Gaetz coulda resigned without a nomination, but I guess this preserves, I don't know, something? It's not like he has character or a reputation worth having.
A real “two fingers to the DOJ” appointment as Attorney General.
Just noting that in an American context, since this is about an American election and American politics, that would be a real “middle finger” at DOJ, or “giving the bird” to DOJ. To an average American, two fingers means “peace,” or maybe “victory.” (Or simply “two.”) Two fingers carry no rude, obscene or confrontational meaning at all here.
Whoops! Never knew that. Middle finger is what I meant. Apologies.
The scope for misunderstanding demonstrated again. With the palm facing outwards, the two finger salute in the UK means victory. But with the palm facing inwards, it’s an insult. And that’s what I meant.
A real “two fingers to the DOJ” appointment as Attorney General.
Just noting that in an American context, since this is about an American election and American politics, that would be a real “middle finger” at DOJ, or “giving the bird” to DOJ. To an average American, two fingers means “peace,” or maybe “victory.” (Or simply “two.”) Two fingers carry no rude, obscene or confrontational meaning at all here.
Although the peace and victory signs are with your palm facing the person you are giving it too, whereas giving someone two fingers, just like giving someone the finger, is with your palm facing back towards you.
A real “two fingers to the DOJ” appointment as Attorney General.
Just noting that in an American context, since this is about an American election and American politics, that would be a real “middle finger” at DOJ, or “giving the bird” to DOJ. To an average American, two fingers means “peace,” or maybe “victory.” (Or simply “two.”) Two fingers carry no rude, obscene or confrontational meaning at all here.
Although the peace and victory signs are with your palm facing the person you are giving it too, whereas giving someone two fingers, just like giving someone the finger, is with your palm facing back towards you.
Yes. But in my part of the US, and so far as my experience goes in the US generally, the palm-toward-you version is meaningless, or just means “two.” Only those Americans familiar with its meaning elsewhere would interpret it as an insult.
A real “two fingers to the DOJ” appointment as Attorney General.
Just noting that in an American context, since this is about an American election and American politics, that would be a real “middle finger” at DOJ, or “giving the bird” to DOJ. To an average American, two fingers means “peace,” or maybe “victory.” (Or simply “two.”) Two fingers carry no rude, obscene or confrontational meaning at all here.
Although the peace and victory signs are with your palm facing the person you are giving it too, whereas giving someone two fingers, just like giving someone the finger, is with your palm facing back towards you.
Yes. But in my part of the US, and so far as my experience goes in the US generally, the palm-toward-you version is meaningless, or just means “two.” Only those Americans familiar with its meaning elsewhere would interpret it as an insult.
For obvious reasons this thread is running out of steam. Yet the late votes may change the character of the result, though not the result itself. With about a couple of million votes still to count, and the vast majority of those in Democratic strongholds, two features are emerging. Firstly, Trump will not get over 50% of the popular vote. Currently he's on 50.0% and that is certain to reduce to below 50%. And secondly Harris is now odds on to beat the Trump 2020 popular vote (74.2m) and on a lower turnout. The overall popular vote loss looks to be coming down to well below 3 million. It's below 3 million already.
The more authoritarian the regime, the more scope there is now to point out that he is not acting on a mandate supported by the majority of voters. And I should think the Harris vote will do something to disarm her more strident critics. I think her career is still alive. I hope it is.
For obvious reasons this thread is running out of steam. Yet the late votes may change the character of the result, though not the result itself. With about a couple of million votes still to count, and the vast majority of those in Democratic strongholds, two features are emerging. Firstly, Trump will not get over 50% of the popular vote. Currently he's on 50.0% and that is certain to reduce to below 50%. And secondly Harris is now odds on to beat the Trump 2020 popular vote (74.2m) and on a lower turnout. The overall popular vote loss looks to be coming down to well below 3 million. It's below 3 million already.
The more authoritarian the regime, the more scope there is now to point out that he is not acting on a mandate supported by the majority of voters. And I should think the Harris vote will do something to disarm her more strident critics. I think her career is still alive. I hope it is.
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton’s careers didn’t “end” when they lost (but won the popular vote), but their careers as a presidential candidate certainly did, and I suspect the same will be true with Harris. Romney lost running for president in 2012 but became a Republican Senator willing to vote to remove Trump from office afterwards. But that was because he was very popular in Utah. California is a huge state with many big Democratic Party figures that whether they like Harris or not are probably not willing to make room for her to be Senator again or run for governor. She is likely to work in the private sector, nonprofits/think tanks/NGOs, or in academia from this point onward.
