Imperialist poet Kipling wrote "It matters not / Who won or lost /But how you played the game."
I would like to offer a version for our times for all those who ascribe the defeat on November 8th to whichever hobby horse they ride (pronouns, sexism, elitism, etc., etc.)
"It matters a lot / Who won or lost / Please shut up about how they played the game."
In other words, move along folks, there’s nothing to see here. The Democrats lost, but it’s not like there are any actual REASONS for that, gosh darn it! Oh well, we’ll have another chance in four years. We won’t do anything differently, but maybe we’ll have better luck next time, by golly!
Yes, very witty. I think that may be some people's idea. Not mine. I just think that raking over the ashes is a waste of time and regrouping and preparing and organizing to oppose the Trump horrors to come is a much more fruitful expenditure of thought and energy.
My intention for the next four years will be to point to every horrible thing that comes to pass and tell Trump voters (not his rabid base, but the ones who should have known better) how this is on them. I can only hope at this point that I won’t get the chance too often, but I’m not holding my breath.
Funny — I had memories the other day of my childhood cocker spaniel that would chase cars, and how one day he caught one. Nipped the back tire and proceeded to bonk his head on the rim. He sat there stunned for a moment as if he was trying to figure out what to do next. Didn’t stop him from chasing cars, but he at least learned to keep his distance.
The satisfaction of saying "I told you so" will be small comfort if what I imagine comes true, but that might be all we're likely to get. It's not like we didn't spend months telling these same people what Trump has said he will do, and how disgustingly awful those ideas are.
If shaming people by tying their vote for Trump to the very bad things he will no doubt be doing gets them to finally understand, that can't hurt any more than the damage he's going to inflict.
You are named perfectly. Everyone will want to give their own views on why Harris lost. Don't we always know why someone failed- after the fact? It's like the sports media that seem to know exactly why the Sox and Bears lost. Gee they are wasting their time as media pundits when they should be owners or coaches! Yes, everyone will have their own reasons for what happened. How we take it depends on whether we want roles in fixing it or if we just want to show everyone how smart we are.
The point behind my questions was that what John Houck is doing does not serve what I presume are his own interests -- specifically, to get more people elected to congress in 2026 who disagree with Trump, and elect a President in 2028 who is not a Trumper.
John Houck thinks there is no harm in shaming people who voted for Trump when things do not go well, but I disagree. Shaming them can only drive them to find community among other Trump voters, which will impact future elections.
I agree with you that there are plenty of Monday morning quarterbacks. Mostly they a full of hot air. Sometimes they provide analysis of data on how people voted to get some useful insights.
I agree with you. I was actually thinking about this after writing before. There are two issues. It's just a part of being human. How often, when we were younger, did we want to disagree with our parents, not because we disagreed with their reasoning, but simply because we hated the means in which their reasons were presented. How often did we use that as an excuse to do the opposite even when we knew what we were doing was stupid? Theother thing is the way issues are presented. My prime example is AOC. She hits people over the head with what she wants to see happen. She's not always wrong. It will probably get her elected in her home district forever. I challenge you to name any significant bills she has gotten passed or even heard in DC. And now with the GOP running both Houses, what will she accomplish, which I always thought was the purpose of getting elected, not simply to be loud and be heard? Bernie Sanders isn't much better. Look, he is a principled man who really believes what he is presenting. But his socialism is not what the vast majority of the population wants. I would have cringed had the Democrats ever actually nominated him. It might have been one of the biggest GOP landslides in history. There is often a huge chasm between idealism and realism in American politics. I wish everyone had roofs over their heads and enough food to eat. I wish we would lovingly accept most different kinds of people. Does anyone here expect to see that in their lifetimes?
Okay, but we've been scolded for the last eight years that we won't stop to consider the poor MAGA's feelings while listening to them yell "F your feelings" at every drop of the hat. Many of them are likely to be hardest hit by Trumponomics, and appear to be too obtuse to connect the dots. Sorry, but the strategy of trying to empathize with people who just voted for an obvious sociopath seems weak to me. Maybe it's time to try throwing rotten tomatoes at them (figuratively, of course).
As a conservative, I would love for the Democrats to largely follow John's adversarial and self-defeating advice to ensure continued conservative victories in the elections ahead. But I guess it just gratifying for him to feel that way.
It's already started. Look at some of his announced picks and expected picks. One wants right away to get rid of environmental protections so billionaires can make more money. Kennedy wants to get rid of any vaccine regulations and vaccines themselves. We can expect consumer protection to be next as most major banks have been hit by scandal the last several years. You are going to be busy.
I'm sure they will end the FTC's case against the merger of Kroger & Albertson's, which means Mariano's sold off to a wholesaler that has zero retail experience. And that will mean the end of real competition for jewel & higher prices for groceries here.
I said that before he was elected. Under Trump where does he think federal money will come from to close his budget gap? He can't even get it from his Democratic governor.
I’d be very interested to hear how everyone who was shocked and saddened by Trump’s election is handing this question: Do we want his voters to suffer from what comes next (hey, they wanted it) in order to show them what consequences are? I’ve been going back and forth on this. I’m really trying not to wish polio, deported family members, and economic ruin on millions of people, but at what point do we say “let them have what they want” and insist the Dems and moderate GOP not insist on being the grownups for every issue? But I’m also not convinced that living in a blue state is as safe as some think since a large part of Trumpism really doesn’t allow everyone to choose their reality—the white supremacy and religious nationalism movements make that clear.
I’ve struggled with that as well. Part of me hopes the Dems don’t carry the House so that everything is on the party that foisted this trash on us, but another part despairs at the suffering that is almost certainly coming.
And I still haven’t forgotten the comments Trump made about never needing to vote again, and how much easier that will be for them to make happen if we don’t have a say anymore.
His voters absolutely should bear the consequences of their vote and I'll feel zero sympathy for them. I'll only hope they will learn from the hardships they face as a result. I'll reserve my compassion for Kamala supporters or children who had no part in politics.
I commented on this last week. On one hand, I'd love to see Trumpism fail before the next election. On the other hand, I need to live here for the next four years. It's a tough choice. On the other hand, if we somehow prosper economically, MAGAs will excuse how we got there and reelect MAGAs. Not much of a choice either way.
The type of policies embraced by MAGA can only lead to a Russian style oligarchy, a short-lived success for very few at the top, at the cost of prosperity and freedom of the vast majority of the citizenry.
