Hacker News Reader

Comment by rawgabbit | Hacker News Reader

Trump won because those in control of the Democratic Party underestimated the anger and economic desperation of the working class.

They can’t afford rent or groceries. Medical and dental care are a distant dream. If the Democrats only messaging is DEI, inclusivity and girl/woman power… they view the Democrats as out of touch. It is the equivalent of Let Them Eat Cake or brioche.

And I do believe in DEI, inclusivity and women’s rights. But if the working class are struggling, it is tragically comic not to address their primary concerns first.

View on HN

I agree, it was very annoying hearing how great the economy was doing when inflation and just the general cost of living rose significantly starting with covid and when anyone tried to have a talk about that a lot of people would just parrot how great the economy was doing and everyone they knew was doing fine. thats great for you but that doesnt mean what your experiencing is what a lot of other people are.

> If the Democrats only messaging is DEI, inclusivity and girl/woman power

If you didn't pay any attention to the last campaign, just say so. It was not the Democrats who spent a billion dollars running a campaign on identity politics. This attempted retconning something that millions of people were forced to sit through is embarrassing, and you should absolutely feel bad.

The Democrats refusing to admit the economy was terrible for working people was enough. Of course it will be worse now.

> The Democrats refusing to admit the economy was terrible for working people was enough.

That's a fine topic for a real conversation, but it was 100% not what the person I replied to was talking about.

> Of course it will be worse now.

Yes. So the Democrat's message of "The economy is improving" is a bad lie even though it was true, and "I'll make the economy the best ever" is a good lie even though it's false?

> "The economy is improving" is a bad lie even though it was true

It doesn't matter if it is true, when it isn't really benefitting your average person in any meaningful way

> "I'll make the economy the best ever" is a good lie even though it's false?

You have to understand that the lie Trump is telling isn't "I'll make the economy better", it is "I am going to make it so you, a person, has more money and can afford things you want to buy"

Average People don't care about "the economy" they care about their bank accounts and their ability to buy and own things they want to buy

Trump makes empty promises that he will make people's actual lives better in ways that matter to them

The Democrats make empty promises that they will make "society" better, whatever that means.

> The Democrats make empty promises that they will make "society" better, whatever that means.

Don't we, in fact, live in a society? I'm pretty sure someone told me that once.

We sure do!

But I don't really believe that many of the problems in society can be improved by the government from the top down

Some can, like access to healthcare and regulations and such

But most problems in society today imo are caused by trying to offload social responsibility to the government and corporations rather than people living in their communities

> Yes. So the Democrat's message of "The economy is improving" is a bad lie even though it was true, and "I'll make the economy the best ever" is a good lie even though it's false?

Yes, unfortunately, because an incumbent has to run against the state of the world during the election cycle, and their opponent gets to run against it. And yes, Trump created the terrible economy that Biden inherited. But it doesn't matter. Kamala and her campaign should've realized that early and switched course.

Trump won, because he and project 2025 represent what conservative Christians want and because republican party want it. And people forever blaming anyone else are just enablers. This has nothing to do with what democrats do or signal. That is utterly irrelevant.

Republicans are the ones bringing up gender, trans issues etc into discussion again and again. Not democrats.

> They can’t afford rent or groceries. Medical and dental care are a distant dream.

No, because vote for Trump and republicans is vote for higher prices, more expensive healthcare and tax cuts for rich. Every single time. This is not about how economy is doing in reality. It is not about what democrats signal. Republicans will lie, fox news will like and media will both side it.

> And I do believe in DEI, inclusivity and women’s rights. But if the working class are struggling, it is tragically comic not to address their primary concerns first.

Women are working class and struggling. And working class economical concerns are not addressed by republicans at all ... and democrats were not running on dei.

> Trump won, because he and project 2025 represent what conservative Christians want and because republican party want it. And people forever blaming anyone else are just enablers. This has nothing to do with what democrats do or signal. That is utterly irrelevant

That explains why people voted for Trump. That doesn't explain why people didn't vote for Harris.

