News: 0175437189

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Democrats Join 2024's Graveyard of Incumbents

(Saturday November 09, 2024 @11:34AM (msmash) from the how-about-that dept.)


An anonymous reader [1]shares a post from Financial Times:

> The economic and geopolitical conditions of the past year or two have created arguably the most hostile environment in history for incumbent parties and politicians across the developed world. From [2]America's Democrats to [3]Britain's Tories , Emmanuel's Macron's Ensemble coalition to Japan's Liberal Democrats, even to Narendra Modi's erstwhile dominant BJP, governing parties and leaders have undergone an unprecedented series of reversals this year.

>

> The incumbents in every single one of the 10 major countries that have been tracked by the ParlGov global research project and held national elections in 2024 were given a kicking by voters. This is the first time this has ever happened in almost 120 years of records. Ultimately voters don't distinguish between unpleasant things that their leaders and governments have direct control over, and those that are international phenomena resulting from supply-side disruptions caused by a global pandemic or the warmongering of an ageing autocrat halfway across the world.

>

> Voters don't like high prices, so they punished the Democrats for being in charge when inflation hit. The cost of living was also the top issue in Britain's July general election and has been front of mind in dozens of other countries for most of the last two years. That different politicians, different parties, different policies and different rhetoric deployed in different countries have all met similar fortunes suggests that a large part of Tuesday's American result was locked in regardless of the messenger or the message. The wide variety of places and people who swung towards Trump also suggests an outcome that was more inevitable than contingent.

>

> But it's not just about inflation. An update of economist Arthur Okun's "misery index" -- the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates -- for this era might swap out joblessness and replace it with immigration. On this basis, the past couple of years in the US, UK and dozens of other countries have been characterised by more economic and societal upheaval than they have seen in generations.



[1] https://on.ft.com/3AkW6ND

[2] https://slashdot.org/story/435135

[3] https://slashdot.org/story/24/07/05/0413233/labour-party-set-for-landslide-win-in-uk-election



Unemployement rates... (Score:5, Informative)

by bradley13 ( 1118935 )

Especially unemployment rates. Some (many? most?) countries cheat on their numbers, by not counting people who have simply given up ever finding a job.

Taking the US as an example, [1]the official unemployment rate is the U-3 rate [bls.gov], which is currently 4.1%. More honest is the U-6 rate, which is published but never used, and is at 7.7%. However even that does not include people who simply don't want to work, for whatever reason.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Re: Unemployement rates... (Score:2)

by writeRight ( 1444379 )

This is a good point, that typical voters don't believe government stats and don't believe government anymore. Voters are also voting against unrestrained migrants.

Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 )

From what I can see, it's more honest to say that voters are voting against...migrants, not just "unrestrained" or "illegal" immigrants. If they were really only upset about "illegal" immigrants, they would be in favor of reforming the *legal* pathways for immigrants to enter the country. You know, like asking them to register and pay taxes. But the minute you propose such a thing, you hit a wall with people for whom immigration is an issue. So I don't believe people when they say they are really interested

Re: (Score:2)

by diesel66 ( 254283 )

That's what you see. This is not true in the conservative circles I frequent, many of whom are immigrants themselves. It is ABSOLUTELY about whether or not they got here legally or not, and they are ABSOLUTELY open to the idea of immigration reform to streamline the process.

Re: Unemployement rates... (Score:4, Insightful)

by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 )

I'm happy that you and your friends are consistent in your ideals. Trump himself, not so much, as evidenced by his demonizing of the Haitian immigrants in Columbus, Ohio, who were in the US...legally.

Trump hires lots of undocumented workers (Score:2)

by Somervillain ( 4719341 )

Who do you think cleans his hotels? Even if they're not directly on his payroll, he just outsources to some company that does the illegal hiring. Nearly all hotels and office buildings do this. He would be an oddball in the industry if he didn't, so I don't even fault him on that.

It's just stupid AF that people pick illegal immigrants as the focus of their rage. Should the be here?...no...but think for a minute. Why are they here?...because some business is hiring them. If there were no jobs, they'

Re: (Score:2)

by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

> many of whom are immigrants themselves.

That doesn't matter. Immigrants are happy to pull up the ladder after they make it over the wall.

Recent immigrants are the most likely to compete with future immigrants for the same jobs.

One mistake that Democrats made was taking Latinos for granted. On Tuesday, they voted Republican in record-high numbers.

Re: (Score:3)

by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

Trump did gain Latino votes, but did not gain a majority of them.

And why did these Latinos switch to Trump? It wasn't because of immigration. [1]It was because of the economy. [nbcnews.com]

My take is that this whole election was a referendum on the economy. People didn't care about Trump's record, either in the White House or in the courts. They just hated how prices went up, and chose Orange Man because they think he'll make it better.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-economy-latino-vote-2024-election-rcna178951

Re: Unemployement rates... (Score:2)

by dpille ( 547949 )

On Tuesday, they voted Republican in record-high numbers.

Did they, though?

I realize that analysts can slice-and-dice demographics, but unless their observations come with some participation data, I don't think it says anything.

