She should havve pivoted to the left.
Thats one mistake that the democrats won’t learn from
2 Likes
It has no respect for borders. The next president has 4 hurricane seasons each one probably worse than the last and it’s not going matter if your left or right.
2 Likes
And also it needs to be mentioned that a modi govt is slightly left when it comes to equating with the western idiocies.
What’s far left for US is garbage type centrism for people in India.
It will be the fault of the Democratic Weather Ray-Gun when the The Carolinas/Florida/The Gulf Coast are flattened.
1 Like
Yeah, it’ll effect everyone, but countries with poor infrastructures will be devastated. As increasingly frequent disasters make places unlivable they will be forced to run or die… and we have seen how refugees crises led to right-wing populism.
1 Like
Fuck, guys what are we doing?! We should be denying the election results. I can’t believe Trump dumped ballots. Look at all the evidence. Quick, who’s good at photoshop? @gasband
Stop the steal!
3 Likes
Not in the congressional sense of the word.
1 Like
I’m not sure that’s actually true. I think it’s just what gets the most coverage because that’s what gets clicks, not necessarily reflective of what actually happened.
2 Likes
It’s simple.
Americans aren’t ready to vote for a woman. That too of mixed black/Indian heritage.
1 Like
In Dearborn, I suspect within about two weeks. We sort of have a thought experiment come to life now. What will Netanyahu do unrestrained by the Biden White House?
5 Likes
It’s really not.
Oh yeah. Name one previous female president.
Classic WUM
As much as all the arguments in the recent posts have been interesting, I have to say that at the moment, without any data, it’s a lot of speculation that seems to be pre-packaged narratives. I could also suggest that perhaps she couldn’t shake off the California liberal image and so motivated many people to vote against her.
Without data, we simply don’t know.
I might be sympathetic to the insufficient leftist rhetoric argument, except Brown lost too. Brown won the previous elections tacking to the left of Democrats in general, espousing populist arguments. From what I’ve seen of the results thus far, it’s not as though it’s just Harris performing poorly, but the party as a whole. Casey looks to be losing in Pennsylvania, and Tester, someone who has historically run far ahead of his party in the state, has also lost in Montana.
I think there has to be a recognition that as the incumbent party, presiding over what is a decent economy despite the “vibes” and the media narrative, it’s quite hard for them to make the argument that they can improve what people feel about the economy, since they own that, even though the sentiment about the economy is at historically high divergence from the actual performance. In any case, the exit polling I’ve seen suggested that democracy was the number 1 concern for the largest proportion of people, so again suggesting that running against Trump was a bad idea, I think is mistaken.
My own personal hunch thus far is that the Trump effect is much larger than what most of us would like. In a way, it’s much simpler for his campaign, because they literally have no genuine policies to help the lives of people. It’s much easier for him to say “I will fix it” rather than explain policy, which is something that the media has not done anything to challenge, as @Limiescouse has pointed out repeatedly through this thread.
I think the reality is that although most people in this thread would like to believe that Trump and Republicans at large a lot more unpopular than they actually are, and that Harris had great tailwinds behind her, she was always facing an uphill challenge as the vice-president of a not particularly popular incumbent. Personally, I think the media is a lot to blame for this, with their false equivocation of virtually every single thing, but that’s just a feeling, not something based on solid data.
So overall, I’d say wait for the dust to settle and an actual post-mortem before coming to conclusions.
6 Likes
Name one previous female/ethnic minority UK Labour Party leader.
Obviously the Labour Party has a sexism/racism problem right?
It’s too simplistic an argument.
I am as frustrated as most other people, but I think this is part of the problem if you’re [EDIT thanks to @Arminius pointing out the ambiguity] one is rushing to conclusions now.
Decision-making has to have some semblance of a basis on facts, but it’s too simplified. Otherwise, the election results wouldn’t have come that closely to being in favour of the Republicans. Rushing to conclusions without the data is more of the same general philosophy that leads to Republicans being more appealing than they perhaps should be.
It’s down to voter turnout. In 2020, 81 million people voted for Biden, 74 mil for Trump. In this election, Trump is down to 71 mil and Harris has 66 mil.
3 million less for Trump, 15 mil less for Harris. Harris didn’t get her party out to vote. They weren’t excited enough to go and cast. I think 2020 is down to having lived 4 years through a Trump presidency and going out to vote against it. Now we are 4 years on and memories get foggy and people aren’t enthusiastic about the Biden regime, which Harris didn’t push enough against.
7 Likes
As @ISMF said, much of what he has announced he will do is extremely inflationary. However, the real question is how far he will actually go. A 20% across the board tariff would mean a significant hit to US consumers, but it seems more likely that that is the stick he wants to threaten trade partners with. I had a talk with a former colleague now at Hydro Quebec now about what they thought about a tariff barrier would do, and his reaction was simple - a 20% tariff would increase the cost of power in the US Northeast by 20%. They have 100% capacity to recover their costs, and their supply actually sets the market price. Other generators in the region would probably become close to 20% more profitable - and a bunch of people who generally didn’t vote for Trump will pay more for electricity. It would be stupid, but maybe they do it.
However, we can expect years of economic friction as these ‘deals’ get worked on. Capital investment inside and outside the US will be factoring in the probability of higher tariffs, and be forced off an optimal path. That will hit the West across the board.
Trump will probably get praised for reducing the cost of oil and gas, but that is actually already happening. Market prices are down, and forward price curves point to that continuing for at least 3 years. That is likely to produce some economic growth in the US, it might produce similar outside the US to partly offset the trade friction losses.
However, I do expect the USD to lose ground about a year from now. Biden didn’t have the time to do the usual Democratic clean-up of US finances. The GOP talks a great game about restricting spending, but when they do it they invariably cut revenue as well. Biden’s covid spending came in between Trump’s profligate spending and what will likely be a significant reduction in US tax rates, and that will mean more US debt being put into the market at the same time as inflationary signals. Within a year, Trump will be attacking the Federal Reserve for working against him.
6 Likes
The problem is that you could also argue the opposite.
The 2020 election results were because people were voting against the horror of the previous 4 years, which weren’t so salient anymore, so they were less motivated to vote this time around. See the problem there?
I think at the point you are replying and arguing with yourself, you might need a deep breath…lol
3 Likes