The US Mid-Term Elections 2022

[Stavros]

1) Vote Early, if they let you
Early voting has already begun in the Mid-Terms, and the first rejections have taken place in Georgia where a Black woman was told her vote has been challenged. She was not told by whom, or why, and it was probably because she has a PhD, and was determined enough to make enquiries to discover that a brief clause in the new election act in fact would have allowed the election clerk to accept the vote. One can imagine that less persistent voters, voters with other things to do that day, might just go home, while the prospect of most Black votes being challenged is real.
The report is here-
Early voters in Georgia face obstacles under state’s new election law | US news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/22/georgia-early-voting-obstacles-new-election-law)

2) Gunmen on Patrol, Watch your back!
Armed men have been parked near drop off boxes at night in Arizona, or Arizona doubling for a Military Dictatorship. Whether it deters voters from posting their ballots remains to be seen, but it does indicate that the boys in uniform may yet decide who gets to vote. Or maybe it is just bravado? Maybe someone can take them a drink of water?
The report is here-
Armed and masked 'ballot watchers' sat by ballot drop boxes in Arizona late at night, prompting police investigation (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/armed-masked-ballot-watchers-sat-144916638.html)

3) In any event, if Republicans lose the vote, they will change it
The argument here is that Republicans cannot lose. It doesn't matter how many votes are thrown out, if they still lose the popular vote, they have mechanisms to 'correct' the vote their way. Otherwise, we are told, it will be 'civil war'. Might be best to just cancel the vote and go straight to your local Gettysburg.
The report is here-
Pollster warns of post-midterm ‘civil war’ if voters don’t accept election results (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pollster-warns-post-midterm-civil-195022794.html)

Almost as tense as the UK waiting to find out who the next Prime Minster will be. And the Conservative Party doesn't have to bother the voters with that one!

[KnightHawk 2.0]

1) Vote Early, if they let you
Early voting has already begun in the Mid-Terms, and the first rejections have taken place in Georgia where a Black woman was told her vote has been challenged. She was not told by whom, or why, and it was probably because she has a PhD, and was determined enough to make enquiries to discover that a brief clause in the new election act in fact would have allowed the election clerk to accept the vote. One can imagine that less persistent voters, voters with other things to do that day, might just go home, while the prospect of most Black votes being challenged is real.
The report is here-
Early voters in Georgia face obstacles under state’s new election law | US news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/22/georgia-early-voting-obstacles-new-election-law)

2) Gunmen on Patrol, Watch your back!
Armed men have been parked near drop off boxes at night in Arizona, or Arizona doubling for a Military Dictatorship. Whether it deters voters from posting their ballots remains to be seen, but it does indicate that the boys in uniform may yet decide who gets to vote. Or maybe it is just bravado? Maybe someone can take them a drink of water?
The report is here-
Armed and masked 'ballot watchers' sat by ballot drop boxes in Arizona late at night, prompting police investigation (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/armed-masked-ballot-watchers-sat-144916638.html)

3) In any event, if Republicans lose the vote, they will change it
The argument here is that Republicans cannot lose. It doesn't matter how many votes are thrown out, if they still lose the popular vote, they have mechanisms to 'correct' the vote their way. Otherwise, we are told, it will be 'civil war'. Might be best to just cancel the vote and go straight to your local Gettysburg.
The report is here-
Pollster warns of post-midterm ‘civil war’ if voters don’t accept election results (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pollster-warns-post-midterm-civil-195022794.html)

Almost as tense as the UK waiting to find out who the next Prime Minster will be. And the Conservative Party doesn't have to bother the voters with that one!All of this is happening because the MAGA King Donald Trump made false claims about the 2020 Election being stolen from him,and he did everything he could to overturn the results from filing ridiculous lawsuits,asking the US Supreme Court to intervene,asking the Georgia Secretary Of State to find 11,780 votes, and causing an insurrection to stop the certification of the ballots in an attempt to stay in power,and nearly 2 years later he's still out there spreading misinformation about the 2020 Election.

[Stavros]

All of this is happening because the MAGA King Donald Trump made false claims about the 2020 Election being stolen from him,and he did everything he could to overturn the results from filing ridiculous lawsuits,asking the US Supreme Court to intervene,asking the Georgia Secretary Of State to find 11,780 votes, and causing an insurrection to stop the certification of the ballots in an attempt to stay in power,and nearly 2 years later he's still out there spreading misinformation about the 2020 Election.

But long before Trump you had Newton Gingrich, so the question is, why has the Republican Party become the 'nasty party' of the USA? It has been in power so many times in the last 50 years yet casts itself and its voters as victims. It uses this position of grievance to attack, insult and abuse the very people whose votes they should be attempting to win, or have they reached a point where they do not consider certain people to be 'Americans' or in Tucker Carlson's phrase, 'Legacy Americans'?

And when they are not nasty, they are just plain ignorant. I don't know much about Herschel Walker, but from what snippets I have seen he comes across as a barely coherent fool, so who suggested he run for public office? People laugh at the UK because of the chaos caused in our politics by Brexit, but the laughter generated by Trump is more than a little nervous, and is based on deep fear. I am not sure who will be laughing in November. More like tears.

But, why?

[KnightHawk 2.0]

But long before Trump you had Newton Gingrich, so the question is, why has the Republican Party become the 'nasty party' of the USA? It has been in power so many times in the last 50 years yet casts itself and its voters as victims. It uses this position of grievance to attack, insult and abuse the very people whose votes they should be attempting to win, or have they reached a point where they do not consider certain people to be 'Americans' or in Tucker Carlson's phrase, 'Legacy Americans'?

And when they are not nasty, they are just plain ignorant. I don't know much about Herschel Walker, but from what snippets I have seen he comes across as a barely coherent fool, so who suggested he run for public office? People laugh at the UK because of the chaos caused in our politics by Brexit, but the laughter generated by Trump is more than a little nervous, and is based on deep fear. I am not sure who will be laughing in November. More like tears.

But, why?Completely agree the Republican Party has become the party of Nastiness and Ignorance ,who cast themselves and their voters as victims,and use their position of grievance to attack their supporters because their don't certain people to be americans. The Ignorant Fool Herschel Walker is the type of candidate they like,because he'll do what they tell him to do and support him. And also agree that the laughter from the MAGA King Donald Trump is based on fear. Because the Republican Party want to be in control of the House and Senate,and will do anything to obtain that power.

[broncofan]

There's a lot at stake because Trump has always represented a slide into fascism and post-truth politics. The Republican Party has been the party of Trump since 2016, were unmoved by a coup he tried to carry out, and now endorse pretty open antisemitism, along with the racism, Islamophobia and hatred of the transgender community that has been their staple for a long time. They've overturned Roe, have their eye on Obergefell and gay marriage, and have pretty much convinced people that facing any consequences for overt hatred by private citizens or companies is "cancel culture" rather than society doing what it's always done by enforcing social norms.

I will be voting early and straight Democratic ticket.

There have been some good posts by Filghy and Stavros about whether the Republican party under Trump is merely a more extreme version of the same insidious politics we saw with the tea party and before that with Gingrich in the 90s. They've generally convinced me that the party is not categorically different but was headed in this direction and primed by Trump's predecessors to tolerate more and more extreme behavior. And still I feel we've reached a tipping point where just about everyone who is female, gay, transgender, Black, Jewish, Muslim, or any visible minority should feel threatened by what they're doing.

Republicans will support Black people, but only if they don't support voting rights for other Black people. They support Jews, but only those who they can placate with militaristic nonsense about Israel, while engaging in financial conspiracy theories about Jews and tolerating public speech that pretty much identifies us as enemies of the state. I have not seen them use Muslims in the same way (maybe indicating their hatred is unconditional and there are no compromises available to individual Muslims who want to be part of their shitshow), but then there are the Log Cabin Republicans who find themselves banned from GOP sponsored events yet still wanting to be part of the big tent. But what do they stand for? A return to an era where base prejudices could be openly expressed without social consequences? Fundamentalist Christian doctrine enforced against women and the lgbt community? What the hell does all of this do for anyone except socialize human misery?

[Stavros]

I have said it before, but I think the US system enables more extremists, weirdos and incompetents to enter public office than most other Liberal Democracies. Part of this is due to the absence of a proper membership roll and rules.

In the past, men and women seeking office in Congress used to have experience at some level in their State, from their House/Senate all the way to Governor, which for some was one of the best placed offices for any aspiring President, although I think, statistically, being VP has been the most common key to the Oval Office.

But anyone can declare themselves a Democrat or a Republican, vote in the Primaries, and put themselves forward for election, whereas if you had a Roll and Rules, then for example, it would not be possible for someone without, say, 5 years of membership. It used to be the case in the UK Labour Party that you could not get onto the Panel for Parliament without a vote by the local Party, and that wasn't possible if people didn't know who you were but I don't know if it still holds, but on this basis, Trump would not have been able to represent the Republicans.

Indeed, he realized when he ran as an Independent in 2000 that he had no machine to carry him nationwide -and pay for it-, and was also not well known enough to the public -but on most aspects of his personal history and what was known of his character, he was, and remains unfit for public office, but the Party had no way of preventing him from standing, and got for their reward a man totally absorbed by himself, and completely incapable, as Bob Woodward said yesterday-

"“Trump is an unparalleled danger,” Woodward wrote in a Washington Post essay (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2022/trump-tapes-bob-woodward-interviews-audiobook/?itid=hp_opinions_p001_f007) adapted from the new audiobook. “When you listen to him on the range of issues from foreign policy to the virus to racial injustice, it’s clear he did not know what to do. Trump was overwhelmed by the job. He was largely disconnected from the needs and leadership expectations of the public and his absolute self-focus became the presidency.”"
Trump Tapes Reveal He's 'Dangerous' And 'A Threat To Democracy,' Bob Woodward Warns | HuffPost UK Politics (huffingtonpost.co.uk) (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bob-woddward-audiobook-trump-dangerous-democracy-threat_n_6356023fe4b0e376dc18f6ee)

Either Trump has made conspiracy theories and extreme policies 'mainstream', or it is the decades of 'failure' by previous Democrat and Republican politics that has undermined 'the Centre ground' which Trump shifted.

Or, Trump represents a rump of Americans whose grievances are based on what they see as a decline in the Superiority of the 'Legacy Americans', a concept that reaches back to Jamestown and the Mayflower and leap-frogs over Slavery because it remains uncomfortable with the claim that all Americans are equal, and quite deliberately targets Black voters for suppression. This may be why numerically the 'Victims' cannot command more than 30% of the total vote, but are determined to use election law in the States to make, without any irony, Minority rule the norm. And in doing so, to impose policies the people haven't voted for and don't want.

Just one example -having congratulated the Supreme Court on 'returning' the case of Abortion to the State, why have those States not held Referenda to find out what the people in the State want? In a Liberal Democracy, you now have supporters of Trump who believe it has failed them, and who seem to have decided 'People Power' in the State is all that matters, and that rigging the voting system is the best way to achieve it.

But as they don't command a majority nationwide, and have half-wits, and some truly nasty people running for office, it will be interesting to see if they can transform their grievances into real power. Is it possible that voters have seen what Trump and his Apostles have to offer in terms of violence and disruption -and don't want that? We shall see soon enough.

[filghy2]

There have been some good posts by Filghy and Stavros about whether the Republican party under Trump is merely a more extreme version of the same insidious politics we saw with the tea party and before that with Gingrich in the 90s. They've generally convinced me that the party is not categorically different but was headed in this direction and primed by Trump's predecessors to tolerate more and more extreme behavior. And still I feel we've reached a tipping point where just about everyone who is female, gay, transgender, Black, Jewish, Muslim, or any visible minority should feel threatened by what they're doing.

There's been a lot of continuity, but nonetheless it's alarming how quickly the Republican Party has been taken over by the crazies and extremists. January 6 was obviously a watershed moment and all but a few quickly decided to acquiesce in election denialism and resist any accountability for what happened. Two years after Kevin McCarthy said there was no place in the party for QAnon he is now embracing them. Some Republicans are now talking openly about anti-democratic solutions and ignoring the courts.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23373795/curtis-yarvin-neoreaction-redpill-moldbug

I really wonder what is going through the minds of the more normal Republicans (politicians and voters). I know some have quit, but there's no sign of mass desertions. Are they in denial about what is happening? Do they think they can keep their positions by appeasing the crazies? Do they not care as long as they get low taxes and deregulation?

[filghy2]

[duplicate post]

[filghy2]

I have said it before, but I think the US system enables more extremists, weirdos and incompetents to enter public office than most other Liberal Democracies. Part of this is due to the absence of a proper membership roll and rules.

Well, you still got Liz Truss, and Jeremy Corbyn on the other side. The problem is that party memberships are very small (only 81,000 members voted for Truss) and tend to be people with more zealous views than the general electorate. In theory, there should be a corrective - extremists and incompetents lose the general election and the party chooses someone more appealing next time. However, this doesn't always work, especially if the electoral system allows minority rule.

I'm not so sure that a strict membership vote would have blocked Trump in 2016. I know he wasn't popular with the Party machine back then, but he seemed to have quickly become popular with the rank-and-file.