At the current count, Trump's 2024 popular-vote landslide win appears to be the result of about 80,000 more total votes than his 2020 popular-vote landslide loss. I think it's far more relevant to ask why there were 10M+ fewer total votes this cycle than it is to speculate about

Re: (Score:2)

by flink ( 18449 )

I mean we are illegally blocking them from presenting themselves for asylum, causing them to enter "illegally" so there's that. If we allowed these people to present themselves at a border crossing in person, no app bullshit, then there would no longer be a " border crisis".

Re: (Score:2)

by misexistentialist ( 1537887 )

There is no one who can't legally immigrate today that any country in the world would want so it seems the reform you're proposing is just legal unrestrained migration. Millions immigrate legally, which is probably too generous, but voters haven't been given a say on that, not even with Trump.

Re: (Score:3)

by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 )

If "no one" is kept from immigrating legally, why do we have detention centers in Mexico, preventing asylum seekers from entering? Why do we have a green card lottery, that limits the number of immigrants to a specific maximum threshold? Why do we have caps on H1b visas that are so low that the caps are typically exceeded by March of each year? No, it's not honest for you to claim that "anyone" who wants to immigrate legally, can do so.

You contradict yourself when you say that we are "probably too generous"

Re: (Score:2)

by kenh ( 9056 )

Prior to COVID, prior to Biden Admin, we had a pretty consistent one million immigrants in the country at any one time, and it wasn't really considered a problem. As some transitioned to permanent residents/citizens. The issue today is the countless people here seeking asylum without a credible basis for their asylum claim (last I heard around 90% of asylum seekers that return for their trials are denied asylum).

One of the issues that aggrevates the situation is that asylum seekers are provided with housing

Re: (Score:3)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

The question is what are you trying to measure? The number of people who want to work but can't seems like the most useful metric. Otherwise you are counting people who are medically unable to work, people doing unpaid work like caring for someone or raising children etc.

The unemployment rate doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the jobs either. Someone can be employed by not getting regular hours or not earning enough to not have to rely on benefits to get by, i.e. corporate welfare where the tax

Re: (Score:2)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

The number of people who want to work but can't seems like the most useful metric. Otherwise you are counting people who are medically unable to work, people doing unpaid work like caring for someone or raising children etc.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes shit happens and you need to not work for a bit to deal with it.

Re: (Score:2)

by kenh ( 9056 )

The unemployment numbers track the number of unemployed americans that have applied for/collect unemployment benefits.

It does not track "people still looking for a job".

It does not track anyone that has exhausted their unemployment benefits.

It is a lousy number to follow, but we have used it for decades, so it is the only useful metric for comparing unemployment levels across administrations/years.

A better metric is the [1]workforce participation number [bls.gov], but few politicians like to discuss that much, much larg

[1] https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

Re: Unemployement rates... (Score:2)

by dpille ( 547949 )

The unemployment numbers track the number of unemployed americans that have applied for/collect unemployment benefits.

No. The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts a poll. I like how they're more gentle than I would be, not using the phrase "uninformed idiots":

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits

Re: (Score:2)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

I'm not a fan of single numbers. For example, how many people have been disabled by COVID and now can't work, or can't find work that is compatible with their limitations?

And conversely, how many people did ACA help back into work?

Saw some guy on Twitter saying he voted to get rid of Obamacare and just keep the ACA, apparently not realizing that they are the same thing. He seemed to be pretty reliant on the ACA to stay alive too.

Re: (Score:2)

by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

> Saw some guy on Twitter saying he voted to get rid of Obamacare and just keep the ACA, apparently not realizing that they are the same thing. He seemed to be pretty reliant on the ACA to stay alive too.

[1]Oy vey. [wiktionary.org]

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dumbfuckistan

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

In California we have a locally funded program called IHSS which pays people for providing care, and if the care provider lives with the recipient then the income is non-taxable. The rate is usually very close to minimum wage, but the flip side of that is that it can pay for caring for a family member who you would be caring for whether you were getting paid or not. In the case of a family member this can include medical care, which is normally managed by other programs, but most providers are assisting wit

Re: (Score:2)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

California certainly seems a lot more progressive and pragmatic than many other places. We have a similar system in the UK to support carers, but it's crap and badly needs fixing. There was a bit of a controversy when it was suggested that older people should pay for some of their own care through the value of property they own, reclaimed when their children inherit it, mainly because properly is extremely unaffordable and many people rely on inheritance to get on that ladder.

There was a plan to have a Nati

U6 [Re:Unemployement rates...] (Score:2)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

> Especially unemployment rates. Some (many? most?) countries cheat on their numbers, by not counting people who have simply given up ever finding a job. Taking the US as an example, [1]the official unemployment rate is the U-3 rate [bls.gov], which is currently 4.1%. More honest is the U-6 rate, which is published but never used, and is at 7.7%. However even that does not include people who simply don't want to work, for whatever reason.

Maybe, but that doesn't account for the election, since the U-6 unemployment rate is currently as low as it's ever been in the last 30 years. There's a slight hint that U-6 might have bottomed out and be heading up, but so far that change is a fraction of a percent, in the noise.

The big spike in U-6 unemployment was the Covid years, when it hit 22.4% in April 2020.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

> Especially unemployment rates. Some (many? most?) countries cheat on their numbers, by not counting people who have simply given up ever finding a job.