But even if somehow everyone was better off economically at the cost of subjugated women, prosecuted journalists, deported millions of immigrants, jailed political opponents, unopposed tyrants overseas, etc, I would be ashamed to live in a society like that and would do any little thing in my power to oppose it.
My point exactly. Actually, I like Hitler asa better example. He promised to make them great after their World War I lost and the treaty that ended it. Not exactly a bad thing. It's his methods we question.
Well, at least in my part of Illinois I never saw the disgusting ads that apparently ran elsewhere. The only nasty ads I saw were part of an NFL broadcast and they were bad enough.
And Illinois has Governor Pritzker who tries very hard to prevent the worst of TFG's cruel 2025 policies.
I heard a speaker say that if we on the left continue to demonize those on the right, we are contributing to the divide in this country. He offered this quote from the Russian author, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn - "“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained” I know many Democrats, myself included, who tend to vote against our own interests - or at least somewhat - because we care for the poor and marginalized. But we are not alone in taking care of others. The old examples of helping your neighbor are shown in nightly news reports - and in every case, people are helping each other. They are not asking which party a person belongs to before helping to rescue them from a flood. However, for me, it was the inability to get past the horrendousness of Trump as a human being. I literally screamed out loud EVERY week for the first two years he was in office. HOW could anyone follow such a disgusting human being? And then I woke up and learned to fight - and we were not successful. So - I now realize that the Republicans have worked for 50 years or more to GET someone like Trump to be the huckster who would appeal to what people "see" as their wants and needs. And some of those are not pretty. Women are still behind in the ability to convince men that we can lead - other countries have elected women, and it's worked out fine - or not - but gender had less to do with it than it does here. It just takes SO MUCH TIME to change anything that is considered radical - and Joanie Wimmer - I support you as a human, but you are asking for the moon to have most people accept transgender rights that they consider extreme. Language is power, but FORCING others (especially men) to learn to use new pronouns, to understand and accept that people know (sometimes from birth) that they are in the wrong skin, will TAKE TIME! I am suggesting that you fight for rights- as many of us have had to do over the years - but to realize that doing it within community, liberal churches, friendship groups, and other affirming groups and political groups who know how things work will get you much farther toward acceptance than forcing this on people in an aggrandizing manner. I am not suggesting you give up the fight - I am looking at how best to get support for you and those you love so that over time this will become a non-issue.
Yes, well. We just saw what happened to the "turn the page" campaign that tried to focus on how to move forward, lift people up, bring people together, etc. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm just not ready to let this go...
You support me as a human (whatever that means), but wanting equal rights and access in our society is just over the top? It’s too extreme? This is a polite forum so I won’t respond the way I would in person. I’ll just say that if you don’t support my right to participate in society on the same terms as everyone else, you, in fact, do not support me as a human—you consider me one of the Untermenschen. It’s always easy to tell other people that they have to wait and things will get better.
The important thing about what you said is that MAGAs want the opposition to acquiese for the good of the country. That's their definition of uniting. Sorry, I'm not buying. What if everyone had simply acquiesed when slavery was considered acceptable? What if everyone had simply gone a long during the McCarthy Era? What if we had simply accepted things as they always were during the civil rights battles? When you get right down to it the colonials could have simply said that King George is the ruler, we're British and that's it. No, I don't accept Trumpism. There are things he wants to do that are against everything I consider American. Maybe there's a point here about name-calling and insults that's highly Trumpism. But if anyone thinks I'm simply going to give in and go along because of the election, they have another thought coming.
Visuals were a tough pick this week—hilarious all but I had to pick Inigo (my Halloween costume this year). Thanks for a needed quick break from the rest of our current disaster.
I can’t help wondering how things would have turned out if two years ago Biden announced he would not run again. This would have allowed the strongest candidate to rise to the top. Maybe it would have still been Harris. If it were, she’d have had two years to identify herself and clarify/defend her stances on the important issues. I don’t think her truncated campaign time allowed her to do that.
The key issues? inflation, immigration, abortion rights. As others have stated the Democrats’ messaging on the first two were poor. Instead they focused on Trump’s character which turned out to not be a motivating issue for many. As for abortion, the fact that it was on the ballot in many red states allowed women to vote for abortion rights without having to vote for Democrats.
I saw someone in the White House suggested Biden step down and let Harris run out the clock. As I said last week, that might have been a good idea for him to do after the mid-term elections, giving her two years doing the actual job. At this point it would be meaningless, like putting in your backup QB for the last few minutes of a blowout loss.
Or if he had stepped down after the debate. This would have relieved Harris of having to do the two-step on the issue of if/when she noticed that he was having cognitive problems. I don't see how it makes any sense now and would look petty, condescending and insulting.
I don't think it would have made any difference. It was always Trump, with populism, propaganda, demagoguery, and barbarism, vs "not Trump". And "not Trump" was always going to lose.
The signs were out there. The myriad of legal cases, rape, various frauds, classified documents, Jan 6., many started even before he left office - none made any dent in his popularity. Xenophobia, misogyny, racism, transphobia, these are endemic forces easily weaponized. Nothing was done to curtail propaganda from Fox and Putin that was continuing unabated since 2016. Repeat lies often and long enough and there is no way to prove them wrong. It's easier to fool people than prove to them they've been fooled. Losing support among women and minorities was shown in every poll for years. We were pollyannish to think we could overcome this.
Populism, xenophobia, barbarism, demagoguery, misogyny, propaganda, and everything else you list were all essential parts of the Trump playbook in ‘16 and ‘20, yet he lost the popular vote in both those elections, and the electoral vote in ‘20. You can blame Fox News and Putin all you like, but it wasn’t Rupert Murdoch or Putin that urged Biden to run for a second term, and then anoint a wildly unpopular Vice President as the nominee when he finally did drop out, despite having a bullpen deep with talent and radiant voter appeal (Newsom, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Beshear, Kelly, to name but a few).
This canard that Trump was somehow unbeatable and that his election was destiny written in the stars that could not have been avoided may give people like you some comfort, but it’s really just a cop out.