> This is not about how economy is doing in reality. It is not about what democrats signal.

1. Republican voters either want to destroy the working class, or are detached from reality and believe the lies from Fox News.

2. Maybe it's not about what the Democrats signal. But let's pause for a second: what did the Democrats signal? What was the big message that the Harris campaign really wanted people to know?

> And working class economical concerns are not addressed by republicans at all ...

What do you mean? Trump said grocery prices would drop on day 1! He said he would end the Ukraine war on day 1! And the war in Gaza too! He said he would bring jobs back to America!

The Republicans absolutely addressed the economic concerns of the working class. Of course, it was all a lie, but it doesn't matter if your voters just believe anything you say.

> That explains why people voted for Trump. That doesn't explain why people didn't vote for Harris.

Harris does not provide what project 2025 calls for. She would not own the libs either.

> what did the Democrats signal? What was the big message that the Harris campaign really wanted people to know?

They run on "we will govern responsibly" and "we can make economy good". They were not talking about DEI, women in general nor about minorities as OP suggests.

> The Republicans absolutely addressed the economic concerns of the working class.

And all those concerns stopped mattering the day after - both to the voters and to the party too. Previous republicans governments, including Trumps one did not made economy great, did not made healthcare cheaper, none of that. These are pretend concerns. Something republican votes can pretend they care about when democrats are in power. Something that does not matter when republicans are in power. Something they will call "bad" during democrat governments regardless of how things really are and something they never blame republican government for.

You can add debt to it too. Deficit matters only when democrats are in power. It does not matter when republicans are in power.

It is and never was about any of that. It is primary about identity and secondary about cultural war. Economy and everything else is far far behind these.

---------------

Pretending this is about economy, pretending that trying to make these voters life better would get you vote is how democrats are loosing. Even when they succeed, those voters punish them, because it was never ever about that.

> Harris does not provide what project 2025 calls for. She would not own the libs either.

So we should vote for Harris because she isn't Trump? What's wrong with Trump though? We already had him for 4 years, and the country didn't explode. Trump also has nothing to do with Project 2025, he said so himself.

> They run on "we will govern responsibly" and "we can make economy good".

Right, but how will the Dems "make the economy good"? Look at California, people are fleeing in droves, crime rate is through the roof, Dems are just as corrupt as everyone else! Trump is right, we need to be tough on crime and deport the people destroying our country.

> Previous republicans governments, including Trumps one did not made economy great, did not made healthcare cheaper, none of that.

Again, it's not like the Democrats really did all that great either. I never really saw them push for universal healthcare. Student loan forgiveness was cool, but just a way to saddle the country with more debt without solving the real problem (and Trump rolled it back anyways).

---------------

Ok, I don't actually believe these things anymore. But the problem is: I did believe some of these things before the election. I apologize for my stupidity, though at least I can say I was not directly responsible since while I live in the US, I don't have voting rights.

> Right, but how will the Dems "make the economy good"? Look at California

The fourth largest economy in the world—is that what you want us to look at and then ask how the Democrats will make the economy good? Gee, I wonder where they'd find an answer for that stumper.

True, but I wrote it off as the work of the tech bros, and I didn't see how that could be replicated in other states (e.g. New York's economy didn't grow at the same rate).

It's not the politicians' jobs to start the companies, it's their job to create an environment that companies can start and thrive in. I don't think you could argue that it didn't happen in California.

Yup, agreed. My earlier reply was my previous uninformed opinion and I no longer hold that opinion strongly. Though I also don't hold any other strong opinions on current California governance as I haven't been paying close attention and I've previously been fooled by some of the media messaging about high crime rates.