[broncofan]

But as they don't command a majority nationwide, and have half-wits, and some truly nasty people running for office, it will be interesting to see if they can transform their grievances into real power. Is it possible that voters have seen what Trump and his Apostles have to offer in terms of violence and disruption -and don't want that? We shall see soon enough.
Great post Stavros. I'm not sure whether this is an important point but I've talked to a few people close to Trump and either their love of how he denigrates others distorts their view of his capabilities or he has some quality that makes him very effective. I think it's a bit of both.

One thing I think he has is a kind of animal cunning. There are some very good poker players who are not very good analytical thinkers even though understanding probabilities and pot odds is an important part of the game. They have an intuitive sense when someone is concerned, or bluffing, or strong, and no hesitation to use this information to their benefit.

For a guy who cannot even master the simplest subject, Trump seems to tap into the Republican zeitgeist and pick up themes and grievances very easily. Sometimes they are grievances he shares but there's something very predatory about the way he exploits other people's grievances. I also think that in the US there is a tendency to idolize rich people who are not very exceptional. Many can't imagine using their intellect for a more worthy aim than pissing in a golden toilet so the guy who does it must be a genius. But if you look at the way people respond to Elon Musk, who makes a fool out of himself on twitter everyday, it shows the kind of built in advantage someone has if they're rich and openly foolish.

Here he is saying chess is a simple game because the board is only 8 by 8. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1584537377837490177

But back to the main topic that you addressed...our system can be and has been manipulated, both through court stacking and gerrymandering.

[broncofan]

There's been a lot of continuity, but nonetheless it's alarming how quickly the Republican Party has been taken over by the crazies and extremists. January 6 was obviously a watershed moment and all but a few quickly decided to acquiesce in election denialism and resist any accountability for what happened. Two years after Kevin McCarthy said there was no place in the party for QAnon he is now embracing them. Some Republicans are now talking openly about anti-democratic solutions and ignoring the courts.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23373795/curtis-yarvin-neoreaction-redpill-moldbug

I really wonder what is going through the minds of the more normal Republicans (politicians and voters). I know some have quit, but there's no sign of mass desertions. Are they in denial about what is happening? Do they think they can keep their positions by appeasing the crazies? Do they not care as long as they get low taxes and deregulation?
I agree with you about the continuity. The Clinton years were insane, the Bush years were pretty awful, and the tea party movement was a grassroots right-wing grievance machine built on a foundation of conspiracy theories.

I think the rational Republicans who still vote Trump are only rational in the sense that they themselves observe norms and can rationally explain why they support conservative policies. But I think they are irrational in their beliefs about what liberals want. They think liberals want to reward people who aren't working instead of providing a social safety net. But as you say, the biggest problem is their priorities. They regard policies they disagree with, like comprehensive healthcare or student debt relief, as being worse than a President who says dangerous and false things that get people killed or who completely corrupts every branch of federal government.

[Stavros]

For a guy who cannot even master the simplest subject, Trump seems to tap into the Republican zeitgeist and pick up themes and grievances very easily. Sometimes they are grievances he shares but there's something very predatory about the way he exploits other people's grievances.



Your use of the word 'Predatory' seems apt as Bannon, perhaps facing jail-time, has not only lashed out again at Dr Fauci, but said 'when' the Republicans win the Mid-Terms, Fauci and his family will be 'hunted' -but is this rhetoric, or a threat, and from a man who wanted to decapitate Fauci and put his severed head on a pike outside the White House?

It does sound grandiloquent, but the more serious question arises from that video by JD Vance I posted a few days ago, because if you identify the Grievances Trump and his Apostles have, how are they to remedy them?

You have seen the Supreme Court shred most of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and Roe-v-Wade, and that both have enabled those who want to, to halt Abortions, suppress the Black Vote, make Registration harder, shut own Polling Stations on Election Day, and re-draw the boundaries of Congressional Districts to make it impossible for Black Elected Officials to make it. But with Vance's attack on the Universities as 'the Enemy', one asks how this translates into action.

Is Vance going to re-invent himself as a Little Stalin or Mao and purge the Universities of the 'Liberals' who work there? Will there be a test which involves tenured academics being asked to take a stand on LGBTQ+ issues, but notably Gender issues, and if they fail, will they be sacked? And as a consequence, a) would this be legal? and b) who replaces them?

It is one thing to have a grievance, another to remedy it. It might appear easier with single issues like Abortion and Voting, but in the Academy, the breadth of knowledge and debate is surely too wide, and diverse to be reduced to the status of 'the Enemy' -for surely the only sure remedy is to shut the Universities down? And if it is the belief that children in schools and young people in universities are being indoctrinated, then the curriculum must conform to whatever JD Vance says is the truth, and teachers be forced to teach it- this would be State Indoctrination more transparent than what Vance says is happening now, and in academic terms, a rejection of freedom of thought and expression.

The man who claims to believe in Freedom, wants to Dictate to your children what they shall read and learn. That way Perdition lies, and liberty crushed by a plastic boot.

[filghy2]

For a guy who cannot even master the simplest subject, Trump seems to tap into the Republican zeitgeist and pick up themes and grievances very easily. Sometimes they are grievances he shares but there's something very predatory about the way he exploits other people's grievances.

It's uncanny how Trump has spawned a political movement and hijacked a major political party without any coherent ideas, just egotism and a bunch of prejudices. His record in office was just a bunch of gestures, with no coherent program and no understanding of how to achieve change, but this has not fazed his fans. A bunch of disparate people seem to have latched onto him as a useful vehicle because of his ability to appeal to peoples' grievances and his willingness to ignore any rules.

[filghy2]

I think the rational Republicans who still vote Trump are only rational in the sense that they themselves observe norms and can rationally explain why they support conservative policies. But I think they are irrational in their beliefs about what liberals want. They think liberals want to reward people who aren't working instead of providing a social safety net. But as you say, the biggest problem is their priorities. They regard policies they disagree with, like comprehensive healthcare or student debt relief, as being worse than a President who says dangerous and false things that get people killed or who completely corrupts every branch of federal government.

I think it's a way of resolving cognitive dissonance. In order to rationalise standing with extremists who are willing to blow up the system, they have to convince themselves that the other side poses a bigger threat. You will recall that our old sparring partner liked to invoke the BLM protests to minimise the January 6 insurrection.

[Stavros]

Last night on ITV there was a documentary: America: the War Within, in which US correspondent Robert Moore talked to Republican Rusty Bowers in Arizona -exiled in his own State, the target of filthy and threatening abuse-, and then Mark Finchem, who denies Biden won the election but cannot cite real proof the election in Arizona was rigged. The mind-set here, and in Tennessee where he interviewed 'Pastor' Greg Locke, is one in which the American system of democracy has become either irrelevant, or an existential threat to their way of life. There is also footage of Lauren Boebert telling people to be happy they are living in the 'End Times' and will see the Second Coming of Jesus. What these people have to do with Christianity I don't know, it is not what I learned when I was growing up. No Love, no compassion or forgiveness, but lots of Rage, Threats and images of extinction.

But, on the other hand, they represent a minority of Americans, so the question is how does this 'other America' assert itself, and what will happen if, having captured key offices in the State, Republicans challenge every vote, in effect saying 'we will get this right until it is the outcome we want' -? It represents a fracture that might not be healed, but should we at least feel confident that more Americans want to maintain their Liberal Democracy than want to replace it with a race-based 'Christian Nationalism'?

The link is here, not sure if it works outside the UK.
America: The War Within - America: The War Within - ITV Hub (https://www.itv.com/hub/america-the-war-within/10a2424a0001)

[filghy2]

I doubt that many of these people believe genuinely that the last election was rigged, though many of their idiot supporters might. It seems to be a veneer covering their true belief that the other side cannot be a legitimate government because they are "un-American".

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on the "independent state legislature" doctrine. If endorsed, this could pave the way for Republican-controlled state legislatures to simply ignore the vote in Presidential elections and choose their own electoral college delegates. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/26/politics/doj-supreme-court-independent-state-legislature-theory-trump/index.html
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained

I recall there was talk of trying to pass a minimal electoral reform bill to ensure that states followed the result of the vote. I assume this hasn't happened.

[Stavros]

All good points, filghy2. The question must be whether or not the Confederate States have passed a point of No Return. If State's Rights becomes State Power, and then State Autonomy, what can the Federal Govt to impose its will or even the rule of law on an entire State? The only real mechanism here is in the Republican Party 'taking back control' from the Trumpits, but as Americans have seen Kevin McCarthy and Mitchell McConnell enable Trump and his supporters, I fear there may be no way back, that the Party has given up on America, its Constitution and the Rule of Law. What they want in its place could well lead to emigration by Democrats and those opposed to Christian Nationalism, and immigration by those who do. It means people leaving Idaho for Illinois and its reverse. It is in a way rather like the UK leaving the EU, only the Republicans have to decide if they are going to create their own currency, impose border controls, and in effect take their 'Autonomy' to the next level.

I think it was assumed Trump was an aberration, a blip, a temporary setback. It may yet be, but the future is both orange and not bright.

[filghy2]

Would the right be satisfied with imposing their will on red and purple states, though? That has not been the case on abortion. It's not in the nature of authoritarian zealots to live and let live.

Intellectual consistency does not seem to matter. The party that has previously defended the right of corporations to do as they wish is now willing to use the power of the state to punish corporations that do things the right don't like. I think states rights are also a one way street for them. If they control the federal government they will try to use federal power against Democrat states.

[Stavros]

Would the right be satisfied with imposing their will on red and purple states, though? That has not been the case on abortion. It's not in the nature of authoritarian zealots to live and let live.

Intellectual consistency does not seem to matter. The party that has previously defended the right of corporations to do as they wish is now willing to use the power of the state to punish corporations that do things the right don't like. I think states rights are also a one way street for them. If they control the federal government they will try to use federal power against Democrat states.

Indeed, for the contradiction lies in the State's Right's argument -if 'the Feds' are no longer relevant, why bother going to Congress or seeking the Presidency? In Trump's case, the Presidency is all about his ego and the opportunity to make money, so that could happen and not affect the break-up of the Union. But for the others it makes no sense, just as Randal Paul claims to be a Libertarian who wants to get Govt out of people's lives, but sits in Congress which is one of the three branches of... Government...

[Stavros]

So now it seems real power is local power, and the Sheriff is the ultimate authority. Scary.

"The "constitutional sheriffs" movement, which has ties to the Oath Keepers and other antigovernment fringe movements, is based on the legally dubious belief (https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/factsheet-constitutional-sheriff/) that sheriffs are the ultimate law enforcement authority within their counties, superseding state and federal officials, including the U.S. president. In recent years, self-appointed constitutional sheriffs have refused to enforce various laws that they deem unconstitutional, from state and federal gun laws to pandemic-era mask mandates."
‘Constitutional’ sheriffs movement urges law enforcement to intervene in election process (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/constitutional-sheriffs-movement-urges-law-enforcement-to-intervene-in-election-process-090017629.html)

See also
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Peace_Officers_Associa tion)

[KnightHawk 2.0]

So now it seems real power is local power, and the Sheriff is the ultimate authority. Scary.

"The "constitutional sheriffs" movement, which has ties to the Oath Keepers and other antigovernment fringe movements, is based on the legally dubious belief (https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/factsheet-constitutional-sheriff/) that sheriffs are the ultimate law enforcement authority within their counties, superseding state and federal officials, including the U.S. president. In recent years, self-appointed constitutional sheriffs have refused to enforce various laws that they deem unconstitutional, from state and federal gun laws to pandemic-era mask mandates."
‘Constitutional’ sheriffs movement urges law enforcement to intervene in election process (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/constitutional-sheriffs-movement-urges-law-enforcement-to-intervene-in-election-process-090017629.html)

See also
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Peace_Officers_Associa tion) Completely agree it is scary.

[blackchubby38]

I don't think we will truly no the answer to this question for awhile:

Yahoo News
Dems meddled in GOP primaries. Was it worth it?


http://www.yahoo.com/news/dems-meddled-in-gop-primaries-was-it-worth-it-163254803.html

[Stavros]

I don't think we will truly no the answer to this question for awhile:

Yahoo News
Dems meddled in GOP primaries. Was it worth it?
http://www.yahoo.com/news/dems-meddled-in-gop-primaries-was-it-worth-it-163254803.html

How do you read the campaigns in New York? The impression I get from the UK press is that the Democrats don't appear to be good at it, or, some candidates might be, but others seem ineffective in projecting themselves and their party. It may be that in the UK we are being 'set up' for a Republican take-over of the House, not sure about the Senate, or it may be the press can't get a handle on what is actually happening, and that a surprise might be coming.

I know it's not New York, but I saw a report about a woman called Kari Lake and I can't believe someone so aggressive and foul-mouthed is allowed to run. It is the way she gestured toward the Media pool during a rally speech and referred to the media as 'Bastards', not the kind of language one expects from someone seeking high office. I guess that is the measure of how low the bar is set these days.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Already harder for trans people to vote:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/200000-trans-people-face-voting-restrictions-state-id-laws-rcna52853

[Stavros]

Thanks for the link, Fitzcarraldo, though its contents may not surprise.

I admit to being ambivalent about 'mail-in' ballots in the UK (we call them 'Postal Votes') but the evidence in the US does suggest that it increases voter participation, and is now the only means to vote in five states.

