"Legal scholars agree that there is no wiggle room or space for interpretation in the 22nd Amendment."
Really? Prior to this year legal scholars would have agreed that a president is liable for his criminal actions and that someone who supported an insurrection could be barred from office. With the extremist (and corrupt) Supreme Court majority, I wouldn't count on anything.
Perhaps you should look for "legal scholars" outside of the Progressive blue bubble. There were plenty of conservative legal scholars (look for "strict constructionist") who were not surprised at the current Supreme Court's rulings on these issues. The good news is that I've not heard anyone on either side who suggests that the 22nd Amendment is flawed.
Chris, I hear you when you say not to paint all Trump voters as inherently racist or misogynistic. However, I do feel that a lot of people traded their values for what they feel will be a better economic climate for themselves. I don’t believe it will be and their willingness to do so tells me that far too many people don’t value common decency. We can all debate policy but I was taught if you hang with those who have no common decency and sell you values so cheaply you really need to take a long look in the mirror because you’re headed for a fall.
Democrats get post-election advice that Trump routinely ignores
“It’s difficult,” The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote, “to win votes from people you’re disparaging.” Doesn’t Donald Trump help prove the opposite?
"Shortly after the major party nominating conventions wrapped up, The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote a column that generated a fair amount of conversation. In it, the longtime center-left observer offered some guidance to Democratic officials and candidates about the party’s messaging.
“It’s difficult,” Kristof wrote, “to win votes from people you’re disparaging.” The column went on to note, “Since the Obama presidency, Democrats have increasingly become the party of the educated, and the upshot has often been a whiff of condescension toward working-class voters.”
This came to mind again this week, when David Axelrod, a prominent Democratic consultant and veteran of Barack Obama’s team, offered a similar post-election assessment to The Washington Post.
“The Democratic Party has become a metropolitan, college-educated party. And even though it retains its commitment to working people, it approaches them sometimes in a spirit of a missionary — that we’re here to help you become more like us,” Axelrod said. “Implied in that is disdain. I don’t think it’s intended, but it’s felt. And I think Trump has exploited that.”
My point is not to disparage Kristof or Axelrod, the latter of whom has far more experience than I do in steering a successful national campaign.
What’s more, it’s entirely possible that these assessments have a degree of merit. As the dust settles on the 2024 election cycle, the parties begin to examine the data in earnest, and new rounds of public-opinion research get underway, perhaps the evidence will suggest that this helps explain the scope and scale of Republican victories.
But I have a couple of concerns.
First, these assessments raise tricky practical questions. Democrats are being encouraged to champion the interests of working people — or more to the point, to continue championing the interests of working people — but to do so without “a whiff of condescension” or “implied” disdain.
How does that work in the real world? How, specifically, is the party supposed to execute such a pitch? I honestly haven’t the foggiest idea. By all appearances, Democratic senators such as Ohio’s Sherrod Brown and Montana’s Jon Tester spent years proving themselves to local voters as authentic and effective guardians of working-class communities and their interests. Their constituents fired them anyway, rewarding their hard work with a pink slip.
Second, it’s worth appreciating the degree to which Donald Trump has fundamentally rejected this kind of advice — and paid no price whatsoever.
From Black voters to Latino voters, from Jewish voters to Muslim voters, from women voters to union voters, Trump hasn’t just shown “implied” disdain, he’s shown outright, overt, unsubtle and deliberate contempt. His entire political career is rooted in racism, misogyny, Islamophobia and bigotry.
And yet, the available data suggests the Republican made gains — in some cases, significant gains — with the same constituencies that he’s denigrated for years.
“It’s difficult,” Kristof wrote in late August, “to win votes from people you’re disparaging.” Doesn’t Trump help prove the opposite"
So, Just how should Democrats do this? Dems policies, bills passed, issues supported have always helped all Americans. This century Dems have brought us out of the worst financial recession in history and led us to the best recovery from the Global Pandemic to be the envy of the world, created 50 million jobs to the 1 million Republicans created; saved the Auto Industries and feeder companies, passed healthcare, record investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, CHIPS, our environment and clean energy etc. Republicans crashed the economy twice, started two unnecessary wars, passed three huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, led us to the worst response to the pandemic of any country and whose policies caused the unnecessary deaths of 300,000 Americans according to a study in The Lancet.
