I don't think this framing is very helpful. Whatever you believe about the people who pulled the lever for Trump, which included an unprecedented number of Latino and Black voters, they exist, and they're not persuaded by your disapproval. I think a really big problem we have on my side of the aisle is the belief that there's a celestial referee who will call offsides on the Republicans if we can just find the right argument at the right amplitude.

What led into our current circumstances was several years of uncontrolled, chaotic immigration, caused in large part by specific articulable decisions Biden's administration made. People felt like the situation had gotten out of control, and they weren't wrong. Every day I'd commute into my office and pass multiple corners and Ike off-ramps(!) staffed by a woman and several of her tiny children, out in the cold, trying to sell bottles of water.

My reaction to that wasn't "deport them". I'm a liberal Democrat. But we're kidding ourselves if we think a natural reaction to that situation was "this is fine".

The election was fully determined by inflation. Biden made a reasonable (though incorrect) bet that full employment was more important than price stability. It was not: people fucking hate inflation. By a large factor inflation was the most important issue in the 2024 election. But the second-most important issue was immigration (like it has been throughout Europe over the past 10 years) and then after that the issues sharply trail off in importance.

▲

mmooss 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The conservative message machine is determinative, and they would find something to effectively raise a storm about: immigration, inflation, etc. If Biden cut inflation, they would have demonized him regarding employment. Or just make something up - they can say anything at this point, and the Dems and others have made themselves helpless. They will always find something - Biden and Dems were being called pedophiles in 2000, the election was stolen, etc.

Remember that the GOP stopped immigration reform in Congress for many years, including killing the agreed-upon bipartisan immigration reform bill at Trump's behest during the election. If your theory is correct, that would have disqualified the GOP among those voters.

▲

inemesitaffia 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>bipartisan immigration reform

The bill that wasn't required for deportation?

▲

cloverich 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think that's true. It was easy to call in Trumps first loss, i remember telling my dad: Economy goes bad, he'll be right back. Immigration may have mattered enough, and likewise Bidens cognitive decline. Lastly people didn't like Kamala in the primary, and they dont like candidates forced on them. That was many things stacked against a dem victory, and it was still close.

The dems main ongoing weakness as an extreme generalization, is choosing marginal hills to die on, and using hyperbole for everything.

	▲	ryandrake 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The dems' huge screwup was abandoning the working and middle classes, instead choosing to be "The Other Party For Billionaires, But With Different Identity Politics".

▲

jonway a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could you please qualify both: the several years of chaotic annd uncontrolled immigration as well as Biden betting on employment vs inflation with the policies that you are referencing?

For example, while I’m aware that the Biden admin ended title 42, it had only been policy for a few years, ending this policy simply removes us to the Obama era. Although I certainly don’t intend to strawman what you are saying, Obama immigration certainly wasn’t chaotic and uncontrolled. These statements don’t comport with my reading of the facts, as well as inflation, since I understand this to be a global phenomenon. I am genuinely interested

▲

keeda 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The election was fully determined by inflation. Biden made a reasonable (though incorrect) bet that full employment was more important than price stability.

There is credible theory (shared by a very balanced labor economist I follow) that the immigration crisis helped tame the inflation crisis, besides boosting the economy enough for a soft landing:

https://fortune.com/2024/04/12/immigration-inflation-economy...

Also some studies for and against this theory:

- https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2025/01/10/Imm... (Finds inflation lowered.)

- https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2025/0708 (No effect on inflation, but yes on GPD growth.)

Now, I'm not saying this was always Biden's plan, but the economics are not as straightforward as "employments vs inflation."

▲

tptacek 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, so, I'm not making a normative claim about the right about of immigration. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call myself an "open borders" person, but I'm very pro-immigration. Pro-immigration in the sense of believing we benefit from the mix of new Americans we get over our southern border, not in the weird doublespeak sense of appreciating skilled immigration from Europe.

But from 2021-2023, we experienced a destabilizing sudden amount of immigration. We'd had immigrant-friendly policy during Obama, but I don't recall many dozens of Venezuelan refugees on the doorstep of our Village Hall. Obviously, that happened in large part because southern governors bussed people (often without their informed consent) to northern states. But so what? All that says is that we were experiencing something the southern states had been experiencing all along.

My big point here is just: it's not enough to say how strongly you feel about immigration in 2021-2024. Enough people hated it that it motivated a materially important bloc of voters. I disagree with those voters. But I also disagree with people upset about inflation, and I feel like we generally understand that those of us on my side of the employment/inflation question were just, you know, wrong. In an electoral sense.

▲

jonway 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was looking at yearly immigration numbers and there is variation in the reporting, which is to be expected, but from what I can see, the census bureau sees a fairly stable number of immigrants (undocumented and otherwise) year over year from 2010-2025, and many sources agree, although CATO intstitute indicates a rather large increase (around %40) in this time period.

Can you please share some information as to why you feel the 21-3 numbers to be destabilizing?

The reason for increasing Venezuelan immigration is most likely the TPS act from 2019 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_TPS_Act_of_2019 )

I am an internet person, but I am aware of your general career and hold some personal respect for you which is why I am asking you fairly directly for your information. Correcting my knowledge is truly my goal and to be very blunt, I am sensitive to the issues of immigration (all types). Personally, my main concern with my country's treatment of this issue lies in the preservation of due process for these people who are seeking to become my countrymen. It doesn't surprise me that they might desire freedom and self-determination, which is something that I readily empathize with. It is important to me to treat people fairly and with dignity in civil society and especially regarding our government, and this includes citizens who are troubled by it. As such I am very interested in realizing an accurate portrayal.

▲

keeda 4 hours ago | parent [-]

My take (from the sibling comment): the actual immigration problem was not as bad as the perception of it. And possibly that perception was deliberately cultivated across the masses.

	▲	tptacek an hour ago \| parent [-]
		For several northern metros, the actual immigration problem was distinctively worse than anything that occurred under Obama. If we can't talk about it without lapsing into cope, we don't have much of a chance to persuade the people voting against the perception you're talking about.

▲

keeda 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That makes sense, and I agree with your assessments about the voting population's priorities. But maybe the inflation / immigration aspects were much more intertwined than we realized.

Maybe (being very generous to him) Biden didn't do a tradeoff between inflation vs employment... maybe the gamble was that increased immigration would boost the economy enough that citizens were not as bothered by the immigrants.

In other words, the very valid "its' the economy stupid" theory would imply that if people can comfortable provide for themselves and their families, they'd be less bothered by what they saw as competition for jobs.

Unfortunately time was not on their side, and inflation did not drop fast enough.

But there might be another angle. An interesting aspect of the economic sentiment and inflation hysteria preceding the election was that data showed that the majority of Americans thought they themselves were doing well, but other Americans were suffering. So the statistical reality was much better than the statistical perception.

This is one reason that led to the term "vibecession" -- data belied the sentiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibecession

Many have credibly attributed this phenomenon to all the algorithm-driven ragebait content on social media, and certain news media channels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibecession#Media_influence_an...)

But maybe we still underestimate the size of that effect: it exploited a critical flaw in an otherwise successful economic strategy -- its reliance on "the outsiders." During the time things were improving but still painful, the perception of these outsiders could be exploited to distract from the improvements happening and foment a backlash.

Note it could very well have just happened by accident, but if not... that shows the power of mass perception. The events happening with media platforms leading up to the election may have been (and still are) much more consequential than we realize.