Yep, we're cheating. Only now obviously because right now it suits your narrative, but we weren't cheating a few years ago when the numbers looked higher right?

> More honest is the U-6 rate

No it's not. There's nothing more or less honest. That's the whole reason multiple numbers are published. Each tells you a different thing about a different part of society. People who have given up on looking for a job are not correlated with the strength of the underlying economy which is why the number isn't typically used.

Re: (Score:2)

by godrik ( 1287354 )

Actually, the U-1, through U-6 numbers are highly correlated. You can check the chart here: [1]https://www.bls.gov/charts/emp... [bls.gov]

Now I do believe that U-3 is the metric that most closely resembles what people imagine unemployment numbers should be.

And I agree that we need to use one definition and not change it. I believe, for instance, France changed which number they used in the 90s from something that looks like U-4 to something that looks like U-3. That caused tons of people stopping to trust the official n

[1] https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/alternative-measures-of-labor-underutilization.htm

Re: (Score:2)

by godrik ( 1287354 )

The reason why we mostly use the U-3 measure is because it is a natural definition of unemployment. It is basically "people who don't have a job and want/have recently searched for one". It also aligns with how most of the other countries measure unemployment which makes comparisons easy.

I don't know that it makes too much sense to count part time workers who want a better job as if they were unemployed. In all economies you are going to have not-so-appealing part time jobs; you need people to fill them too

Re:Unemploy[]ment rates... [But the loser rate is? (Score:2)

by shanen ( 462549 )

Guessing the spelling error in your Subject is evidence of your haste to FP. Apparently propagated more than 20 times and spanning about 20% of the discussion. So the span is evidence that you touched a nerve, or at least stimulated some nerves later on? So call it a pretty good FP with a distracting Subject?

My initial response would have involved expanding to consider deliberating pushing workers out of the labor force. Especially old folks from the perspective of yours truly. But at this point in time the

Fancy words (Score:4, Insightful)

by korgitser ( 1809018 )

> The economic and geopolitical conditions of the past year or two have created arguably the most hostile environment in history for incumbent parties and politicians across the developed world.

That's a very fancy way to say that they've done goofed up...

Re: (Score:2)

by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

>> The economic and geopolitical conditions of the past year or two have created arguably the most hostile environment in history for incumbent parties and politicians across the developed world.

> That's a very fancy way to say that they've done goofed up...

Yup. And now need to explain why those irrelevant folks, er, let's call them "voters", rejected them.

Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

>>> The economic and geopolitical conditions of the past year or two have created arguably the most hostile environment in history for incumbent parties and politicians across the developed world.

>> That's a very fancy way to say that they've done goofed up...

> Yup. And now need to explain why those irrelevant folks, er, let's call them "voters", rejected them.

I'll go out on a limb and note that there is an elephant in the room.

Kamala Harris had a real male voter problem. And that makes for a problem, because people with penises are still allowed to vote.

And not much was done until they brought out the really cringy Men for Harris advert, which probably made it worse. A Chad, a Tyrone, but then for some reason they put in a dirty morbidly obese guy who bragged about knowing how to rebuild a carburetor, an effeminate guy sitting on his pickup tailgate, and a

Worldwide [Re:Fancy words] (Score:4, Interesting)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

> I'll go out on a limb and note that there is an elephant in the room. Kamala Harris had a real male voter problem. And that makes for a problem, because people with penises are still allowed to vote.

Does not explain why this data shows incumbent parties are losing "in every single one of the 10 major countries" worldwide .

Re:Fancy words (Score:5, Interesting)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

It's funny that I only hear this type of thing from conservative men. I know I personally have never felt any meaningful level of women perceiving men as any kind of enemy. Yes, many women take issue with the fact that more men than women appose abortion but I've certainly never felt that was an issue with men in general.

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

> Never hear anyone say anything about "smashing the patriarchy"? Seems like a good example to me.

patriarchy "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."

How on earth is it man hating for a woman to be against THAT. Really anyone in favor of a society of equals should be against patriarchy. Leadership shouldn't be determined by gender any more then it should be by race

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

For starters, I don't use social media. It's garbage.

After that, how is it man hating to be bothered that men disproportionally voted for a political party that is generally in favor of limiting women? Why wouldnt a woman be bothered by those specific men (particularly since men don't have to do any of the hard parts of baby making but want to tell women how to manage it) and how is that hating on men in general? I've heard a few women complaining about how this election went relative to female bodily auton

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

> A Chad, a Tyrone, but then for some reason they put in a dirty morbidly obese guy who bragged about knowing how to rebuild a carburetor, an effeminate guy sitting on his pickup tailgate, and a presumed motorcycle rider who looked like a serial killer.

> I guess that's what modern women think all men are like. Or at least the ones who get hired to make commercials.

