Was it racism that did Harris in? Sexism? Turnout Troubles? Billionaires for Trump?
I doubt I would agree with many of the author's political leanings, but he plays it straight and by the numbers as a sociologist who looked hard at the common explanations and found them all wanting
A Graveyard of Bad Election Narratives, by Musa al-Gharbi at his substack Symbolic Capital(ism)
Critically, until somewhat recently, the voting patterns of men and women were not that different. Whoever got the lion’s share of the male vote tended to win the female vote too. This changed after 1996. And it didn’t change because men suddenly grew more Republican (they didn’t). It changed because women shifted aggressively towards the Democratic Party in the mid-90s, and consistently gave Democrats around 54 percent of their vote for every cycle since, irrespective of who was at the top of the ticket or what the pressing issues of the day were.
He believes this month's numbers are a continuation of trends over the last 30 years, in particular the division between those who have what he calls symbolic capital, making their livings in big tech, finance, media and entertainment, big law, branding, versus physical goods and services. We constantly note what good money people can make in trades and wonder why young people, particularly young men who seem to have diminished status these days, don't flock to them. This may be a large part of it. In the current world, they sense that higher status is held by those in the professions which rely on the manipulation of symbols rather than objects.
The old joke is that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into two groups and those who don't, so I am always suspicious of over-streamlined narratives like this. Folks is folks, after all. But this has a lot of explanatory power and will take some additional thinking about. He has at least one book We Were Never Woke.
6 comments:
The political dividing lines used to be race and marital status. It is now class and sex.
The Democratic Party has a problem with democratic processes. Or they can't help clinging to power.
Harris was a terrible candidate that nobody liked in 2020. Biden didn't want to let go gracefully, so he ran for 2024. When it was obvious that he was too feeble for another term, there was no way to not run the double-diversity VP.
Had Biden announced in 2022, that he would not run or endorse in 2024 because it was time for the next generation to take charge, the Democratic Party would have had a competitive candidate in 2024.
The class and sex issue looks right. I don't know what happens in 2028. It will eventually sink in that abortion is a state issue, so what pulls women to the left? The trans issue of men competing against women on the field and in the bathroom, already seems to be fading, so what pulls women to the right?
What did Kamala stand for? I think the failure of her candidacy is the end of the recent trend of Democratic candidates, notably Obama and Biden, running as centrists, then governing as hard left progressives.
The powers that be in the Democratic party haven't allowed a real primary season since, well, Hillary? With the superdelegates, then somehow persuading every candidate to withdraw in favor of Biden, etc. They haven't had a real primary for at least sixteen years, maybe longer. So now, they may consider the Hamasniks on campuses to represent their younger generation, overlooking that they have suffocated their own Democratic centrists. They may be afraid of an open primary.
She was unable to state her positions clearly. She relied on "bread and circuses," i.e. public spectacles, to woo voters. She refused to go on Rogan's show. Inflation did her in, of course, but more than that, she could neither explain nor defend the Democrats' economic platform, not even in the simplest terms.
Yes, true. Al-Gharbi points out that Trump ran an optimistic, aspirational campaign of a place he wanted America to reach, while Kamala and the Democrats ran a campaign that said it was about joy, but was all about complaints and dire prophecies. And he is clearly some sort of unusual but somewhat radical liberal.
An average voter could have stated Trump's main goals. He has been consistent on his priorities for about a decade now. Kamala was trying to avoid talking about statements made in public, on camera, 5 years ago.
Some of the Democratic messaging was over-the-top hysterical. I've learned to discount any prediction by any news media about how an opposition candidate will govern.
The biggest loser in this election cycle is the mainstream news media. They were so nakedly biased, hysterical and untrustworthy, I don't think they can regain the trust of the public.
The parties are changing, too. The Republicans are being taken over by blue collar workers. I think Catholics are also shifting their votes, which is not surprising. I found it interesting Al-Gharbi talked of racial backgrounds, but not about religion, except for a mention of "religious minorities." Catholics are not religious minorities.
Kamala's refusal to attend the Al Smith dinner likely lost many voters. The taped skit with the comedian was---insulting? And her description of the Catholic Church was bizarre. As I recall, I don't think she made any reference to the beliefs of millions of Catholic voters--who have been a bedrock of Democratic Party votes.
Kamala declared that the Knights of Columbus were an alt-right organisation in 2019. https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2019/01/have-catholics-become-expendable-to.html The Irish Catholics in Massachusetts would be surprised to hear that. In fact, they would still be surprised, because it was buried in the Boston Globe and on WBZ, etc.
Post a Comment