Another issue that I've been trying to understand are the delays and budget overruns in the high-speed rail project. Some people argue it was NIMBYs but isn't governance responsible for making sure NIMBYs don't become a major problem? My current understanding is that it was partially due to valid safety & environmental concerns, and partially the project looked simple but turned out to involve very complicated/hard engineering work. It's just very difficult to sell people on this argument... Glad to hear any insights, or links/books.

But you can ask if it happened because of California's political environment, or despite it. Could a version of California with high speed rail, more public transportation, ample housing, less corrupt politicians, no homeless problem, an encouraging business environment be more or less prosperous than the California we have today?

> But you can ask if it happened because of California's political environment, or despite it.

You can ask that, and it's a good question, but it's a much harder case to make in a political ad. "Sure, the Californian economy is enormous, but it would have been bigger if someone else was in charge!" isn't an easy case to make.

You're right, that doesn't fit into a convenient soundbyte, but I will mention that San Francisco's current mayor was elected partially on the back of a tough on homeless(ness) stance.

> partially on the back of a tough on homeless(ness) stance

And that’s a much easier message than using California to say Democrats are bad for the economy.

california is 2 rich guys , it could have been 3. People voted for trump, because he is incompetent enough to bring the machine that is openly working against them to an end. They do not want a life support for the monster that eats them.

Trump is literally making the project 2025 happen. It was no secret before election and it was no secret he is going to do it. Amd people saying so were very literally correct and right.

Second, no. Republicans are massively more corrupt. Trump himself went from a guy who had debts to a rich guy due to his first term corruption. The goverment and its positions are quite literally openly on sale right now.

Trump and republicans are not tough on crime, they are heavily involved in crime. They are also ok woth cops breaking the law which makes crimes worst. And makes cops into criminals. Oh, and they are against law enforcement in taxes and such.

Democrats actually did much better then republican on healthcare while repuocans systematically opposed it. Every single time.

I don't know where you mean to go with California, listens fox too much?

The reason I didn't believe Project 2025 would happen was because Trump was much more moderate during his first term. I foolishly ignored all the signs that Trump was actually an unhinged madman and that the country only survived because his administration reigned him in.

So yes, I know the Republicans are massively more corrupt. But the Dems contributed to normalizing corruption in government. When you point at obvious corruption in the Republican party, and then they respond by pointing out obvious corruption in the Democratic party, and then you resort to saying stuff like: "sure we have corruption, just less of it and you have more of it", you have lost.

You mention police corruption: what happened to "defund the police"? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-wen...

Universal healthcare: if it was such a partisan issue, then the problem would be easy to fix, no? Dems pass universal healthcare in blue states. Republicans see how good it is and get jealous. So why isn't it happening?

> I don't know where you mean to go with California, listens fox too much?

Prop 47 was dragged through the mud on basically every major new outlet (although TBF, nearly every major new outlet is right-leaning). Same for the homeowner's insurance market.

Yes, this is what I mean by not taking responsibility for their beliefs. They can't just admit they like Trump because of doing things like illegal impoundment or trying to get Harvard to install conservative commissars. It's always about the Democrats forcing them to vote for fascists. I doubt the people saying this on Hacker News and political boards are ever working class, either.

You’ve got a severe case of TDS. I voted for Trump. I did it in 2016 and 2020 and 2024. And you don’t know anything about me.

You like to cry “fascism! Fascism!” while you turn a blind eye to ‘Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard’, to the deterioration of the economy, and to the social cohesion of the US at large. To be so blinded by your rage that you can’t look past Trump’s demeanor and actually look at his performance tells me you’re out of touch. If the egg prices aren’t concerning you, then you are in no place to talk about what is motivating commonfolk who voted for trump. By the way, this all started because elites like Hillary openly showed contempt for working class folk with her “basket of diplorables” statements. I voted for Trump because he represents my interests. Maybe if the left didn’t hate me for being a cis white male, I wouldn’t be so inclined to vote for him out of spite. But make no mistake, you’re not in the party of love and acceptance just because you voted for the other guy. You very much have a lot of hate in your heart. And if you feel like punching my face right now, just know that you are everything you claim to hate so much.

