트럼프의 선거 승리: 민주당 전략의 변화

### 놀라운 승리: 트럼프의 선거 성공과 민주당의 도전 과제
* 🗳 최종 선거인단 집계 결과 **도널드 트럼프 대통령이 312표**를 얻어 **카말라 해리스 후보의 226표**에 비해 크게 승리한 것으로 나타났습니다.
* 📉 이전 선거와 달리 트럼프는 **2016년 304명의 선거인단**을 확보한 반면, 바이든은 **2020년 306명**을 확보해 유권자 표심의 변화를 보여주었습니다.
* 💔 민주당은 유권자들과의 관계를 잃은 것으로 보이며, 많은 사람들이 **당이 의미 있는 토론에 참여하기보다는 비판적인 라벨을 사용하는 것**에 소외감을 느꼈습니다.
* 💼 트럼프는 **경제적 번영, 안전한 이웃, 실용적인 교육에 대한 기본적인 욕구**를 중심으로 유권자들의 공감을 얻으며 정상으로 돌아가고자 하는 유권자들의 공감을 얻었습니다.
* 🌍 캘리포니아와 뉴욕과 같은 전통적으로 민주당의 텃밭에서 치러진 선거 결과, **2020년 29포인트였던 캘리포니아의 선두가 올해는 극히 일부로 줄어드는 등 격차가 좁혀지는 양상**을 보였습니다.
* 🧠 이번 선거 결과는 유권자들 사이에서 **'깨어있는 시민'에 대한 거부와 능력주의에 대한 요구**가 힘을 얻으면서 민주당의 원칙을 재평가해야 할 필요성이 있음을 시사합니다.
* 🔍 민주당의 미래는 이러한 선거 현실에 성찰적으로 적응할 수 있느냐에 달려 있으며, 당내 일각에서는 **중도적 가치로의 회귀**를 제안하는 목소리도 있습니다.
* 🤔 궁극적으로 현 지도부가 유권자들과 단절된 상태로 유지된다면 **공화당은 당분간 선거에서 지속적인 우위**를 점할 수 있을 것입니다.

민주당의 패배는 성찰과 상식적인 원칙으로의 복귀가 필요하다는 신호입니다.

the final tally, it looks like, is going to be 312 Electoral College votes for President Donald Trump versus Kamala Harris's 226. Just for context, in 2016, Trump won with 304 electoral votes, and Biden won in 2020 with 306. So, it's a pretty sweeping victory. He won all the supposed swing states this year fairly resoundingly. There's no real super close calls; there's some close calls, but a pretty resounding victory. What happened? Wow, it's a really good question. I think that there's many layers to the answer, but I think in its most basic calculation, I think that the bottom fell out of the Democratic Party. If you look at why, there's a simple explanation and then there's the more nuanced explanation. I think the simple explanation is like they just lost the script. I think that there were so many people that just got really tired of being spoken at and labeled misogynist, racist, fascist, transphobe, whatever it was, and there was just this litany of these judgmental

labels that would come out instead of engaging on the topics at hand. So, I think the Democratic Party played this game of trying to use identities, genders, races as a bid to basically get people that they thought should always vote in their direction to continue to support them. And instead, what happened was people just started to think for themselves and say, Hold on a second. I'm just a normal person that wants to be left alone. What matters to me? And I think what Donald Trump spoke to was a desire for folks to have economic prosperity, a safe neighborhood, a predictable educational curriculum where these kids could go to school, not be indoctrinated, and come out the other side and just know some useful skills so that they could get a good job and do better than they did. And all these basic truths ended up on the ballot, and so it was a bunch of perception versus just a bunch of hard realities. And I think Trump stayed focused and ultimately made sure that people understood that that's what he was.

focused on, and I think the Democrats just went to this place of demagoguery and labels, and I think it was just a resounding defeat. And David, I just want you to like just to put a pin in on how resounding it is in California and New York, which I would say are the two most prolific bastions of elitist liberal thinking. Democrats won those states in some of the narrowest margins they've ever seen. I think in 2020 they won California by 29 points. It was barely half is what they won by this year. In New York, it shrunk to a 12-point margin. So, what is this telling you? It's telling you that the Democrats really need to retool and get back to first principles. It was a cataclysmic dismissal of wokeism, of cancel culture, of judgmentalism. It was a ringing endorsement of a meritocracy, of just plain simple common sense, of talking with people and to people, being able to tolerate disagreements, remaining friends, all of those things were on the

ballot, and it was just an absolute resounding victory for just normal. That's what I think we saw. We saw a return to normal. Is this the nature of democracy, that over time, when you have a two-party system, and one party veers too far to the left, or one party veers too far to the right, people jump ship to the other party, and ultimately, they pull the policies of the party that they left back to the middle? And that's the way democracy is supposed to work and has worked historically. So, is this the way it's supposed to go? And do we project that four years from now, the Democrats will need to be and need to adjust to the center, and we'll see less of this extremism because of the way the voting turned out this election cycle? I think that's a very interesting question, is whether the Democrats have the necessary introspection to learn from this loss. I would say that one of them does. If you look at Mat Glacius, who's someone I've sparred with on Twitter X, who is a