The Democrats need to run their primaries through the swing states, not hopelessly red states like South Carolina, which was seen as another Biden/Harris move to insure their win. With only 31% of voters now identifying as Democrats and the vast majority as Independents, I fear that future Democratic primaries will yield only far left candidates just as the Republican primaries yield far right candidates. It was the 2020 lefty primary positions that caused so many problems for Harris in this campaign. If the Democrats opened all their primaries to registered Democrats and Independents they would have a better outcome of a candidate that would appeal to a broader range of voters.
from reason.com - Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat, just won re-election to her seat in a rural red district in Washington. She has some choice words for her own party: "The fundamental mistake people make is condescension. A lot of elected officials get calloused to the ways that they're disrespecting people."
Even if he had encouraged an open primary and run himself, there would have been a chance for the Dems to hone their message. As I recall, when this forum was debating the wisdom of Biden dropping out, there were many suggestions of viable tickets. It is hard for me to believe that a ticket with candidates from swing states (E.G. Shapiro, Warnock) would not have done better than California and Minnesota.
Personally, I think Trump's unanswered lies, amplified by other Republicans, flipped the election. The press gave him a free pass. Harris mostly ignored them. Supposed fact checkers rarely provided timely responses to them. You repeat the unanswered lie, over and over again, people will accept it, will start to believe it and everything else you say. Like I said before, lying works for them.
sorry, i have to disagree. trump supporters don't care that he lies - that's just part of his brand. they long ago decided they don't care that he lies.
trump supporters want to 'own the libs' - and he's their champion for owning the libs.
Wendy, I think Biden/Harris lies were more plentiful than Trump's. Before anyone points me to some wikipedia site listing that Trump said the sky was green instead of blue, or some such thing, let's look even to the last couple of weeks: Republicans lie about Trump saying he wanted Liz Chaney to face a firing squad. That was probably three days of lies augmented by national press. Biden is sharp as a tack! Augmented by media. Add in lies about border crisis, hurricane response and just generously biased reporting INSTEAD of outright lies ... Harris and Biden both had the benefit of the media covering for them every step of the way.
I have enjoyed the political evaluations so far, and I admit did not listen to a recent Rascals podcast but could you, other writers, and EDITORS please discuss the "The voters just didn't believe us" elephant? It seems obvious that the voters did not buy the "Trump is a Nazi" and "this is the end of democracy" trope. Could you maybe research and ask friends "Why didn't they believe us?" Ps. in the discussion don' get sidetracked with "they should have." Why was the evaluation dismissed?
Either he'll be exactly as bad as we said he would be (or close enough to make no difference) or he will be nothing like that. The proof (or lack thereof) is going to be in our faces soon enough.
The people who did not believe me all watch Fox (and other conservative media). They all believe what they hear on Fox, and what I tell them is not what they hear on Fox. Therefore, they think that I am wrong. And, if you think I am wrong, then what I am saying sounds hysterically paranoid. What I am now telling them is that in early February, Fox is going to report a miracle: with Trump in the White House, US economy is going great!! I'm telling them now that, when Fox makes this claim in February, they will know Fox has been lying to them.
Absolutely. And get ready for Trump et al to proclaim total victory while showing footage of a few planes and buses heading toward the Mexican border. His voters won’t demand proof that 13 million undocumented immigrants have been deported, they’ll just need to hear their “Daddy” say he’s getting the job done, as promised. It’s all about the message, not the reality.
First, the media and Democrats used the same fascist/end-of-democracy predictions in 2016. And then never let it go. They relentlessly fed stories about the fragility of democracy and the fragility of institutions, while winning the elections in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The country also continued to improve the election apparatus. End-of-the-world messages get stale when they don't happen. Sort of the inverse of repeating a lie.
Trump has authoritarian tendencies and has said many authoritarian things. He has said things that many interpret as racist. He has been tolerant of right-wing extremists. But he is not a Nazi and the modern US is nothing like 1920/30s Germany. While Trump certainly has far right supporters, the vast majority of his supporters are not fascist, racist, misogynist haters. The persuadable voters that switched sides in the election, and the growth of POC voters, demonstrates that they did not believe they were getting in bed with Nazis or people that intended to exterminate them.
None of them believe that there is any possibility of an insurrection, let alone a successful insurrection. Again, not pre-war Germany or third-world proto state. The history and culture of the US military fully supports the Constitution. There is no paramilitary brownshirt group that can challenge the professional military. There is no civilian oligarchy or aristocracy that can be coopted. No one believes there is a risk to the media or free speech. There is no chance of a state-media like Russia or China.
The persuadable people believe that the US has strong and stable institutions. They do not believe the institutions are easily disposed of or overthrown. They are not risking the end of the nation, they are risking a shift in politics. And they know there is another election in two years that will be just as free. open, and fair as the 2024 election. The 2024 election proved the belief that the US election apparatus across 3100 counties works just fine.
I’ll buy that premise about voters doubting that the country will become Nazi Germany, but if Dems honestly see Trump’s actions, not just words, as clear indicators that he’ll abuse the office and disregard the norms that have held the country together, what would you have them do? Do they pretend it’s not a big problem? Do they signal that two parties can play at that game and crawl in the mud? Should they signal that they won’t let “the others” get all the benefits from their programs? I agree that it’s foolish to belittle large swaths of the voting population for practical political reasons, but how to move forward and win voters back without losing your party’s soul, as the GOP has done?
Steve - exit polls reflected that of voters who listed a threat to democracy as a concern, the majority of them voted for Trump. It may not be your view or those of the overwhelming majority of people on this post, but that is the reality the voters expressed at the polls.
As always, definitions matter. Many on the right believe that the excesses of the administrative state are a threat to democracy. Many agencies also have their own judicial processes. The 2.2 million civil service employees and massive debt and deficits are also considered a threat by many.
Other voters are concerned about voting rights and changes in Supreme Court decisions. Fear of losing some rights while wishing to constrain other rights.
And of course, those that think fascists or socialist are trying to take over.
Hi Marc - You are very correct that everyone has their own personal definition of what the term means. However, Harris campaigned hard on the premise that Trump was a threat to democracy, and that obviously did not win her any votes.
I did see that in some exit polls, and it makes sense given the GOP messaging. My comment referred to a Democratic response to what they see as Trump’s fascistic actions (“if Dems honestly see Trump’s actions…as clear indicators…), not how voters in general perceive the issue of threats to democracy.
Steve, My perception is that a lot of the people who were branding Trump Hitler and a fascist did not truly believe that, but did so in the hopes of creating that image in voter's minds. Obviously, that did not work.
