I agree with the parent that Americans in general seem not to mind corruption, but we can't become so jaded as to think that it's not even worth mentioning that this is a problem.
Referring to public company CEOs warmly greeting the newly elected president as "brazen cronyism" is a schtick, yes.
It annoys me a lot that I have to point things like this out, because I think Trump is a grave problem for the country, but you have to beat him at the ballot box, and the schtick obviously isn't working there.
Moving employee jurisdiction to suit the incoming administration is hardly the same as a warm greeting though, is it?
In my country we have a different word for people giving large sums of money as gifts to incoming politicians, yet we seldom impose that definition on others. US politics is different and affects the climate here too, even though that population is around 20% or less of all Facebook users.
The way to win is with a more appealing set of policy proposals.
More centralized government control, "Karen" style moralizing, DEI, gun banning, global warming, more bureaucratic (and ineffective) regulation, abortions everywhere and the entire "woke" platform apparently isn't it.
I'd suggest defocusing on those and instead return to being the party of the "working man" and a stable economy.
"Wealthy corporations want to force you to work 80 hours a week to enjoy unfair profits or they will replace you with immigrant labor" should be the vibe while never once speaking about things like systemic racism or climate change. Also "the rent is too damn high!". Definitely don't have the party fronted by people who appear airheaded or unintelligent.
You have to speak to the concerns of the voter which I think are individual freedom and economic prosperity.
Once in power you can do whatever you like of course, as is traditional in politics and Trump won't be any exception.
Unfortunately there is no party of "the working man" since the citizens united ruling opened the floodgates for legal & private bribery, and arguably before that. Bernie Sanders, whatever you think of his proposals and views generally, is the rare exception who stands against the bribery and acts as a true populist, and for that he was undermined and defeated as a presidential candidate. People know the democratic party is two-faced, and I don't see how that can ever change, with money being so essential to US politics now.
I'm fairly sure this is either untrue or unknowable. If the official "Harris campaign" spent more than the "Trump campaign" that doesn't actually mean much, considering how many other avenues exist to spend money that escape public scrutiny.
Even if you could account for all the dark money, that still leaves you with leveraging soft power - e.g. Musk using X as a de facto propaganda arm of the Republican party, which doesn't show up on any books.
I'm pretty sure it is knowable. The democrats spent far more.
Musk and X propaganda helped. Also Rogan and other podcasters, but look at how much propaganda the democrat side has/had. All the major media outlets. Reddit, etc etc. Plus the power of the federal government in censorship, courts and the like.
Look, I don't really care and don't trust anyone running for office much. I'm just pointing out what a winning platform would look like. MAGA won because they were speaking to things that more people found important. When the Democrats figure this out, they will be in the winning seat again. If they don't, then they will not win.
I'm saying that the democrats lost because they keep taking corporate/oligarch money and are at odds with the values of the people who would otherwise support them. They aren't the party that supports the little guy anymore, so they're basically without an argument aside from "not Trump". I don't think you understood my previous post, which was a critique of the democrats, which used to have "the working man"'s back.
Republicans have always been and continue to be pro-elite, pro-oligarchy, and against the economic interests anyone outside the upper class. They still have a better message than the democrats at the moment.
> More centralized government control, "Karen" style moralizing, DEI, gun banning, global warming, more bureaucratic (and ineffective) regulation, abortions everywhere and the entire "woke" platform apparently isn't it.
I totally agree with that.
> The way to win is with a more appealing set of policy proposals.
I completely disagree with that. At this point I think it's a bit laughable to think that the majority of Americans care about policy proposals. Trump's appeal, I believe, is that he gave a voice and an outlet for anger to large swaths of people who felt they had been ignored (which they largely had) and talked down to for years. The "elites" (often of both parties) had basically told people in hollowed-out communities and those with failing economic prospects that it was their fault - you just should have gotten a college education, or retrained for the new economy. The Democratic messaging made things worse by also saying "Hey, you know those social standards that were the norm up until the mid 90s? Well, if you believe those, you're a knuckle dragging bigot."
When people have simmering anger and rage, a "nice guy" approach isn't going to cut it. That's why so many people vote for Trump even when they find so many aspects of his personality distasteful.
I'm baffled why a politician hasn't taken more of the lead with the rage that has exploded since the CEO murder. Some elites on the right are trying to frame this as "The crazy Left condones murder!", while I see some elites on the left doing their usual useless finger wagging against insurance companies (see Elizabeth Warren). I just don't understand why a politician hasn't taken this torch and gone into "We're going to tear it all down" mode. I mean, of course there's Bernie, but at this point it needs a younger and more "firebrand" type of person.
I agree with the parent that Americans in general seem not to mind corruption, but we can't become so jaded as to think that it's not even worth mentioning that this is a problem.