If delivering for the American people doesn't work, then perhaps Dems should just stop fixing Republicans messes.
"How does that work in the real world? How, specifically, is the party supposed to execute such a pitch?"
It's not easy. But it begins with listening. Bobby Kennedy famously went to Appalachia. Did any candidate do that this time? Even Trump went to Harlem. (So, for that matter, did Reagan.)
I remember when Harris became VP, thinking that it would be great if Biden sent her to all 50 states, and specifically, the reddest areas of those states. It would be an interesting learning experience for both sides.
It's more than just telling people "this is all I've done for you," though at least that involves some form of communication (something Biden completely failed at). It's having an active dialogue. And yeah, disparaging them as rednecks or racists is the worst possible thing you could do. Yet, that's a huge part of liberal Twitter. (And yes, Trump disparages everyone, but maybe he would have won by bigger margins if he didn't.)
In NYC, Bill DeBlasio made himself mayor, in part, because he went to Orthodox Jewish communities and expressed support for a unhygienic religious ritual, which is so gross I won't describe it. He probably thought it was as gross as the rest of the world, but he decided that wasn't a hill he was willing to die on. That's good politics (if terrible health policy). Then later, he completely alienated that community because he refused to let them have weddings or funerals during COVID, while allowing BLM protests.
I may have posted this before, but I thought this had a lot of good insights:
David Axelrod says it well with the missionary or condescension comment. A good interview with Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA 3) today in the New York Times. You can't win by telling people you're smarter than they are. She's a dem winning in a conservative district so she caters to a broader coalition than just the loyalists.
Honestly, with all the other “what did we do wrong” themes, I think this is the issue we need to sort the most! Excellent questions. It appears to be all about perceived elitism.
Chris, I am the author of the post about the finger pointing at Kamala Harris. I want to be clear: I did not in anyway say or suggest that she or the campaign did nothing wrong! Now you are accusing me of what you feel I have accused you of doing. I agree that in general, the Democratic messaging and branding has gone awry, but under the circumstances, with only 108 days to campaign, I think, did the best damn job she could. I apologize for attributing the March 20 “to you, and the bottom line is that Biden should have graciously stepped aside in a timely manner. To be sure, Kamala was in an extremely difficult position in terms of distancing herself from Biden, especially because not only did he choose her to be his VP, but also gave her a swift endorsement to be the nominee once he pulled out.
Chris, can we at least agree that Trump's racism, sexism, misogyny, and overall disdain for the rule of law would immediately put an end to anybody else's campaign? We all know it; which is why when he wins in spite of it all, we consider his supporters to have similar views. What's your take on why all of Trump's issues and scandals don't break through?
I appreciate your comment about the "poll-tested" answers by Harris (she's hardly the only one who does it). Joe Klein had a post about a month ago saying that one of the reason people respond to Trump is that he just says what he thinks regardless of what others think - many of those people may disagree with him but it comes across as more real (was going to use the word genuine but that doesn't really work with him).
While I agree the population may not be ready for a married gay man, I think Mayor Pete is likeable as he comes across as authentic (maybe he's totally fake but it seems real) - that allows people who disagree to still support him.
I like Mayor Pete as well, and as far as a command of the issues and skills as a politician - he is top notch.
But, he also comes across as the curve-buster kid in class who always has the right answer and just like that bothered me in class, I can see how some would find him off-puttting. I don't see it that way, but I don't have to try too hard to understand that mindset.
In a nutshell, he may be too polished or too well-versed on policy in a political climate like this.
Wait a minute. Chris’s advice “..is to try to meet people with whom we disagree on a neutral playing field. Don’t assume malicious intentions. Don’t assume they are dumb. Don’t assume anything.”
Uhhhhh. Do you really read the speeches and interviews of Trump you regularly quote???
Trump (and the vast majority of his devotees) assumes ANYONE who does not bow down to Trump’s greatness are…
But worst of all, we are all “ENEMIES FROM WITHIN” and need to be controlled by violence and the the military!!
Sorry…this…’let’s be understanding of MAGA voters’ and us non-MAGA people ‘must listen to what they are saying and feeeeeeeling’ is the one of the reasons we lost.
We already tried “they go low, we go high”. We lost.