David, I see your point, though I disagree. I am curious, what actions by Trump would signal to you that Trump (or any US leader) intends to rule as a fascist? Other than saying he intends to invade other sovereign nations, which he thankfully has not done, what would cause you concern? Of course I assume you’re not interested in having a fascist President and want the American democratic ideals to continue. In any case, I appreciated your engagement here.
1984 Geraldine Ferraro, first female VP candidate…Dems lose
2008 Sarah Palin, first female Republican VP…Reps lose
2016 Hillary Clinton, first female Presidential Candidate…Dems lose
2024 Kamala Harris, first female of color Presidential Candidate…Dems lose
Expect an all male slate from both parties in 2028.
And I think we need to find out why so many Abortion Referendums passed, even in Missouri!
Yet Trump increased the woman vote which says a fair number of women voted to loosen access to abortion but voted for Trump. Need to hear the logic on that.
As Phyllis Schafly proved in 1972, women do not vote as a block for their interests. Why is that?
Anti-abortion laws are incredibly unpopular. The reality of the results of Dobbs decision sunk in quickly and was rejected in Trumpy Kansas amd the rest. Big tax cuts for the rich are incredibly unpopular as is the mass deportation of millions of peaceful hard-working undocumented residents--it is a pity that they have to be accomplished before masses of people realise what they voted for.
Arghh, the ghost of the appalling Schlafly rises up. She meant, of course, white women.
I did not think there was any mystery about why most of the Abortion Referendums passed. I am surprised they did not all pass. The right to access abortion is popular. That has been true for a long time. There is an influential minority that wants that access taken away. According to the WSJ banning or limiting abortions has become "a movement without a a candidate".
I think that the majority of the country supports a Roe type structure (viability standard, post viability rules). Some more conservative districts wanted more restrictions. Many pro-choice activists called any limitation (6 weeks to viability) an abortion ban. I am guessing that the states will eventually settle at a Roe type structure.
Probably best to start from the assumption that every individual makes their own assessment of their interests and sets their own priorities for those interests. As such, there will always be a broad range of assessments and rare broad consensus. Also, that individuals rarely equate themselves or their interests exclusively with others of the same sex or race. Nor do they presume that their interests can only be represented by someone of any particular race or sex. The majority of X people should believe and support Y because we think that is best for them is likely to miss the mark.
I was not surprised by the split ticket votes. There are always people that agree on one set of issues (economic?) and disagree on another (social?). In the current election it was possible to have center voters that disagreed with both the left and the right on social, cultural and economic issues while embracing other issues in each category. The state level referenda and federal elections allowed voters to demonstrate this.
I have to add a comment to each point: 1. BAD CAMPAIGN: Overall not the biggest issue. Standing by Biden and 'can't think of any changes' was a bad response that stood. Being general in responses hurt. She was heavily pro abortion - which appealed to her base dem woman demographic. Strong to word "We are fighting for democracy" (aka anti-Trump). But not much stands out from the past months. 2. DEMS UNPOPULAR MSG Yes the progressive end is unpopular but the center-left is popular and could/should have pulled in moderates. Maybe I'm not recalling specifics - but it felt that unions were split, undecided on support. At least those were the ones highlighted in the news. 3. SEXISM Biden wouldn't have won - but may have come closer. Any other Dem Male? Possibly other Dem Female? Is that based on June-Nov run or full year plus run? 4. WEAK BORDER The biggest involvement regarding the border was it was the first major item that Harris was appointed to do as VP. She seemed to disappear shortly after assigned. Never heard of anything she did. Yes the bipartisan plan would have made progress and yes Trump torpedoed that - but still little was done to address the issue. 5. PARRY TRUMP ADS The ads were ridiculous on both sides - flipping one ad was only getting cancelled on the overexposure and fatigue of the election campaigning. To Wimmer's comment - 'explaining transgender healthcare' was not going to flip the message. Educating helps - but this was not going to help Harris and understandably - or maybe politically - she would not defend or push that issue to the forefront. 6. ECONOMY All signs say the economy is doing great - but it has not filtered down to people who are struggling. Their paycheck to paycheck is a struggle.
Not mentioned... 1. The call for Biden to drop out. I'll admit - I didn't think he'd get pass the primary. There seemed to be alternatives - but people rushed into his support. Voters selected. Maybe a bit strong - but the 'elite' determined he wasn't going to make it. 2. The uneducated voter - has been tossed around. People don't understand how things work. They see and hear things - sometimes from each other that they believe. I feel it is insulting for Dems to pin it on the 'uneducated.' 3. Dems didn't come out to vote. I've heard it but haven't seen the break downs. Did Dems really not get out the vote. I saw more Dem campaigners - door to door, etc Dems also feeling they had the edge based on early voting ballots. 4. Latino Men. Somehow latinos - those people who got to the US from illegally crossing the border (alleged) were the bane of Rep. Dems were recruiting immigrants and signing them up to vote Dem illegally. (We won't even get into drugs, rape, gangs) Now Latino men are the reason Rep won because latino men won't vote for women of any kind. Mindblown. My perception is also seeing more people of color supporting Trump. I thought it was just background filler at rallies. I do tend to believe the Dem party has not supported their base for years.
Imperialist poet Kipling wrote "It matters not / Who won or lost /But how you played the game."
I would like to offer a version for our times for all those who ascribe the defeat on November 8th to whichever hobby horse they ride (pronouns, sexism, elitism, etc., etc.)
"It matters a lot / Who won or lost / Please shut up about how they played the game."
Actually that was the sportswriter Grantland Rice, in his poem "Alumnus Football."
Thank you and sorry for the error. I was quite mistaken. To nail it down, Rice wrote:
"For, when the Great Scorer comes to write against your name / He writes - not that you won or lost -- but how you played the game."
In other words, move along folks, there’s nothing to see here. The Democrats lost, but it’s not like there are any actual REASONS for that, gosh darn it! Oh well, we’ll have another chance in four years. We won’t do anything differently, but maybe we’ll have better luck next time, by golly!
Yes, very witty. I think that may be some people's idea. Not mine. I just think that raking over the ashes is a waste of time and regrouping and preparing and organizing to oppose the Trump horrors to come is a much more fruitful expenditure of thought and energy.
My intention for the next four years will be to point to every horrible thing that comes to pass and tell Trump voters (not his rabid base, but the ones who should have known better) how this is on them. I can only hope at this point that I won’t get the chance too often, but I’m not holding my breath.
They've caught another car. Let's see who they'll blame.