But Trump is the first candidate to be nominated by a major party to run for president three times since William Jennings Bryan (a Democrat whom the character of Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind was based on). So who knows who the Democrats might nominate in the future. I suspect there will be a desire for a fresh face.
For obvious reasons this thread is running out of steam. Yet the late votes may change the character of the result, though not the result itself. With about a couple of million votes still to count, and the vast majority of those in Democratic strongholds, two features are emerging. Firstly, Trump will not get over 50% of the popular vote. Currently he's on 50.0% and that is certain to reduce to below 50%. And secondly Harris is now odds on to beat the Trump 2020 popular vote (74.2m) and on a lower turnout. The overall popular vote loss looks to be coming down to well below 3 million. It's below 3 million already.
The more authoritarian the regime, the more scope there is now to point out that he is not acting on a mandate supported by the majority of voters. And I should think the Harris vote will do something to disarm her more strident critics. I think her career is still alive. I hope it is.
A Republican hasn't won the popular vote in a presidential election for 20 years, and that was Bush after 9/11. There's no avoiding the fact that Harris lost badly. 49.9% vs 50.1% of the vote is a shoogly peg on which to hang opposition to fascism. It implies it would all be ok if they cleared 50%, which is obviously bollocks.
It's not a landslide or a clear endorsement of an extreme autocratic agenda. Despite MAGA claims to the contrary. My guess is that it's the high point of the MAGA crusade.
It's not a landslide or a clear endorsement of an extreme autocratic agenda. Despite MAGA claims to the contrary. My guess is that it's the high point of the MAGA crusade.
I can only hope.
The old adage that elections are won or lost at the margins comes into play here, it seems. Harris lost the Hispanic male vote. She also lost a segment of the suburban housewife vote that Kennedy actually tapped into and moved over to Trump (see this discussion--noted elsewhere).
I also think her emphasis no transgender and abortion rights turned off the Roman Catholic vote--they had long been a part of the Democratic coalition. Plus the loss of the working vote, and others.
Now, though, the Democrats will have two years at least to rebuild some of the older coalitions, We should sthrt seeing shifts very soon.
It's not a landslide or a clear endorsement of an extreme autocratic agenda. Despite MAGA claims to the contrary. My guess is that it's the high point of the MAGA crusade.
I can only hope.
The old adage that elections are won or lost at the margins comes into play here, it seems. Harris lost the Hispanic male vote. She also lost a segment of the suburban housewife vote that Kennedy actually tapped into and moved over to Trump (see this discussion--noted elsewhere).
I also think her emphasis no transgender and abortion rights turned off the Roman Catholic vote--they had long been a part of the Democratic coalition. Plus the loss of the working vote, and others.
Now, though, the Democrats will have two years at least to rebuild some of the older coalitions, We should sthrt seeing shifts very soon.
In what way did Harris place "emphasis" on trans rights? All the trans Americans I've seen are furious that they're being blamed for Harris's defeat when she offered nothing more than equivocation while they were the target of $210M worth of vicious attack ads.
It's not a landslide or a clear endorsement of an extreme autocratic agenda. Despite MAGA claims to the contrary. My guess is that it's the high point of the MAGA crusade.
I can only hope.
The old adage that elections are won or lost at the margins comes into play here, it seems. Harris lost the Hispanic male vote. She also lost a segment of the suburban housewife vote that Kennedy actually tapped into and moved over to Trump (see this discussion--noted elsewhere).
I also think her emphasis no transgender and abortion rights turned off the Roman Catholic vote--they had long been a part of the Democratic coalition. Plus the loss of the working vote, and others.
Now, though, the Democrats will have two years at least to rebuild some of the older coalitions, We should sthrt seeing shifts very soon.
In what way did Harris place "emphasis" on trans rights? All the trans Americans I've seen are furious that they're being blamed for Harris's defeat when she offered nothing more than equivocation while they were the target of $210M worth of vicious attack ads.
And the rift over abortion between (some) Roman Catholics and the Democratic Party began decades ago, not with Harris.
I was under the impression that FDR was nominated four times.
Yes, and won all four times. William Jennings Bryan lost all three times he was nominated. But the notable thing is that the major parties more recently have jettisoned their losers; Trump is the first person since Adlai Stevenson in the 50s to have lost a presidential election and been nominated by his party in the next one. He never lost hold of the Republican party during the Biden administration.
