Why didn't Democrats do as well in 2024 as they did in 2022?

[Hardkill]

You know, another thing that's very odd about Democrats having lost in 2024 was that they actually did historically well in the 2022 midterms, which was almost unheard of for the party holding the White House. In fact, Democrats won the 2022 midterms overall when inflation, looming recession fears, and interest rates where much worse back then than during the 2024 elections.

Some of it probably had to do with Trump being at the top of the ticket, but Democrats still should've done better than they did overall in the 2024 elections, especially with the economy being in so much better than it was in 2022 and so many people were getting sick and tired of Trump. Not to mention all of the special elections the Democrats have kept winning like crazy since 2022.

I think a lot of it had to do with even much greater disinformation that occurred from right-wing billionaires such as Elon Musk after 2022. 

Could it also be that voters in midterm elections and special elections are generally smarter, more informed, and more involved in politics than voters in presidential elections?

Edited November 25 by Hardkill

[Buck Edwards]

I think people are tired of DEI hires. Maybe the democrats need to keep the majority ethnicity in mind. Everything is not about appealing to minorities. It can backfire and push away the majority. 

How effective was Kamala Harris at impressing the middle class white male? That's a question. 

 

[Hardkill]

14 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

I think people are tired of DEI hires. Maybe the democrats need to keep the majority ethnicity in mind. Everything is not about appealing to minorities. It can backfire and push away the majority. 

How effective was Kamala Harris at impressing the middle class white male? That's a question. 

 

DEI hires? Please don't tell me you're falling that stupid right-wing propaganda narrative, when that is patently false and she never ran on any identity politics at all.

Besides, that doesn't compare with how extreme Trump was viewed. In fact, A LOT more voters viewed Trump more than Harris as too extreme.

Also, exit polls did show that Harris came off as caring more about the middle class than Trump does.

Edited November 25 by Hardkill

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

DEI hires? Please don't tell me you're falling that stupid right-wing propaganda narrative, when that is patently false.

What's true though is that this election was a reaction against Stage Green values.

Stage Green made progress. People freaked out and reverted back to the mean by voting Trump. That's everything that happened in a nutshell.

[Buck Edwards]

3 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

DEI hires? Please don't tell me you're falling that stupid right-wing propaganda narrative, when that is patently false and she never ran on any identity politics at all.

Besides, that doesn't compare with how extreme Trump was viewed. In fact, A LOT more voters viewed Trump more than Harris as too extreme.

Also, exit polls did show that Harris came off as caring more about the middle class than Trump does.

Harris might not have ran on any identity politics. And it's not right wing propaganda. Yet you don't take into account how the average American perceives a candidate of minority ethnicity. They might not see her as representing them adequately. You get the point. 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

What's true though is that this election was a reaction against Stage Green values.

Stage Green made progress. People freaked out and reverted back to the mean by voting Trump. That's everything that happened in a nutshell.

I don't think that was the primary driving force.

Across the board a variety of different nations in the first world, the incumbent party lost their election... likely due to inflation.

That's even true in the UK where the conservatives have been in power for like 13 years. They lost their election to Labor.

In times of economic hardship, people tend to think "Different is better than better" and they flip to the other side of the pillow in hopes of a change. 

[Hardkill]

 

21 minutes ago, aurum said:

What's true though is that this election was a reaction against Stage Green values.

Stage Green made progress. People freaked out and reverted back to the mean by voting Trump. That's everything that happened in a nutshell.

Over 25% of the people who voted for Trump said that they hated him and most of the voters who voted for him disapprove of him according to the exit polls. That's never happened before in US History, especially after winning the popular vote.

 

20 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Harris might not have ran on any identity politics. And it's not right wing propaganda. Yet you don't take into account how the average American perceives a candidate of minority ethnicity. They might not see her as representing them adequately. You get the point. 

Yeah, I thought that she could pull it off like Obama, especially since she's already been the Vice-President of the United States. Though I guess having a woman of color POTUS is still too much for the country.

 

14 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don't think that was the primary driving force.

Across the board a variety of different nations in the first world, the incumbent party lost their election... likely due to inflation.

That's even true in the UK where the conservatives have been in power for like 13 years. They lost their election to Labor.

In times of economic hardship, people tend to think "Different is better than better" and they flip to the other side of the pillow in hopes of a change. 

But that doesn't clearly answer why Democrats did well in the 2022 midterms, particularly as the party holding the White House, especially when the whole economy back then was in much worse shape than it has been in 2024.

Also, why did Truman and his party in 1948 and Reagan and his party in 1984 each get re-elected during times when the economy was not as strong as it is now and when inflation during those years was much worse than it is now?

 

None of you guys believe that unprecedented misinformation caused them to lose?

Edited November 25 by Hardkill

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don't think that was the primary driving force.

Across the board a variety of different nations in the first world, the incumbent party lost their election... likely due to inflation.

That's even true in the UK where the conservatives have been in power for like 13 years. They lost their election to Labor.

In times of economic hardship, people tend to think "Different is better than better" and they flip to the other side of the pillow in hopes of a change. 

Think 50 years, not just the last four years.

The Trump storm has been brewin' for a long time.

[Emerald]

Just now, Hardkill said:

But that doesn't clearly answer why Democrats did well in the 2022 midterms, particularly as the party holding the White House, especially when the whole economy back then was in much worse shape than it has been in 2024.

Also, why did Truman and his party in 1948 and Reagan and his party in 1984 each get re-elected during times when the economy was not as strong as it is now and when inflation was much worse than it is now?

One reason why the Republicans under-performed in the midterms is because Roe v Wade had just been overturned, and that was still fresh in the minds of the populace and hadn't been normalized yet.