Funny — I had memories the other day of my childhood cocker spaniel that would chase cars, and how one day he caught one. Nipped the back tire and proceeded to bonk his head on the rim. He sat there stunned for a moment as if he was trying to figure out what to do next. Didn’t stop him from chasing cars, but he at least learned to keep his distance.
Do you think that will persuade them to see things your way? Or do you just want the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so."
The satisfaction of saying "I told you so" will be small comfort if what I imagine comes true, but that might be all we're likely to get. It's not like we didn't spend months telling these same people what Trump has said he will do, and how disgustingly awful those ideas are.
If shaming people by tying their vote for Trump to the very bad things he will no doubt be doing gets them to finally understand, that can't hurt any more than the damage he's going to inflict.
You are named perfectly. Everyone will want to give their own views on why Harris lost. Don't we always know why someone failed- after the fact? It's like the sports media that seem to know exactly why the Sox and Bears lost. Gee they are wasting their time as media pundits when they should be owners or coaches! Yes, everyone will have their own reasons for what happened. How we take it depends on whether we want roles in fixing it or if we just want to show everyone how smart we are.
The point behind my questions was that what John Houck is doing does not serve what I presume are his own interests -- specifically, to get more people elected to congress in 2026 who disagree with Trump, and elect a President in 2028 who is not a Trumper.
John Houck thinks there is no harm in shaming people who voted for Trump when things do not go well, but I disagree. Shaming them can only drive them to find community among other Trump voters, which will impact future elections.
I agree with you that there are plenty of Monday morning quarterbacks. Mostly they a full of hot air. Sometimes they provide analysis of data on how people voted to get some useful insights.
I agree with you. I was actually thinking about this after writing before. There are two issues. It's just a part of being human. How often, when we were younger, did we want to disagree with our parents, not because we disagreed with their reasoning, but simply because we hated the means in which their reasons were presented. How often did we use that as an excuse to do the opposite even when we knew what we were doing was stupid? Theother thing is the way issues are presented. My prime example is AOC. She hits people over the head with what she wants to see happen. She's not always wrong. It will probably get her elected in her home district forever. I challenge you to name any significant bills she has gotten passed or even heard in DC. And now with the GOP running both Houses, what will she accomplish, which I always thought was the purpose of getting elected, not simply to be loud and be heard? Bernie Sanders isn't much better. Look, he is a principled man who really believes what he is presenting. But his socialism is not what the vast majority of the population wants. I would have cringed had the Democrats ever actually nominated him. It might have been one of the biggest GOP landslides in history. There is often a huge chasm between idealism and realism in American politics. I wish everyone had roofs over their heads and enough food to eat. I wish we would lovingly accept most different kinds of people. Does anyone here expect to see that in their lifetimes?
On top of that, Bernie Sanders is America's & possibly the entire world's, worst self hating Jew!
Okay, but we've been scolded for the last eight years that we won't stop to consider the poor MAGA's feelings while listening to them yell "F your feelings" at every drop of the hat. Many of them are likely to be hardest hit by Trumponomics, and appear to be too obtuse to connect the dots. Sorry, but the strategy of trying to empathize with people who just voted for an obvious sociopath seems weak to me. Maybe it's time to try throwing rotten tomatoes at them (figuratively, of course).
How does figuratively throwing rotten tomatoes at anyone serve your interests? I don't see how it does. If you do then please enlighten me.
How does doing what we've been doing this entire election cycle, and really for the past eight years, help?
As a conservative, I would love for the Democrats to largely follow John's adversarial and self-defeating advice to ensure continued conservative victories in the elections ahead. But I guess it just gratifying for him to feel that way.
It's already started. Look at some of his announced picks and expected picks. One wants right away to get rid of environmental protections so billionaires can make more money. Kennedy wants to get rid of any vaccine regulations and vaccines themselves. We can expect consumer protection to be next as most major banks have been hit by scandal the last several years. You are going to be busy.
I'm sure they will end the FTC's case against the merger of Kroger & Albertson's, which means Mariano's sold off to a wholesaler that has zero retail experience. And that will mean the end of real competition for jewel & higher prices for groceries here.
I don't get the Thermos tat joke, anyone care to spell it out?
Don’t touch the thermostat
Ah, thanks! Must be be too early in the morning for me
I did not get it either. Today's VTOW's are above my head.
thermostat, on the wall.
Thanks!
Nothing to do with this election, but more proof Brandon Johnson is utterly incompetent at choosing the people to help run the city!
And there's no way a decent mechanic couldn't have gotten her car to pass the emissions test!
https://cwbchicago.com/2024/11/103000-a-year-mayoral-advisors-plates-expired-in-2022-because-her-car-wont-pass-an-emissions-test.html
I said that before he was elected. Under Trump where does he think federal money will come from to close his budget gap? He can't even get it from his Democratic governor.
Thought choice between Oreo and license plate.
License plate wins.
Yup! And some people do not know what 'inconceivable' means.
Am not into these plate messages--would appreciate an explanation thx
never mind-looked it up. Am likely in the 1% but never saw the film
I’d be very interested to hear how everyone who was shocked and saddened by Trump’s election is handing this question: Do we want his voters to suffer from what comes next (hey, they wanted it) in order to show them what consequences are? I’ve been going back and forth on this. I’m really trying not to wish polio, deported family members, and economic ruin on millions of people, but at what point do we say “let them have what they want” and insist the Dems and moderate GOP not insist on being the grownups for every issue? But I’m also not convinced that living in a blue state is as safe as some think since a large part of Trumpism really doesn’t allow everyone to choose their reality—the white supremacy and religious nationalism movements make that clear.
I’ve struggled with that as well. Part of me hopes the Dems don’t carry the House so that everything is on the party that foisted this trash on us, but another part despairs at the suffering that is almost certainly coming.
And I still haven’t forgotten the comments Trump made about never needing to vote again, and how much easier that will be for them to make happen if we don’t have a say anymore.
His voters absolutely should bear the consequences of their vote and I'll feel zero sympathy for them. I'll only hope they will learn from the hardships they face as a result. I'll reserve my compassion for Kamala supporters or children who had no part in politics.
I commented on this last week. On one hand, I'd love to see Trumpism fail before the next election. On the other hand, I need to live here for the next four years. It's a tough choice. On the other hand, if we somehow prosper economically, MAGAs will excuse how we got there and reelect MAGAs. Not much of a choice either way.