The Democratic party is leaderless. Defense against Trumpian malignancy now moves to the blue states; those governors may work together to some extent, but they're also in competition with each other.
All the trans Americans I've seen are furious that they're being blamed for Harris's defeat when she offered nothing more than equivocation while they were the target of $210M worth of vicious attack ads.
One of the better analyses I've heard comes from Michael Lind, interviewed here by Ezra Klein (free link), who argues that the dominance of megadonors, foundations and non-profits in the Democratic party is a key part of their failure. He says the party is guided by what these for the most part progressive folks say, and these folks are out of touch with working-class voters; the leaders of these groups, many of them organized around a single issue, get to those positions by getting donations from rich patrons and grants from the government and foundations, not through leading large groups of people. He'd like to see the Democrats become a true big-tent party, with just a few litmus-test questions and allowing for internal disagreement (and free votes) on everything else.
Rather than blame trans people, it makes far more sense to blame the ACLU's 2019 questionnaire, demanding yes or no answers on 18 different specific civil rights actions, which is where Harris first went on record supporting gender transition surgery at taxpayer-expense for people in federal custody.* Biden astutely didn't answer the questionnaire at all. It's the job of activists to drag the Overton window to the point where politicians can get on board, drag things further, and make good laws. Politician who get too far out front of the electorate find themselves wandering in the wilderness, not leading people through it.
*Also, we looked at those horrific ads as anti-trans ads, and they were, but in our outrage we missed the economic subtext: "look at what the government is doing for these people and think about what it's not doing for you."
My guess is that it's the high point of the MAGA crusade.
On what do you base this optimism? Honestly, I envy you that you can think this way.
It is a guess, Ruth. I tend to see trends. During the “reign” of POTUS47, his increasing age and loss of mental competence will become more apparent. I see no signs of succession planning. The chaos which characterised his first “reign” will occur again, though probably more quickly. In his first “reign” there were some “adults in the room” at the start but they had gone by the end of the second year. He got rid of them. Or they resigned. Don’t see too many this time. And he surrounds himself with sycophants. Who are self serving “loyalists” for the sake of it. Most of them know he stinks, both metaphorically and physically.
I also have in mind a quote from Frank Herbert’s “Dune Messiah”. To a tyrant.
“If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections”.
There is no MAGA without Trump. I think the rot has already started and I’d be surprised if it hadn’t set in visibly well before the end of these next four years.
Of course I could be wrong! And in four years time I’ll be 86. I hope to avoid going gaga. My mother was mentally alert at 100. But I don’t hold out much hope for Trump at 82.
Chaos, rot -- or enough destruction of the federal government to permanently weaken the country. I would not be surprised to see another tyrant succeed Trump if he does enough damage to the rule of law.
There is no MAGA brand as such without Trump. But the people with the beliefs and attitudes and grievances that Trump was able to capitalize on were there before Trump, and they will still be around after him. He just saw they were there and gave them a name and a voice and a sense of power. Whether someone else after Trump will be able to do something similar remains to be seen.
I say this because of what appears to be coming down. Even if people think Trump's cabinet appointments are good, they will impact nearly everyone. The negotiation to reduce Medicare drug costs will end. This will impact all of us on Medicare. The proposed tariffs will hurt many small businesses that depend on imports. For instance, a $40 Air Fryer will be $65. Other imported items will see similar increases. If people think inflation was too high during Biden, they will be very unhappy under the Trump increases. Education will suffer. Hispanics getting messages to be prepared to be deported. Blacks are getting similar messages to report to local farms. LBTGQA people are getting other hate messages. There looks like there will be a mass exodus of federal workers in many departments. The business of government will grind very slowly. Etc.
As I said elsewhere MAGA will have about 18 months to do their damage at most. After that, the mid term election campaigns will begin, and the pendulum will swing the other way.
That is a relatively short time in the overall history of our government.
Rather than blame trans people, it makes far more sense to blame the ACLU's 2019 questionnaire, demanding yes or no answers on 18 different specific civil rights actions, which is where Harris first went on record supporting gender transition surgery at taxpayer-expense for people in federal custody.* Biden astutely didn't answer the questionnaire at all. It's the job of activists to drag the Overton window to the point where politicians can get on board, drag things further, and make good laws. Politician who get too far out front of the electorate find themselves wandering in the wilderness, not leading people through it.
