Post-match: So what is next for the Democratic Party? (Post 2024)

Juan Williams breaks down the exit poll data with comparisons between 2020 and 2024.

First the data from CNN exit polls:
White men:

2020 - Orange idiot +23
2024 - Orange idiot +23​

White women:

2020 - Orange idiot +11
2024 - Orange idiot +8​

Black men:

2020 - Biden +60
2024 - Harris +56​

Black women:

2020 - Biden +81
2024 - Harris +84​

Latino men:

2020 - Biden +23
2024 - Orange idiot +12​

Latina women:

2020 - Biden +39
2024 - Harris +22​

Based on the data*, the big swing happened with Latinos, with movement among black men and women cancelling each other out. Williams suggests the Latino male shift (he doesn't really discuss the Latina shift) had nothing to do with wages or inflation, but rather with misogyny, transphobia, love of a strongman and the "caudillo" archetype:

*Williams also references 2016 data, but the numbers he uses for Latino men are considerably off from the 2016 CNN exit poll data - the latter would invalidate the point he was making.

 

This isn't a footnote. This is a lede because it absolutely invalidates his argument This is what he says:

We should have seen it coming. Looking back, in 2016, most Hispanic men voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton when she lost to Trump.​

These are the 2016 Latino men numbers:

Clinton: 63%
Trump: 32%
Other: 5%

If this was simply about machismo and strongman appeals, we would have seen that in 2016. We didn't.

So, his analysis is reductionist. Kind'a racist. And not supported by the numbers. Yes, there is something going on to shift these votes. But the why is not as simple as he wants to suggest it is.

In any event, this column does nothing to dissuade my view that The Hill is a trashy publication.

 

Hold up. You told me you were Jewish, like, Wednesday. I've never had a clue about your religion before then, and it's not something that plays a role here. Ok, I'm a Baptist. Our respective colors matter more than faith or the culture around it.

You choose to believe that there are people out there who can be convinced to vote who didn't vote Tuesday. You believe that there are conservatives out there whose votes can be gained. I am trying to tell you that the first is a long shot and the second is nil without Dems themselves becoming more conservative.

The circumstances (really, our lack of agreement on what the circumstances are) give implications to your suggestions, Knave. You don't have to mean what I infer for my inference to be correct.

So I'll ask again. Whose specific safety net gets yanked out from beneath them to attract the people who dgaf enough about anyone else's needs to vote reliably Dem in the first place? You don't see the point in my asking that question, because you don't share my impression of the people you think the Dems can woo.

If you think someone who gives Rogan or Stern or any of those shock/hate jocks the time of day is gettable, hell, knock yourself out.

 

This isn't a belief. This is an obvious fact.

I have never said this. You are just trying to put words in my mouth. Again: these are strawmen of YOUR invention, not my views.

I'm not going to be held responsible for -- or impugned by -- strawmen of your invention.

Again: these are strawmen of YOUR invention, not my views.

You have a vivid imagination about my views.

Hallelujah! He's seen the light.

 

What is next for Charlie Brown and the football?

 

Listening to the same consultants and infrastructure that got us here, most likely. How come I can never kick that ball?!?!?

 

Do you really want to know? Look, I heard everywhere that "Democrats should not insult Republican voters by calling them nasty names, etc". However, the morality of a society going down the drain is a thing which, historically, can absolutely happen.
And when did the guilty party ever acknowledged its own moral failure? NEVER.
Now, no sane person would argue for the benefits of slavery. However, 185 years ago....

And several millions Americans agreed with this strongly enough to break the country apart and wage a war to the death over it.

 

Anecdotal evidence (always the best evidence IMO )...Colombian niece down south who's now dating a Wyte guy went for Trump. And annoyed the rest of her family with pro-Trump Whatsapp posts. I'm gonna introduce her to the leopards eating my face thread at some point. But for now I'll let her bask in the glow of her new-found Whiteness.

 

The main reason I posted it was for the 2020 v 2024 comparison. Those highlight there wasn't some general shift in the population, it was specific to one main demographic (technically, two demographics, with the other one being "other races"), not something general, if you will.