No doubt they can cite some research that says it's relevant. Most people don't know shit about fixing a carburetor today. That includes me, while my first few vehicles were carbureted (my first car was a 1960 Dodge Dart with a B block 318, with a 650 CFM Carter 4bbl with a fucking leather accelerator pump diaphragm) I've hardly ever worked on a carb. I've tuned some small ones and can do that by ear, but when they go wrong I just throw them away if cleaner doesn't fix them as they're just too cheap and you

Re:Fancy words (Score:4, Insightful)

by geekmux ( 1040042 )

>> The economic and geopolitical conditions of the past year or two have created arguably the most hostile environment in history for incumbent parties and politicians across the developed world.

> That's a very fancy way to say that they've done goofed up...

And you have a very fancy way of saying they fucked up in unimaginable ways.

Losing, is one thing. Losing like we haven’t seen in 120 years? That deserves a seven-figure fight contract with the UFC just for the entertainment value.

Re: (Score:2)

by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

That was a really simple post to show you didn't get the point at all, and you're exactly the kind of voter who is the real problem.

"Bad thing happened, blame politician regardless of actual cause and effect, vote for opposition without considering policy".

Wonderful.

Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

by Nrrqshrr ( 1879148 )

If anything, you calling him the real problem IS the real problem.

It's an inherent fault of democracy that politicians get judged on promises and fast, charming talk, while incumbents get judged on actual results.

You could say that voters should do their homework and look into the candidate's past and do proper diligence, but that too is an inherent fault of democracy since the vote of someone who does due diligence, and someone who's gonna decide based on what the guy in front of him will pick, both count

Re: (Score:2)

by quonset ( 4839537 )

If anything, you calling him the real problem IS the real problem.

You're right. The real problem is all those people [1]who fit this commentary [imgur.com].

[1] https://imgur.com/gallery/good-point-WjrcBMo

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

> This might be a tall reach, and it will only get taller with every year of internet brain rot.

Reagan broke school funding. Whether you agree that this was intentional or not (I do) this has had an undeniably significant effect on our education systems, which were already starting to suffer. Something had to be done, but what he did wasn't it.

Screwing up education has been a bipartisan effort. Biden was instrumental in creating the student loan problem, for example. But the Gipper really leaned in there and hit us at an early age.

Re: (Score:2)

by korgitser ( 1809018 )

No, you didn't get the point. All of the western leadership has fscked up in a major way during the last 50 years. Voters flipping between parties is them searching desperately for someone to actually deliver some results. In vain, because there is no results to be found, only more fsckups.

Voting is not going to change any of this, as the choices offered up for vote are meaningless. Whichever cheek of the ass you vote for, the ass is still going to shit all over you.

Re: (Score:3)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

The Democrats didn't even screw up that badly, they are just extremely mediocre.

Many democracies, especially two party ones, alternate between mediocre moderates/centrists and the hard right. People get fed up with the mediocrity and not delivering big gains, so try the hard right. The hard right wrecks the economy so they go back to mediocre moderates again. The cycle repeats endlessly, or until something really disastrous happens.

The really frustrating part is that the UK had the chance to break out of it

Re: (Score:3)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

It's also very hard to be anything but mediocre when the economy is a complete wreck. Th hard right coast on the work of the centre, looking OK while the foundations collapse. The centre come back and start fixing stuff, but things aren't great while they do so. Eventually they claw their way out of the hole, but generally people remember the bad years after they get in.

Now I'm not particularly fond of Starmer. The budget was better than it could have been, but lacked ambition. Nonetheless even with serious

Re: (Score:2)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

The mediocre centrists always tell you that their hands are tied by the messed up economy that the last hard right government left them with, but it's not true.

They are simply unwilling to make the choice to rebalance the economy to work for 95% of the population, instead of the top 5%.

That's exactly what Labour did in the budget. There were a few token things like VAT on private school fees and changes to inheritance tax, but it didn't do anything radical. In 5 years time when the next election is due, the

Re: (Score:2)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

The mediocre centrists always tell you that their hands are tied by the messed up economy that the last hard right government left them with, but it's not true.

Nonethelss, there is no magic. We've had 14 years of austerity, and mismanagement and now at a time of higher interest rates there are limits to what any government can do.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle, and while the budget was a breath of fresh air on the side of not being woefully incompetent, it was disappointingly like th

Re: (Score:2)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

Even if the government is unwilling to raise the money from taxation, it can borrow. Sure it's not as cheap as it used to be, but borrowing to invest is still a sensible idea. Invested wisely it's not difficult to see a much bigger return than the cost of borrowing it.

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

Hahaha, you hit the nail on the head with modern Democrats. They weren't always like this...

As for the end of your post, I hope you don't think I'm being rude here but I feel like I hear this type of hopeless pessimism from Brits often nowadays about their country. All countries have high points and low points over the course of their history. So the UK is currently at a low point. So what? It's happened to every country. Being hopeless about it won't help one little bit and if anything it's a hindrance to

Re: (Score:2)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

So we have this thing called the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which is an independent branch of the government that provides financial forecasts. They evaluate government budgets and lay out projections based on different policies. They are generally thought to be fairly reliable.

The OBR says that Brexit has caused a permanent 4% decline in GDP. That's pretty significant. Brexit has also pushed Northern Ireland and Scotland closer to leaving the union - not that I mind that, but there won't be mu

Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

> That's a very fancy way to say that they've done goofed up...