Mere membership in the ACLU was enough to trip up Dukakis in '88, with Bush spinning their position on certain types of pornography as dangerously heterodox during a TV debate.
Goddam you, Roger Baldwin and your gang of draft-dodging miscreants.
There is no MAGA brand as such without Trump. But the people with the beliefs and attitudes and grievances that Trump was able to capitalize on were there before Trump, and they will still be around after him. He just saw they were there and gave them a name and a voice and a sense of power. Whether someone else after Trump will be able to do something similar remains to be seen.
All it takes is for about 4 in a hundred to be disillusioned enough to switch. Or not vote at all.
So far as the zeitgeist is concerned, there is certainly a reaction against what has been characterised as “wokeness” in many of the democracies. There is undoubtedly a visceral anger at work. Maybe an anti-intellectual element as well? A reaction against the underlying complexity of life which we all grapple with?
And I’m sure that, following Trump’s success, other leaders will try to emulate, latch onto the disillusionment and anger. But Trump won’t deliver.
I’ve been reminded also of this. “You can fool all of the people some of the time. Some of the people all of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
Expecting four in a hundred of your citizens to join The Who in singing “We won’t get fooled again” is surely a pretty modest hope? But I agree that it is in the end a hope. I hope to see it realised. Scales do fall off eyes. Time will tell whether I’m just a cockeyed optimist!
Rather than blame trans people, it makes far more sense to blame the ACLU's 2019 questionnaire, demanding yes or no answers on 18 different specific civil rights actions, which is where Harris first went on record supporting gender transition surgery at taxpayer-expense for people in federal custody.* Biden astutely didn't answer the questionnaire at all. It's the job of activists to drag the Overton window to the point where politicians can get on board, drag things further, and make good laws. Politician who get too far out front of the electorate find themselves wandering in the wilderness, not leading people through it.
Mere membership in the ACLU was enough to trip up Dukakis in '88, with Bush spinning their position on certain types of pornography as dangerously heterodox during a TV debate.
But Harris' answer wasn't down to the 'influence of donors', but rather a lack of adroitness in dissembling, as Biden's lack of an answer didn't cause an issue with donors.
The social element is exactly what you'd expect an integralist/third positionist to highlight, so it may be looking at his work as a whole where the prescription is mostly economic populism/nationalism. The thing about social issues is that many of them turn out to have lower salience.
Rather than blame trans people, it makes far more sense to blame the ACLU's 2019 questionnaire, demanding yes or no answers on 18 different specific civil rights actions, which is where Harris first went on record supporting gender transition surgery at taxpayer-expense for people in federal custody.* Biden astutely didn't answer the questionnaire at all. It's the job of activists to drag the Overton window to the point where politicians can get on board, drag things further, and make good laws. Politician who get too far out front of the electorate find themselves wandering in the wilderness, not leading people through it.
Mere membership in the ACLU was enough to trip up Dukakis in '88, with Bush spinning their position on certain types of pornography as dangerously heterodox during a TV debate.
But Harris' answer wasn't down to the 'influence of donors', but rather a lack of adroitness in dissembling, as Biden's lack of an answer didn't cause an issue with donors.
The social element is exactly what you'd expect an integralist/third positionist to highlight, so it may be looking at his work as a whole where the prescription is mostly economic populism/nationalism. The thing about social issues is that many of them turn out to have lower salience.
I'm not sure I understand how this relates to the posts you quoted. First off, who is the integralist/third positionist you refer to in your second paragraph?
Harris's answer came because the ACLU asked the question with a Yes/No checkbox, and the ACLU is an interest group funded by donors. The argument is that such interest groups and donors are driving the issues and the stances on issues that the Democratic party takes, which makes them out of touch with large swathes of the electorate, who are not represented, or not represented well, by these groups.
Based on Social Security Administration life tables, approximately only 3 out of 4 men who reach age 78 will live to 82. And there's the possibility of a non-fatal event causing incapacity.
What difference would JDV's accession to the throne make?
Based on Social Security Administration life tables, approximately only 3 out of 4 men who reach age 78 will live to 82. And there's the possibility of a non-fatal event causing incapacity.
What difference would JDV's accession to the throne make?
More explicit Christian Nationalism rather than just lip service to it. Emboldened CNs in state governments push to challenge SCOTUS decisions on equal marriage and anti-sodomy laws. Nationwide abortion ban. Possible moves to repeal Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act et al.
