funded rage machine while trying to get their pretty reality based message out.

    5
  22. Kurtz says:

    @Jay L Gischer:

    Just as a small addendum, your point about ‘communist’ not being a term of art is part of the point of my post. It is one of the reasons I allow some frustration to creep into my reactions.

    To be clear, I do not blame the voters who use the word. People are people, for better or worse. @Jim Brown 32‘s post is insightful in this regard. Most people do not have the time nor the inclination–for various reasons–to learn about even the basics of economic theory.

    The problem I have is with those who know better, but use the term as a scare word, rather than to persuade based on proposals.

    If one were to travel back, to say, 1992, and share this anecdote, the obvious first thought for many would be, “oh, communism is on the march again in 2024.”
    Only the most cynical would think it was because that message was still effective.

    2
  23. becca says:

    I will pile on Citizens United by adding that when Senator John Tester was asked, a few years back, what he thought could be done to put America back on track he said “Repeal Citizens United.”

    4
  24. Rick DeMent says:

    Another anecdotal point that gives credence to the idea that the American election has a woman issue is the failure of Kari Lake. I mean she followed the Trump playbook verbatim. This stands out because no other successful female Republican really ran the Trump playbook like she did. They did the “Hi, I’m just a traditional wife and mother but someone has to stop these communist Democrats” play.

    Kristi Noem and Sarah Huckabee both signaled subservience to all things Trump so they were OK with people like Green and Bobet (they were all in much safer seats as well). Lake failed miserably, but why? She lied as much as Trump, repeated lies over and over in a subdued tone of confidence, and never looked back. But she failed. I realize she might still win but the fact she is behind at this stage so far behind Trump it’s kind of weird. So she either failed due to running the Trump playbook as a woman, just simply being a woman.

    So why was Lake so loathsome to Republican voters? Or did Gallego have the magic approach to nullifying the Trump playbook? Questions abound.

    1
  25. CSK says:

    @Rick DeMent:

    Because she’s obviously nuts?

    2
  26. wr says:

    @Michael Reynolds: “I agree with most of what you write, but if you think Biden would have done better, you’re getting better weed than I am. ”

    I’m pretty far left on the spectrum, and I can barely stand watching Biden for fear of something terrible happening. It would have been painful for me to vote for him, and I’m on his side all the way. No chance that less committed voters would have looked at him and said “Yeah, he’s the guy.”

    5
  27. wr says:

    @Rick DeMent: “So why was Lake so loathsome to Republican voters?”

    It didn’t help her that during her last campaign she trashed John McCain, the patron saint of Arizona politics, and basically told his entire Republican coalition that she didn’t want them, that she was a new force and they could all go to hell.

    Oddly, when she ran again and tried to say “Sorry, just kidding,” her party did not rally around her.

    2
  28. Jen says:

    @CSK: Nah. Arizona voters have also in years past voted for Joe Arpiao. Being nuts is not a disqualification.

    I think it’s a knock-on effect this year. Men are angrier at women in general, Lake is on the receiving end of that.

    4
  29. Slugger says:

    One small piece is that Mexican Americans don’t think of themselves as people of color but as White. I only know a few second generation Mexican Americans, but none of them speak Spanish. Their parents, born in Mexico, avoided teaching Spanish to them. Like many other immigrant groups, they know a few culinary words that their grandmother used. They are like second generation Italian or Polish people; they know little of the ancestral language and culture. By the third generation they are completely submerged in the larger culture. Sometimes they are amused by their last name that stand out, but otherwise they are no different. Mexican Americans are going to vote like other ethnic groups.
    Blacks are in a unique situation, of course, at least for now.

    1
  30. Lucysfootball says:

    John Tester and Sherrod Brown did not condescend to voters, they were good candidates, strong senators. They lost pretty convincingly to two weak candidates, both of whom were caught in obvious lies. Granted these were Democrats in red states, but the problem is much more than messaging. Totally agree with Becca that the long game is paying off, but I still think there’s something else. It may be that being a lying, scumbag bully is what a large part of the country is looking for. I’m not being facetious. Maybe we’ve become a country where a significant number of people look down on someone with ethics and strong values. I find that a scary concept.
    I still come back to the thought that any woman who strongly supports Trump has something seriously wrong with her. It would be like me supporting an antisemite.