I understand too, that whereas there is an argument that Democrat supporting voters are more likely to use Mail-in Ballots- which may be why Republicans are targetting Mail-in Ballots to reject, in Texas in 2016, it was mostly Republican Party voters who did so.

But it must be true that Republicans also use Mail-in Ballots outside those five states, so the Pennsylvania decision today could just as easily impact Republican votes as Democrats. More clarification on this would be welcome.

Benefits of Mail-in Voting - ElectionBuddy (https://electionbuddy.com/blog/2022/05/25/benefits-of-mail-in-voting/)

Texas Democrats were more likely to mail-in vote than Republicans in 2020 election | The Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/11/texas-mail-in-ballot-absentee-democrats-republicans/)

US midterms: Pennsylvania court rules to discount some mail-in ballots - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63487609)

[Fitzcarraldo]

I understand too, that whereas there is an argument that Democrat supporting voters are more likely to use Mail-in Ballots- which may be why Republicans are targetting Mail-in Ballots to reject, in Texas in 2016, it was mostly Republican Party voters who did so.

But it must be true that Republicans also use Mail-in Ballots outside those five states, so the Pennsylvania decision today could just as easily impact Republican votes as Democrats. More clarification on this would be welcome.


Prior to the 2020 election and Trump's denigration of the process, traditionally Republicans voted by mail (including Trump himself) far more than Democrats did. But in addition to attacking voting by mail for its fraud potential, Trump also installed Louis DeJoy as postmaster general, and sabotaged the postal service itself by cutting service and getting rid of sorting machines.

[filghy2]

The only reason they set out to denigrate mail-in votes in 2020 was that they knew Democrats would be more likely to use them because they were more concerned about Covid. It will be interesting to see whether this becomes a lasting imbalance due to Republican voters being turned off of mail voting by false claims. It will suit the election deniers' agenda if there is a late surge in Democrat votes from this source, which they can claim is suspicious.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The only reason they set out to denigrate mail-in votes in 2020 was that they knew Democrats would be more likely to use them because they were more concerned about Covid. It will be interesting to see whether this becomes a lasting imbalance due to Republican voters being turned off of mail voting by false claims. It will suit the election deniers' agenda if there is a late surge in Democrat votes from this source, which they can claim is suspicious.

The Republicans have made it more difficult to vote by mail. They've also removed lots of drop boxes (mostly from areas that tend to vote heavily Democratic). I always vote in person, but I try to vote early.

[filghy2]

The Republicans have made it more difficult to vote by mail. They've also removed lots of drop boxes (mostly from areas that tend to vote heavily Democratic). I always vote in person, but I try to vote early.

How easy is it to vote early in person in the US? In Australia we now have more than 40% of the votes being cast before election day. I've never made a postal vote because it's much easier to go to one of the early voting stations.

[Fitzcarraldo]

How easy is it to vote early in person in the US? In Australia we now have more than 40% of the votes being cast before election day. I've never made a postal vote because it's much easier to go to one of the early voting stations.

It varies, but it's very easy for me. There's an early voting site that's less than a 10-minute walk from my house. They're open 7 days a week for a couple weeks prior to election day. Early voting laws vary by state.

[Stavros]

This link to Kari Lake points out how she has flipped from being a Democrat to a Republican, from calling for an amnesty for undocumented migrants to the 'Race Replacement theory', from attending the performances of her Drag Queen friend, to endorsing the ads from a 'Pastor' who vilifies Drag Queens as a 'threat to children'. Ironically, also this -for someone who used to read the news on Fox News in Arizona -

"“I found myself reading news copy that I didn’t believe was fully truthful,” she said in March 2021, announcing that she was quitting. “I’ve decided the time is right to do something else.”
-- like telling lies?

But perhaps the key is that her Democrat challenger, Katie Hobbs, seems to be so ineffective, lacking the aggression and brazen lies that Lake tells. One wonders how anyone can fall for this stuff, but there again, one wonders why the Democrats have not been able to demolish their Republican opponents with the Truth.

‘A really dangerous candidate’: Kari Lake, the new face of Maga Republicanism | US midterm elections 2022 | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/03/kari-lake-trump-arizona-maga-republicanism-midterms)

[KnightHawk 2.0]

This link to Kari Lake points out how she has flipped from being a Democrat to a Republican, from calling for an amnesty for undocumented migrants to the 'Race Replacement theory', from attending the performances of her Drag Queen friend, to endorsing the ads from a 'Pastor' who vilifies Drag Queens as a 'threat to children'. Ironically, also this -for someone who used to read the news on Fox News in Arizona -

"“I found myself reading news copy that I didn’t believe was fully truthful,” she said in March 2021, announcing that she was quitting. “I’ve decided the time is right to do something else.”
-- like telling lies?

But perhaps the key is that her Democrat challenger, Katie Hobbs, seems to be so ineffective, lacking the aggression and brazen lies that Lake tells. One wonders how anyone can fall for this stuff, but there again, one wonders why the Democrats have not been able to demolish their Republican opponents with the Truth.

‘A really dangerous candidate’: Kari Lake, the new face of Maga Republicanism | US midterm elections 2022 | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/03/kari-lake-trump-arizona-maga-republicanism-midterms)


I think it because the Democrats are afraid to fight dirty,and don't want to stoop to their Republican Opponents level,The MAGA Party doesn't have a problem fighting dirty and using underhanded tactics to trash their Democratic Opponents. And agree Kari Lake is a dangerous candidate. And the 2022 US Midterms is in five days,where the MAGA Party will be making false claims about election fraud.

[filghy2]

One wonders how anyone can fall for this stuff, but there again, one wonders why the Democrats have not been able to demolish their Republican opponents with the Truth

Why would you expect truth to prevail over lies when it so often hasn't over the past 7 years or so? Republican voters no longer care about what is true; only what it suits their purposes to believe.

Most swinging voters focus on their own circumstances, without much consideration of causes or policy solutions. Unfortunately, Democrat rule coincided with an upsurge in global inflation, which has made it very hard to prevent the normal mid-term backlash.

Ordinarily, there would be a good chance the pendulum will swing back, as occured in the 1990s, given the likely Republican congress has no plan other than maximizing chaos. The big question is whether this will be allowed to happen.

WB Yeats summed it up well in his famous poem:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[Stavros]

Ordinarily, there would be a good chance the pendulum will swing back, as occured in the 1990s, given the likely Republican congress has no plan other than maximizing chaos. The big question is whether this will be allowed to happen.


This is the big concern, as a candidate in Wisconsin said if they win, there will be a permanent Republican Congress in the State making the Governor a political irrelevance.

On the other hand, if Republican voters who are conflicted over Abortion rights and the economy -and other than inflation the US economy is in better shape than the UK- and if more young voters turn out than expected, the results could prove pollsters predicting a Republican surge are wrong. I think turn out has been high, but also that this may make the results close, and this is where challenges to the result could mean we don't know the final tally for some weeks after election day.

The electoral process in the US may be in need of an overhaul, but the last people given the task should be a partisan party which these days seems to sneer at and dismiss democracy if the result doesn't go their way.

[blackchubby38]

How do you read the campaigns in New York? The impression I get from the UK press is that the Democrats don't appear to be good at it, or, some candidates might be, but others seem ineffective in projecting themselves and their party. It may be that in the UK we are being 'set up' for a Republican take-over of the House, not sure about the Senate, or it may be the press can't get a handle on what is actually happening, and that a surprise might be coming.

I know it's not New York, but I saw a report about a woman called Kari Lake and I can't believe someone so aggressive and foul-mouthed is allowed to run. It is the way she gestured toward the Media pool during a rally speech and referred to the media as 'Bastards', not the kind of language one expects from someone seeking high office. I guess that is the measure of how low the bar is set these days.

The only race that I have been really paying attention to here in New York State is the one for Governor. Back in the summer, Governor Hochul (D) had a double digit lead over her opponent, Lee Zeldin (R).

Now:

Why a Pro-Trump Conservative Might Win the New York Governor’s Race

http://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/opinion/lee-zeldin-kathy-hochul-governor.html

Why NYC Democrats are supporting Republican Lee Zeldin for governor

//nypost.com/2022/10/31/why-nyc-democrats-are-backing-republican-lee-zeldin-for-governor/


I think Hochul falls into the category of the Democrat that doesn't seem to be good at it. I also get the feeling that she thought could do the bare minimum when it came to campaigning and cruise to an easy victory. But I don't think she realized until it was too late how fed up people are with the direction NYC and the overall state is going in.

[blackchubby38]

How easy is it to vote early in person in the US? In Australia we now have more than 40% of the votes being cast before election day. I've never made a postal vote because it's much easier to go to one of the early voting stations.

Apparently pretty easy.

Early Vote Totals Point Toward Record-Breaking Turnout for Midterm Elections

www.usnews.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/early-vote-totals-point-toward-record-breaking-turnout-for-midterm-elections

[filghy2]

Apparently pretty easy.

Early Vote Totals Point Toward Record-Breaking Turnout for Midterm Elections

www.usnews.com/news/articles/2022-11-04/early-vote-totals-point-toward-record-breaking-turnout-for-midterm-elections

The question I was getting at is why do people bother with mail-in voting if early in-person voting is easy. According to that article, 57% of early votes have been by mail, so it's not just people who can't get to a voting place. (In Australia, only about one-fifth of early votes are by mail these days.) It sounds like there is a greater risk that mail-in votes may not be counted; eg because the post was slow or the date stamp was unclear.

[filghy2]

I think Hochul falls into the category of the Democrat that doesn't seem to be good at it.

Why do they seem to have trouble finding effective candidates? Where are the future FDRs going to come from, or even just the Bill Clintons or Obamas? It was hardly a good sign that they had to turn to a man who has clearly past his best in 2020, and it'll be even worse next time.

One of the big problems with politics these days is that good people don't want to go into it because it's such an unpleasant business. As a result, we are left mostly with careerist hacks, egomaniacs and zealots.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The question I was getting at is why do people bother with mail-in voting if early in-person voting is easy. According to that article, 57% of early votes have been by mail, so it's not just people who can't get to a voting place. (In Australia, only about one-fifth of early votes are by mail these days.) It sounds like there is a greater risk that mail-in votes may not be counted; eg because the post was slow or the date stamp was unclear.

Because mail-in voting is even easier than early in-person voting. You don't have to leave home. Never underestimate the power of laziness.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Why do they seem to have trouble finding effective candidates? Where are the future FDRs going to come from, or even just the Bill Clintons or Obamas? It was hardly a good sign that they had to turn to a man who has clearly past his best in 2020, and it'll be even worse next time.

One of the big problems with politics these days is that good people don't want to go into it because it's such an unpleasant business. As a result, we are left mostly with careerist hacks, egomaniacs and zealots.

Biden was the right candidate to beat Trump. He is absolutely a centrist (no matter what the Republicans claim). He didn't alienate nonpartisan moderates, which make up the deciding portion of voters. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were too far left and too obnoxious to court anyone but the left.

[Stavros]

The only race that I have been really paying attention to here in New York State is the one for Governor. Back in the summer, Governor Hochul (D) had a double digit lead over her opponent, Lee Zeldin (R).

I think Hochul falls into the category of the Democrat that doesn't seem to be good at it. I also get the feeling that she thought could do the bare minimum when it came to campaigning and cruise to an easy victory. But I don't think she realized until it was too late how fed up people are with the direction NYC and the overall state is going in.

Thanks for this and the link to the Post article -I don't know enough about the policy on education to comment, and I don't know why crime has increased in the City. The obvious question is, if Zeldin wins, will it make a difference? My impression is that governing New York as a City fluctuates between Democrats and Republicans, and because of its historic size and influence, I am not sure what impact the Governor has on City policies. Quality of candidate is discussed below.

[Stavros]

Why do they seem to have trouble finding effective candidates? Where are the future FDRs going to come from, or even just the Bill Clintons or Obamas? It was hardly a good sign that they had to turn to a man who has clearly past his best in 2020, and it'll be even worse next time.

One of the big problems with politics these days is that good people don't want to go into it because it's such an unpleasant business. As a result, we are left mostly with careerist hacks, egomaniacs and zealots.

Your last paragraph is bang on, and is part of a trend seen in countries like Israel and India. In the latter case, the dominance of the Congress Party after Independence, at least up until the assassinations of Indira, and then Rajiv Gandhi, tended to mean that elected politicians in the Lok Sabha were educated men (and mostly men) whose bookshelves were lined with Shakespeare, Tagore and Asimov alongside the Bible, the Quran and the Upanishads. I think I first read about the decline in the intellectual quality of MPs in India 20 years ago, and with the growth of the BJP and the legitimization of the more extreme Hindu Nationalist parties, the political landscape of India is fundamentally different from what it was in 1947, and more accepting of discrimination and violence.

A similar process has taken place in Israel, as indicated in the thread I began yesterday, where people with extreme political views can get elected because the PR system enables them access to the Knesset if they win just more than 3% of the vote -in Germany a party must get at least 5% of the vote to sit in the Bundestag.

What happens, it seems to me, is that the admission into Democratic political systems of parties and people who don't believe in it, except as a tool to gain power, allows them to create narratives which first of all divide people along an 'either/or' axis and then exclude from the debate those who don't agree. Furthermore, any achievements made by previous Governments, of whatever party, are dismissed as worthless, or even a cause of the present 'crisis' whatever that is. Thus, in Israel the 'crisis' has been made by the same people who rejected the Peace Treaty of 1993 that had a better chance of healing Israel-Palestinian relations, but required the kind of compromise on land by Israel that the 'Rejection Front' characterised as 'surrender'.

