I was frustrated earlier this week, watching UK coverage of the election, as US guests continually referred to an ex-PM of ours as "the Prime Minister". Whatever conventions the US has about ex-presidents, they do NOT apply to ex-PMs!
Gaslighting the population isn't a road to victory. People have eyes and see reality just fine on their own.
Dial down identity politics. Most people are put off by it, especially when taken to the extreme as has-been the past few years.
It's ok to disagree and/or hate policies of the opposition - but it's not ok to label opposition every *ist word you can think of. This pushes people away.
Stop trying to be "Kingmakers". Harris was anointed by the party's elite class and everyone was told to get in line. People don't respond to that well either.
Lastly - run an actually decent candidate FFS. Literally zero people wanted Harris as the candidate - but Democrats had no other choice but to vote for her in the election. This caused Democrats to suppress their own electorate. Coupled with rhetoric such as "we're saving democracy" etc (see gaslighting above), and the results speak for themselves.
#3 has never seemed to harm the conservative parties at the polls. Mudslinging is an American tradition
As for #2, I don’t think democratic candidates are flirting with identity politics nearly as much as the loud voices of the left are or the loud voices of the right claim they are
I think your final statement touches on another larger issue within the Democratic Party - it's been pulled much closer to the extreme-left than most of it's constituents are actually comfortable with. This pull is because of these extremely loud voices - amplified by nearly all of the media. Democrats of a decade ago have found themselves nearly party-less.
That they should just say some brainless things, which people would like to hear, over and over again until they believe it. That they will magically "fix it" Preferrably at a slow monotonous tone. And that they should throw in between some racism, climate change and fraud downplaying. Fear enhancing is also a very good thing to take away from last events.
I would say that this informal tradition has an implicit "emeritus" attached to it. That is, you're recognizing them as retired presidents who have passed on the torch. Donald Trump has done neither, and he is being recognized in these contexted not as president emeritus, but as soon-to-be-president. So naturally people would find this way of referring to him somewhat odd.
So... is nobody going to bring up the long-standing interpersonal relationship between Trump and Cook? Did we think something changed all of the sudden in this election?
Crazy how people actually expect Apple to be as liberal as their marketing suggests. But then again, people also believe Apple is as secure and green and repair-friendly as their ads suggest.
Isn't it typical to refer to former presidents by the term President X, even once they leave office?
I thought so too, and as much as I appreciate Gruber (and I very much do) I think he is off base on this complaint.
I was frustrated earlier this week, watching UK coverage of the election, as US guests continually referred to an ex-PM of ours as "the Prime Minister". Whatever conventions the US has about ex-presidents, they do NOT apply to ex-PMs!
I'm afraid the Democratic party will learn absolutely nothing from this resounding defeat at the ballot box. Nothing at all...
Resounding defeat? They lost by 2% in a year when every incumbent in a Western democracy has lost, and lost by a lot more than 2%.
By that measure the Democrats did surprisingly well.
Yes, but they lost by 2% to Hitler.
In an ideal world, what would you have them learn?
Gaslighting the population isn't a road to victory. People have eyes and see reality just fine on their own.
Dial down identity politics. Most people are put off by it, especially when taken to the extreme as has-been the past few years.
It's ok to disagree and/or hate policies of the opposition - but it's not ok to label opposition every *ist word you can think of. This pushes people away.
Stop trying to be "Kingmakers". Harris was anointed by the party's elite class and everyone was told to get in line. People don't respond to that well either.
Lastly - run an actually decent candidate FFS. Literally zero people wanted Harris as the candidate - but Democrats had no other choice but to vote for her in the election. This caused Democrats to suppress their own electorate. Coupled with rhetoric such as "we're saving democracy" etc (see gaslighting above), and the results speak for themselves.
#3 has never seemed to harm the conservative parties at the polls. Mudslinging is an American tradition
As for #2, I don’t think democratic candidates are flirting with identity politics nearly as much as the loud voices of the left are or the loud voices of the right claim they are
I think your final statement touches on another larger issue within the Democratic Party - it's been pulled much closer to the extreme-left than most of it's constituents are actually comfortable with. This pull is because of these extremely loud voices - amplified by nearly all of the media. Democrats of a decade ago have found themselves nearly party-less.
That they should just say some brainless things, which people would like to hear, over and over again until they believe it. That they will magically "fix it" Preferrably at a slow monotonous tone. And that they should throw in between some racism, climate change and fraud downplaying. Fear enhancing is also a very good thing to take away from last events.
The more likely outcome is that they will learn the wrong things...
> I wonder whether the latter four knowingly made the error of addressing former president and president-elect Trump as “President Trump”.
While he's correct here in a strict sense, in practice, it's common to address former presidents in that manner
https://emilypost.com/advice/addressing-a-former-president-o...
See the part about informal settings
I would say that this informal tradition has an implicit "emeritus" attached to it. That is, you're recognizing them as retired presidents who have passed on the torch. Donald Trump has done neither, and he is being recognized in these contexted not as president emeritus, but as soon-to-be-president. So naturally people would find this way of referring to him somewhat odd.
So... is nobody going to bring up the long-standing interpersonal relationship between Trump and Cook? Did we think something changed all of the sudden in this election?
Crazy how people actually expect Apple to be as liberal as their marketing suggests. But then again, people also believe Apple is as secure and green and repair-friendly as their ads suggest.
Long standing relationship? Trump didn’t even know his name and referred to him as Tim Apple.