US Election results

[IwantToRetire]

Kamala Harris 27
45.2% popular vote
12,768,875 votes

Donald Trump 99
53.8% popular vote
15,275,564 votes

270 to win

U.S. election results 2024 | CBC News

6/11/2024 @ 01:25 GMT

It is surely not so much about being "short sighted" as thoroughly sick of identity politics and the politics of grievance. It seriously pisses off people everywhere.

America's first ever Chief of Staff is a Republican woman. I don't think the Republicans have an issue with women in power - in principle

The U.S elctorate will have been very much aware of these two Democrat staff members and their shenanigans......and, of course Riley Gaines conducted a high profile campaign. I do think these issues have been very much in the U.S public consciousness, even if not the primary motivation when it came to voting. People have been dismissing these types of issue in the UK too , and still are to a great extent......but going forward they cannot simply be dismissed as 'culture war sideshow'...as if culture is totally irrelevant.

People have been dismissing these types of issue in the UK too , and still are to a great extent......

No they haven't. "people" have been pushing and pushing on these issues in the UK. Across the field. We had the Cass review and politicians like West Streeting walking back their earlier support. There are still issues but it's definitely in the public and political conversation and thats because lots of different people put the work in. Just sitting back and seething quietly then voting for a person with a raft of terrible policies because they will fix it is short sighted I'm sorry if that's offensive.

And Trump is all about the politics of grievance. He is just much much better at it than the Democratic party.

If there's any examples @YourAmplePlumPoster that would be really interesting.

I guess it's like in the UK with some of the more ardent stuff labour had for Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm talking about the general public. Many still dismiss the issue as a irrelevent side show - hopefully they will gradually start to wake up to the fact it isn't.

I don't need you to explain any of the above to me ( Cass etc), I've been actively involved in 'the resistance' for years. I'm not a " sitter backer". Never have been.

Even the Democrats are still trying to pretend that cultural isues such as Identity Politics and Genderism had nothing to do with their loss. And I'm certainly not sure, at all, that many in Labour party are aware of how unpopular it is. We still see MPs such as DawnButler, Kim Johnson, Nadia Whittome, Michael Cashman, Zara Sultana and many, many more still fully wedded to this sort of politics.

And those who have always been committed Left activists are mostly still talking about anyone who opposes these constructs as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. In fact they are digging even more, now that the U.S election went the way it did. It is very toxic.

You only have to look below the line on comment sections in the national media to see many still dismissing it as "a tiny issue that only effects 1% of the population" - even though, of course, it is gratifying that more are now waking up.But the progressive establishment is fully captured and it is going to take a lot of work and a long time yet to turn it around.

The guardian have 2 articles today by kenan malik and John Harris who are 2 of their better columnists imho who are both saying similar things along the lines of 1. The ‘lefts’ traditional voters feel abandoned and worse patronised/insulted by the parties that are meant to be on their side 2. Performative behaviour around equalities by what is described as “symbolic capitalists” – “professionals who traffic in symbols and rhetoric, images and narratives, data and analysis, ideas and abstraction”. In other words, writers and academics, artists and lawyers, museum curators and tech professionals. it a social stratum that attempts to entrench itself within the elite, elbowing out others already there, by using the language of social justice to gain status and accrue “cultural capital. Theirs is a struggle within the elite presented as a struggle against the elite on behalf of the poor and the dispossessed” is playing incredibly bad with voters 3. They have no idea how to appeal to the different voter bases they need too so stick with what they know

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/10/cosplaying-social-justice-is-the-new-elitist-way-of-elbowing-out-the-working-class

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/10/donald-trump-the-left-social-media-rightwing-propaganda-progressives-woke

From the second link.... (my bold)

Because the cutting edge of left politics is often associated with institutions of higher education, ideas that are meant to be about inclusivity can easily turn into the opposite. The result is an agenda often expressed with a judgmental arrogance, and based around behavioural codes – to do with microaggressions, or the correct use of pronouns – that are very hard for people outside highly educated circles to navigate.