By contrast in India, the BJP and its satellite parties, are attempting to create a narrative in which India's Muslims are presented as intruders into thousands of years of Hindu culture who have no right to be there -so those Mosques were built on Hindu Temples, and all the social problems India has are caused by Muslims. How the BJP deals with millions of people they don't like and blame for all their problems is chilling, as I have seen video footage of the tactics they use to intimidate Muslims in towns and cities.

Michael Walzer has addressed these trends against Liberal Democracy in his short but perceptive book The Paradox of Liberation (2015). Although it deals with Israel, India and Algeria, his theses may now also apply to the US, and to a lesser extent in Brexit Britain.

It doesn't mean 'the Left' has lost the plot completely, but it does mean that we are living through an era where many left-wing parties are unable to both create an alternative narrative, and when in office, prove that their policy making is of long-term benefit even if it has been -I assume Affordable Care in the US is better than what came before it, for example.

I am not sure why this is, because the policy frameworks of Reagan, Thatcher and their successors has also failed. The dominance or persistence of Personality in politics is also regrettable if it gives power to people who are merely good at the Media, like Trump, or not good, like Biden and Corbyn. We have had demonstrably good and effective policy making in the past, so why are contemporary politicians either incapable to doing as well, while often blaming past successes for present-day failures?

Or maybe in five or ten years time we will be in a different place, though the 'crazies' can do a lot of damage between now and then.

[broncofan]

The question I was getting at is why do people bother with mail-in voting if early in-person voting is easy. According to that article, 57% of early votes have been by mail, so it's not just people who can't get to a voting place. (In Australia, only about one-fifth of early votes are by mail these days.) It sounds like there is a greater risk that mail-in votes may not be counted; eg because the post was slow or the date stamp was unclear.
I sent my ballot in by mail for the first time in 2020 and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I was planning to go in person this year but I forgot I had opted in for a ballot by mail when I registered. It arrived, I filled it out and sent it in. I got an email saying that my ballot had been received and I should not vote in person.

It is laziness but if you're careful with the ballot and follow the instructions, you get a confirmation email and there won't be an issue. But I agree that more can go wrong but the process was smoother this time than it was for 2020 (for a lot of reasons).

[blackchubby38]

Why Democrats Are Losing Hispanic Voters.


www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/11/hispanic-voters-fleeing-democratic-party/671851/

[Stavros]

Thanks for this link, Blackchubby. It goes a long way to explaining some of the Democrats problems, not least with their 'messaging' which to some is more focused on social rather than economic issues.

I am not sure if explains why Latino Immigrants of whatever generation are deserting the Democrats for the Republicans, given that the GOP has a poor record on the economy and an even worse one on social issues -and If 'Latinos' are not a monolithic bloc of Democrat voters are they all indifferent to social issues that do impact them, such as Abortion? I can see the link between the Catholic Church and the debate on Abortion and family planning, but is it not possible that some immigrants have gone to the US because it is freer and more liberal on these issues than the 'Catholoc' States of Central America?

It raises the question that has been asked in this country with regard to former Labour constituencies voting Tory -Why do people vote against their own interests?

Just as the Tories here are more concerned to reduce the taxes of the rich and the corporate world, ditto the GOP in the US, with the additional fact that ought to be a major talking point, that Trump himself is as corrupt as a Central American dictator helping himself the national treasury.

Where the article does touch a nerve is in the argument that immigrants want to prove themselves capable of survival and growth without the aid of the State, that their focus is more on work, and education for their children and that in recent years the Democrats have lost the plot here, by relentlessly backing, as Biden did just the other day - the 'Middle Class' which most immigrants are not. That historic link with Blue Collar workers may have gone, but it's not as if there is no industry in the US so I wonder if Democrats have calculated that there are now more votes with the college educated professionals and the staffs of City Hall and the State, assuming Blue Collar workers are in decline? The article suggests this is so.

Whatever it is, the Democrats seem poor at expressing what they believe in, terrified of giving voice to anything that sounds like Socialism even as Trump and his supporters use expressions like 'Radical Left' or 'Socialist' where it does not apply -because to them, anything that involves the re-distribution of wealth is Socialism and is to be demonized, and the US has not had any Socialism since the IWW became ineffective in the 1920s and 1930s, their thunder stolen in part by FDR and the New Deal Administration. I am inclined to the view that if the US had experienced some Socialism, the Democrats might not be in the dumps as some say they are now, after all, Socialism is the natural condition of humankind.

That said, with a few exceptions, the 'left' has been in retreat for some years across Europe, notably in France and Italy, with the German SPD a centrist party these days.

Lastly, I think immigration is one of the least understood of topics, and one that has a tortured history. From what I have read, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a 'solution' to the situation on the Southern Border, but neither does the UK Government with regard to illegal migrants crossing the English Channel, while the policy to send a proportion of Asylum Seekers to Rwanda, is as expensive as it is morally outrageous and politically insulting to all involved.

And let's face it, unrestricted immigration is what gave the US its economic prosperity in the last quarter of the 19th century, the first Immigration legislation, the Immigration Act of 1882 was designed to stop Chinese immigrants entering the US. It is an old, old story, but there is a potent question here too-

-The population of China is 1.4 billion, India 1.3 billion -the USA 331 million- room for another 700 million?

[filghy2]

Why Democrats Are Losing Hispanic Voters.


www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/11/hispanic-voters-fleeing-democratic-party/671851/

This is essentially the same argument that has been advanced for why they have lost white working class voters; ie they feel taken for granted and alienated by the focus on progressive social and environmental issues.

The question that also needs to be asked is how more educated and progressive voters would have responded had the Democrats remained focussed on traditional working class issues. Would they have still voted Democrat anyway, or would a third political force have emerged to appeal to these people?

[filghy2]

Where the article does touch a nerve is in the argument that immigrants want to prove themselves capable of survival and growth without the aid of the State, that their focus is more on work, and education for their children and that in recent years the Democrats have lost the plot here, by relentlessly backing, as Biden did just the other day - the 'Middle Class' which most immigrants are not. That historic link with Blue Collar workers may have gone, but it's not as if there is no industry in the US so I wonder if Democrats have calculated that there are now more votes with the college educated professionals and the staffs of City Hall and the State, assuming Blue Collar workers are in decline? The article suggests this is so.

Let's not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. In a different political system people would be writing articles about why Republicans have lost certain sections of the electorate by focusing too much on less educated white voters.

[Stavros]

Let's not forget that Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. In a different political system people would be writing articles about why Republicans have lost certain sections of the electorate by focusing too much on less educated white voters.

In aggregate terms, yes, but if 'all politics is local' then both the persistence of hard core Republicans in some States, and their campaigns to 'firm up' the base in the offices of the State is the measure, they are doing either better than, or as good as Democrats. One thinks of the former Confederate States, but northern States like Wisconsin and Idaho are not safe Democrat states locally. I think Bannon has copied the radical politics that might be said to have begun with Gramsci and which Saul Alinksy used in Chicago -campaigning among voters at the 'base', many of whom believe the 2020 election is stolen, who don't question the content of the film 2000 Mules -by organizing at this level, Republicans can capture the machinery of electoral poltics at the local level and turn it to their advantage, just as the Electoral College served Trump in 2016.

I think the only way to break this duopoly in the US is to abandon 'first past the post' and go for some form of Proportional Representation, not sure if this has ever had much traction in the US. It would encourage the formation of alternative parties if they believe they can get into office in the State, maybe even in Congress. But what system?

[Stavros]

I saw the clip and the thing is, I don't think it is satire. Maybe he knows something we don't, or is he really just thick?

"While standing at the pulpit, the former football player turned politician (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/midterm-elections-2022/herschel-walker-polls-georgia-senate-warnock-b2220303.html) proclaimed: “If you’re a martian and you live in the United States of America, I’m gonna protect you too. Because you belong to my family.”
Herschel Walker tells rally he’ll protect any ‘martians living in the US’ as they are ‘my family too’ (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/herschel-walker-tells-rally-ll-145625544.html)

Shouldn't there be a capital letter for Martians?

[filghy2]

I think the only way to break this duopoly in the US is to abandon 'first past the post' and go for some form of Proportional Representation, not sure if this has ever had much traction in the US. It would encourage the formation of alternative parties if they believe they can get into office in the State, maybe even in Congress. But what system?

This looks like a worthwhile option (it exists already in Alaska). The top 5 candidates from each party go on the ballot; and the winner is then decided by ranked-choice voting. This addresses the big problem in the US, that candidates can get nominated only by appealing to the partisan base.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23412858/nevada-question-3-final-five-voting-katherine-gehl

We have ranked-choice (or preferential) voting in Australia, and the duopoly has been well and truly broken. It's now roughly one-third of the votes going to each of the major parties and the other third to small parties and independants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Australian_federal_election

Ranked-choice may be a better option than PR because it allows more stability, but still means than votes for small parties and independents are not wasted and the major aprties need to make an effort to appeal to them.

[Stavros]

Thanks for your post, filghy2, question for me is, does PR in its various forms enable extremists who would normally exist on the fringes of politics, a seat in the centre? In the US, the Republican Party is now so extreme I don't think anyone else on the 'Right' could challenge it, but I don't see any hope for a true part of the 'left' gaining any seats in either a State or a Federal Congress. The polarization or sectarian politics in the US cannot be broken -Republicans had the opportunity to either prevent Trump being their leader, and he knew he couldn't win anything outside the Party, but it hasn't split. The Democrats on the other hand don't need to split, as they have been a divided party since 1968 or thereabouts.

[Stavros]

Another bleak appraisal of the Democrats, but it begs the question -would the policies the Democrats have that alienate Republicans be managed any better by the Republicans? I understand people vote against things in elections, but what are they voting for? I have said before people can vote against their own interests, but in this case I am simply incapable of understanding why anyone would vote for a party so immersed in lies and bigotry with people who admire dictatorship and terror. Or is this what Americans believe, and want?

Opinion | Democrats are drowning in denial - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/07/democrats-denial-midterm-outcome-shellacking/)

[Fitzcarraldo]

Another bleak appraisal of the Democrats, but it begs the question -would the policies the Democrats have that alienate Republicans be managed any better by the Republicans? I understand people vote against things in elections, but what are they voting for? I have said before people can vote against their own interests, but in this case I am simply incapable of understanding why anyone would vote for a party so immersed in lies and bigotry with people who admire dictatorship and terror. Or is this what Americans believe, and want?

Opinion | Democrats are drowning in denial - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/07/democrats-denial-midterm-outcome-shellacking/)

Lots of people are simply voting on the price of gas, even though Republicans won't reduce it significantly no matter what BS they spew about it.

[filghy2]

Another bleak appraisal of the Democrats, but it begs the question -would the policies the Democrats have that alienate Republicans be managed any better by the Republicans? I understand people vote against things in elections, but what are they voting for? I have said before people can vote against their own interests, but in this case I am simply incapable of understanding why anyone would vote for a party so immersed in lies and bigotry with people who admire dictatorship and terror. Or is this what Americans believe, and want?

Opinion | Democrats are drowning in denial - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/07/democrats-denial-midterm-outcome-shellacking/)

They probably were too slow to recognise that inflation was a big problem, but it's not clear what they could have done that would have made much difference in time for the election.

In any case, we should wait for the results before doing post-mortems; in particular how they compare to the normal mid-term swing. So far, it doesn't look like a red wave has happened; in fact, Democrats may do better than expected.

[blackchubby38]

They probably were too slow to recognise that inflation was a big problem, but it's not clear what they could have done that would have made much difference in time for the election.

In any case, we should wait for the results before doing post-mortems; in particular how they compare to the normal mid-term swing. So far, it doesn't look like a red wave has happened; in fact, Democrats may do better than expected.

It wasn't that Biden and the Democrats were slow to recognize that inflation was a big problem, its that they refused to acknowledge that it was a problem. For the better part of year, they as a well as liberal pundits in the media tried to diminish or downplay the impact of inflation. It was only until the last month or so did the those running for office try to pivot the conversation towards the economy.

[blackchubby38]

A few takeaways from last night:

I'm glad things worked out for the best in Pennsylvania.

Beto O' Rourke and Stacy Abrams need to find another line of work.

I said it two years ago, but I know I think its official. The Democrats can forget about winning the state of Florida anytime soon. There is a good chance the next President of the United States will be hailing from that state.

Although Kathy Hochul won her election, I think Lee Zeldin only losing by 5 should give hope to state Republicans that if they can find the right candidate, they can compete and win in this state. I also don't think its out of the realm of possibility to say they can win in NYC.

Finally, if you go by the reactions of some Republicans, I think the party might be ready to turn away from Donald Trump.

[filghy2]

Finally, if you go by the reactions of some Republicans, I think the party might be ready to turn away from Donald Trump.

I doubt that Trump is going to get that message, so that will require some of them to find the guts to finally stand up to him. It was clear after the last election that he's a liability, but most of them hoped he would just fade away without them having to do anything. Unless the party's base turns away from Trump they still have the same problem.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/09/trump-gop-critics-president-00066100

It will be interesting to see whether Trump goes ahead with his apparent plan to announce his candidacy soon. I think he's going to be very fixated with De Santis.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I said it two years ago, but I know I think its official. The Democrats can forget about winning the state of Florida anytime soon. There is a good chance the next President of the United States will be hailing from that state.