> By the way, this all started because elites like Hillary openly showed contempt for working class folk with her “basket of diplorables” statements.

What Clinton actually said:

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/10/493427601/hillary-clintons-ba...

> "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

> "But the other basket, the other basket, and I know because I see friends from all over America here. I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas, as well as you know New York and California. But that other basket of people who are people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

Why, isn't that exactly the opposite meaning of how you summarized it? She literally said that these disappointed working class people who support Trump are not deplorable!

Quote from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables

After the election, Diane Hessan, who had been hired by the Clinton campaign to track undecided voters, wrote in The Boston Globe that "all hell broke loose" after the "basket of deplorables" comment, which prompted what she saw as the largest shift of undecided voters towards Trump.[40] Political scientist Charles Murray said, in a post-election interview with Sam Harris, that because the comment helped get Donald Trump elected, it had "changed the history of the world, and he [Haidt] may very well be right. That one comment by itself may have swung enough votes, it certainly was emblematic of the disdain with which the New Upper Class looks at mainstream Americans".

> those in control of the Democratic Party underestimated the anger and economic desperation of the working class.

They don't care. Why would they?

The worse Republicans act, the more Democrat leaders are happy to present themselves as the only 'sane' alternative.

That 'sanity' now includes arming genocide, campaigning with Dick Cheney, removing being 'anti-torture' from their platforms, etc. Very little media holds them to account on any of this.

The people who fund (read: own) the Democrats and the media are a higher priority to politicians than their actual voter base. That has been made abundantly clear to anyone paying attention: just look at Gaza, healthcare, environmental protection, fracking, or any number of issues where the majority of Americans want progress while <5% of Dem politicians actually fight for them.

Again, Gaza made this wildly clear: Even though 77% of Dem voters wanted an arms embargo, and >30% of 2020 Biden voters in swing states were loudly saying that arming genocide was probably a red line as far as getting their vote, Harris decided that bombing children was more important than winning the election. And the rest of the party leadership supported this, again, against the will of the vast majority of their voters.

I do not see Republicans slowing down what is going on in Gaza ... instead it is becoming more violent and unrestricted. Like common ... if democrats said anything against israel politics, they would be called anti-semitic, would be hit by easy campaign and would lose more votes.

There are actual big differences in terms of how those two parties behaves. Saying anything else is just lie.

Supposed economic desperation vote rejected economy that was doing good. They do not want better cheaper healthcare nor functioning economy. They want republican program, they just hoped it will be only other people who will be harmed.

Between Trump and Harris, Trump was obviously a much worse choice for Gaza. Anyone equivocating the distinction between them doesn't care about Gaza at all and is functioning entirely within the realm of performative activism.

https://www.columnblog.com/p/if-harris-opposes-trumps-horrif...

> ### If Harris Opposes Trump’s Horrific Gaza Policies, She Should Say So

> Her defenders insist she would have been “better on Gaza.” This is very possible. But why doesn’t she explain how in her own words?

I'm still waiting.

There is nothing 'performative' about refusing to vote for a candidate who promises to arm a genocidal regime currently doing a live-streamed holocaust. That's just your basic bare-minimum moral and legal duty as a human.

The fact that such an assertion is a tolerated talking point in US society is absolutely damning.

Israel was going to be armed either way, this is decades long u.s. policy and nobody was going to change that.

The choice was between a liberal candidate that's at least nominally interested in good outcomes for Gaza and a candidate that's openly hostile to Gaza, the same candidate that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and enacted a total ban on Muslim immigrants in the u.s.

Now, Trump is openly proposing ethnic cleansing so he can build hotels in Gaza. People who equivocate on lesser-of-two-evils are those who simply don't care about real outcomes.

But Trump promised that too.

What about voting for a candidate that says America should let Israel "finish the job" while campaigning?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com