The type of policies embraced by MAGA can only lead to a Russian style oligarchy, a short-lived success for very few at the top, at the cost of prosperity and freedom of the vast majority of the citizenry.
But even if somehow everyone was better off economically at the cost of subjugated women, prosecuted journalists, deported millions of immigrants, jailed political opponents, unopposed tyrants overseas, etc, I would be ashamed to live in a society like that and would do any little thing in my power to oppose it.
My point exactly. Actually, I like Hitler asa better example. He promised to make them great after their World War I lost and the treaty that ended it. Not exactly a bad thing. It's his methods we question.
See for example Tennessee Brando's song "Cheaper eggs."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWu0v8ktUxg
I watched it! So good. See also Steven King’s quip (tweet) about Musk.
Sadly, we will suffer too. IF we could seal ourselves off from tRumpWorld, it would be a huge relief.
Well, at least in my part of Illinois I never saw the disgusting ads that apparently ran elsewhere. The only nasty ads I saw were part of an NFL broadcast and they were bad enough.
And Illinois has Governor Pritzker who tries very hard to prevent the worst of TFG's cruel 2025 policies.
It gets worse. Based on what Trump has already said, don't depend on the Constitution to save you.
I heard a speaker say that if we on the left continue to demonize those on the right, we are contributing to the divide in this country. He offered this quote from the Russian author, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn - "“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained” I know many Democrats, myself included, who tend to vote against our own interests - or at least somewhat - because we care for the poor and marginalized. But we are not alone in taking care of others. The old examples of helping your neighbor are shown in nightly news reports - and in every case, people are helping each other. They are not asking which party a person belongs to before helping to rescue them from a flood. However, for me, it was the inability to get past the horrendousness of Trump as a human being. I literally screamed out loud EVERY week for the first two years he was in office. HOW could anyone follow such a disgusting human being? And then I woke up and learned to fight - and we were not successful. So - I now realize that the Republicans have worked for 50 years or more to GET someone like Trump to be the huckster who would appeal to what people "see" as their wants and needs. And some of those are not pretty. Women are still behind in the ability to convince men that we can lead - other countries have elected women, and it's worked out fine - or not - but gender had less to do with it than it does here. It just takes SO MUCH TIME to change anything that is considered radical - and Joanie Wimmer - I support you as a human, but you are asking for the moon to have most people accept transgender rights that they consider extreme. Language is power, but FORCING others (especially men) to learn to use new pronouns, to understand and accept that people know (sometimes from birth) that they are in the wrong skin, will TAKE TIME! I am suggesting that you fight for rights- as many of us have had to do over the years - but to realize that doing it within community, liberal churches, friendship groups, and other affirming groups and political groups who know how things work will get you much farther toward acceptance than forcing this on people in an aggrandizing manner. I am not suggesting you give up the fight - I am looking at how best to get support for you and those you love so that over time this will become a non-issue.
Yes, well. We just saw what happened to the "turn the page" campaign that tried to focus on how to move forward, lift people up, bring people together, etc. I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm just not ready to let this go...
You support me as a human (whatever that means), but wanting equal rights and access in our society is just over the top? It’s too extreme? This is a polite forum so I won’t respond the way I would in person. I’ll just say that if you don’t support my right to participate in society on the same terms as everyone else, you, in fact, do not support me as a human—you consider me one of the Untermenschen. It’s always easy to tell other people that they have to wait and things will get better.
No need for invective, Joanie. Speaking simple truths as you just did is much more powerful, IMO.
The important thing about what you said is that MAGAs want the opposition to acquiese for the good of the country. That's their definition of uniting. Sorry, I'm not buying. What if everyone had simply acquiesed when slavery was considered acceptable? What if everyone had simply gone a long during the McCarthy Era? What if we had simply accepted things as they always were during the civil rights battles? When you get right down to it the colonials could have simply said that King George is the ruler, we're British and that's it. No, I don't accept Trumpism. There are things he wants to do that are against everything I consider American. Maybe there's a point here about name-calling and insults that's highly Trumpism. But if anyone thinks I'm simply going to give in and go along because of the election, they have another thought coming.
Visuals were a tough pick this week—hilarious all but I had to pick Inigo (my Halloween costume this year). Thanks for a needed quick break from the rest of our current disaster.
I could not figure out what it meant. But now that I looked it up, I agree it is very funny.
I can’t help wondering how things would have turned out if two years ago Biden announced he would not run again. This would have allowed the strongest candidate to rise to the top. Maybe it would have still been Harris. If it were, she’d have had two years to identify herself and clarify/defend her stances on the important issues. I don’t think her truncated campaign time allowed her to do that.
The key issues? inflation, immigration, abortion rights. As others have stated the Democrats’ messaging on the first two were poor. Instead they focused on Trump’s character which turned out to not be a motivating issue for many. As for abortion, the fact that it was on the ballot in many red states allowed women to vote for abortion rights without having to vote for Democrats.
I saw someone in the White House suggested Biden step down and let Harris run out the clock. As I said last week, that might have been a good idea for him to do after the mid-term elections, giving her two years doing the actual job. At this point it would be meaningless, like putting in your backup QB for the last few minutes of a blowout loss.
Yeah, but it would render all of the fat traitor's caps that have "45-47" on them worthless!
Or if he had stepped down after the debate. This would have relieved Harris of having to do the two-step on the issue of if/when she noticed that he was having cognitive problems. I don't see how it makes any sense now and would look petty, condescending and insulting.
I don't think it would have made any difference. It was always Trump, with populism, propaganda, demagoguery, and barbarism, vs "not Trump". And "not Trump" was always going to lose.
How do you know?
The signs were out there. The myriad of legal cases, rape, various frauds, classified documents, Jan 6., many started even before he left office - none made any dent in his popularity. Xenophobia, misogyny, racism, transphobia, these are endemic forces easily weaponized. Nothing was done to curtail propaganda from Fox and Putin that was continuing unabated since 2016. Repeat lies often and long enough and there is no way to prove them wrong. It's easier to fool people than prove to them they've been fooled. Losing support among women and minorities was shown in every poll for years. We were pollyannish to think we could overcome this.
Populism, xenophobia, barbarism, demagoguery, misogyny, propaganda, and everything else you list were all essential parts of the Trump playbook in ‘16 and ‘20, yet he lost the popular vote in both those elections, and the electoral vote in ‘20. You can blame Fox News and Putin all you like, but it wasn’t Rupert Murdoch or Putin that urged Biden to run for a second term, and then anoint a wildly unpopular Vice President as the nominee when he finally did drop out, despite having a bullpen deep with talent and radiant voter appeal (Newsom, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Beshear, Kelly, to name but a few).
