I know my response above seems very bitter, but I honestly don't know what else there is to say.
I was in DC and working in Congress during his first term. Yeah, the economy was good but cost of living was still high and it was still hard for people to get ahead.
At the same time, there was a lot of unrest over ACA repeal, gun violence, and the family separation policies -- and all that was before COVID, which he owned because he was president for that entire, crappy year.
Not sure what others are remembering, but his first term was not some golden age.
The country in my opinion has never recovered from the Global Financial Crisis, and the almost decade-long ZIRP that followed had lasting negative effects that were never recognized by most (if railing on inequality is anyone's thing they should be fully anti-ZIRP). You can't explain the Trump era in my opinion without that underlying post-GFC economic generational angst. If there was such an exit poll I imagine Trump supporters were more anti-2008 bank bailouts and Harris supporters were more pro. It's an incredibly obvious elites versus normal people thing and which party have become more about the elites?
I think that's one of the places where the Biden admin dropped the ball the most - they just didn't message well on what they actually accomplished, and I think made the administration feel almost useless to many Americans.
Paul Begala in the past year was on Hacks on Tap podcast with Mike Murphy and David Axelrod and was relaying a story where he talked to Texas Governor Ann Richards after she lost re-election in 1994 to George W. Bush. Begala was asking what lessons could President Clinton use in the 1996 campaign from the severe defeat 1994 elections. Richards's response was "the American people don't give a damn about your accomplishments". That was 30 years ago.
I do want to highlight Silver's response to the interview because I consider it completely fair. Wbrocks67 as usual is telling a position that is as he or she considers it best for the Democratic Party and/or employers instead of being honest with the message board due to political hackdom. (Also like to point out was defending keeping Biden very very late in the game which as Silver points out is part of the problem with these people all being enablers of Biden up until mid-July, which is on them.)
But there is something incredibly wrong with something stated by Plouffe and the whole "we were always behind" in the Cliffs Notes version of the interview:
- They did see a bump around the debate, but "there was no point at all where data told us anything but that this was an extremely close race
Take this information and "we were always behind", now go back and read every polling thread Wbrocks67 and DonOLDest Nominee Ever commented in.
- Plouffe says when they got in, Trump was at around 48% and Biden was in high 30s to low 40s and thats where Harris started - "the movement was Democrats and Dem-leaning independents, they were the easier for us to move. The toughter stuff to move is true undecideds or lean-Trump voters, which we weren't able to do enough of it"
So for simplicity let's say when Biden withdrew the numbers were Trump 48, Biden 40. That means about 10 Undecided.
Plouffe is saying when Harris started, her numbers were 40-48. That changing the presidential candidate - pretty big f#cking deal - did not change their internal polling numbers, no candidate switches, no Democrat-leaning undecideds unhappy with Biden came to her? If the numbers were 42-47 for example after Harris started, then 40-48 was not her starting point. If she did start at 40-48, why was Harris viewed no better than Biden even in his diminished state with the electorate?
I forget if this was Nate Silver or someone else that mentioned this but it was a spot-on observation of in sports sabermetrics they have this statistical basis value for what's called Replacement Player. The Replacement Player is supposed to represent Average of grab random average player in that position and this is what they'll give you. It's an easy concept to apply to politics. So if Biden in July this year represented negative value and that's why Democrats had to drop him to not risk downballot, Harris's poll standing at the beginning was equal to him is what Plouffe is arguing? I don't really buy that.
Whatever, it's all Cover Your Ass. Getting a job in the future is the most important thing.