Who did? Democrats? The left? The continent? When you move outside the bubble and see that cost of living has skyrocketed the entire world over and transcends all of the political spectrum and even transcends economic systems, it shows the only people who have "goofed up" are the idiots who blame it on political party X in their home country.

Re: (Score:2)

by korgitser ( 1809018 )

Everyone goofed up. The idiots who blame it on party X goofed up, but you cannot blame them, because the parties have conditioned them to do that through constant media bullshit; in any case these idiots goofing up is nonconcsequentianonl, as they don't have any sway over the political functioning of a country.

The leadership goofing up, all of them, every party and every country, that has real consequences, and the consequences are here, and dire, and we haven't got the faintest actual idea of how to do any

What does the Constitution even mean anymore? (Score:1, Insightful)

by perlstar ( 245756 )

When the president promises to be a dictator on day 1, how can he even be administered the oath of office to uphold and protect the constitution? Laws do not mean anything unless society is willing to enforce them.

Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

by geekmux ( 1040042 )

> Laws do not mean anything unless society is willing to enforce them.

We agree. So feel free to detail a valid argument against exercising the 25th Amendment for at least the last 2 years.

When that President actually proves to be a dictator, then we will deal with it. Until then, stop acting like the idiot who actually believes campaign promises. It’s 2024 for fucks sake.

Re: (Score:2)

by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

Where is the line exactly? Granting the president immunity from virtually all crimes committed in office wasn't it. Taking away women's bodily autonomy wasn't it.

It's one of those cases where it actually is a slippery slope, as the dictator gains control of more and more parts of the government, removes barriers to their dictatorship one by one.

Will it be enough when he starts prosecuting his political enemies on trumped up charges? And what are you actually going to do about it then?

Re:What does the Constitution even mean anymore? (Score:4, Informative)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Biden wasn’t giving word salad answers and standing on stage listening to music for 40 minutes. If Biden showed did any of those things they’d hospitalize him.

[1]https://newrepublic.com/post/1... [newrepublic.com]

[2]https://amp.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]

Hell he was giving incomprehensible speeches back in 2016.

[3]https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]

[1] https://newrepublic.com/post/185669/trump-incoherence-new-york-times-ignores

[2] https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/15/trump-dancing-pennsylvania-rally

[3] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/

What nonsense... (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

> When that President actually proves to be a dictator, then we will deal with it.

Oh good, so basically when it's too late to do anything about it that's when we should do something about it then?

> Until then, stop acting like the idiot who actually believes campaign promises. It’s 2024 for fucks sake.

So you're saying people shouldn't form opinions on candidates based on what they say? What exactly should we base our voting on then? At the very least, even if you don't believe a candidate will follow through on an arming thing they have said, you should be concerned that they thought it would get them votes.

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

Oops, arming = alarming

Re: (Score:3)

by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

According to Hurr, Biden was likely unfit to stand trial.

Re: What does the Constitution even mean anymore? (Score:2)

by writeRight ( 1444379 )

How does USA 'society' go about enforcing laws when prosecutors won't do it? Maybe you know how a blue collar nobody can enforce a law such as 8 USC 1324 against an employer or apartment rental which is helping to harbor aliens?

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

"8 U.S. Code  1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens"

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Inflation (Score:2)

by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 )

People point at the core inflation rate as if it were the total and complete description of prices, and that's stupid at best and a deliberate lie at worst. But lie all you want, someone living in said economy knows when prices are up. If rent, food, and gas are up well that's most of what I'm paying for if I'm in the bottom 50% of income and it's a significant amount if I'm in the bottom 70%. You think quoting me a lie on a national news network is going to make me feel better about the tough choices I hav

Re: (Score:2)

by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

One of few things where political instincts and the public's best interests align behind the lie, I think.

If a politician comes out and says, "we're fucked, folks, bend over and grab your ankles"... you get widespread panic and the situation gets worse, and the politician gets run out of town. They have to lie with the most optimistic interpretation of the economy that they can sell, for both their own self-interest and the general public's.

Of course, the politicians seeking power are free to tell us all t

Whatever helps you sleep at night (Score:2, Insightful)

by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 )

Yes, these mysterious time traveling "conditions" ... I am sure they are due to some sneaky time bomb that Trump hid in 2018 or so.

Anyway, being race-obsessed, gender-bender-obsessed, high-immigration loving wankers who love to censor, jail, and project everything onto your political opponents didn't help you much either ...

But please, do keep grasping at straws and not understanding why you lost. That would be fine.

Re: (Score:3, Informative)

by maladroit ( 71511 )

Anyway, being race-obsessed, gender-bender-obsessed, high-immigration loving wankers who love to censor, jail, and project everything onto your political opponents didn't help you much either ...

Trump being race-obsessed: [1]https://www.cbsnews.com/video/... [cbsnews.com]

Trump being gender-obsessed: [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Trump loving high-immigration: [3]https://www.azcentral.com/stor... [azcentral.com]

Trump censoring: [4]https://www.foxnews.com/media/... [foxnews.com]

Trump wanting to jail political opponents: [5]https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]

As a

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trumps-tense-response-to-nabj-questions/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rENURoBPJo

[3] https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2024/08/22/trump-border-bill-arizona-visit/74898253007/

[4] https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-calls-cbs-lose-its-broadcasting-license-amid-60-minutes-controversy-unprecedented-scandal

[5] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/04/trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-fact-check/73962711007/

Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

by Talon0ne ( 10115958 )

You're gaslighting us right?