This canard that Trump was somehow unbeatable and that his election was destiny written in the stars that could not have been avoided may give people like you some comfort, but it’s really just a cop out.
It was that type of messaging by Harris that led to her failure.
The Democrats need to run their primaries through the swing states, not hopelessly red states like South Carolina, which was seen as another Biden/Harris move to insure their win. With only 31% of voters now identifying as Democrats and the vast majority as Independents, I fear that future Democratic primaries will yield only far left candidates just as the Republican primaries yield far right candidates. It was the 2020 lefty primary positions that caused so many problems for Harris in this campaign. If the Democrats opened all their primaries to registered Democrats and Independents they would have a better outcome of a candidate that would appeal to a broader range of voters.
Ranked choice primaries would also help.
from reason.com - Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat, just won re-election to her seat in a rural red district in Washington. She has some choice words for her own party: "The fundamental mistake people make is condescension. A lot of elected officials get calloused to the ways that they're disrespecting people."
Even if he had encouraged an open primary and run himself, there would have been a chance for the Dems to hone their message. As I recall, when this forum was debating the wisdom of Biden dropping out, there were many suggestions of viable tickets. It is hard for me to believe that a ticket with candidates from swing states (E.G. Shapiro, Warnock) would not have done better than California and Minnesota.
Personally, I think Trump's unanswered lies, amplified by other Republicans, flipped the election. The press gave him a free pass. Harris mostly ignored them. Supposed fact checkers rarely provided timely responses to them. You repeat the unanswered lie, over and over again, people will accept it, will start to believe it and everything else you say. Like I said before, lying works for them.
sorry, i have to disagree. trump supporters don't care that he lies - that's just part of his brand. they long ago decided they don't care that he lies.
trump supporters want to 'own the libs' - and he's their champion for owning the libs.
It wasn't the Trump supporters, alone, that won him the election.
Wendy, I think Biden/Harris lies were more plentiful than Trump's. Before anyone points me to some wikipedia site listing that Trump said the sky was green instead of blue, or some such thing, let's look even to the last couple of weeks: Republicans lie about Trump saying he wanted Liz Chaney to face a firing squad. That was probably three days of lies augmented by national press. Biden is sharp as a tack! Augmented by media. Add in lies about border crisis, hurricane response and just generously biased reporting INSTEAD of outright lies ... Harris and Biden both had the benefit of the media covering for them every step of the way.
I have enjoyed the political evaluations so far, and I admit did not listen to a recent Rascals podcast but could you, other writers, and EDITORS please discuss the "The voters just didn't believe us" elephant? It seems obvious that the voters did not buy the "Trump is a Nazi" and "this is the end of democracy" trope. Could you maybe research and ask friends "Why didn't they believe us?" Ps. in the discussion don' get sidetracked with "they should have." Why was the evaluation dismissed?
Either he'll be exactly as bad as we said he would be (or close enough to make no difference) or he will be nothing like that. The proof (or lack thereof) is going to be in our faces soon enough.
The people who did not believe me all watch Fox (and other conservative media). They all believe what they hear on Fox, and what I tell them is not what they hear on Fox. Therefore, they think that I am wrong. And, if you think I am wrong, then what I am saying sounds hysterically paranoid. What I am now telling them is that in early February, Fox is going to report a miracle: with Trump in the White House, US economy is going great!! I'm telling them now that, when Fox makes this claim in February, they will know Fox has been lying to them.
Absolutely. And get ready for Trump et al to proclaim total victory while showing footage of a few planes and buses heading toward the Mexican border. His voters won’t demand proof that 13 million undocumented immigrants have been deported, they’ll just need to hear their “Daddy” say he’s getting the job done, as promised. It’s all about the message, not the reality.
I'll give it a shot.
First, the media and Democrats used the same fascist/end-of-democracy predictions in 2016. And then never let it go. They relentlessly fed stories about the fragility of democracy and the fragility of institutions, while winning the elections in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The country also continued to improve the election apparatus. End-of-the-world messages get stale when they don't happen. Sort of the inverse of repeating a lie.
Trump has authoritarian tendencies and has said many authoritarian things. He has said things that many interpret as racist. He has been tolerant of right-wing extremists. But he is not a Nazi and the modern US is nothing like 1920/30s Germany. While Trump certainly has far right supporters, the vast majority of his supporters are not fascist, racist, misogynist haters. The persuadable voters that switched sides in the election, and the growth of POC voters, demonstrates that they did not believe they were getting in bed with Nazis or people that intended to exterminate them.
None of them believe that there is any possibility of an insurrection, let alone a successful insurrection. Again, not pre-war Germany or third-world proto state. The history and culture of the US military fully supports the Constitution. There is no paramilitary brownshirt group that can challenge the professional military. There is no civilian oligarchy or aristocracy that can be coopted. No one believes there is a risk to the media or free speech. There is no chance of a state-media like Russia or China.
The persuadable people believe that the US has strong and stable institutions. They do not believe the institutions are easily disposed of or overthrown. They are not risking the end of the nation, they are risking a shift in politics. And they know there is another election in two years that will be just as free. open, and fair as the 2024 election. The 2024 election proved the belief that the US election apparatus across 3100 counties works just fine.
I’ll buy that premise about voters doubting that the country will become Nazi Germany, but if Dems honestly see Trump’s actions, not just words, as clear indicators that he’ll abuse the office and disregard the norms that have held the country together, what would you have them do? Do they pretend it’s not a big problem? Do they signal that two parties can play at that game and crawl in the mud? Should they signal that they won’t let “the others” get all the benefits from their programs? I agree that it’s foolish to belittle large swaths of the voting population for practical political reasons, but how to move forward and win voters back without losing your party’s soul, as the GOP has done?
Steve - exit polls reflected that of voters who listed a threat to democracy as a concern, the majority of them voted for Trump. It may not be your view or those of the overwhelming majority of people on this post, but that is the reality the voters expressed at the polls.
As always, definitions matter. Many on the right believe that the excesses of the administrative state are a threat to democracy. Many agencies also have their own judicial processes. The 2.2 million civil service employees and massive debt and deficits are also considered a threat by many.