We already tried simply stating facts (Trump attempted a coup, he’s a convicted felon, dreams of being a dictator and authoritarian)….while Trump just lies and lies and lies.
Amplified by a dedicated radical right with media, led by Fox and Newsmax but also including “X”, Joe Rogan and a plethora of very influential right wing propaganda content creators.
The fact is that a HUIGE part of Trump’s appeal is that he is mean to and will literally hurt the people they don’t like.
I do not “assume” that the vast majority of Trump voters do not respect the rule of law or any democratic principle and norms because they have TOLD US over and over and over and over again EXACTLY what they are.
Just ask any of them who really won in 2020.
Ask them if Kamala Harris, or any Democrat is a “socialist” or a “communist” or if they “hate America”....and on and on and on.
The lies from Trump are now GOP Shibboleths. Adhere to them or you are an outcast.
Chris, you are assuming that those of the a who have given up on Trump’s supporters are somehow not trying. I have met and spoke with hundreds of them, some family, many friends and others strangers. I have listened, I have exchanged ideas and have tried to carry on extended dialogues. Almost unanimously, they lecture and tell me how awful Democrats are. They are fed a steady diet of Fox and are filled with contempt for Democrats. So don’t ask us to be understanding and don’t presume to lecture us about being in a “bubble.” There are some who are, but many have done what I have done with the same results. They want domination on every front and I for one have had enough of catering to their malign fantasies.
Omg this!!!! I so feel your pain. Wtf are we supposed to do? I feel constantly demeaned and bullied! And I am supposed to be more receptive to listening to them?!? That’s all we are allowed to do!
Exactly. OWN it Trump voters. You can't say, "Well I was just voting for Trump because of grocery prices, or immigration or whatever" and be done with it. Nope. You voted for HIM, the man HIMSELF. No pretending that all his crap doesn't exist, no rationalizations. By voting for Trump you affirmatively voted for HIS lies, HIS insults, HIS cruelty, HIS vulgarity toward women, HIS fake faith, HIS criminal and civil convictions, HIS inciting an insurrection, HIS plan to pardon January 6th criminals who assaulted law enforcement officers. And on and on.
"Only 1,460 days until the next presidential election!" Really? I hope you're right. The answers to some of these questions make it sound like this was a normal election with reasonable results about standard policies and platforms, and that we should just try to understand our fellow citizens who we disagree with. When 1/2 the questions contain some form of "what are these people thinking and how can we possible find common ground" and the advice is to understand them and listen to their concerns, we may need to find better advice. How about after the shock subsides, we dust ourselves off, keep track of the broken promises and the horrific outcomes from the kept promises, and scream from the rooftops so that people realize what they voted for and how this was entirely predictable. As far as who should be the spokesperson for any of those messages, give me a governor who could actually carry his/her state. If you can't do that, you probably can't win nationally in this environment.
I really like Gretchen Whitmer, but the Dems couldn't beat Trump even once with their 2 female candidates so it would be crazy to go down that route again. This country clearly isn't ready for a Madame president.
I don't think it's a female issue. If Nikki Haley had gotten the Republican nomination, I think it would have been a blowout. The issue is that Clinton generated a visceral dislike in a large portion of the population and Harris came across as a San Francisco liberal. I'd think Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) or Laura Kelly (D-KS) could appeal to a broader audience. Whitmer might be able to as well. Going back to Clinton in 1992 - get someone far away from the coasts.
I think she's fine but I just think Governors have a big advantage over Senators. They deal with different issues, don't get tripped up by the gotcha votes and aren't identified with DC. But, what do I know?
Sadly, I must agree with you… shame on us as a country for not doing what other nations, such as India, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Mexico have done.
The one common trait in almost all of those is that they were "conservative" women leaders (Meir, Thatcher, Merkel, Merloni). Conservative varies by country so it may not be how we define it. Mexico is the exception but they're on the path to becoming a one-party state (see recent judicial changes). The message I take from that is that voters are okay with female leaders but not liberal female leaders (okay with male liberal leaders).
Chris, I find I’m feeling the same as the writer of the first question. While I agree your comments about understanding and listening to people who don’t share the same opinions about Trump, I feel that division is deep and may only further the divide. I doubt anyone will be swayed to think differently about their values.