 

Anecdotally, it seems like the cultural message (too much wokeness, the trans issue in women's sports etc.) had some significant impact on Latino voters. At least, the ones I know.

I buy the argument that Democratic failure in this election can't be tied to any one thing. It was death by a thousand cuts.

 

I agree on the trans aspect: it was a leading message in his ads and rallies - and that type of fear + prejudice works.

I don't really agree on the thousand cuts aspect. I think the prejudice + Russian propaganda (including Elon in that) + cost of living explains it (with some misogyny thrown in).

 

As I find out more, I have to say that "be less woke" probably was not the main issue and maybe not even an issue at all. It was more about having a coherent message on jobs and the economy. The biggest drop off has been in young, male, low-earning voters regardless of race.

 

If it is about young low-earning males, then look to Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, JD Vance and the "men are inherently superior" bros. Young males tend to think with their other head, not the one on their shoulder.

 

What was Kamala's message for young males? Also, why did the Democrats alienate Joe Rogan? It seems that the Democrats have completely conceded the young male vote. All they had was a strange Dave Bautista ad criticizing Trump's manliness. That's not nearly enough. They then focused on the women's vote and did not make any real gains with them.

Young men need a message that makes sense to them and this was yet another constituency that was left to drift by the Dems along with blue-collar workers.

 

No argument there. Young males typically don't vote and they put their focus more on getting the female vote out. It didn't work. That said, I've not seen data on whether or not young male turnout was higher than usual, how they voted, etc.

Did they actively alienate Joe Rogan, or did Joe Rogan embrace the conspiracy-driven right-wing because he is from a demographic that is susceptible to disinformation, etc. I'm not saying this is the case as I pay no attention to him other than what I have read on Wikipedia (that he is a college drop-out). I don't know what his appeal is, I just know he is a horrendous source of information.

Free PlayStation for everyone?

 

All demographics "typically" vote to one degree or another. If you want to win elections, you really shouldn't concede any demographic -- even the most seemingly hostile (because their votes count just as much).

To me, what's lost in this discussion about young men is that the goal for the Dems need not be to win them overwhelmingly or even to win them at all. The goal might be to win 5% more of them. Had Harris made more of those incremental gains with certain demographic groups in this election, she could have won. Could she have improved her performance by 5% with young men with a better strategy and message? I don't so no.

Yes, they did. An example of the backlash in 2020: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-rogan-endorsement/index.html

Thing is, from a campaign voter outreach perspective, it doesn't matter what Joe Rogan (or whatever media personality) thinks. What matters if a candidate can effectively reach persuadable voters by talking to that media personality. So, even if somebody is a jackass, if that jackass can open doors and connect candidates to strategically important voters, then the candidate should talk to the jackass.

 

From what I recall, she was willing to talk to him on his program, but he had to go to her, not her to him. Would it have been worthwhile to sacrifice a day of campaigning for a few hours on a (probably) hostile program? Given she lost, we can say it would have been, but that's 20/20 hindsight and no way to know for sure.

 

You answered your own question. But that's all beside the point. She should have been on there (and elsewhere) earlier. Again, the point is that you can't forfeit whole demographics the way she did. Just do 5% better with a few key voter groups, and you win.

 

That would be easier to say if you have a full election campaign to go with, but if you are limited in the amount of days you have, that becomes more difficult.

I'm not arguing against you that all demographics should be considered, I'm just saying that given the circumstances of Joe Biden's campaign, every day he waited was that much more of an obstacle for Kamala.

edit: Unlike Republicans, Democrats have the problem of having a coalition with competing interests (Palestine/Israel, for one example). Based on the link you provided, having someone (Joe Rogan) who is very homophobic, misogynistic, etc. involved, could have actually harmed Kamala more than it could have helped her.

 

Thing is, that's a huge political problem for the Democrats. Goes back to what I said at the beginning of this thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/s...cratic-party-post-2024.2133204/#post-42630266