Plus, it was mostly election denying Republicans who lost their races. Generic Republicans did quite well comparatively.

I think Trump himself excites the base. But I don't think Trumpy generic Republicans in the house and senate excite the base much at all.

Trump is pretty much the face of MAGA. And MAGA without Trump is pretty unpopular.

[Hardkill]

Just now, aurum said:

Think 50 years, not just the last four years.

The Trump storm has been brewin' for a long time.

but a lot of the people from 50 years ago or even 25 years ago or even 10 to 15 years ago already passed away and have been replaced by the younger generations of people who as a whole are less racist, less xenophobic, and less conservative than older generations are.

 

 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

Think 50 years, not just the last four years.

The Trump storm has been brewin' for a long time.

That's true. There is a strong backlash against Stage Green and even Stage Orange to some degree. And there's a desire to go back to the small communal element of Blue.

Because the populace hasn't developed the Stage Green communal element yet, the last known source of community is in Blue.

That said, because elections are so close and people are so partisan because of the media landscape, I have a hard time chalking a loss or a win up to more than just the average under informed swing voter's perceptions about things like the economy.

[Hardkill]

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

One reason why the Republicans under-performed in the midterms is because Roe v Wade had just been overturned, and that was still fresh in the minds of the populace and hadn't been normalized yet.

Plus, it was mostly election denying Republicans who lost their races. Generic Republicans did quite well comparatively.

I think Trump himself excites the base. But I don't think Trumpy generic Republicans in the house and senate excite the base much at all.

Trump is pretty much the face of MAGA. And MAGA without Trump is pretty unpopular.

But a lot of women were still very angry about Roe v Wade being overturned in 2024. In fact, more of them were suffering badly from it then 2 years ago.

Also, Trump is the greatest election denying Republican candidate! So, was his running mate JD Vance! Furthermore, Trump is the ultimate anti-generic Republican. He should've turned off even more moderate and Independent voters than any other Republican in the history of the country.

Also, it still doesn't explain why Truman got re-elected in 1948 and why Reagan got re-elected in 1984 when they presided over much worse inflation and an even weaker and less stable economy.

Edited November 25 by Hardkill

[Emerald]

Just now, Hardkill said:

But a lot of women were still very angry about Roe v Wade being overturned in 2024. In fact, more of them were suffering badly from it then 2 years ago.

Also, Trump is the greatest election denying Republican candidate! So, was his running mate JD Vance! Furthermore, Trump is the ultimate anti-generic Republican.

WIth Roe v Wade, that's true that women are still angry. And women came out in near identical numbers to the last election.

It was left leaning men who mostly stayed home and didn't vote for Kamala... likely because the men were more focused on the economy than on abortion rights because abortion rights feel less relevant to them. 

But understand that Trump is the face of MAGA.

And lots of Republicans are really into Trump. They're not as much into other MAGA people.

[aurum]

9 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

but a lot of the people from 50 years ago or even 25 years ago or even 10 to 15 years ago already passed away and have been replaced by the younger generations of people who as a whole are less racist, less xenophobic, and less conservative than older generations are.

Young people are very undeveloped and essentially just conformist robots. They're a lot more like Stage Blue than actual Green.

Edited November 25 by aurum

[Buck Edwards]

17 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah, I thought that she could pull it off like Obama, especially since she's already been the Vice-President of the United States. Though I guess having a woman of color POTUS is still too much for the country.

You cannot always expect a minority President. That would be ridiculous. This is not some jungle game of fresh unique characters or a modeling contest. It's the presidency where what the majority thinks matters. 

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

WIth Roe v Wade, that's true that women are still angry. And women came out in near identical numbers to the last election.

But trump did better with women votes in 2024 then he did in 2020

https://19thnews.org/2024/11/harris-support-women-over-65/

Edited November 25 by Raze

[aurum]

18 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Because the populace hasn't developed the Stage Green communal element yet, the last known source of community is in Blue.

Sure, but I wouldn't think you could stop this regression by building more Green community.

The conservative leaning element of the populace, which is the majority of people, have no interest in Green community. That's why we haven't developed it.

What they want is Blue. Giving them more Green cannot solve that.

Edited November 25 by aurum

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

Young people are very undeveloped and essentially just conformist robots. They're a lot more like Stage Blue than actual Green.

I would give young people a little bit more credit than that, even though their views can be more socially malleable than the average adult.

I know I held some very strong views at the time that were contrary to what many of my peers were thinking, which are still part of my internal compass. And I've worked with kids who also have their own nuanced views about the world derived from their own thinking.

But to your point, young people are more malleable and influenceable... especially by peers.

For example, it's clear that young men are skewing more conservative because of peer pressure and the right wing media environment that's geared towards young men.

And this is in spite of previous the previous generations of men being more left-leaning than the generations prior.

So, it shows that there can be a regression in values based on peer pressure and propaganda geared towards the youth.

[Hardkill]

11 minutes ago, aurum said:

Young people are very undeveloped and essentially just conformist robots. They're a lot more like Stage Blue than actual Green.

That's not entirely true. Even Leo has talked about this. Even Obama in one of his interviews has talked about this.

Younger generations are more open to liberalism and progressivism whereas older generations tend to stay more comfortable with the more old- fashioned views they grew up with.

As Winston Churchill said "‘If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart.  If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain."

Edited November 25 by Hardkill

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

Younger generations are more open to liberalism and progressivism whereas older generations tend to stay more comfortable with the more old- fashioned views they grew up with.

Sure, that's true to a degree.

But also, that doesn't mean they have developed the maturity necessary for actual progressive values. Progressivism is just group-think and ideology for many of them.