I am grateful for your interview summaries, but let’s be real; the Trump summaries were satire that reinforced his unhinged views. I’m expecting more of the same in the future, Trump being Trump, and if you continue to post interview summaries reflecting his unfit behavior as President, doesn’t it perpetuate the divisiveness for those of us that can’t follow why someone would vote for Trump?
I’m not suggesting we hide our heads in the sand, now more than ever, but we also need encouragement to understand the new realities of a Trump administration and how we fit, help, and protect the vulnerable.
Great comment! I agree the satire approach going forward would not be productive. I think in the future it would be better if, rather than do a line by line review, Chris summarized any key takeaways from his speeches and the implications.
I agree that Gretchen Whitmer would be a good choice for a presidential candidate, but I don't think there's any chance any party nominates a woman again in our lifetimes. Who would risk it, after Clinton & Harris? (Not the only reason they lost, but you can't ignore the fact that Trump won over two women and lost to a man.) The only way I could see this happening is if somehow the top candidates in both parties were women.
The question for Dems is not who but what--what does this party stand for that can command majority support around the country? 2028 is a long way off and candidates will emerge. But in the short run, the party needs a spokesperson--someone like Sherrod Brown, who is about to have some free time on his hands and who speaks in a relatable way. Perhaps he would be a good new DNC chair to preside over the party's post-election autopsy.
I fully agree with you "If your reflex reaction is to say “I’m right and the millions (and millions) of people who voted for Trump are totally wrong,” the Democratic party isn’t going to be a majority in this country going forward."
With so many "minority voters" voting for Trump the answer simply can't be they are racists.
"Legal scholars agree that there is no wiggle room or space for interpretation in the 22nd Amendment."
Really? Prior to this year legal scholars would have agreed that a president is liable for his criminal actions and that someone who supported an insurrection could be barred from office. With the extremist (and corrupt) Supreme Court majority, I wouldn't count on anything.
Perhaps you should look for "legal scholars" outside of the Progressive blue bubble. There were plenty of conservative legal scholars (look for "strict constructionist") who were not surprised at the current Supreme Court's rulings on these issues. The good news is that I've not heard anyone on either side who suggests that the 22nd Amendment is flawed.
Really? Name three.
Google is your friend. (Avoid Lawrence Tribe. He's always wrong.)
I accept your concession that you've got nothing. And Tribe is one of the outstanding Constitutional scholars today.
This is well said Daniel.
Chris, I hear you when you say not to paint all Trump voters as inherently racist or misogynistic. However, I do feel that a lot of people traded their values for what they feel will be a better economic climate for themselves. I don’t believe it will be and their willingness to do so tells me that far too many people don’t value common decency. We can all debate policy but I was taught if you hang with those who have no common decency and sell you values so cheaply you really need to take a long look in the mirror because you’re headed for a fall.
But they still claim the moral high ground?!? How?!
Steve Benen of MSNBC wrote:
Democrats get post-election advice that Trump routinely ignores
“It’s difficult,” The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote, “to win votes from people you’re disparaging.” Doesn’t Donald Trump help prove the opposite?
"Shortly after the major party nominating conventions wrapped up, The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote a column that generated a fair amount of conversation. In it, the longtime center-left observer offered some guidance to Democratic officials and candidates about the party’s messaging.
“It’s difficult,” Kristof wrote, “to win votes from people you’re disparaging.” The column went on to note, “Since the Obama presidency, Democrats have increasingly become the party of the educated, and the upshot has often been a whiff of condescension toward working-class voters.”
This came to mind again this week, when David Axelrod, a prominent Democratic consultant and veteran of Barack Obama’s team, offered a similar post-election assessment to The Washington Post.
“The Democratic Party has become a metropolitan, college-educated party. And even though it retains its commitment to working people, it approaches them sometimes in a spirit of a missionary — that we’re here to help you become more like us,” Axelrod said. “Implied in that is disdain. I don’t think it’s intended, but it’s felt. And I think Trump has exploited that.”
My point is not to disparage Kristof or Axelrod, the latter of whom has far more experience than I do in steering a successful national campaign.
What’s more, it’s entirely possible that these assessments have a degree of merit. As the dust settles on the 2024 election cycle, the parties begin to examine the data in earnest, and new rounds of public-opinion research get underway, perhaps the evidence will suggest that this helps explain the scope and scale of Republican victories.