The party obviously agreed with you and gave up on Florida. They didn't invest in the Crist or Demings campaigns. DeSantis would've been easier to block from becoming president if the Democrats hadn't handed Florida to him for a second term.

[Stavros]

A few takeaways from last night:
I'm glad things worked out for the best in Pennsylvania.
Beto O' Rourke and Stacy Abrams need to find another line of work.
I said it two years ago, but I know I think its official. The Democrats can forget about winning the state of Florida anytime soon. There is a good chance the next President of the United States will be hailing from that state.
Although Kathy Hochul won her election, I think Lee Zeldin only losing by 5 should give hope to state Republicans that if they can find the right candidate, they can compete and win in this state. I also don't think its out of the realm of possibility to say they can win in NYC.
Finally, if you go by the reactions of some Republicans, I think the party might be ready to turn away from Donald Trump.

Intriguing assessments -can you be more specific about Beto O'Rourke and Stacy Abrams? Were they never going to win in such apparently solid Republican States? From here, Abrams comes across as a strong speaker and a brilliant organizer, but that might be the media affecting my judgment. Could she go for the big one in 2024?

It also to me seems to consolidate the anti-Federal States such as Texas that are not going to flip or fold, and with Republicans running the House, I think it maintains the trend toward State Autonomy that has emerged over the years, deepened by Trump and his impact on Republican politics. The Supreme Court will thus become a key player in the 'Rejection Front' of American politics and thus be more reliable than Trump.

In Congress, I wonder if McCarthy feels obliged to give a high profile job to 'take-no-prisoners' Marjorie Taylor Greene, who may be even more militant if she sees herself as the remaining standard-bearer for Trump -assuming she doesn't turn against him. Whatever, Americans I think will now have to spend two years watching their Representatives do nothing, as the Republicans will obstruct everything (including the Budget?) and use their power to attack through in-House procedures like Investigation, maybe even an attempt to Impeach President Biden.

Pundits on UK tv, albeit from the US (eg, David Frum) speculate that Trump will put himself forward in 2024 because he has no other reason to live, and to spite Ron DeSantis. Frum even speculated that if rejected by the party, Trump would run as an Independent and thus deliberately split the ticket. A lot depends on those people who can do so, telling Trump to give up, but they didn't dare say such things before, so will they now?

Another point from last night -Trump and Biden are the two most unpopular politicians in the country, but other than DeSantis, who else is there to run? Some argued a Democrat may yet emerge who is not well known (in the UK in particular) with scepticism about the potential of Kamala Harris. But if DeSantis is Republican candidate-elect even before the process starts it means his Democrat challenger ought also to be a younger person. Will DeSantis take the initiative and declare himself a candidate for 2024, and if so when?

As usual it seems, the Polls did not attach the importance to the youth vote and the issue of Abortion, which in some States has emerged as an important maybe even a decisive issue. Over 60% of first time young voters chose Democrats.

Lastly, is there any evidence that voter suppression, gerrymandering and rejected ballots affected the outcome? One notes the tight race in Georgia between Warnock and Walker, though it looks like Mark Finchem in Arizona has failed to be elected Secretary of State -will he claim the ballot was fraudulent and demand a recount?

-I forgot to add Frum's point that voters have begun to tire and turn away from the abusive rhetoric used by Trump and his supporters, citing the odious reaction to the attack on Paul Pelosi as the low point which he thinks people voted against. I hope this is true, as the quality of Democracy is diminished by the persistent abuse and infantile catcalling Trump and his supporters use.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

A few takeaways from last night:

I'm glad things worked out for the best in Pennsylvania.

Beto O' Rourke and Stacy Abrams need to find another line of work.

I said it two years ago, but I know I think its official. The Democrats can forget about winning the state of Florida anytime soon. There is a good chance the next President of the United States will be hailing from that state.

Although Kathy Hochul won her election, I think Lee Zeldin only losing by 5 should give hope to state Republicans that if they can find the right candidate, they can compete and win in this state. I also don't think its out of the realm of possibility to say they can win in NYC.

Finally, if you go by the reactions of some Republicans, I think the party might be ready to turn away from Donald Trump.I am also glad that things worked out for the best in Pennsylvania and New York as well. The Democrats really didn't really put that effort in helping Val Demings and Charlie Crist in winning their respective races,and prevent Marco Rubio from winning a third term and Ron DeSantis from winning a second term.

[Stavros]

And yet, Andrew Buncombe in The Independent thinks Trump is the winner after all-

Voices: Trump was actually the biggest winner in the midterm elections — and this is why (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/voices-trump-actually-biggest-winner-220418168.html)

[filghy2]

Will DeSantis take the initiative and declare himself a candidate for 2024, and if so when?

I think he'll try to stay on the fence as long as he can to see what happens to Trump's support among Republican voters. Unless that falls a lot he will probably sit it out. De Santis is only 44, so he can afford to wait for an easier path in 2028.

The problem for the party is that they know Trump will be prepared to sabotage any other nominee. He is already talking about having dirt on De Santis. The real source of his power now is not that he can help Republicans achieve their goals; it's that he can blow the party up if he doesn't get his way.

[broncofan]

It wasn't that Biden and the Democrats were slow to recognize that inflation was a big problem, its that they refused to acknowledge that it was a problem. For the better part of year, they as a well as liberal pundits in the media tried to diminish or downplay the impact of inflation. It was only until the last month or so did the those running for office try to pivot the conversation towards the economy.
I'm not saying there isn't an answer but I don't know a lot about macroeconomics. If he recognized that inflation was a problem would he have been able to ameliorate it? I know interest rates can be raised, but what else do you think he should have done? I'm not asking this as a gotcha because I anticipate there is an answer and he could have handled it better.

During that same period of time Republican Justices overturned Roe v. Wade, have passed a bunch of homophobic laws, and are spreading conspiracy theories about Paul Pelosi being attacked while refusing to condemn it.

Yes, the average person has a lot to lose from inflation. Wages might not increase at the rate of cost of living increases. People with modest savings might find the purchasing power of their savings is reduced.

But I'm just not sure how a person can vote for Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Dr. Oz or even Marco Rubio who some call a moderate but is online engaging in soft election denial. I have some sense why they do but I actually think it's culture war/racism. It may sound simplistic but if you look at what Republican figures talk about online it's culture war crankery 24/7. Cancel culture, pronouns, dozens of genders, communism, black lives matter, globalists, and innuendo about lgbt people harming children. When have any of their elected leaders ever focused on a problem that is harming broad sections of society and tried to ameliorate it? They will rally in support of bakers who don't want to serve gay people, call abortionists genocidal monsters, and preemptively claim that Democrats are stealing elections without regard to the consequences of saying that.

Republicans pundits will imply that civil rights books are inappropriate for children to read while defending actual hateful propaganda. The things they want canceled are any attempt to reckon with civil rights issues and the history of racism in American. What they don't want canceled (through private action): hate speech, health conspiracy theories, and election denial. If anyone wants to see how serious they are we can play a game. I can link to tweets from right-wing pundits who have gone viral and someone else can link to left-wing American pundits that have gone viral. Republicans haven't been about policies for a long time.

[broncofan]

I think he'll try to stay on the fence as long as he can to see what happens to Trump's support among Republican voters. Unless that falls a lot he will probably sit it out. De Santis is only 44, so he can afford to wait for an easier path in 2028.

The problem for the party is that they know Trump will be prepared to sabotage any other nominee. He is already talking about having dirt on De Santis. The real source of his power now is not that he can help Republicans achieve their goals; it's that he can blow the party up if he doesn't get his way.
Trump didn't become President by being risk-averse but this seems like a dangerous strategy. If he sabotages Republicans and they lose, he will not have anyone to block attempts to prosecute him for crimes he committed. If he doesn't sabotage Republicans and he loses but they (Desantis or some other rival) win, it's likely they engage in some obstructionism for him. If he doesn't sabotage Republicans and they lose, they may not be in a great position to defend him, but he might still have enough good will that they would try, and their attempts even as a minority party have sometimes been fruitful.

I think Trump blowing up the Republican party, if it's more than just a bluff, might be a direct ticket to prison for him.

[filghy2]

I'm not saying there isn't an answer but I don't know a lot about macroeconomics. If he recognized that inflation was a problem would he have been able to ameliorate it? I know interest rates can be raised, but what else do you think he should have done? I'm not asking this as a gotcha because I anticipate there is an answer and he could have handled it better.

The Federal Reserve - the independent experts responsible for controlling inflation - did not start raising the interest rate above zero until March this year. Obviously, they were caught by surprise as well.

It takes a long time to get inflation down, so there's little that could have been done in a time frame of less than a year. I'm not sure whether price controls are constitutional, but if they'd done that there would have been queues at gas stations instead.

I think the only clear mistake they made was to overcook the stimulus package last year, which Larry Summers warned about at the time. It's kind of understandable why they did it after Obama's popularity was damaged by the slow recovery after 2008, but it turned out to be fighting the last war.

[filghy2]

I think Trump blowing up the Republican party, if it's more than just a bluff, might be a direct ticket to prison for him.

He will at least try to use the implied threat to scare off any challenges. I find it hard to see a scenario in which Trump accepts defeat graciously, or is persuaded to pull out of the contest. That would be contrary to everything we've seen of him: the delusions about his own popularity and abilities; the compulsion to be the centre of attention; the fear of being seen as a loser; the desire for revenge on anyone who crosses him.

[Stavros]

He will at least try to use the implied threat to scare off any challenges. I find it hard to see a scenario in which Trump accepts defeat graciously, or is persuaded to pull out of the contest. That would be contrary to everything we've seen of him: the delusions about his own popularity and abilities; the compulsion to be the centre of attention; the fear of being seen as a loser; the desire for revenge on anyone who crosses him.

He also needs his lawyers to delay litigation as much as possible so that he can hide behind public office to prevent the Courts from exposing his business operations. It seems incredible, because it is, that for more than 30 years he had no idea his CFO was scamming and stealing from him, unless it turns out that Trump really is a dunce at business, and spent most of his time in the office reading articles in magazines about Donald Trump, as his niece has claimed in her book.

This so far is the most hilarious quote I have seen from dismayed Republicans-

"On Pray Vote Stand, Michelle Bachmann said (https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1590353372242399234?s=20&t=N8NqeNs2_maxVnJlPOjBng) the results simply don’t make sense given how much praying and repenting the right did."
Fox News Is Having a Meltdown Over the Election Results | The New Republic (https://newrepublic.com/post/168726/fox-news-simply-cannot-understand-election-results-meltdown)

Does anyone know what happens to the House Committee on January 6th? If the Republicans have a majority -and at the moment that is not certain- can they just shut it down?

[KnightHawk 2.0]

He also needs his lawyers to delay litigation as much as possible so that he can hide behind public office to prevent the Courts from exposing his business operations. It seems incredible, because it is, that for more than 30 years he had no idea his CFO was scamming and stealing from him, unless it turns out that Trump really is a dunce at business, and spent most of his time in the office reading articles in magazines about Donald Trump, as his niece has claimed in her book.

This so far is the most hilarious quote I have seen from dismayed Republicans-

"On Pray Vote Stand, Michelle Bachmann said (https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1590353372242399234?s=20&t=N8NqeNs2_maxVnJlPOjBng) the results simply don’t make sense given how much praying and repenting the right did."
Fox News Is Having a Meltdown Over the Election Results | The New Republic (https://newrepublic.com/post/168726/fox-news-simply-cannot-understand-election-results-meltdown)

Does anyone know what happens to the House Committee on January 6th? If the Republicans have a majority -and at the moment that is not certain- can they just shut it down?If the Republicans end up winning the majority in the House Of Representatives,they will more than likely shutdown the January 6 Committee and make things more difficult for President Joe Biden by launching investigations into him and his administration.

[Stavros]

This link suggests that the Supreme Court, by enabling the gerrymandering of Congressional districts has in effect awarded the Republican Party seats in the House it might not have won, with the assessment that in a tight race, these new districts may give the GOP control of the House.

The Supreme Court’s Hands Are All Over The 2022 Midterm Election Results (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hands-over-2022-204752266.html)

[Stavros]

The gift that keeps on giving, that nobody wants to unwrap...

"“They stole the Electron from Blake Masters."
Donald Trump Makes A Mockery Of His Election Freakout With Doozy Of A Typo | HuffPost UK Politics (huffingtonpost.co.uk) (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-election-typo_n_636f7f1ae4b0d82d23a7c5de)

"Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/marjorie-taylor-greene) was widely mocked on Thursday morning after tweeting that the United States’ enemies are “quacking in their boots”."
Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked for embarrassing duck-related Twitter typo | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-twitter-quack-b2222564.html)

[KnightHawk 2.0]

The gift that keeps on giving, that nobody wants to unwrap...