    6
  31. gVOR10 says:

    @Jay L Gischer: I think calling Harris a communist was very effective. While I was poll greeting in front of the Dem booth I had a woman roll down the window of her SUV to shout, “Shame on you.” I gestured, “Huh.” “You’re supporting COMMUNISTS.”

    But she’s atypical. For the most part, and I expect this was focus grouped strategy, it comes down to they say fascist so we’ll say commie and it becomes just noise. And average voters don’t know what fascist means either.

    1
  32. Scott says:

    More news about the working class getting what they voted for:

    New Trump admin to deliver ‘body blow’ to unions after courting union workers: report

    President-elect Donald Trump courted union voters during his successful 2024 presidential bid, and now Bloomberg reports that his incoming administration is poised to deliver a “body blow” to organized labor that has enjoyed a significant renaissance under President Joe Biden’s administration.

    “The last time Trump ran the government, however, he filled key enforcement roles with management-side attorneys who pushed for companies to have more control over workers’ tips, more time to run anti-union campaigns and more discretion over who gets paid overtime,” writes Bloomberg, before adding, “Now that he’s had some practice, he’s likely to do more, faster.”

    What’s more, Bloomberg notes that the GOP blueprint Project 2025 “calls for the loosening of laws governing safety, nondiscrimination and child labor, and floats eliminating public-sector unions” all together.

    3
  33. DK says:

    @Jim Brown 32: The people who still don’t understand why Kamala Harris is running so many millions of votes behind Joe Biden still don’t fully understand sexism (and racism) in America. They mean well as liberals usually do, but they likely are not capable of getting/admitting it.

    We all knew from the beginning Harris would have a problem with men of color. I don’t think anyone is shocked about that, not even those who were pushing for Biden to drop out over the objections of the black Democrats who did not trust this country to elect a black woman.

    5
  34. Lucysfootball says:

    @Scott: What do you want, the Republicans waited three days before they did what they signaled they were always going to do. The only major union that didn’t endorse or give a lot of support to Trump was the teacher’s union. But then again the teacher’s unions are the perpetual whipping boy for the Republicans.

    2
  35. Jen says:

    @Scott: My surprised/shocked face 😐

    Oh well, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    2
  36. CSK says:

    @Jen:

    It probably didn’t help that Lake said in 2023 that she “ran a stake through the heart of the McCain machine.”

    2
  37. Scott says:

    @Lucysfootball: @Jen: I also suspect this: We are a society so driven by resentment and grievance, that non union workers hate unions because they get more. And therefore will vote against the unions issues.

    2
  38. DK says:

    @Jim Brown 32:

    Democrats have no viable messaging appartus in this Country that can challenge RW messaging.

    Is it really messaging tho?

    Kamala Harris’ campaign didn’t ignore working class voters (NBC):

    It simply isn’t true that Democrats abandoned the working class.

    …Biden was arguably the most pro-union president since FDR. He literally walked a picket line, supported union organizing efforts, increased funding for the National Labor Relations Board. He infused $36 billion into the Teamsters Union pension plan…

    …The Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act all led to a fertile job creation environment — and a significant increase in manufacturing jobs, which declined during Donald Trump’s presidency…

    As for wages, the working class saw a higher increase in their pay than any other group of Americans, so much so that it undid one-third of the growth in wage inequality since 1980…

    Critics like Sanders would likely argue that these successes weren’t messaged properly to working-class Americans. That’s not true either… the Harris campaign poured $200 million into ads that focused on her economic message. In fact, she outspent the Trump campaign by around $70 million on ads about the economy.

    What was the content of these ads? Calls to end corporate price gouging, lower housing costs, cut middle-class taxes and protect Social Security and Medicare. Other Harris ads accused Trump of only looking out for his billionaire pals and corporations and attacked him for enacting tax cuts that were primarily directed at the wealthiest Americans.

    This is the definition of an economic populist message…

    …Democrats adopted one of the most pro-working class policy agendas in recent political memory, enacted much of it — and accrued no electoral benefit.

    As for Trump, his main economic agenda item was a pledge to increase tariffs, which by increasing costs on imported items, would have disproportionately harmed low-wage workers. Did he have a plan for lowering housing or dealing with health care? What about lowering inflation?

    As in 2016, Trump served as a political voice channeling the fears, cultural grievances and resentments of working-class Americans — and, as has been the case for much of the past 60 years for Republicans, it worked.