But I have a couple of concerns.
First, these assessments raise tricky practical questions. Democrats are being encouraged to champion the interests of working people — or more to the point, to continue championing the interests of working people — but to do so without “a whiff of condescension” or “implied” disdain.
How does that work in the real world? How, specifically, is the party supposed to execute such a pitch? I honestly haven’t the foggiest idea. By all appearances, Democratic senators such as Ohio’s Sherrod Brown and Montana’s Jon Tester spent years proving themselves to local voters as authentic and effective guardians of working-class communities and their interests. Their constituents fired them anyway, rewarding their hard work with a pink slip.
Second, it’s worth appreciating the degree to which Donald Trump has fundamentally rejected this kind of advice — and paid no price whatsoever.
From Black voters to Latino voters, from Jewish voters to Muslim voters, from women voters to union voters, Trump hasn’t just shown “implied” disdain, he’s shown outright, overt, unsubtle and deliberate contempt. His entire political career is rooted in racism, misogyny, Islamophobia and bigotry.
And yet, the available data suggests the Republican made gains — in some cases, significant gains — with the same constituencies that he’s denigrated for years.
“It’s difficult,” Kristof wrote in late August, “to win votes from people you’re disparaging.” Doesn’t Trump help prove the opposite"
So, Just how should Democrats do this? Dems policies, bills passed, issues supported have always helped all Americans. This century Dems have brought us out of the worst financial recession in history and led us to the best recovery from the Global Pandemic to be the envy of the world, created 50 million jobs to the 1 million Republicans created; saved the Auto Industries and feeder companies, passed healthcare, record investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, CHIPS, our environment and clean energy etc. Republicans crashed the economy twice, started two unnecessary wars, passed three huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, led us to the worst response to the pandemic of any country and whose policies caused the unnecessary deaths of 300,000 Americans according to a study in The Lancet.
If delivering for the American people doesn't work, then perhaps Dems should just stop fixing Republicans messes.
"How does that work in the real world? How, specifically, is the party supposed to execute such a pitch?"
It's not easy. But it begins with listening. Bobby Kennedy famously went to Appalachia. Did any candidate do that this time? Even Trump went to Harlem. (So, for that matter, did Reagan.)
I remember when Harris became VP, thinking that it would be great if Biden sent her to all 50 states, and specifically, the reddest areas of those states. It would be an interesting learning experience for both sides.
It's more than just telling people "this is all I've done for you," though at least that involves some form of communication (something Biden completely failed at). It's having an active dialogue. And yeah, disparaging them as rednecks or racists is the worst possible thing you could do. Yet, that's a huge part of liberal Twitter. (And yes, Trump disparages everyone, but maybe he would have won by bigger margins if he didn't.)
In NYC, Bill DeBlasio made himself mayor, in part, because he went to Orthodox Jewish communities and expressed support for a unhygienic religious ritual, which is so gross I won't describe it. He probably thought it was as gross as the rest of the world, but he decided that wasn't a hill he was willing to die on. That's good politics (if terrible health policy). Then later, he completely alienated that community because he refused to let them have weddings or funerals during COVID, while allowing BLM protests.
I may have posted this before, but I thought this had a lot of good insights:
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1gl545l/as_a_former_democrat_who_split_his_ticket_heres/
Interesting info and useful! Thanks for sharing. These ideas feel more to me like we are getting to the true heart of it.
David Axelrod says it well with the missionary or condescension comment. A good interview with Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA 3) today in the New York Times. You can't win by telling people you're smarter than they are. She's a dem winning in a conservative district so she caters to a broader coalition than just the loyalists.
Honestly, with all the other “what did we do wrong” themes, I think this is the issue we need to sort the most! Excellent questions. It appears to be all about perceived elitism.
Bravo, Daniel!
Chris, I am the author of the post about the finger pointing at Kamala Harris. I want to be clear: I did not in anyway say or suggest that she or the campaign did nothing wrong! Now you are accusing me of what you feel I have accused you of doing. I agree that in general, the Democratic messaging and branding has gone awry, but under the circumstances, with only 108 days to campaign, I think, did the best damn job she could. I apologize for attributing the March 20 “to you, and the bottom line is that Biden should have graciously stepped aside in a timely manner. To be sure, Kamala was in an extremely difficult position in terms of distancing herself from Biden, especially because not only did he choose her to be his VP, but also gave her a swift endorsement to be the nominee once he pulled out.