Based on Social Security Administration life tables, approximately only 3 out of 4 men who reach age 78 will live to 82. And there's the possibility of a non-fatal event causing incapacity.
What difference would JDV's accession to the throne make?
Trump has access to better than average health care. His chances of making it to 82 are probably a lot better than 3/4
Maybe. But bear in mind (1) He has a much more stressful job than most 80yo, and we know what stress does to the body (2) Even the best healthcare won't protect against events of the "dropped down dead" or "I'm afraid it's incurable" variety.
And more importantly (3) Being alive may well not be enough. Serious strokes, major cardiac operations, late stage cancers, brutal treatments for cancers or other conditions that incapacitate...the list goes on of things that would turn Trump into a Potusino (President in name only). I would think 3/4 would be an overestimate of his chances of finishing in proper charge. However the key takeaway is not the statistical chance of various levels of incapacity, but a statement that there is a real chance he will hand over power as Potusino, or totally, to JDV.
And hence the question that worries me a bit. In the death/Potusino scenario, what would JDV be like, do we think?
Based on Social Security Administration life tables, approximately only 3 out of 4 men who reach age 78 will live to 82. And there's the possibility of a non-fatal event causing incapacity.
What difference would JDV's accession to the throne make?
Trump has access to better than average health care. His chances of making it to 82 are probably a lot better than 3/4
Yes, in theory, they can keep a human body in a living state for years or until the funds run out--as my physiology professor used to say.
We really do not know the physical health of the president re-elect, but there are hints he may not be as well as he likes to present himself. He is overweight. He has problems walking down slight declines. His speeches are word salads. He refuses to accept sound medical advice. Other than golfing (with an electric cart), does he have any other physical activities? I don't think so).
He may make four years; but, if I were a betting man, I think not.
So far as the zeitgeist is concerned, there is certainly a reaction against what has been characterised as “wokeness” in many of the democracies. There is undoubtedly a visceral anger at work. Maybe an anti-intellectual element as well? A reaction against the underlying complexity of life which we all grapple with?
post awaiting host action hidden till purg hosts are available - warning - transphobia
I think this cartoon [link to hate site realityslaststand.com/p/my-political-journey broken]- and the article that follows it - describe where that reaction is coming from for a lot of people.
People on the left once viewed free speech as sacrosanct and championed speaking truth to power. Now they disparage open expression as a danger to democracy and minorities. The aspiration of judging individuals by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin has given way to identity politics and “equity” initiatives that prioritize group interests over individual rights. Women’s rights, previously understood as relating to their oppression on the basis of sex, is now viewed by the left through the lens of gender identity, which gives priority to men who declare themselves to be women. Today’s progressive can’t even tell you what a woman is. The right may be inconsistent in its support of free speech, individual rights and women’s rights, but the left is consistent in its opposition to all three.
Women’s rights, previously understood as relating to their oppression on the basis of sex, is now viewed by the left through the lens of gender identity, which gives priority to men who declare themselves to be women. Today’s progressive can’t even tell you what a woman is.
The left gives priority to men who declare themselves to be women? This is bullshit.
I regret inadvertently triggering a discussion of anti-wokeness here. I did not want to derail the thread.
In the main theme, Trump has now fallen below 50% in the popular vote tally and Harris has crossed the 74 million vote threshold. Apparently Fox News (even!) had a discussion about what these closing of margins (very likely to close further) meant to the assertions of sweeping mandate.
Women’s rights, previously understood as relating to their oppression on the basis of sex, is now viewed by the left through the lens of gender identity, which gives priority to men who declare themselves to be women. Today’s progressive can’t even tell you what a woman is.
The left gives priority to men who declare themselves to be women? This is bullshit.
Not surprising. The source is a site that exists to attack the idea that transgender people actually exist and refers to trans women as "men" and "males" throughout. The central theme is "why won't all these people agree with my transphobic views?!?"
@Marvin the Martian this thread is under Epiphanies rules. The article hidden by @Louise contains transphobic content and is not an appropriate source.
Anyone who wants to discuss the role of gender in American political life is invited to create a thread in Epiphanies with a suitable OP.
Using the summary on the BBC website (Source Edison Research, figures very similar to Reuters and CNN) the popular vote scores on the doors are as follows
Trump: 77,095,526 (49.9%)
Harris: 74,659,711 (48.3%)
Margin: 2,435,815 (1.6%)
Others: 1.8% The biggest share of the Others vote went to Robert Kennedy Jr.