"“They stole the Electron from Blake Masters."
Donald Trump Makes A Mockery Of His Election Freakout With Doozy Of A Typo | HuffPost UK Politics (huffingtonpost.co.uk) (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-election-typo_n_636f7f1ae4b0d82d23a7c5de)

"Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/marjorie-taylor-greene) was widely mocked on Thursday morning after tweeting that the United States’ enemies are “quacking in their boots”."
Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked for embarrassing duck-related Twitter typo | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-twitter-quack-b2222564.html)Agree it is the gift that keeps on giving,and right on cue the MAGA King Donald Trump and his enablers are making false claims about the election being stolen.

[filghy2]

“They stole the Electron from Blake Masters."

Perhaps they are going to use it in those Jewish space lasers.

[Stavros]

An interesting piece which explains why Stacy Abrams lost in Georgia -for the most part arguing that different factions in the Democrat party were pulling in the contrary directions (as this party often seems to do), while some wanted her to be more focused on Georgia rather than the national stage. I am not sure if it delves into the demographics of electors in a State which does still retain a strong cohort of Republicans. If she is so divisive a figure, this does suggest she may have to limit her ambitions.

Here Are All the Reasons Stacey Abrams Lost the Georgia Governor's Race (thedailybeast.com) (https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-all-the-reasons-stacey-abrams-lost-the-georgia-governors-race)

[Ben]

Gen Z Showed Up in Large Numbers to Protect Climate...
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/11/11/gen-z-showed-large-numbers-protect-climate-and-thwart-red-wave

[blackchubby38]

I'm not saying there isn't an answer but I don't know a lot about macroeconomics. If he recognized that inflation was a problem would he have been able to ameliorate it? I know interest rates can be raised, but what else do you think he should have done? I'm not asking this as a gotcha because I anticipate there is an answer and he could have handled it better.

During that same period of time Republican Justices overturned Roe v. Wade, have passed a bunch of homophobic laws, and are spreading conspiracy theories about Paul Pelosi being attacked while refusing to condemn it.

Yes, the average person has a lot to lose from inflation. Wages might not increase at the rate of cost of living increases. People with modest savings might find the purchasing power of their savings is reduced.



I don't know a lot about macroeconomics either. But sometimes acknowledging a problem can be the first step in trying to solve it. Which the Biden Administration sort of did when the name of "Build Back Better" was all of sudden changed to the "Inflation Reduction Act".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act_of_2022

I'm guessing they thought since it was passed in late August, it would give the impression that they were doing something about it as way to alleviate voters' whose main concern was inflation and it would be one of the reasons they voted for a Republican candidate.

Before Election Day, my feeling was given the general mood of the country, swing voters/independents were going to vote on which issue they were more concerned about, despite having concerns about an equally important issue. What happened was that while many people are worried about the economy, they voted because of what happened with Roe vs Wade and because they wanted to send a message to the Republican party about Trump and the election deniers. In essence, people said we aren't happy with way things are going, but we don't want things to get worse.

[Stavros]

Surely not? But we have been here with the impossible before, as in 2015. Memo to America -if he revives his American citizenship, maybe Boris Johnson would like to be Speaker?

" “We know that the hard-right Freedom Caucus (https://www.huffpost.com/topic/freedom-caucus) people are in search of another candidate” for House speaker, Raskin told Margaret Brennan.
“One potential candidate whose name has been floated is Donald Trump himself because the speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House,” he continued. “And they are talking about putting Trump right there.” "
Don't Party Just Yet: Jamie Raskin Raises Specter Of House Speaker Trump (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/dont-party-just-yet-jamie-015041455.html)

[broncofan]

with Roe vs Wade and because they wanted to send a message to the Republican party about Trump and the election deniers. In essence, people said we aren't happy with way things are going, but we don't want things to get worse.
So you're saying that instead of voting against Democrats because they didn't handle an economic issue Republicans almost certainly wouldn't have handled well they decided to cast a vote against legislators who want to force women to carry pregnancies resulting from rape to term or who support telling fables about election results instead of conceding races they've lost like every civilized candidate in a democracy does for fear they'd otherwise be inciting insurrection? Oh the humanity! What were they thinking!? That women should not have to fear they will be fugitives if they have abortions? Or that we shouldn't have people in office who told tall tales about tens of thousands of ballots being found in a dumpster with Chinese shipping receipts and that they should storm public buildings and exercise their second amendment rights?

But yes, I'd agree a women's right to terminate a pregnancy conceived from a violent rape is as important as fighting inflation but I'm not prone to understatement. https://abcnews.go.com/US/rape-exceptions-abortions-bans-complicated-reality/story?id=88237926

[broncofan]

And yes, I know there are people who struggle to pay their bills and are in a different financial situation than I'm in. But I don't think the party that thinks requiring insurance companies to provide health coverage for people with cancer is communism is as concerned about poverty and the human condition as they maintain.

[blackchubby38]

So you're saying that instead of voting against Democrats because they didn't handle an economic issue Republicans almost certainly wouldn't have handled well they decided to cast a vote against legislators who want to force women to carry pregnancies resulting from rape to term or who support telling fables about election results instead of conceding races they've lost like every civilized candidate in a democracy does for fear they'd otherwise be inciting insurrection? Oh the humanity! What were they thinking!? That women should not have to fear they will be fugitives if they have abortions? Or that we shouldn't have people in office who told tall tales about tens of thousands of ballots being found in a dumpster with Chinese shipping receipts and that they should storm public buildings and exercise their second amendment rights?

But yes, I'd agree a women's right to terminate a pregnancy conceived from a violent rape is as important as fighting inflation but I'm not prone to understatement. https://abcnews.go.com/US/rape-exceptions-abortions-bans-complicated-reality/story?id=88237926

Dude, I have no idea what you're trying to say. So I think its just best we end this discussion here.

[Stavros]

Maybe the question is, how did the polls get it wrong? Is it the modelling they use, is it the assumptions polling organizations make that shape their questions and results? Clearly more people were energized by Roe-v-Wade than the polls suggest, maybe more were registering a disaffection with the extremism of the Republican Party than the polls allow, though one also notes that the Party did well in Florida and Texas and some of the Northern States. The polls failed to predict a hung parliament in the UK in 2017, so I wonder if it is not just a national thing, but a flaw in polling methods, and whether it means they can be trusted in future if they do not change.

Or is it the difficulty of arriving at a consensus on policies in so divided a country?

[blackchubby38]

Maybe the question is, how did the polls get it wrong? Is it the modelling they use, is it the assumptions polling organizations make that shape their questions and results? Clearly more people were energized by Roe-v-Wade than the polls suggest, maybe more were registering a disaffection with the extremism of the Republican Party than the polls allow, though one also notes that the Party did well in Florida and Texas and some of the Northern States. The polls failed to predict a hung parliament in the UK in 2017, so I wonder if it is not just a national thing, but a flaw in polling methods, and whether it means they can be trusted in future if they do not change.

Or is it the difficulty of arriving at a consensus on policies in so divided a country?

I have been questioning the reliability of polls since 2016. So I never know what to make of them.

I know there is one generic poll that asks the question, who would you rather vote for, a Democrat or a Republican and supposedly that one stayed pretty consistent all year long with the Democrats winning. They do a better job of explaining it in this video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Km_Vyhvww

[broncofan]

Dude, I have no idea what you're trying to say. So I think its just best we end this discussion here.
That inflation, which is a worldwide problem, probably was not caused by Joe Biden nor made much worse by his inaction since monetary policy is the best tool to deal with it and it seems to be experienced in similar magnitude by most developed countries. That ending women's right to an abortion will cause so much misery for women, including death for some women seeking abortions, and trauma and loss of privacy for others, that if people thought this was the bigger concern it's not surprising at all.

Further, that some people probably consider a threat to end our tradition of conceding elections when you've lost and peacefully transferring power to be more concerning than the fact that Joe Biden hasn't been able to keep prices in check, like most of the developed world.

[broncofan]

I don't know a lot about macroeconomics either. But sometimes acknowledging a problem can be the first step in trying to solve it.
That is, if fiscal policy is a useful tool to solve the problem and there were steps he could have taken to prevent prices from increasing. Otherwise it gives the impression he can do things like manipulate gas prices when they are strongly determined by supply and demand (as well as pricing power by market participants with outsized market share), which legislation would only have small effects on. As for my point in the parenthetical, if he used regulatory agencies to influence prices of private companies all of the complaints would have come from the right.

Sometimes, this both sides sort of stuff just doesn't make sense. I'm sure Biden didn't handle it perfectly but that concession only leads to the vaguest recommendations for how he should have handled it. That is a far cry from the active harm of forcing women to give birth to their rapist's child or encouraging people to engage in violence because their "liberty" is at stake or based on incendiary claims of voter fraud that did actually lead to an attempted insurrection. These are not problems of equal significance.

[Stavros]

I have been questioning the reliability of polls since 2016. So I never know what to make of them.

I know there is one generic poll that asks the question, who would you rather vote for, a Democrat or a Republican and supposedly that one stayed pretty consistent all year long with the Democrats winning. They do a better job of explaining it in this video.


Thanks Blackchubby, I enjoyed listening to reasonable people, even if there is a warning in there about the disruption that some may want to go for and what, to me, is the dismal prospect of Joe Biden running again. If ever there was a time for change, for the new generation to take over, it is now. I say that even though in the UK we have had some of the youngest Prime Minsters and senior Ministers and they have failed, though I think we have Brexit to thank for that.

Care to nominate some potential candidates? I was surprised to hear Youngkin mentioned, but I know next to nothing about him, other than the insult he received from a graceless, and not very decent Trumpty Dumpty.

[broncofan]

Unless the increase in prices is preventing someone from being able to meet their basic economic needs it strikes me as weird that people would consider it more concerning than a ban on abortion, a possible future ban on gay marriage, public statements that not only damage our institutions but threaten the lives of people running for office by a party that also promoted rampant public health misinformation. Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.

Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/28/republicans-blame-joe-biden-high-inflation

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=broncofan;2063362 Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.

Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.
/QUOTE]

Do you think even Republican voters are now weary of the crude, childish name calling Trump uses? Is there not a point when yesterday's 'shtick' is just that, and voters want something different, like a policy that makes sense of inflation, immigration, homelessness? After all the rage, the anger, the abuse, what have the Republicans delivered? An abortion policy the people don't want (including Republicans). Attacks on LGBTQ+ that produce nothing. Even De Santis may have to tone down his own 'shtick' if he wants votes outside the 'Darkness State' -?

Basically, this: has the tide turned?

[blackchubby38]

Thanks Blackchubby, I enjoyed listening to reasonable people, even if there is a warning in there about the disruption that some may want to go for and what, to me, is the dismal prospect of Joe Biden running again. If ever there was a time for change, for the new generation to take over, it is now. I say that even though in the UK we have had some of the youngest Prime Minsters and senior Ministers and they have failed, though I think we have Brexit to thank for that.

Care to nominate some potential candidates? I was surprised to hear Youngkin mentioned, but I know next to nothing about him, other than the insult he received from a graceless, and not very decent Trumpty Dumpty.

When it comes to the Democrats, here are some possible candidates. Whoever it is, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if the candidate was a governor. Someone who has experience running an executive branch of government. The candidate should also be in the age range of 45-70.

Governor Gavin Newsome (CA). He is 55 and been the governor of California since 2019. From what I can tell, he is popular with the progressive wing of the party and I can see him going toe to toe with Ron De Santis or Trump because he is a little bit of a prick and I think that is what you need sometimes in politics. The only downside is, I don't see how would do in the middle of parts of the country in a general election.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer (MI). If the Democrats are going to stay in the White House in 2024 and beyond, they're going to need the win the state of Michigan. She has been the governor since 2019 and she won her reelection campaign defeating a MAGA Republican. The plus side is she is a woman. The downside is, she is a white woman and I can already see some issues a rising if she has to face Kamala Harris in the primaries.

Governor Phil Murphy (NJ). He is 65 and although he narrowly won reelection last year, he seems to have rebounded and doing a good job in 68. The only downside he is not well known outside of the tri-state area (New York, NJ, and Connecticut) and the fact that he is from the east coast may cost him votes in the middle of the country. The same goes for the Governor Ned Lamont (CT), who did a great job running his state during the pandemic and the recovery process.

Those are just a few candidates I can think of.

[filghy2]

Maybe the question is, how did the polls get it wrong?

But were they so wrong? These guys don't seem to think so.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/the-pollsters-seem-to-have-had-a-good-night/
I think a lot of the expectations weren't based so much on the polls, but on historical experience at mid-terms, factoring in the economy and the President's approval rating.

Opinion polls are always subject to error margins of a few per cent, and the result is a reminder that they can go in both directions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin-of-error-in-election-polls/

[filghy2]

That inflation, which is a worldwide problem, probably was not caused by Joe Biden nor made much worse by his inaction since monetary policy is the best tool to deal with it and it seems to be experienced in similar magnitude by most developed countries.

The macroeconomics of inflation is straightforward. Prices rise because demand in the economy exceeds supply. In this case, it's been caused mainly by a global reduction in supply, but that can't be fixed any time soon. So the only solution is to slow the economy significantly - which is normally done by jacking up interest rates but can also be done by fiscal policy (raising taxes or cutting spending). Often this leads to a recession - that is how the last high inflation period was ended in the 1980s.

Anyone who complains about inflation but doesn't want to accept the necessary cure isn't serious. They are engaging in magical thinking.