He got sooooooooo close to getting it. But then I nearly spat my tea out with laughter at the patronising, (ironically) judgementally arrogant enforcement of language in that last sentence.

FFS.

What is a "correct" pronoun and why is someone outside of a highly educated circle unlikely to know how to use one?! Even 3 year olds can do this. Obviously some might occasionally get confused if they see a man with long hair or a lady with short hair but they soon get the hang of the fact that not everyone follows sex-based stereotypes in how they present themselves.

There's a world of difference between a sex-based pronoun and a preferred pronoun, when the latter differs from the former. However, the person who gets to decide which is "correct" is the person who is speaking, notwithstanding the odd time that a 3 year old needs an occasional helping hand if they get in a muddle (which wouldn't happen that often anyway.... a deep voice is a bit of a giveaway for starters).

exactly @BonfireLady even someone like Harris who with his Outside Westminster columns and videos tends to get most things, still doesn’t see how that paragraph encompasses why the left are losing so much ground. The correct pronoun for a man is he, not the same as a preferred pronoun

Kenan Malik's article is very good, and I think the book he mentions sounds extremely interesting. Malik is one of the few commentators who has genuinely insightful things to say about race, gender and class.

I agree about that patronising line from Harris. The whole point of things like the "correct" use of pronouns is to include one group of people and exclude others. And it's not so much about finding them hard to navigate as refusing to play by the rules of a very silly game.

Bonkers isn't it?

Although at the risk of getting my head shot off by someone on this board, I would argue that the "correct" pronoun to use might well be an opposite-sex one depending on the context it's being used in at the time.

On a thread recently, I shared about a debate I had with a friend about gender identity. It was a deliberately staged "debate", where he wanted to explore my thoughts about why I felt there were no circumstances under which a male should be able to identify in to female spaces. He loves a good debate so I agreed it was a great way to do it - it was a good opportunity to sharpen up my state-educated debating skills, knowing that I'd only ever had one lesson on this and he'd had access to all sorts of debating stuff in his independent school.

His view was that TW who have had "the op" should be allowed to access women's spaces. During our conversation, I had been totally avoiding pronouns in any of the examples I was giving (and I had been ignoring my friend's use of "she") when I accidentally let a "he" slip out.... while describing an incarnated person, who likes to use loud hailers, who I felt was a good example of a threatening post-op TW. My friend stopped me and said "she". To which I replied "fine, I'll use 'she' if you prefer". So I did. Lots. With lots of emphasis each time 🙃 So on that occasion, IMO the "correct" pronoun to use was an opposite sex pronoun (and also IMO it was "correct" that I didn't challenge any of the pronouns that my friend used).... because it kept the conversation flowing and kept our arguments focused on the point at hand.

That's why IMO the only "correct" pronouns are the ones that the speaker/writer chooses to use. Pronouns are either sex/science based or gender/belief based. In a similar way that atheists and Christians will never agree on whether god exists or not, neither is correct.... but to anyone who doesn't believe that we all have a gender identity, the latter is bollocks. Likewise re the existence of god to atheists.

However, in the context of that article, "correct" is being served up by the journalist with lashings of arrogance and pomposity, like he's somehow on a higher plane. What a twit.

Edited for clarity.

I just need to vent. I have so many friends on FB who are wringing their hands, so upset, so full of doom for terrible Trump is going to be for women.

But, there is no reflection of how the Dems brought this on themselves. The election was theirs to lose, and lose it they did. Starting from keeping Biden on the ticket for so long and then crowning Harris, of course. But after that, the messaging was so piss poor, and especially the gender woo. So blind, these friends of mine! I wish I could respond to their posts with a dose of reality, but it seems bad to kick them while they are down. But I so wish they could just open their eyes now...

kicking people when they are down is absolutely the best time to do that. What gets me is all these nutters on X wailing about trump dont spend any time at all wondering why? If trump is that dreadful then how come Harris lost? Answer-half of the USA are nazis. yeah, right.