Maybe about a quarter of a million votes still uncounted? The uncertainty concerns the number of ballots needing curing, because some of them will get rejected. The majority of remaining votes will come from California, where Harris is leading about 3 to 2.
Trump won the popular vote comfortably but the percentage margin was pretty small by reference to other elections. The margins will close a little, but not significantly. Turnover looks to be about 2.5% down on the record 66.6% in 2020.
The Senate is 53-47 in favour of the GOP. With one Representative still to be confirmed but favouring the Democrats, the House will probably be 220-215 in favour of the GOP.
Here are some charts produced by PolitiFact. The most notable one is the one that says on a percentage basis Trump won the popular vote by the smallest margin since 1960. When his people claim he has a mandate or a landslide, not really. The country is still very much divided.
Maybe so, but it should be somewhat concerning for the Democrats that Trump increased his vote share in almost every state in the nation, and among virtually every socio-ethnic group except college-educated white people.
It might be worth phoning your local Democratic party officials and begging them to run someone younger next time around.
Harris was behind the eightball almost from the get-go. She is a member of an unpopular administration. There was a lot of anger about inflation---though I have to say our inflation is nowhere near European inflation. There was strong disappointment among the Arab community in Dearborn, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Then too Latino males just could not bring themselves to vote for a woman. And it did not help when Biden flubbed the first debate with Trump.
Still, the margin of the vote was very narrow-1.6 percent nationally. the narrowest vote since 1960.
Usually when there is a high turnout for an election it favors the Democrats; but, in this case, Trump had been harping so much about how Democrats stole the previous election and warned people who voted for him they needed to turn out even more than the Democrats to keep them from stealing this election.
Odd, now that the election is over, no one is claiming anyone stole the election.
I am thinking there will be a lot of buyers' remorse once Trump gets in office.
Comments
Sorry, I was responding to Hedghog.
Heh — one of the recent Churchill movies included a scene about that hand gesture. 😆
Although the peace and victory signs are with your palm facing the person you are giving it too, whereas giving someone two fingers, just like giving someone the finger, is with your palm facing back towards you.
Seconded. You're indicating "2" over here.
The more authoritarian the regime, the more scope there is now to point out that he is not acting on a mandate supported by the majority of voters. And I should think the Harris vote will do something to disarm her more strident critics. I think her career is still alive. I hope it is.
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton’s careers didn’t “end” when they lost (but won the popular vote), but their careers as a presidential candidate certainly did, and I suspect the same will be true with Harris. Romney lost running for president in 2012 but became a Republican Senator willing to vote to remove Trump from office afterwards. But that was because he was very popular in Utah. California is a huge state with many big Democratic Party figures that whether they like Harris or not are probably not willing to make room for her to be Senator again or run for governor. She is likely to work in the private sector, nonprofits/think tanks/NGOs, or in academia from this point onward.
But Trump is the first candidate to be nominated by a major party to run for president three times since William Jennings Bryan (a Democrat whom the character of Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind was based on). So who knows who the Democrats might nominate in the future. I suspect there will be a desire for a fresh face.
A Republican hasn't won the popular vote in a presidential election for 20 years, and that was Bush after 9/11. There's no avoiding the fact that Harris lost badly. 49.9% vs 50.1% of the vote is a shoogly peg on which to hang opposition to fascism. It implies it would all be ok if they cleared 50%, which is obviously bollocks.
I can only hope.
The old adage that elections are won or lost at the margins comes into play here, it seems. Harris lost the Hispanic male vote. She also lost a segment of the suburban housewife vote that Kennedy actually tapped into and moved over to Trump (see this discussion--noted elsewhere).
I also think her emphasis no transgender and abortion rights turned off the Roman Catholic vote--they had long been a part of the Democratic coalition. Plus the loss of the working vote, and others.
Now, though, the Democrats will have two years at least to rebuild some of the older coalitions, We should sthrt seeing shifts very soon.
In what way did Harris place "emphasis" on trans rights? All the trans Americans I've seen are furious that they're being blamed for Harris's defeat when she offered nothing more than equivocation while they were the target of $210M worth of vicious attack ads.
On what do you base this optimism? Honestly, I envy you that you can think this way.