[broncofan]

The macroeconomics of inflation is straightforward. Prices rise because demand in the economy exceeds supply. In this case, it's been caused mainly by a global reduction in supply, but that can't be fixed any time soon. So the only solution is to slow the economy significantly - which is normally done by jacking up interest rates but can also be done by fiscal policy (raising taxes or cutting spending). Often this leads to a recession - that is how the last high inflation period was ended in the 1980s.

Anyone who complains about inflation but doesn't want to accept the necessary cure isn't serious. They are engaging in magical thinking.
I'm looking at the Inflation Reduction Act and there are a few tax hikes but "increased enforcement" would probably not be enough . Looking at all the handwringing I kind of wish Biden had held a summit on the kinds of aggressive tax increases we'd need to curb inflation. I can't imagine Republicans would ever vote for increases in taxes.

Anyhow, the interest rate on 30 year fixed residential mortgages went from 3% to 7%. That will certainly keep lots of people from buying homes. Commercial rates are up well over 2%. You could get a commercial loan of 10 year term 25 year amortization for under 4% a year ago. Now it's over 6%, which is a huge difference. Our entire economy runs on credit.

In other news I heard Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to have a civil war in the Republican party. I can't understand why people don't think these are trustworthy stewards of the public interest.

[broncofan]

[QUOTE=broncofan;2063362 Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.

Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.
/QUOTE]

Do you think even Republican voters are now weary of the crude, childish name calling Trump uses? Is there not a point when yesterday's 'shtick' is just that, and voters want something different, like a policy that makes sense of inflation, immigration, homelessness? After all the rage, the anger, the abuse, what have the Republicans delivered? An abortion policy the people don't want (including Republicans). Attacks on LGBTQ+ that produce nothing. Even De Santis may have to tone down his own 'shtick' if he wants votes outside the 'Darkness State' -?

Basically, this: has the tide turned?
I think Republicans are weary of Trump not winning. First him in the 2020 election and now a lot of his candidates in the mid-terms. I wonder if they bothered to ask themselves what they stand to win.

Like what Anton Chigurh told that hapless gas station attendant maybe trump would tell them they stand to win everything. You can fearmonger about illegal immigrants, you can fearmonger about people in the gay community trying to indoctrinate your children, you can block women from getting healthcare, and if you want to say something racist just say it and if anyone complains say "people are offended by everything these days. What's racist about that? If you think that's racist you're the real racist." When a synagogue gets vandalized you can say "whatcha doin Rabbi" to imply the Rabbi did it, and when people call you antisemitic post the story of some mentally ill teen who did something like that years ago for attention. Basically they get the opportunity to be class acts and patriots. But can they win all that?

[filghy2]

In other news I heard Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to have a civil war in the Republican party. I can't understand why people don't think these are trustworthy stewards of the public interest.


[QUOTE=Stavros;2063363]I think Republicans are weary of Trump not winning. First him in the 2020 election and now a lot of his candidates in the mid-terms. I wonder if they bothered to ask themselves what they stand to win.

The Trumpists are obviously never going to accept any responsibility and change their ways. To them the only problem can be other Republicans not being Trumpy enough.

I'm sceptical that this election will shock Republicans into changing their ways. They didn't do so after losing the House, Senate and Presidency. They didn't do so after January 16. Why would they do so after an election in which they will probably regain the House.

The reason most Republican politicians have engaged in or tolerated nastiness is that their party base want this. I don't think that has changed. Also, the impulse to ignore or deny any unwelcome information, rather than learning from it is now deeply embedded.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/lesson-republicans-their-midterms-maga-debacle/672108/

[filghy2]

Anyhow, the interest rate on 30 year fixed residential mortgages went from 3% to 7%. That will certainly keep lots of people from buying homes. Commercial rates are up well over 2%. You could get a commercial loan of 10 year term 25 year amortization for under 4% a year ago. Now it's over 6%, which is a huge difference. Our entire economy runs on credit.

Borrowers did benefit from unusually low interest rates over the previous 14 years. If the economy can't function without ultra-cheap credit then it really is in trouble. I know there will be collateral damage, but one benefit of higher interest rates is that it will shake out some the spivs who have only made fortunes due to easy credit, low interest rates and inflated asset prices.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

[QUOTE=broncofan;2063362 Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.

Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.
/QUOTE]

Do you think even Republican voters are now weary of the crude, childish name calling Trump uses? Is there not a point when yesterday's 'shtick' is just that, and voters want something different, like a policy that makes sense of inflation, immigration, homelessness? After all the rage, the anger, the abuse, what have the Republicans delivered? An abortion policy the people don't want (including Republicans). Attacks on LGBTQ+ that produce nothing. Even De Santis may have to tone down his own 'shtick' if he wants votes outside the 'Darkness State' -?

Basically, this: has the tide turned?
Yes i do think that some Republican Voters are weary of some of the crude,childish name calling Donald Trump,and other Republican Voters are not because they'll still vote for him despite all of the despicable things he has said and done.

[Stavros]

When it comes to the Democrats, here are some possible candidates. Whoever it is, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if the candidate was a governor. Someone who has experience running an executive branch of government. The candidate should also be in the age range of 45-70.

Governor Gavin Newsome (CA). He is 55 and been the governor of California since 2019. From what I can tell, he is popular with the progressive wing of the party and I can see him going toe to toe with Ron De Santis or Trump because he is a little bit of a prick and I think that is what you need sometimes in politics. The only downside is, I don't see how would do in the middle of parts of the country in a general election.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer (MI). If the Democrats are going to stay in the White House in 2024 and beyond, they're going to need the win the state of Michigan. She has been the governor since 2019 and she won her reelection campaign defeating a MAGA Republican. The plus side is she is a woman. The downside is, she is a white woman and I can already see some issues a rising if she has to face Kamala Harris in the primaries.

Governor Phil Murphy (NJ). He is 65 and although he narrowly won reelection last year, he seems to have rebounded and doing a good job in 68. The only downside he is not well known outside of the tri-state area (New York, NJ, and Connecticut) and the fact that he is from the east coast may cost him votes in the middle of the country. The same goes for the Governor Ned Lamont (CT), who did a great job running his state during the pandemic and the recovery process.

Those are just a few candidates I can think of.

Intriguing - I have heard of Newsom and Whitmer, but not the others. The most obvious question arises from your omission. Pardon the expression, but

- Has Kamala Blown It?

[Luke Warm]

Biden will run again (unless health issues prevent it). You’re wasting your time speculating about who would replace him. The administration thinks they have a record of accomplishments to run on (Inflation Reduction Act, etc). Biden’s approval among Democrats (41%) is a few points lower than similar timeframe for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but is probably within the statistical margin of error. Both of those presidents had much worse results in their mid-term elections than Biden, and both won second terms. It was undoubtably going to be Biden before, and with Trump now running again, it’s certain.

[Stavros]

A lot can happen between now and 2024, whether it is the economy, social or foreign policy, and I do think Blackchubby38 has at least given some thought to contenders. A lot may also depend on how the Republicans handle the House, with a lot of speculation that they will be as disruptive as they can, block as much as they can, and set up Committees to look into a hundred and one spotted dicks on stilts to 'expose' the Democrats. And so on. Or they may spend a lot of time baiting and fighting each other.

Right now, Biden looks like he has those 'successes' to bank, but success in politics is temporary. I cannot say much more because I don't know more than what I see in the media, and surely the most depressing thing about all this is the way in which Trump continues to define, or try to define the contours of political debate, even if most of the time it is all about HIM rather than any of the policies that are going to Make America Glorious Again! But it doesn't look like he is going to see the inside of a prison any time soon, if ever.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1593253229747265545?s=20&t=Jtp6ID2EVihl7mqNLL86yg

Can't imagine why I don't think Republicans would have had a good response to inflation. Maybe because they aren't actually focused on governance at all. If the response to inflation is contractionary policy (fiscal and monetary) do we think Trump would intentionally decrease demand and risk a recession to prevent inflation? Or do we think he'd look for some scapegoat or just ignore it or blame China or try to provoke riots?

[Stavros]

https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/1593253229747265545?s=20&t=Jtp6ID2EVihl7mqNLL86yg

Can't imagine why I don't think Republicans would have had a good response to inflation. Maybe because they aren't actually focused on governance at all. If the response to inflation is contractionary policy (fiscal and monetary) do we think Trump would intentionally decrease demand and risk a recession to prevent inflation? Or do we think he'd look for some scapegoat or just ignore it or blame China or try to provoke riots?

Trump will need someone to explain to him what Inflation is. As far as I can make out, Trump has been in debt, and lived off other people's money for most of his adult life. In reality I don't think he knows how to read accounts, knows next to nothing about the difference between cash flow and net profit, and relies on other people to do the work and tell him how much money he has. He is so 'smart' he didn't know his Chief Financial Officer was robbing and scamming him for 40 years, and is still paying the man after he pleaded Guilty to tax fraud in a Court of Law! Weisselberg even claims Eric Trump may decide to give him his annual bonus. The sophistry being used in the Court in New York may establish an entirely new language designed to prove that the top is the bottom and the bottom is the top, and of course, Trump, the Saint of Trump Towers, knew nothing, like Manuel in Fawlty Towers, only Manuel was from Barcelona.

Make America Solvent Again!

[blackchubby38]

‘I voted Democrat for the first time’: Guardian readers on the US midterm


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/18/us-voters-react-midterm-elections-2022-guardian-readers-democrats-republicans

[blackchubby38]

How would you describe Donald Trump?

These 17 Swing Voters
Have a Very Clear Message
for Donald Trump


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/15/opinion/voter-reactions-midterm-elections.html?searchResultPosition=8

[Stavros]

Three questions for you, Blackchubby38 as you are a New York resident.

1) has the House flipped because Democrats lost in New York? This FT article offers a short insight into the problems the party has in the State, and in NYC.
New York’s Democrats rue losses that cost their party the House | Financial Times (ft.com) (https://www.ft.com/content/6ea86abc-e636-4acc-b779-e84d9d286e7d)

2) Who is Hakeem Jeffries?

3) Apparently anyone nominated can be Speaker of the House -Donald Trump, George Clooney, Liz Cheney., Pinocchio. Any thoughts on this most important job?

[blackchubby38]

Three questions for you, Blackchubby38 as you are a New York resident.

1) has the House flipped because Democrats lost in New York? This FT article offers a short insight into the problems the party has in the State, and in NYC.
New York’s Democrats rue losses that cost their party the House | Financial Times (ft.com) (https://www.ft.com/content/6ea86abc-e636-4acc-b779-e84d9d286e7d)

2) Who is Hakeem Jeffries?

3) Apparently anyone nominated can be Speaker of the House -Donald Trump, George Clooney, Liz Cheney., Pinocchio. Any thoughts on this most important job?

1. I can't see the article that you posted. But is it the same explanation as this:

Why the Democrats Just Lost the House

www.nytimes.com/2022/11/16/opinion/house-democrats-new-york.html?searchResultPosition=2

2. I only know who Hakeem Jeffries is by name only. But from my understanding, he has been the heir apparent for the Speaker of the House position for awhile now.

3. I never gave it much thought. I only know what a Speaker of the House does/did if I'm a reading a book about history and if they played a certain role in the events of the day.

[Luke Warm]

Three questions for you, Blackchubby38 as you are a New York resident.

1) has the House flipped because Democrats lost in New York? This FT article offers a short insight into the problems the party has in the State, and in NYC.
New York’s Democrats rue losses that cost their party the House | Financial Times (ft.com) (https://www.ft.com/content/6ea86abc-e636-4acc-b779-e84d9d286e7d)

2) Who is Hakeem Jeffries?

3) Apparently anyone nominated can be Speaker of the House -Donald Trump, George Clooney, Liz Cheney., Pinocchio. Any thoughts on this most important job?

Not addressed to me but I’ll answer anyway.

Yes, losing some seats in California and New York may have made the difference in shifting the balance of power. But focusing on those handful of seats misses the larger picture, which is the problem of gerrymandering in general, nation-wide.

Hakeem Jeffries is a centrist, also have heard him labeled as a “corporate Democrat” or conservative Democrat. Based on that, it’s probable that he will block progressive ideas like universal health care. “Centrist” implies someone who can reach out to both sides of an issue, but in reality they often work in opposition to party members who are further left. I’m not in favor of Jeffries but it’s clear that they need younger people in leadership positions. Democrats usually appoint leadership based on seniority and chain of succession, and when Steny Hoyer (next in line, but almost as old as Pelosi) stepped aside, it opened the door for Jefferies who is apparently “next”. Republicans do not have the same adherence to seniority that Democrats have. But knowing that’s how Democrats generally do it, it makes predictions about future leadership pretty easy. Just look at who is #2 or #3.

As far as I know, there has never been a Speaker of the House who was not a sitting member of Congress, even though the rules allow it. But I may be mistaken.

[Stavros]

Not addressed to me but I’ll answer anyway.

Yes, losing some seats in California and New York may have made the difference in shifting the balance of power. But focusing on those handful of seats misses the larger picture, which is the problem of gerrymandering in general, nation-wide.