Other voters are concerned about voting rights and changes in Supreme Court decisions. Fear of losing some rights while wishing to constrain other rights.
And of course, those that think fascists or socialist are trying to take over.
Hi Marc - You are very correct that everyone has their own personal definition of what the term means. However, Harris campaigned hard on the premise that Trump was a threat to democracy, and that obviously did not win her any votes.
I did see that in some exit polls, and it makes sense given the GOP messaging. My comment referred to a Democratic response to what they see as Trump’s fascistic actions (“if Dems honestly see Trump’s actions…as clear indicators…), not how voters in general perceive the issue of threats to democracy.
Steve, My perception is that a lot of the people who were branding Trump Hitler and a fascist did not truly believe that, but did so in the hopes of creating that image in voter's minds. Obviously, that did not work.
David, I see your point, though I disagree. I am curious, what actions by Trump would signal to you that Trump (or any US leader) intends to rule as a fascist? Other than saying he intends to invade other sovereign nations, which he thankfully has not done, what would cause you concern? Of course I assume you’re not interested in having a fascist President and want the American democratic ideals to continue. In any case, I appreciated your engagement here.
I surely hope you are right.
The Democrats didn’t anticipate new voters going for Trump. I certainly didn’t.
"We shouldn't be focusing on what Kamala did wrong. We should be focusing on what America did wrong" -- Andy Borowitz
1984 Geraldine Ferraro, first female VP candidate…Dems lose
2008 Sarah Palin, first female Republican VP…Reps lose
2016 Hillary Clinton, first female Presidential Candidate…Dems lose
2024 Kamala Harris, first female of color Presidential Candidate…Dems lose
Expect an all male slate from both parties in 2028.
And I think we need to find out why so many Abortion Referendums passed, even in Missouri!
Yet Trump increased the woman vote which says a fair number of women voted to loosen access to abortion but voted for Trump. Need to hear the logic on that.
As Phyllis Schafly proved in 1972, women do not vote as a block for their interests. Why is that?
Societal Stockholm Syndrome?
Anti-abortion laws are incredibly unpopular. The reality of the results of Dobbs decision sunk in quickly and was rejected in Trumpy Kansas amd the rest. Big tax cuts for the rich are incredibly unpopular as is the mass deportation of millions of peaceful hard-working undocumented residents--it is a pity that they have to be accomplished before masses of people realise what they voted for.
Arghh, the ghost of the appalling Schlafly rises up. She meant, of course, white women.
I did not think there was any mystery about why most of the Abortion Referendums passed. I am surprised they did not all pass. The right to access abortion is popular. That has been true for a long time. There is an influential minority that wants that access taken away. According to the WSJ banning or limiting abortions has become "a movement without a a candidate".
I think that the majority of the country supports a Roe type structure (viability standard, post viability rules). Some more conservative districts wanted more restrictions. Many pro-choice activists called any limitation (6 weeks to viability) an abortion ban. I am guessing that the states will eventually settle at a Roe type structure.
Probably best to start from the assumption that every individual makes their own assessment of their interests and sets their own priorities for those interests. As such, there will always be a broad range of assessments and rare broad consensus. Also, that individuals rarely equate themselves or their interests exclusively with others of the same sex or race. Nor do they presume that their interests can only be represented by someone of any particular race or sex. The majority of X people should believe and support Y because we think that is best for them is likely to miss the mark.
I was not surprised by the split ticket votes. There are always people that agree on one set of issues (economic?) and disagree on another (social?). In the current election it was possible to have center voters that disagreed with both the left and the right on social, cultural and economic issues while embracing other issues in each category. The state level referenda and federal elections allowed voters to demonstrate this.
3 great visual quips today! altho my fave [oreo speedwagon] didn't lead, i'm not disappointed that aldi shopping carts did lead.
When I voted it was "Princess Bride," which I agree was great though I voted for Oreo Speedwagon.
I have to add a comment to each point: 1. BAD CAMPAIGN: Overall not the biggest issue. Standing by Biden and 'can't think of any changes' was a bad response that stood. Being general in responses hurt. She was heavily pro abortion - which appealed to her base dem woman demographic. Strong to word "We are fighting for democracy" (aka anti-Trump). But not much stands out from the past months. 2. DEMS UNPOPULAR MSG Yes the progressive end is unpopular but the center-left is popular and could/should have pulled in moderates. Maybe I'm not recalling specifics - but it felt that unions were split, undecided on support. At least those were the ones highlighted in the news. 3. SEXISM Biden wouldn't have won - but may have come closer. Any other Dem Male? Possibly other Dem Female? Is that based on June-Nov run or full year plus run? 4. WEAK BORDER The biggest involvement regarding the border was it was the first major item that Harris was appointed to do as VP. She seemed to disappear shortly after assigned. Never heard of anything she did. Yes the bipartisan plan would have made progress and yes Trump torpedoed that - but still little was done to address the issue. 5. PARRY TRUMP ADS The ads were ridiculous on both sides - flipping one ad was only getting cancelled on the overexposure and fatigue of the election campaigning. To Wimmer's comment - 'explaining transgender healthcare' was not going to flip the message. Educating helps - but this was not going to help Harris and understandably - or maybe politically - she would not defend or push that issue to the forefront. 6. ECONOMY All signs say the economy is doing great - but it has not filtered down to people who are struggling. Their paycheck to paycheck is a struggle.
Not mentioned... 1. The call for Biden to drop out. I'll admit - I didn't think he'd get pass the primary. There seemed to be alternatives - but people rushed into his support. Voters selected. Maybe a bit strong - but the 'elite' determined he wasn't going to make it. 2. The uneducated voter - has been tossed around. People don't understand how things work. They see and hear things - sometimes from each other that they believe. I feel it is insulting for Dems to pin it on the 'uneducated.' 3. Dems didn't come out to vote. I've heard it but haven't seen the break downs. Did Dems really not get out the vote. I saw more Dem campaigners - door to door, etc Dems also feeling they had the edge based on early voting ballots. 4. Latino Men. Somehow latinos - those people who got to the US from illegally crossing the border (alleged) were the bane of Rep. Dems were recruiting immigrants and signing them up to vote Dem illegally. (We won't even get into drugs, rape, gangs) Now Latino men are the reason Rep won because latino men won't vote for women of any kind. Mindblown. My perception is also seeing more people of color supporting Trump. I thought it was just background filler at rallies. I do tend to believe the Dem party has not supported their base for years.