    …The GOP’s attention to the white working class is overwhelmingly symbolic. They offer nothing substantive on policy. They oppose expanding health care access or raising the minimum wage…

    Take, for example, what happened in Missouri on Election Day. Voters in the Show Me State didn’t just narrowly support a referendum enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution by a 58%-42% margin, they backed a ballot measure raising the minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. Yet, at the same time, only 40% of the state’s voters cast a ballot for Harris, who, unlike Trump, supports both policy initiatives.

    Democrats are a party of “doing stuff” with an electorate utterly indifferent to the stuff they do.

    …there is a glaring lack of connection between material reality, even material gains, and recognition or appreciation for such gains. “Partisanship shapes perceptions. There is simply a disconnect between policy, outcomes, and political rewards.”

    Is there a path for Democrats to reverse their declining support with the working class? The short and depressing answer is that they likely can’t…

    Moreover, the Democrats’ political coalition is liberal and overwhelmingly Black (even with the inroads Trump made on Tuesday), which only compounds the challenge. The party can’t run against undocumented immigrants or retreat on cultural issues like guns, LGBTQ and civil rights, or abortion, which are such powerful political drivers among the working class.

    tl;dr Voter behavior is not transactional. Democrats deliver for the working class on economic policy, but many voters are far more motivated by cultural vibes, fears, grievances, resentments, and bigotries which Democrats cannot adopt without destroying their own coalition.

    So best Dems can do is ride out the cycle (again) and wait for Repubs to screwup (again), prompting voters to come running to liberals for cleanup duty (again).

    Fatalistic, but fair. And why the US will not soon get over the hump of mediocrity into advanced greatness.

    10
  39. Bobert says:

    @Lucysfootball:

    It may be that being a lying, scumbag bully is what a large part of the country is looking for.

    I am reminded that voters on the street in 2020 saying that they are voting for Trump because “He is just like me”.
    Well maybe he is (except for the billionaire part). If your nature is to be a lying scumbag, a narcissist, ignorant (of reality, like how NATO is “funded” and the cost to consumers of tariffs) then I don’t really want be a part of your social circle.

    4
  40. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Jim Brown 32: Alas, the liberal reaction is to reject going on what they call “Cletus safaris” and say “fwk those people.”

    2
  41. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @DK: I agree that “sexism (and racism)” played a larger part in the drama than we allow credit for. If I knew how to jump that hurdle, though, I’d be the most famous Democratic Party strategist in history.

    3
  42. charontwo says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    If I knew how to jump that hurdle, though, I’d be the most famous Democratic Party strategist in history

    Easy peasy – just stick to nominating white straight penis havers. Methinks that is the big takeaway from this shitshow.

    ETA: Snyder may say do not submit in advance, but I say you accomplish not much unless you first win.

    2
  43. Kathy says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:
    @charontwo:

    Get a penis-equipped Cincinnatus type who can pick a female VP and win the election. Shortly after the midterms, however these go, have him resign for some non-scandalous reason. Two years of a female president might help prove a woman can run the country just as well* (as if Thatcher, Meir, Gandhi, Ardern, and several more haven’t done so already).

    The problem is to get an actual flesh and blood man to go along. Most people with the ambition and drive to run for president won’t just give up after half a term. So you might want to try it as a second term gambit, as that might ease this problem.

    Finding a non-scandalous reason to resign is hard, too. Faking a debilitating or incapacitating medical condition, even a temporary one, is very risky.

    And the elephant in the room is the tacit admission that no woman can win the US presidency.

    *Or just as badly for that matter.

    1
  44. dazedandconfused says:

    Have to accept people the way they are. It’s much easier to win them over with pandering than it to do so by lecturing on how they should be. Vastly easier lift.

    1
  45. Mimai says:

    The accepted wisdom (as I read it) is that Ds can’t message effectively… that they are too intellectually and morally honest to message effectively… and/or that they have too many competing factions to message effectively.

    (I’ve probably left out several relevant things, but I hope the gist is clear.)

    The people who hold this perspective (and articulate it, in various ways, on OTB and other platforms) seem to consider themselves more sophisticated than the median (non)voter. I don’t mean this as a dig – indeed, they are probably correct in this narrow sense.

    This makes me wonder how they would react to a D messaging approach that is as ruthless as the standard R approach.

    That is, would they blanch at full frontal* lies spouted by D politicians?