What a long year this week has been.
Chris, can we at least agree that Trump's racism, sexism, misogyny, and overall disdain for the rule of law would immediately put an end to anybody else's campaign? We all know it; which is why when he wins in spite of it all, we consider his supporters to have similar views. What's your take on why all of Trump's issues and scandals don't break through?
I appreciate your comment about the "poll-tested" answers by Harris (she's hardly the only one who does it). Joe Klein had a post about a month ago saying that one of the reason people respond to Trump is that he just says what he thinks regardless of what others think - many of those people may disagree with him but it comes across as more real (was going to use the word genuine but that doesn't really work with him).
While I agree the population may not be ready for a married gay man, I think Mayor Pete is likeable as he comes across as authentic (maybe he's totally fake but it seems real) - that allows people who disagree to still support him.
I like Mayor Pete as well, and as far as a command of the issues and skills as a politician - he is top notch.
But, he also comes across as the curve-buster kid in class who always has the right answer and just like that bothered me in class, I can see how some would find him off-puttting. I don't see it that way, but I don't have to try too hard to understand that mindset.
In a nutshell, he may be too polished or too well-versed on policy in a political climate like this.
Wait a minute. Chris’s advice “..is to try to meet people with whom we disagree on a neutral playing field. Don’t assume malicious intentions. Don’t assume they are dumb. Don’t assume anything.”
Uhhhhh. Do you really read the speeches and interviews of Trump you regularly quote???
Trump (and the vast majority of his devotees) assumes ANYONE who does not bow down to Trump’s greatness are…
Communists…Marxists….Socialists…stupid….deranged….dumb….low IQ….demented….ect…
But worst of all, we are all “ENEMIES FROM WITHIN” and need to be controlled by violence and the the military!!
Sorry…this…’let’s be understanding of MAGA voters’ and us non-MAGA people ‘must listen to what they are saying and feeeeeeeling’ is the one of the reasons we lost.
We already tried “they go low, we go high”. We lost.
We already tried simply stating facts (Trump attempted a coup, he’s a convicted felon, dreams of being a dictator and authoritarian)….while Trump just lies and lies and lies.
Amplified by a dedicated radical right with media, led by Fox and Newsmax but also including “X”, Joe Rogan and a plethora of very influential right wing propaganda content creators.
The fact is that a HUIGE part of Trump’s appeal is that he is mean to and will literally hurt the people they don’t like.
I do not “assume” that the vast majority of Trump voters do not respect the rule of law or any democratic principle and norms because they have TOLD US over and over and over and over again EXACTLY what they are.
Just ask any of them who really won in 2020.
Ask them if Kamala Harris, or any Democrat is a “socialist” or a “communist” or if they “hate America”....and on and on and on.
The lies from Trump are now GOP Shibboleths. Adhere to them or you are an outcast.
Exactly - all the thoughts that have been swirling around in my head - thanks for explaining so well.
Chris, you are assuming that those of the a who have given up on Trump’s supporters are somehow not trying. I have met and spoke with hundreds of them, some family, many friends and others strangers. I have listened, I have exchanged ideas and have tried to carry on extended dialogues. Almost unanimously, they lecture and tell me how awful Democrats are. They are fed a steady diet of Fox and are filled with contempt for Democrats. So don’t ask us to be understanding and don’t presume to lecture us about being in a “bubble.” There are some who are, but many have done what I have done with the same results. They want domination on every front and I for one have had enough of catering to their malign fantasies.
Omg this!!!! I so feel your pain. Wtf are we supposed to do? I feel constantly demeaned and bullied! And I am supposed to be more receptive to listening to them?!? That’s all we are allowed to do!
One thing you CAN SAY UNEQUIVOCALLY….every voter for him was willing to accept they were electing a felon and a rapist….
