Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
>The Democratic campaign was A+ in execution.

Objectively untrue; Harris lost.

>You can't force people to understand economics

You're correct. So you have to reformat the message. The Dems failed to do this. I can tell you have never been a teacher: teachers are forever having to change their messaging because different people understand in different ways.

This teaching thing is a terrible comparison. As a teacher you have a captive audience with a (somewhat) agreed upon goal: the student(s) are going to learn something.

This is absolutely not the model for candidate<->electorate relationships in any way. If anything, the elector(ate) wants the candidate to simply tell them things that confirm what they think they already know.

Are you serious? The entire nation was fully captivated this election cycle.
Captivated is not captive, and even if it is etymologically adjacent, most of the electorate did not expect to have to learn about stuff like econometrics ...
Then I meant captivated AND captive. Why are you being pedantic?
How was anybody captive? I didn't see a single campaign ad or watch a single rally, except for a couple of brief excerpts that I chose to.

You're missing the critical point: it's not about captive, it's just that this helps with the critical point, which is an expectation of learning taking place, rather than worldviews/prejudices confirmed.

I see, I missed that nuance in your point.
> Objectively untrue; Harris lost.

I would fault the Democratic party platform itself, not the campaign. It's valid to say the campaign was executed well and that the failure was due to disagreement with the Democrat party line.

Trump has a policy platform they agree with more -- that's something that is not easily overcome by how the campaigns are run.

E.g. "secure the border". Trump fought to build a wall during his first term. To voters who want a more secure border, that speaks louder than anything either candidate can say (or not say) during their campaigns about what they will or won't do.

> Objectively untrue; Harris lost.

Yeah, sometimes if you play by the rules you lose.

> So you have to reformat the message.

They did, and it didnt matter.

The argument here is essentially: 1) IF the dems communicated correctly, they would have won 2) They did, and it didnt matter. 3) If they had communicated correctly they would have won.

Correct communication here is a place holder for winning.

Consider the many things the Dems did pull off, including Biden dropping out, and the massive massive outreach and funding they used to get the message out.

Consider that Trump is definitionally reprehensible, as just a human being, forget the standards America used to have as a presidential candidate. Seriously - tell me you think that Trump <the person> is actually what you want in a Republican candidate. Every single time, Trump supporters have to resort to some variant of "he didn't really mean that", to defend him.

There is FAR more incorrect in Dem electioneering than just communication. I think the fundamentals of how elections are held have changed. You dont really need policy any more.

Because you guys twist everything the guy says
This is nonsense.

From the memorable “grab them by the pussy”, to fabricating stuff about the draft recently.

“ She’s already talking about bringing back the draft. She wants to bring back the draft, and draft your child, and put them in a war that should never have happened.”

The only twisting here is when people try to ignore what he is saying and pretend he meant something benign.

loading story #42069561