* Trump being race-obsessed: [1]https://www.cbsnews.com/video/ [cbsnews.com]... [cbsnews.com]

That interviewer was hostile as could be and Trump was a real gentlemen. I watched the whole thing when it was live this summer, it's fine. The race-obsession is yours.

* Trump being gender-obsessed: [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?... [youtube.com]

Trump is advocating for YOUR SIDE to stop being gender weirdos. Yes, weirdos. 1% of the population doesn't get to decide what's normal. We'll tolerate it, but w

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch

Re: (Score:2)

by Cyberax ( 705495 )

> That interviewer was hostile as could be and Trump was a real gentlemen.

I can't.... I just can't. Trump got only softball questions, and shat his pants in replies. Trump has never been to a truly hostile interview, where he has to sit and answer questions of someone who truly hates him. Not once within the last 6 years.

Re: (Score:3)

by VanGarrett ( 1269030 )

Doesn't seem like TFA is trying to blame the world for Democrats' poor performance this time around. It's more like they're observing the Democrats getting the boot, and saying, "Look, there's a global pattern going on, here."

Re: (Score:2)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

Anyway, being race-obsessed, gender-bender-obsessed, high-immigration loving wankers

The only people who keep endlessly posting this shit are you, Iamwaysmarterthanyou and a few other self identified right wingers. You are fucking obsessed about race and gender.

But please, do keep grasping at straws and not understanding why you lost.

Oddly enough a nation where ~50% of the population appear happy to deny bodily autonomy to women doesn't seem so keen on having one as president. Weird!

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

I studied the link you provided and the massive dip occurs in 2021. I can't seem to find the legislation, are you able to link to it?

New political tactics (Score:2)

by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

Great. Because politicians are known for being altruists who would rather do their best to lead us for the common good and not craven opportunists. (/s)

If you want your party and your personal political career to survive... you have to bail as soon as something bad and outside your control appears on the horizon, let the other party take the fall for it, then come in as the savior afterwards. That doesn't sound like a great formula for good governance.

Incumbency?? (Score:5, Interesting)

by La Onza ( 7334544 )

Please don’t take this as some kind of MAGA victory lap – because it isn’t. That said, I have seen very little to no consideration by those on the left of the possibility that the American people simply believe the Trump’s policies overall are better than Harris’s. The pundits and politicians on the left site incumbency or misogyny or racism or some strategic messaging mistake to urban single men in the south with red hair without even taking a breath to slow down and consider – maybe the people just don’t want her policies, and, yes – to really consider that maybe the people made the right decision based on their own self interests. It is possible.

Re: (Score:2)

by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 )

You are exactly right. I live among many Trump supporters. They were *not* reacting to "incumbency." They are instead, horrified by Biden's policies.

They *hate*

- abortion

- gay marriage

- being forced to use transgender pronouns and allowing boys to compete in girls' sports, etc.

- immigrants (No, not just the illegal ones, all immigrants. If they were really OK with legal immigration, they would be in favor of reforming the process to enter legally, but they are not.)

- excessive environmental regulation (exce

Re: (Score:2)

by LDA6502 ( 7474138 )

While those wedge issues were likely a factor, exit polls noted that the #1 issue for voters was the economy. People were angry about inflation, jobs, and taxes.

Of course, inflation is now down to 2.4%. Unemployment is at a ten year low. The stock market is at record highs. Federal income taxes are near the 50-year average. Corporate profits are high. Gasoline prices are down. The US currently has one of the best economies in the western world. But when you talk to Trump supporters, they blame Biden

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Trump was running commercials back in 2020 calling Biden's age into question. Now Trump is older than than Biden was back then.

President Trump, you – you talked about how the increase in the price of food, gas and rent is hurting families, but the real cost that’s breaking families’ backs and preventing women from participating in the workforce is child care. Child care is now more expensive than rent for working families and is costing the economy more than $122 billion a year, making it

Re: (Score:2)

by speedlaw ( 878924 )

Did we all forget his sundowning to Ave Maria at a rally ? His election did not make him competent. Policy and Politics aside, the person is just not fit for the job....but Baron VonShitsThePants will be hitting forward on his computer soon so Vlad will see The President's Daily Briefing on the regular again.

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

> I have seen very little to no consideration by those on the left of the possibility that the American people simply believe the Trumpâ(TM)s policies overall are better than Harrisâ(TM)s.

Name one which is.

Re: (Score:2)

by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

It doesn't matter how many MAGAs apply 'troll' mods to that post, the truth abides. Reality is apolitical, and you can't bend it.

Tariffs will increase prices for Americans, not foreign companies. Deportations will reduce the work force willing to do low-end labor Americans won't do, raising the cost of such labor and probably making it unaffordable. Deportations will also ensure the US population starts contracting, which means economic contraction, and every financial system built on eternal growth wil

Re: (Score:3)

by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 )

Regarding tariffs and deportation, it's actually hard to tell the difference between Trump and Biden.