Democrat partisan. He basically tweeted a list of principles that he thought the Democratic Party needed to adopt. I read it and retweeted. I said, laughing my ass off, this is a list of Republican principles. It was all about, you know, opposing woke and being in favor of merit and innovation tolerance. I'm like, Look, you know what? If the Democratic Party wants to adopt these principles, that's a wonderful thing for the country. I hope that they do it, okay? But will they do it? I have my doubts. You look at this tweet by Ari Fer where he talks about who the Democratic Party now is. Yeah, I think that this is a really important tweet because it sort of tells you, Sak, who's going to be left in the room. Exact, if these are the only people left in the room, the last thing they're going to do is admit defeat, right? Exactly. So what you see is that the Democratic Party base is these very affluent, very overeducated, very non-religious types, and frankly, I wonder whether they're too

out of touch to know they're out of touch. They're certainly very whiny and entitled, and I just don't think they're going to cede control of the party without a fight. And frankly, they've disappeared so far up their own woke asses that I don't think they can find an electoral majority if they try. So if these people stay in control of the party, and these are the people who you're seeing having a mental breakdown on TikTok, they're posting all the videos, they're insulting the electorate. And let's face it, it's not just on TikTok, it's on the Legacy Media, it's on MSDNC. It's basically the Legacy Media who are trying to diagnose a psychosis in the American electorate to explain why they were so wrong. If those people stay in control, I think that the Republicans could have an electoral majority as far as the eye can see.

Here's What COST Democrats the Election

Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

Follow the besties: 
https://twitter.com/chamath
https://twitter.com/Jason
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks
https://twitter.com/friedberg

Follow the pod: 
https://twitter.com/theallinpod
https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod
https://www.tiktok.com/@all_in_tok
https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod

Subscribe to our clips channel for the best of the besties:
https://www.youtube.com/@allinpod?sub_confirmation=1


All-In Podcast

도널드 트럼프가 312명의 선거인단을 확보할 것으로 예상되는 반면, 카말라 해리스는 226명으로 트럼프의 압승이 확실시되고 있습니다.

민주당이 유권자들과 소통하기 위해 고군분투하고 비판적인 라벨을 사용한 것이 몰락의 원인으로 작용했을 수 있습니다.

경제적 번영, 안전한 이웃, 예측 가능한 교육 시스템에 대한 트럼프의 초점은 유권자들의 공감을 불러일으켰고, 결국 그의 성공으로 이어졌습니다.

민주당의 근소한 승리와 변화의 요구

민주당은 캘리포니아와 뉴욕에서 근소한 승리를 거두며 쇄신과 기본 원칙으로의 회귀가 필요하다는 신호를 보냈습니다.

이번 선거 결과는 깨어 있음주의와 취소 문화에 대한 거부와 상식과 능력주의에 대한 지지로 받아들여졌습니다.

이 토론은 민주당이 선거 결과에 따라 정책을 중도 쪽으로 조정할 것인지에 대한 의문을 제기합니다.

한 민주당원이 민주당이 채택해야 한다고 생각하는 원칙 목록을 트위터에 올렸는데, 저자는 이 원칙이 공화당의 가치와 일치한다는 사실을 발견했습니다.

작성자는 민주당이 실제로 이러한 원칙을 채택할 것인지에 대해 의구심을 표했습니다.

이 트윗은 민주당의 부유층, 고학력층, 비종교층을 강조하며 민주당이 패배를 인정할 의지가 있는지에 대한 의문을 제기했습니다.

당내 특정 그룹은 징징대고 자격이 있는 것으로 인식되어 싸움 없이 통제권을 넘겨줄 가능성이 낮습니다.

이들이 '깨어 있는' 이슈에 집중하는 것은 선거인단 과반수를 확보하는 데 걸림돌로 작용합니다.

소셜 미디어와 레거시 미디어에서 이 그룹의 존재는 유권자를 이해하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있으며, 이는 잠재적으로 공화당에 장기적인 이점을 제공할 수 있습니다.