Yes, and won all four times. William Jennings Bryan lost all three times he was nominated. But the notable thing is that the major parties more recently have jettisoned their losers; Trump is the first person since Adlai Stevenson in the 50s to have lost a presidential election and been nominated by his party in the next one. He never lost hold of the Republican party during the Biden administration.
The Democratic party is leaderless. Defense against Trumpian malignancy now moves to the blue states; those governors may work together to some extent, but they're also in competition with each other.
One of the better analyses I've heard comes from Michael Lind, interviewed here by Ezra Klein (free link), who argues that the dominance of megadonors, foundations and non-profits in the Democratic party is a key part of their failure. He says the party is guided by what these for the most part progressive folks say, and these folks are out of touch with working-class voters; the leaders of these groups, many of them organized around a single issue, get to those positions by getting donations from rich patrons and grants from the government and foundations, not through leading large groups of people. He'd like to see the Democrats become a true big-tent party, with just a few litmus-test questions and allowing for internal disagreement (and free votes) on everything else.
Rather than blame trans people, it makes far more sense to blame the ACLU's 2019 questionnaire, demanding yes or no answers on 18 different specific civil rights actions, which is where Harris first went on record supporting gender transition surgery at taxpayer-expense for people in federal custody.* Biden astutely didn't answer the questionnaire at all. It's the job of activists to drag the Overton window to the point where politicians can get on board, drag things further, and make good laws. Politician who get too far out front of the electorate find themselves wandering in the wilderness, not leading people through it.
*Also, we looked at those horrific ads as anti-trans ads, and they were, but in our outrage we missed the economic subtext: "look at what the government is doing for these people and think about what it's not doing for you."
It is a guess, Ruth. I tend to see trends. During the “reign” of POTUS47, his increasing age and loss of mental competence will become more apparent. I see no signs of succession planning. The chaos which characterised his first “reign” will occur again, though probably more quickly. In his first “reign” there were some “adults in the room” at the start but they had gone by the end of the second year. He got rid of them. Or they resigned. Don’t see too many this time. And he surrounds himself with sycophants. Who are self serving “loyalists” for the sake of it. Most of them know he stinks, both metaphorically and physically.
I also have in mind a quote from Frank Herbert’s “Dune Messiah”. To a tyrant.
“If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections”.
There is no MAGA without Trump. I think the rot has already started and I’d be surprised if it hadn’t set in visibly well before the end of these next four years.
Of course I could be wrong! And in four years time I’ll be 86. I hope to avoid going gaga. My mother was mentally alert at 100. But I don’t hold out much hope for Trump at 82.
I say this because of what appears to be coming down. Even if people think Trump's cabinet appointments are good, they will impact nearly everyone. The negotiation to reduce Medicare drug costs will end. This will impact all of us on Medicare. The proposed tariffs will hurt many small businesses that depend on imports. For instance, a $40 Air Fryer will be $65. Other imported items will see similar increases. If people think inflation was too high during Biden, they will be very unhappy under the Trump increases. Education will suffer. Hispanics getting messages to be prepared to be deported. Blacks are getting similar messages to report to local farms. LBTGQA people are getting other hate messages. There looks like there will be a mass exodus of federal workers in many departments. The business of government will grind very slowly. Etc.
As I said elsewhere MAGA will have about 18 months to do their damage at most. After that, the mid term election campaigns will begin, and the pendulum will swing the other way.
That is a relatively short time in the overall history of our government.
Mere membership in the ACLU was enough to trip up Dukakis in '88, with Bush spinning their position on certain types of pornography as dangerously heterodox during a TV debate.
Goddam you, Roger Baldwin and your gang of draft-dodging miscreants.
So far as the zeitgeist is concerned, there is certainly a reaction against what has been characterised as “wokeness” in many of the democracies. There is undoubtedly a visceral anger at work. Maybe an anti-intellectual element as well? A reaction against the underlying complexity of life which we all grapple with?
And I’m sure that, following Trump’s success, other leaders will try to emulate, latch onto the disillusionment and anger. But Trump won’t deliver.
I’ve been reminded also of this. “You can fool all of the people some of the time. Some of the people all of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
Expecting four in a hundred of your citizens to join The Who in singing “We won’t get fooled again” is surely a pretty modest hope? But I agree that it is in the end a hope. I hope to see it realised. Scales do fall off eyes. Time will tell whether I’m just a cockeyed optimist!
A contemporary critic of The Who’s iconic song observed that it transcends the partisan politics which we all tend to fall into. He ends with this.