    Would they protest at mercenary messaging that seeks to directly connect with disaffected young white men (ie, Rogan and Peterson audience) and/or “narrow minded” older adults (ie, Fox News audience)?

    Would they stomach messaging that de-prioritizes social justice causes/groups?

    Some might accept (or even embrace) this type of messaging because they know it’s a mirage.

    They know it’s window dressing that seeks to get people into the store (ie, vote D).

    They know it’s not their actual product.

    They know that once in office, Ds will focus on the issues that they actually care about.

    I am confident that some might indeed accept this messaging approach. I am not confident about the ratio of accepters/rejecters.

    Note, I have intentionally left out any consideration of whether this is a righteous approach. I wanted to explore thoughts on whether this might be an effective approach. And by effective, I am narrowly focused on election results.

    *That one’s for you Gus — I eagerly await your cheek.

    1
  46. Rick DeMent says:

    @CSK:

    So is Trump, and that’s my point.

    1
  47. Rick DeMent says:

    @CSK: And yet the new GOP has completely rejected the McCain style of Republicanism.

    1
  48. DrDaveT says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    But that’s not the essence of our messaging problem. We are snotty college kids talking down to the school janitor.

    I wish. If that were the problem, it could be fixed.

    We don’t know the janitor, we never meet him socially, we don’t have his address or phone number, he doesn’t read anything we write or watch any of our programming, and the people he trusts say we’re evil and the cause of his problems. This has been going on for long enough that he’s now willing to believe we’re controlling hurricanes just to harm his family, and that millions of brown people are coming to take his janitorial job and rape his wife and daughters. Oh, and that Trump will lower prices, deport all illegals, put the gays back in the closet, end abortion, and bring great stable blue-collar jobs back to non-urban America.

    I wish the problem were our messaging.

    6
  49. Mister Bluster says:

    Southern Illinois University Salukis (2-7) were down at home to 3-7 Youngstown State 28-0 in the 2nd 1/4 and 33-18 at the end of the 3rd 1/4. Dawgs scored 19 points in the 4th 1/4 won 37-33!
    Biggest comeback in school history!
    Go Dawgs!

  50. JohnSF says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    I have pushed a broom, and cleared out rest-rooms.
    And done paint-shop floor-grid changes in a car factory.
    (That is hot and nasty job, trust me.)

    My personal history is rather peculiar, and predicated on both good choices and bad, from time to time.
    My real frustration is that so few are inclined to be reasonable, and do what I tell them. 😉

    As to talking to people in different circumstances, or from a different background: just talking, but above all, listening, can often help to understand their grievances.
    But that doesn’t mean their grievances should, or even can, be satisfied.
    Or that one can overcome their determinations to act upon their grievances, be they reasonable or not.
    Still more the desire for a “trollery lollery” victory over their perceived opponents.

    Brexit is one example of such; “Trumpism” another.
    Sometimes I think we may underestimate how much the ascendancy of totalitarian regimes was due to the desire of the resentful to “get one over” on those they disliked.

    The key question is: can “conservative liberal” governance be preserved in an era of mass media effects except by elite imposition by (ultimately) force?
    The question Pareto posed, and liberals have tried to dodge: is democracy compatible with liberalism?

    1
  51. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @DK: Democrats have plenty of messaging—they do not control systems that deliver and reinforce those messages. My handyman does not watch FoxNews, but he sees on Local TV News (when checking the weather report) story after story about a killing, robbery, rape on the news. He later hears a TV sermon about the deteriorating society. On break, he sees some funny memes that Dems aint shit and watches a conspiracy video on YouTube about immigrants. He remembers most of the mugshots he saw on the news earlier were Blacks and Hispanics. While fishing that evening, he buddy tells he about some Guatemalans that undercut him on a drywall job bid. Later on before bed he sees clips shared in his Facebook inbox of a preacher saying Demonic forces are using LGBT and Inflation to get control of the People and Suspend the Constitution. The clip ends with said preacher praying for Trump’s victory.

    Now, YOUR life is my Handyman’s life. Why in the Hell would you possibly vote for Harris or a Democrat? I guess I should tell him to Google MSNBC.com so he can see how his entire perception of life is a lie.

    This is what I mean when I say ‘Messaging Apparatus “

    2
  52. Jax says:

    Our 2 local bars are having a party this weekend. “Red Wave….Daddy’s Home”