Exactly. OWN it Trump voters. You can't say, "Well I was just voting for Trump because of grocery prices, or immigration or whatever" and be done with it. Nope. You voted for HIM, the man HIMSELF. No pretending that all his crap doesn't exist, no rationalizations. By voting for Trump you affirmatively voted for HIS lies, HIS insults, HIS cruelty, HIS vulgarity toward women, HIS fake faith, HIS criminal and civil convictions, HIS inciting an insurrection, HIS plan to pardon January 6th criminals who assaulted law enforcement officers. And on and on.
"Only 1,460 days until the next presidential election!" Really? I hope you're right. The answers to some of these questions make it sound like this was a normal election with reasonable results about standard policies and platforms, and that we should just try to understand our fellow citizens who we disagree with. When 1/2 the questions contain some form of "what are these people thinking and how can we possible find common ground" and the advice is to understand them and listen to their concerns, we may need to find better advice. How about after the shock subsides, we dust ourselves off, keep track of the broken promises and the horrific outcomes from the kept promises, and scream from the rooftops so that people realize what they voted for and how this was entirely predictable. As far as who should be the spokesperson for any of those messages, give me a governor who could actually carry his/her state. If you can't do that, you probably can't win nationally in this environment.
I really like Gretchen Whitmer, but the Dems couldn't beat Trump even once with their 2 female candidates so it would be crazy to go down that route again. This country clearly isn't ready for a Madame president.
I don't think it's a female issue. If Nikki Haley had gotten the Republican nomination, I think it would have been a blowout. The issue is that Clinton generated a visceral dislike in a large portion of the population and Harris came across as a San Francisco liberal. I'd think Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) or Laura Kelly (D-KS) could appeal to a broader audience. Whitmer might be able to as well. Going back to Clinton in 1992 - get someone far away from the coasts.
What about Klobuchar? How do you think she would go over?
I have always liked how she knows what she is talking about and gives clear, detailed answers to questions.
I think she's fine but I just think Governors have a big advantage over Senators. They deal with different issues, don't get tripped up by the gotcha votes and aren't identified with DC. But, what do I know?
Thank you.
Sadly, I must agree with you… shame on us as a country for not doing what other nations, such as India, Israel, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Mexico have done.
The one common trait in almost all of those is that they were "conservative" women leaders (Meir, Thatcher, Merkel, Merloni). Conservative varies by country so it may not be how we define it. Mexico is the exception but they're on the path to becoming a one-party state (see recent judicial changes). The message I take from that is that voters are okay with female leaders but not liberal female leaders (okay with male liberal leaders).
And New Zealand.
Chris, I find I’m feeling the same as the writer of the first question. While I agree your comments about understanding and listening to people who don’t share the same opinions about Trump, I feel that division is deep and may only further the divide. I doubt anyone will be swayed to think differently about their values.
I am grateful for your interview summaries, but let’s be real; the Trump summaries were satire that reinforced his unhinged views. I’m expecting more of the same in the future, Trump being Trump, and if you continue to post interview summaries reflecting his unfit behavior as President, doesn’t it perpetuate the divisiveness for those of us that can’t follow why someone would vote for Trump?
I’m not suggesting we hide our heads in the sand, now more than ever, but we also need encouragement to understand the new realities of a Trump administration and how we fit, help, and protect the vulnerable.
Great comment! I agree the satire approach going forward would not be productive. I think in the future it would be better if, rather than do a line by line review, Chris summarized any key takeaways from his speeches and the implications.
I agree that Gretchen Whitmer would be a good choice for a presidential candidate, but I don't think there's any chance any party nominates a woman again in our lifetimes. Who would risk it, after Clinton & Harris? (Not the only reason they lost, but you can't ignore the fact that Trump won over two women and lost to a man.) The only way I could see this happening is if somehow the top candidates in both parties were women.
The question for Dems is not who but what--what does this party stand for that can command majority support around the country? 2028 is a long way off and candidates will emerge. But in the short run, the party needs a spokesperson--someone like Sherrod Brown, who is about to have some free time on his hands and who speaks in a relatable way. Perhaps he would be a good new DNC chair to preside over the party's post-election autopsy.
Sherrod Brown would be an excellent DNC chair. He knows how to speak the language of the working class and is very reputable.
I fully agree with you "If your reflex reaction is to say “I’m right and the millions (and millions) of people who voted for Trump are totally wrong,” the Democratic party isn’t going to be a majority in this country going forward."
With so many "minority voters" voting for Trump the answer simply can't be they are racists.