Nice analysis. I agree with your assessment, as well as those of many others, that a main reason the Dems lost was that they have lost the trust of working families. The pitch to “build the middle class” rang hollow to many families who are now living paycheck-to-paycheck. The massive redistribution of wealth upward in the last several decades (as documented most famously by Piketty as well as others) took place as much under Democratic regimes (including two terms of both Clinton and Obama) as Republican ones (Reagan, Bush I & II).
Another factor that you don’t seem to mention is the role of the media, both new and old. Musk and X (and his $250 million donation) was this election’s October surprise, and given the small margin Musk’s influence may alone have been decisive. If not, Fox Propaganda and Sinclair’s dominance of local TV were sufficient. It’s not clear why Democrats have been so blind to the Fox/Sinclair threat — as well as the destruction of local newspapers. Certainly simply tuning into MSNBC isn’t at all sufficient or even helpful.
BobPowers here. I don’t disagree with your assessment. However, my take is:
Both sides “screwed the pooch”
While most of the working population over the last 60 years went to work every day paying our taxes raising our children and voting our conscience woke up one day in this convoluted mess. Trusting we were doing our duty as loyal Americans.
I have no idea what has happened. I have no idea how to even begin to patch things up. I only know that I am 80 years old now leaving all my children and grandchildren in a mess which I believe they will have no clue on solving.
I agree that the appearance of a democratic party more engaged with wokeness than mainstream issues was at least as important as the price spike. On the other hand, macro policies were important and the history is complicated. Those of us who chastised the administration's fiscal largesse and the fed's monetary policy in the runup to the inflation surge (as I did in my Barron's pieces) pointed out that demand expansion in the face of supply constraints would incite inflation. We were, I think, as concerned about the political as the economic implications. But I have now come to think that the recent strong US performance--despite CRE losses and duration problems in regional banks--may be due to the lagged effect of expansionary policies on household savings and liquidity. So, perhaps, our criticism may come to be seen as unwarranted.
Nice analysis. I agree with your assessment, as well as those of many others, that a main reason the Dems lost was that they have lost the trust of working families. The pitch to “build the middle class” rang hollow to many families who are now living paycheck-to-paycheck. The massive redistribution of wealth upward in the last several decades (as documented most famously by Piketty as well as others) took place as much under Democratic regimes (including two terms of both Clinton and Obama) as Republican ones (Reagan, Bush I & II).
Another factor that you don’t seem to mention is the role of the media, both new and old. Musk and X (and his $250 million donation) was this election’s October surprise, and given the small margin Musk’s influence may alone have been decisive. If not, Fox Propaganda and Sinclair’s dominance of local TV were sufficient. It’s not clear why Democrats have been so blind to the Fox/Sinclair threat — as well as the destruction of local newspapers. Certainly simply tuning into MSNBC isn’t at all sufficient or even helpful.
Thanks for writing here — and now following!
Thanks Eric, honored you're following, now following you back. More to come in 2025
Robert
BobPowers here. I don’t disagree with your assessment. However, my take is:
Both sides “screwed the pooch”
While most of the working population over the last 60 years went to work every day paying our taxes raising our children and voting our conscience woke up one day in this convoluted mess. Trusting we were doing our duty as loyal Americans.
I have no idea what has happened. I have no idea how to even begin to patch things up. I only know that I am 80 years old now leaving all my children and grandchildren in a mess which I believe they will have no clue on solving.
I agree that the appearance of a democratic party more engaged with wokeness than mainstream issues was at least as important as the price spike. On the other hand, macro policies were important and the history is complicated. Those of us who chastised the administration's fiscal largesse and the fed's monetary policy in the runup to the inflation surge (as I did in my Barron's pieces) pointed out that demand expansion in the face of supply constraints would incite inflation. We were, I think, as concerned about the political as the economic implications. But I have now come to think that the recent strong US performance--despite CRE losses and duration problems in regional banks--may be due to the lagged effect of expansionary policies on household savings and liquidity. So, perhaps, our criticism may come to be seen as unwarranted.