Hakeem Jeffries is a centrist, also have heard him labeled as a “corporate Democrat” or conservative Democrat. Based on that, it’s probable that he will block progressive ideas like universal health care. “Centrist” implies someone who can reach out to both sides of an issue, but in reality they often work in opposition to party members who are further left. I’m not in favor of Jeffries but it’s clear that they need younger people in leadership positions. Democrats usually appoint leadership based on seniority and chain of succession, and when Steny Hoyer (next in line, but almost as old as Pelosi) stepped aside, it opened the door for Jefferies who is apparently “next”. Republicans do not have the same adherence to seniority that Democrats have. But knowing that’s how Democrats generally do it, it makes predictions about future leadership pretty easy. Just look at who is #2 or #3.

As far as I know, there has never been a Speaker of the House who was not a sitting member of Congress, even though the rules allow it. But I may be mistaken.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I have read about 'machine politicians' in the Democrats before, but I guess a young elected official has to do the graft before getting the draft, unless his name is Obama.

I understand the 'centrist' argument, Blair used it to win Labour four elections in the UK, but after the 'centre ground' of British politics had been moved to the right in 1979 and the years thereafter.

It was a basic concept of Keith Joseph, the Conservative who converted Margaret Thatcher to his version of Free Marker economics. Joseph argued that since 1945 the 'ratchet' of politics had been moved from an economy led by markets to one led by the State, most notably in the growth of Welfare and State bureaucracy, but also, critically, in the State's intervention in the economy. The centre ground remained committed to this 'Keynesian consensus' which Joseph argued was the cause of the UK's ills and that radical change was needed, not just to end State intervention in the economy -which Thatcher did through privatisation of the Utilities, withdrawing state funds from British Leyland, in effect shutting down what remained of our coal industry- but also to move the ratchet of British politics to the right, so the Centre Ground would make the inheritance of Thatcher hard to break, which is what has happened.

As for the US, I don't understand how a country as rich as yours resists the social justice of a single-payer health care service, preferring to maintain it as a business instead, and that is just one policy though I have to assume the Affordable Care Act was as radical as the US could make it. AOC and her chums are on the fringes of politics, not at the centre.

[blackchubby38]

But were they so wrong? These guys don't seem to think so.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/the-pollsters-seem-to-have-had-a-good-night/
I think a lot of the expectations weren't based so much on the polls, but on historical experience at mid-terms, factoring in the economy and the President's approval rating.

Opinion polls are always subject to error margins of a few per cent, and the result is a reminder that they can go in both directions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin-of-error-in-election-polls/

For some historical context, I went back and looked at two midterm elections: 1994 and 2010.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_United_States_elections

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_elections

Both Clinton and Obama were able to accomplish some major policy goals in their first two years in office respectively, with only the latter having to deal with any issues when it came to the economy. But the Democratic Party still went on to suffer significant losses in the midterm elections. So its no wonder a majority of people expected there to be a red wave this year.

[Luke Warm]

So its no wonder a majority of people expected there to be a red wave this year.

I suspect that there was a voter backlash to the January 6th attack on the US capital building. I took that extremely seriously, and I think other people did too, including Republican voters who aren’t all-in on Trump. I won’t be surprised if it’s a factor in 2024 and beyond.



As for the US, I don't understand how a country as rich as yours resists the social justice of a single-payer health care service, preferring to maintain it as a business instead, and that is just one policy though I have to assume the Affordable Care Act was as radical as the US could make it. AOC and her chums are on the fringes of politics, not at the centre.

I think greed explains it. The thinking is “why should the government operate an industry as non-profit, when me and my rich buddies could be making money off it?” It could be health care, the postal system, public schools, whatever. Mega-donors drive the political agenda and protect big industries like pharmaceuticals, etc. For the rich, investing campaign donations in politicians who protect their financial interests is just good business.

[Luke Warm]

There’s a blog called electoral-vote dot com, which covers polling, elections, relevant historical references, and political news of the day. I believe the bloggers are historians, who seem to be right about a lot of things, and provide informative overviews on US political topics. For example, if there’s some political maneuvering in Congress and you want some background on what obscure rules they’re following, that’s a good website to read. The website design looks like “Web 1.0” but it’s worth a visit for the content.

[Stavros]

I think greed explains it. The thinking is “why should the government operate an industry as non-profit, when me and my rich buddies could be making money off it?” It could be health care, the postal system, public schools, whatever. Mega-donors drive the political agenda and protect big industries like pharmaceuticals, etc. For the rich, investing campaign donations in politicians who protect their financial interests is just good business.

I would suggest that in the US there is a long tradition of the Federal Govt not doing things, because they would have the tax citizens to achieve it. Washington didn't want to transform the Continental Army into a Federal Standing Army for this reason, though he failed to make that happen. Ironic I suppose, given that defence would then have been the job of 'a well armed militia'.

Again, the US does not have a national carrier in airlines or shipping, it doesn't have a State or Federal Radio or TV station which in Europe was and sometimes is owned and run by the State, so I see the political inheritance there. It is just that health is something that affected everyone from 'the cradle to the grave', and because it seems to some of us in the UK that your health care business falls far short of what we have even when our NHS is in crisis, as it has been for so long it is medically not a crisis but a chronic condition.

That said, while the NHS is state run, it is not a vertically-integrated system. The private sector provides all the ancillary aspects of hospitals, clinics and GP surgeries -from the carpet and the chairs, to the ECG machines and X-Ray equipment, to the drugs. The private sector in the UK has done very well out of the NHS, but I don't see how else this could have worked.

On balance I think a mix of the UK and German systems works best.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Luke Warm;2063843

Hakeem Jeffries is a centrist, also have heard him labeled as a “corporate Democrat” or conservative Democrat. Based on that, it’s probable that he will block progressive ideas like universal health care. “Centrist” implies someone who can reach out to both sides of an issue, but in reality they often work in opposition to party members who are further left. I’m not in favor of Jeffries but it’s clear that they need younger people in leadership positions. Democrats usually appoint leadership based on seniority and chain of succession, and when Steny Hoyer (next in line, but almost as old as Pelosi) stepped aside, it opened the door for Jefferies who is apparently “next”. Republicans do not have the same adherence to seniority that Democrats have. But knowing that’s how Democrats generally do it, it makes predictions about future leadership pretty easy. Just look at who is #2 or #3.
[/QUOTE]

More on this man Hakeen Jeffries, who seems to be an uncritical supporter of the violent State of Israel, receiving a lot of campaign finance from a group called Pro-Israel America. I wonder if he is about to register some reservations about the inclusion in Netanyahu's Govt of Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of a long line of nasty Fascists whose lineage reaches all the way back to Avraham Stern, who was trained in one of the camps for terrorists established by Mussolini just by Civitavecchia, a tradition maintained by Jabotinsky, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon. Maybe Jeffries should ask himself if such a man even knows the meaning of the word peace, as there is no hope of him ever using the word compromise in a sentence.
Hakeem Jeffries’ likely elevation set to please US pro-Israel groups | US politics | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/29/hakeem-jeffries-house-nancy-pelosi-israel)

Israel has passed a law which means foreigners who fall in love with a Palestinian living on the West Bank must inform Israel's Ministry of Defence and if, heaven forbid, they get married, the foreigner must leave for a 26-month 'cooling off' period, because its hot stuff, this love and marriage thing, Palestinian-style. One wonders if Hakeem Jeffries will endorse this lunacy and even present a bill in the House requiring non-Americans who live in Florida but fall in love with someone in Illinois to inform the Pentagon. You just never know, and it don't matter if it is just, because Israel does it, and Hakeem must be careful to protect his sponsors.
Israeli rules say West Bank visitors must declare love interest - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-62730164)

What does it take to assess Israel as a modern State without all the baggage Netanyahu dumps on people before and after they express an opinion? Jeffries according to the link above, supported Obama and the JCOP with Iran, so maybe he can think for himself. He needs to ask why it is that Democrats support in Israel people with political ideas he would condemn in the USA, parties he would campaign against. Even an insolent little prick like Satloff can't stand Ben-Gvir, that's how low the bar has fallen in Israel.

And where, in all this, is Yitzhak Rabin and the Peace Treaty? Was it that bad? Look at what has happened since Sharon, Netanyahu and their violent settler buddies snuffed out that light -has there been even a remote chance of peace or diplomacy having any effect that Palestinians can use to live free lives? When did you last read of a plan to end Israel's illegal siege of the Gaza District?

I don't know much about the man, but he inspires zero confidence in me that he will be an improvement on Nancy Pelosi.

And with Biden grovelling before a mass murdering shit like MbS, one sighs again at the folly of US relations with the Middle East, two drunks driving a truck of explosives over a rocky road.

[Luke Warm]

I would suggest that in the US there is a long tradition of the Federal Govt not doing things, because they would have the tax citizens to achieve it. Washington didn't want to transform the Continental Army into a Federal Standing Army for this reason, though he failed to make that happen. Ironic I suppose, given that defence would then have been the job of 'a well armed militia'.


Apparently the US federal government was pretty minimal until after the civil war. I don’t recall, but I don’t think we even had federal taxes until then (forgive me for not Googling it).

The left has wanted to have publicly funded health care since at least the 1940s and FDR’s “New Deal” legislation, but for reasons I don’t know, they could not get it done at that time. Obamacare has some critical drawbacks and limitations but it was a bit of a miracle that at least something was passed, because it had been on the progressive wish-list for so long.

Regarding US policy towards Israel, the vast majority of US voters are focused on domestic issues, especially regarding the economy. I wonder how many Americans even know who Netenyahu is… I’d guess maybe 10%.

[Stavros]

Regarding US policy towards Israel, the vast majority of US voters are focused on domestic issues, especially regarding the economy. I wonder how many Americans even know who Netenyahu is… I’d guess maybe 10%.


Yes, but then a lot of Americans don't know much about their own country which is why on so many domestic issues you will hear people say things that would otherwise be incredible. The anti-vaxx movement has exposed the ignorance of Americans of their own history with regard to immunology.

The point about Israel is that it is not even a special case, if the contradiction between 'American values' and Foreign Policy is the matter. Russia is condemned for its annexation of Ukrainian territory, whereas Israel can annex the 'Golan Heights' which are part of Syria, and no ultimatum or threats, or sanctions follow. Turkey has been in illegal occupation of northern Cyprus since 1974 so where is the package of sanctions? Or the in-out attitude to northern Syria where it regularly attacks what it says are Kurdish 'separatists' without offering any proof, or an explanation of what it is that Kurds want -the people the US was supposed to be sponsoring for an Independent State after 1918 but which it did not follow through because the US left the League of Nations.

It may be realpolitik for the US to have good relations with Saudi Arabia, but in return they get nothing, as the price of oil per barrel is not something SA always changes if it can to support the US. Mohammed bin Salman has a personal relationship with Jared Kushner and is personally hostile to Democrats and Biden in particular. It tickles his ego to see an American President in effect begging Saudi Arabia, and to know he will screw the US as often as he can. As for the support SA gave to the 9/11 murderers, the weekly executions, Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia's less than hostile attitude to Russia, it really doesn't care what the US thinks. Neither for that matter does Israel, which is also 'soft' on Russia.

Maybe you should be asking what it is you get for the billions of $$$ you spend overseas. Looks like often it is a slap in the face.

[filghy2]

Apparently the US federal government was pretty minimal until after the civil war. I don’t recall, but I don’t think we even had federal taxes until then (forgive me for not Googling it).

It's even more recent than that. Federal income tax in the US only started in 1913, and was still very low until WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Most countries had fairly limited government until after the Great Depression and WWII. I guess those events made people realise there were merits in more active government rather than leaving people to their own devices. The US still has smaller government than other developed countries, but despite the best efforts of the right they have not been able to reverse the historical increase.

[filghy2]

For some historical context, I went back and looked at two midterm elections: 1994 and 2010.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_United_States_elections

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_elections

Both Clinton and Obama were able to accomplish some major policy goals in their first two years in office respectively, with only the latter having to deal with any issues when it came to the economy. But the Democratic Party still went on to suffer significant losses in the midterm elections. So its no wonder a majority of people expected there to be a red wave this year.

That was my point. Most of the media focussed too much on these historical precedents and discounted the actual data from independent polls that pointed to a close election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

I don't generally subscribe to arguments about systematic bias in the mainstream media, but I think one fault they have is the tendency to coalesce around a prevailing narrative. This can lead them to over-extrapolate the bits of data that fit the narrative and discount conflicting data. We'll never know, but it's possible the excessive pessimism about Democrat prospects discouraged some of their potential voters from voting.

[filghy2]

I suspect that there was a voter backlash to the January 6th attack on the US capital building. I took that extremely seriously, and I think other people did too, including Republican voters who aren’t all-in on Trump. I won’t be surprised if it’s a factor in 2024 and beyond.

Despite this, half the voters still voted Republican (according to reports, they got slightly more votes overall than the Democrats). I know this was better than expected given the general trend in mid-terms and high inflation, but I'm not convinced it's a big enough backlash to cause them to change their ways. Most of them are still more scared of Trump than they are of the voters - just look at their reaction to the infamous anti-semite dinner.

[filghy2]

According to this article, Republicans flipped 18 House seats that voted for Biden in 2020 (mainly in New York and California), while Democrats flipped only 5 seats that voted for Trump last time.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gops-house-majority-is-even-flimsier-than-we-thought

[filghy2]

It seems that demonising mail-in voting was not such a good idea for Republicans after all, but guess who stands in the way?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/08/republicans-have-a-post-election-epiphany-on-mail-voting-00072956