“If you can’t read Animal Farm, then listening to the song is the next best thing”.
But Harris' answer wasn't down to the 'influence of donors', but rather a lack of adroitness in dissembling, as Biden's lack of an answer didn't cause an issue with donors.
The social element is exactly what you'd expect an integralist/third positionist to highlight, so it may be looking at his work as a whole where the prescription is mostly economic populism/nationalism. The thing about social issues is that many of them turn out to have lower salience.
I'm not sure I understand how this relates to the posts you quoted. First off, who is the integralist/third positionist you refer to in your second paragraph?
What difference would JDV's accession to the throne make?
More explicit Christian Nationalism rather than just lip service to it. Emboldened CNs in state governments push to challenge SCOTUS decisions on equal marriage and anti-sodomy laws. Nationwide abortion ban. Possible moves to repeal Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act et al.
Trump has access to better than average health care. His chances of making it to 82 are probably a lot better than 3/4
And more importantly (3) Being alive may well not be enough. Serious strokes, major cardiac operations, late stage cancers, brutal treatments for cancers or other conditions that incapacitate...the list goes on of things that would turn Trump into a Potusino (President in name only). I would think 3/4 would be an overestimate of his chances of finishing in proper charge. However the key takeaway is not the statistical chance of various levels of incapacity, but a statement that there is a real chance he will hand over power as Potusino, or totally, to JDV.
And hence the question that worries me a bit. In the death/Potusino scenario, what would JDV be like, do we think?
Yes, in theory, they can keep a human body in a living state for years or until the funds run out--as my physiology professor used to say.
We really do not know the physical health of the president re-elect, but there are hints he may not be as well as he likes to present himself. He is overweight. He has problems walking down slight declines. His speeches are word salads. He refuses to accept sound medical advice. Other than golfing (with an electric cart), does he have any other physical activities? I don't think so).
He may make four years; but, if I were a betting man, I think not.
post awaiting host action hidden till purg hosts are available - warning - transphobia
I think this cartoon [link to hate site realityslaststand.com/p/my-political-journey broken]- and the article that follows it - describe where that reaction is coming from for a lot of people.
The left gives priority to men who declare themselves to be women? This is bullshit.
and the last person to be nominated 3 times is Nixon.
In the main theme, Trump has now fallen below 50% in the popular vote tally and Harris has crossed the 74 million vote threshold. Apparently Fox News (even!) had a discussion about what these closing of margins (very likely to close further) meant to the assertions of sweeping mandate.
Not surprising. The source is a site that exists to attack the idea that transgender people actually exist and refers to trans women as "men" and "males" throughout. The central theme is "why won't all these people agree with my transphobic views?!?"
Louise
passing Epiphanies host
@Marvin the Martian this thread is under Epiphanies rules. The article hidden by @Louise contains transphobic content and is not an appropriate source.
Anyone who wants to discuss the role of gender in American political life is invited to create a thread in Epiphanies with a suitable OP.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Using the summary on the BBC website (Source Edison Research, figures very similar to Reuters and CNN) the popular vote scores on the doors are as follows
Trump: 77,095,526 (49.9%)
Harris: 74,659,711 (48.3%)
Margin: 2,435,815 (1.6%)
Others: 1.8% The biggest share of the Others vote went to Robert Kennedy Jr.
Maybe about a quarter of a million votes still uncounted? The uncertainty concerns the number of ballots needing curing, because some of them will get rejected. The majority of remaining votes will come from California, where Harris is leading about 3 to 2.
Trump won the popular vote comfortably but the percentage margin was pretty small by reference to other elections. The margins will close a little, but not significantly. Turnover looks to be about 2.5% down on the record 66.6% in 2020.
The Senate is 53-47 in favour of the GOP. With one Representative still to be confirmed but favouring the Democrats, the House will probably be 220-215 in favour of the GOP.
The next four years look like a very bumpy ride.
It might be worth phoning your local Democratic party officials and begging them to run someone younger next time around.
Still, the margin of the vote was very narrow-1.6 percent nationally. the narrowest vote since 1960.
Usually when there is a high turnout for an election it favors the Democrats; but, in this case, Trump had been harping so much about how Democrats stole the previous election and warned people who voted for him they needed to turn out even more than the Democrats to keep them from stealing this election.
Odd, now that the election is over, no one is claiming anyone stole the election.
I am thinking there will be a lot of buyers' remorse once Trump gets in office.