Biden's administration deported about the same number of immigrants as Trump. [1]https://www.migrationpolicy.or... [migrationpolicy.org]

The Biden administration kept most of Trump's tariffs, and even expanded some of them. [2]https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]

While Trump cozied up to Putin, Biden capitulated to the Taliban.

So when you look at things from a balanced perspective, it's kind of hard to see which devil is worse.

[1] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-record

[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/15/biden-tariff-reaction-trump-00158043

Re: (Score:2)

by HanzoSpam ( 713251 )

Even if your statement were true, which it isn't, I'm perfectly fine with the economy takeing a hit while righting the ship.

I prefer to live in a country, not an economy. First, let's figure out what kind of a country we want to live in, *then* we figure our what kind of an economy will support it, rather than the way around.

I'm really tired of this notion that the economy is an angry volcano god we have to keep throwing virgins into to appease. First, we do what's good for the interests of the citizens of

Re: (Score:2)

by WaffleMonster ( 969671 )

> Tariffs and deportations are going to hammer the American economy badly - these things aren't even slightly difficult to understand, so if you don't it's because you don't want to. Tearing down what little accountability the 1% had under the law is not going to help the little guy either. Breaking alliances to cozy up to fascist dictators isn't going to enhance American power and standing around the world, nor what global stability we've enjoyed for the last few decades.

Commentary from Aleksandr Dugin (A Russian Goebbels wannabee) on Trump's election victory: "So we have won. That is decisive. The world will be never ever like before. Globalists have lost their final combat. The future is finally open"

It's society's fault. Typical liberal excuses. (Score:3)

by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 )

Yes, a "rightwing" party lost big in Britain, if anything in Europe can count as "rightwing." But this was also the same party that's been undoing the damage from the Right Honorable Head of Lettuce for the past two years.

Yeah the dems got some headwinds. But you know what: if you lose the popular vote to Donald Trump, it's not headwinds, it's your own dumbass policies that done it:

Natural gas export freeze, drilling bans, ICE car bans, gas stove bans, bullshit dishwasher efficiency standards, loan forgiveness for grown ass adults who made suboptimal choices and now want mommy government to take the ouchies away, Sam Brinton (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brinton) in charge of securing nuclear waste, "whole-of-government" equity mandates, you name it.

Re:It's society's fault. Typical liberal excuses. (Score:4, Interesting)

by whoever57 ( 658626 )

> But this was also the same party that's been undoing the damage from the Right Honorable Head of Lettuce for the past two years.

This was the same party that installed the Right Honorable Head of Lettuce. Only the Tory party MPs got to vote on the replacement for Johnson.

Let's not forget the sleaze brought to politics by Johnson and his cronies.

Trying to blame Tory party problems in Liz Truss is nonsensical.

Re: It's society's fault. Typical liberal excuses. (Score:2)

by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 )

You misunderstand. The tories' downfall is the result of their own mistakes, not "headwinds". Just like the democrats.

Re: (Score:2)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

> Yes, a "rightwing" party lost big in Britain, if anything in Europe can count as "rightwing."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, presumably literal neo-nazis are not "right wing" enough for you. Do you think Orban isn't right wing? Wilders? Meloni? What does someone need to do to please you? Pass a law legalising the lynching of immigrants? What about the entire AfD which just made headway in regional elections throughout Germany, you know the party that proposed deporting all Muslims even if they are German citizens?

Yeah nothing will ever be right wing enough for you, presumably not until we r

Re: It's society's fault. Typical liberal excuses. (Score:2)

by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 )

Nazis. Communists. All statist, collectivist trash.

Tell me, comrade: Does your favorite "rightwing" bogeyman or woman deign to allow unrestricted speech? Permit free citizens to carry arms for self-defense? Entrust the population to manage their own finances without the state demanding a 40%+ cut, for their own good?

Have fun wallowing in the ashes of the Old World, friend.

Re: (Score:2)

by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

Yes, a "rightwing" party lost big in Britain, if anything in Europe can count as "rightwing."

Either you don't know much about Europe or you think that the Republican party is to the right of the Italian neo-fascists. Sure you know what I'll let you have that one.

But this was also the same party that's been undoing the damage from the Right Honorable Head of Lettuce for the past two years.

Not really. Truss was a spectacular, but ultimately a minor bit part. This is the party that eviscerated public services

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

The government isn't taking away your cars or stoves. I can explain the stove ban (more like a warning label) if you care to listen. Newly constructed homes are well sealed and don't have good air exchange leading to higher carbon monoxide levels and other combustion byproducts. Ah but there is a magic new technology in the culinary world known as induction. In fact it heats pans faster than gas and has tons of features like being able to lock in pan at a specific temperature. Induction stoves even have sen

Re: It's society's fault. Typical liberal excuses. (Score:2)

by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 )

There's a magic device next to my stove called an "exhaust vent." I'm sure many homes have one.

There's also this thing called amperage. A home or neighborhood designed for gas heating and cooking will have lower amperage conductors feeding it. Maybe a couple or three guys on the street can electrify but doing it for the whole block would require upgrading the transmission capacity at significant cost.

