Eh. I am not blaming the Cheney thing but saying that there was an overall global anti incumbent trend doesn't mean that politics and campaigning didn't matter. There is a lot of oscillation around that trend line
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
what if we reframed the 2024 election as Trump underperforming in an environment heavily weighted against incumbents?
the Harris campaign mattered and had impact (she performed better in swing states where the campaign spent time and money) but it wasn't enough to offset the overall trend
This idea that has been spread that she ran an effective campaign because she did better than the national mean in some states is extremely wrong. First, the national mean was heavily dragged by huge swings in big states (TX, NJ, NY, CA). She did about as well in the swing states as the median 1/2
national state. Second, the idea that the campaign was just the in person visits and 30 second ads run in the swing states is just not accurate. The campaign is the entire national narrative and media environment which is much more impactful even in the swing states than some in person speech 2/
to a veteran's group or somesuch. There were and are still crippling fundamental problems with how Democrats operate in the current media and environment and their inability to drive the kinds of conflict necessary to break through and shape people's views and it continues to be a problem now. 3/3
I don't put as much stock in global trends as you do so I don't need to explain. But probably the case that someone without Trump's personal baggage would have done better.
Every state except Colorado moved from '20 to '24. This shift was mitigated the most in states where Harris actively campaigned, was on TV, and went to a lot. Maybe you think there was some magic formula to keep the global and national shift from happening, but I'm skeptical.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? "There's a lot of oscillation" she is on the edge of the best cases for incumbent parties. Nobody's saying campaigning didn't matter, they're saying that objectively, given the trend, she arguably did one of the best if not the best jobs of all of them.
"actively campaigning" whatever that is is just a small percentage of how campaigns shape viewers' attitudes and views. And per thread below, the idea she overperformed is really an exaggeration. https://bsky.app/profile/fyodor.bsky.social/post/3lrv7rghvuk2h
I don't think that this played a role per se though I think that it distracted momentum and attention from more aggressive types of attacks that might have broken through. I just strongly object to the view that there was some inexorable trend that absolves Democrats from any decision-making.
I don't think that she would have won by endorsing my policy simply because she and the party writ large were extremely incompetent in driving the information environment and creating conflict and attention on beneficial issues. Endorsing my policies probably would have meant putting something on 1/
her website that no one saw or putting out some kind of policy paper that no one read and then whining privately to the media on background that they're not getting credit for their positions. 2/2
Much more public conflict. Aggressive and constant attacks on Trump in highly strident and insulting terms. Endless commercials calling him a sex criminal, pedophile, traitor, etc. I would have run ads with him bragging about going into teenagers locker rooms and wanting to f*ck his daughter. Much1/
Comments
the Harris campaign mattered and had impact (she performed better in swing states where the campaign spent time and money) but it wasn't enough to offset the overall trend
I will guarantee that a substantial percentage of them have no idea who she is.
When people critique Harris' campaign, they usually focus on minutiae and/or say "Harris would have won if she only endorsed my policy."