What gets me is all these nutters on X wailing about trump dont spend any time at all wondering why? If trump is that dreadful then how come Harris lost? Answer-half of the USA are nazis. yeah, right.

That has made me laugh because there is a thread on the main boards blaming the loss entirely on Elon Musk and X and how no-one who doesn't support Trump is allowed on X and yet there they all are wailing about his win.

The finger will be pointed anywhere but at the Democratic Party for their loss and that is to their detriment, unless they honestly and objectively look at why they lost they will just keep on repeating the same mistakes.

I think this article offers an interesting insight
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604/

"The result is an agenda often expressed with a judgmental arrogance, and based around behavioural codes – to do with microaggressions, or the correct use of pronouns – that are very hard for people outside highly educated circles to navigate"

John Harris himself being patronising here. Pronouns are not " hard to navigate" They are simply bullshit - no matter your level of education.

In fact, it is the younger, college educated metropolitan elites that are having to work very hard in order to navigate them 'correctly'.

The self delusion is on a monumental scale. I'm also seeing so many reposts on x calling into question the results. 2020 on repeat just this time it's the other side. The irony is lost on the Dems however.

I've always thought John Harris a bit of a dick, tbh.

It was an interesting read, thanks for posting.

My problem with Helen Lewis is that she thinks TWAW so she has limited criticisms to offer of gender identity ideology and she believes a compromise position is possible where both women and men who say they’re women should be considered women by society and law.

Lewis can see that gender identity ideology is a negative issue for a lot of voters but, like the article written by the journalist in The Guardian (posted above) she seems to believe that the public need to be brought along/educated on this issue.

As far as I can tell the use of preferred pronouns is entirely a dick swinging contest and way of asserting dominance.

Only those in charge / in the sacred caste get to compel others to use special words about them. Note that the victims of transgender criminals like Isla Bryson never get asked THEIR pronouns, they're just assumed. They also don't get asked what pronouns they'd like to use to describe their attackers, either.

I bet none of the academics so up their own backsides about gender ideology know the pronouns of their office cleaners or ask if they bump into them. Preferred pronouns are a way of metaphorically punching down and indicating who is more important than others (the service humans).

Yes, shame about Helen Lewis. When she had a column in the NS, I used to look forward to reading it, as she always seemed to have an interesting and humane take on topics both serious and lightweight. For me, what people like Lewis cannot begin to accept is the sheer malignity of the gender movement.

Musa Al-Gharbi, mentioned in that Kenan Malik article, was interviewed a few weeks back on Blocked and Reported

https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/episode-230-why-liberal-elites-have

IIJM? I bloody hate podcasts! I want to read, not listen! even if it's fairly long.

I think its worth remembering that viewing through the prism of our own priorities isn't always the best analysis.

On a very small level the number of young people voting Democrat reduced, whilst the older age group increased.

On the basis of comments on FWR implying all about young people have been captured and older people knowing the reality of biological sex, then you would think the numbers would be reversed. ie lots of young people supporting GI politics and older voters alienated.

The biggest change in voting (apart from the 11 million democrats who couldn't be bothered to vote), was the Latino/Hispanic men, some of whom are now saying they dont care about the racist characterisation of them being drug dealing rapists, what they want is a low state free enterprise system. (Some commentators who may or may not be right, say that recent migrants to the US fear the experience of "communist" regimes in their country of origin far more than load mouth bigoted racist statements by publicity hungry entertainers.)

I think apart from the smug we are so left we are always right attitude of some Democrats, the big problem was that the party system failed.

I heard one quite senior democrat saying that basically they thought Biden would stay and get elected and then either become too ill or even die so that they Harris could just step into the post of President.

In taking this gamble, and not bothering with primaries (is that the right term?), some existing Democrats felt taken for granted, snubbed or whatever, by the establishment.

So 11 million chosing not to vote Democrat maybe as much about that. Presumably even if they had doubts that a Black Woman could get elected they would turn out to vote to try and make it happen. But they chose not to vote. Chose to risk Trump getting in.

Why?