This latter effect is known as the fallacy of composition: the assertion that what's good for me is going to

Lies (Score:2)

by Tablizer ( 95088 )

Re: "drilling bans" -- Record drilling under Joe. Gas prices are mostly controlled by other nations and more drilling won't change that. Drilling is a false hero.

Re: "ICE car bans, gas stove bans" -- LIES

Re: "bullshit dishwasher efficiency standards" -- Prove it's BS

Mandate (Score:3)

by quintessencesluglord ( 652360 )

Even with all the hopes for change, yesterdays' incumbents were at one time the winds of change, but they became arrogant and bought off.

And I hold no illusions the same won't happen again.

I doubt any structural change will happen without the threat of civil war, and in such fraught circumstances, it is difficult to chart a course towards that change.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

How politicians work... (Score:3)

by andyring ( 100627 )

When campaigning: "Put me in office! I'll fix all the stuff you don't like!"

Once in office: "Your life now sucks, you can't afford anything, and you lost your job? Not my fault, sorry! Can't do anything about it. But don't you DARE elect those other guys, they'll just make it worse!"

Well, almost (Score:2)

by fyngyrz ( 762201 )

FTFS:

> Voters don't like high prices, so they punished the Democrats for being in charge when inflation hit.

Well, actually, voters don't like high prices, so they punished the Democrats for being in charge when corporate price gouging and housing price gouging hit and never backed off.

Also, because they have no other lever to "encourage" the corrupt political system to do something about it. Not that they will, of course. Have to keep those sweet corporate bribe flows running smoothly.

Re: (Score:2)

by XanC ( 644172 )

In a competitive market, price gouging is a fiction. I think a big reason Harris lost was her proposal for Soviet-style price fixing.

Bullshit (Score:2)

by Big Bipper ( 1120937 )

It's not that countries are swinging to one side or the other. The real reason is that the people, who have been taking it in the ass since their politicians came out of the closet and showed their true colours during their covid hoax, are letting those politicians know what we think of them and their agenda. They are the ones who are really the deplorable garbage.

Re: (Score:2)

by jd ( 1658 )

There was no covid hoax. Covid was a very real - natural - virus with a mortality rate amongst the unvaccinated that was about 25% that of smallpox. In other words, way way too high.

Those who caught covid but recovered WILL have substantial organ damage, even if they were asymptomatic.

If you believe any differently on any of these points, you're an idiot who bought into the lies and conspiracy theories of people who had a deep-seated desire to see as high a mortality rate as could be achieved.

Keep politics out of slashdot (Score:2)

by davide marney ( 231845 )

And keep it out of the workplace.

And out of the movies.

And out of bars.

As a bartender explained to a reporter why she turned the sound off at the bar on election night, "politics makes people angry, and angry people don't buy drinks."

Perhaps it's not change (Score:2)

by Dusanyu ( 675778 )

People felt like they were lied to about the state of Joe Biden after the debate performance to the point that even the dems. were saying we can't hide this anymore and out him. To make matters worse they install someone as the nominee who absolutely failed in primaries and as a vice-president had extremely low approval numbers. Secondly look at how the campaigns were ran Trump went to flyover states and smaller towns and listened and held genuine conversations with them while the democrats were insulting t

Yes... (Score:2)

by jd ( 1658 )

... But to be fair on voters, the Democrats were well aware tgat Trump's policies were dangerously inflationary and that the world situation was dangerously unstable when they went into power.

They could have urged the Federal Reserve to take action sooner (although they couldn't have actually made them).

They could have put fewer constraints on the money for moving chip manufacturing back to America.

They could have offered incentives, as part of that deal, for Intel to boost QA, which would have resulted in

No Funny here? (Score:2)

by shanen ( 462549 )

Sadness. The topic needed some levity.

Re: (Score:2)

by ls671 ( 1122017 )

Did you just discover the word "gerrymandering"? You posted at least 10 times mentioning it. You remind me of a kid who has just discovered a new word and who keeps on using it over and over again.

Re: (Score:3)

by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 )

Gerrymandering is a political thing, not just a Republican thing. Democrats engage in it just as enthusiastically, whenever they can.

[1]https://www.vox.com/22961590/r... [vox.com]

[1] https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms

Re: (Score:2)

by davide marney ( 231845 )

"Republicans did what they always do: they took their gerrymandering heat maps and used them to shut down polling places in blue districts and send too few voting machines to the ones they couldn't shut down."

List the specific "polling places" in "blue districts" where REPUBLICANS "sent too few voting machines" or you're lying to yourself.

I am a veteran poll worker. Get your ugly politics out of our elections rules and processes, which are set years in advance, and if there are any last-minute changes, they

Re: (Score:2)

by LDA6502 ( 7474138 )

But it is okay when the orange man spent a considerable amount of time demonizing Biden, Clinton, Harris, Obama, and Pelosi? Or when he forgot exactly who his opponent was?

And I'm curious to see how reduced federal oversight under Trump is going to help prevent future outbreaks of avian flu among poultry farmers. You know, the outbreak that was the main cause behind the spike in egg prices?

Lastly, the current transgender panic is just the latest in a series of emotional wedge issues that conservatives use

To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient
solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
-- H. Poincar'e