Sinekein wrote:Warmest October in history, so not really so far.
We had 2 warm fronts, nearly back to back, out of the south, but they're done, and we immediately plummeted to freezing today. Good times ahead.
This one is pretty simple. For two reasons:
- Historically, president popularity and economy performance were what undecided voters used to pick their candidate. But those undecided represent a much, much smaller part of the electorate after the last decade of U.S. Politics - tea party, Trump, "the Squad", etc. It's super polarized, the GOP is much more on the right than before, the Dems are much more on the left than before, so you have way fewer voters that can cross the bridge between two elections (no matter in which direction).
First part is dead on. For various reasons, the actual number of competitive seats in Congress, and states that can swing, is smaller than ever. The nature of power-seekers has optimized the process over time, to create "safe" zones for their interests. Heard somewhere that less than 100 House seats are even worth thinking about, and that sounds about right. The GOP, as a party, is what the Democrats were, what, 10 years ago? They've not moved right in the least. They've abandoned every tradition, conserved nothing, except a fawning need to suck off the rich. Which is at least a minor improvement over alternatives, but hardly conservative. The people are what's polarized, hence the friction between party and voter, and why neocons like McConnell withheld funds from close races, because they were too MAGA for his country club.
- So that leaves voter turnout as the main reason one party succeeds more than the other. And you are right, an unpopular president and a struggling economy should have been bad news for the Dems if A/the Supreme Court was not the most right-wing it ever was and didn't repel Roe v Wade which riled Democratic voters up and B/Trump just stopped leading the GOP, as he is so universally hated on the left that many (like they did in 2020 already) will vote against him more than for whoever the Dems offer.
I wonder about that, because no poll seemed to catch abortion being a major issue for any bloc of voters, except the youth. I'm more leaning on the massively more efficient ballot collecting efforts of the Dems as the main ingredient to victory. Americans, by and large, are uninformed, if not actively misinformed, and civic duty has been beaten out of us. But if you can convince someone that for 3 minutes of paperwork, they get to a cast a vote, even if they know nothing about anything, you can smother the reasoned, principled voters of any shade by massive margins.
But that last part is also about the extreme polarization of U.S. Politics at the moment. I won't expand on that, I assume each side sees the other one as being responsible for it. But I really think the GOP is moving away from the center much faster than the Dems, at least when it comes to who is in charge or the most influential. Biden is a moderate, Trump is not - and he has done everything in his power to silence or subdue the moderate republicans (and mostly succeeded because his base loves him so much).
I'm curious as to an outside perspective here, in what sense do you see the GOP moving from the center? I see the total opposite, so I'd like to reconcile the perceptions.
And the GOP has been much more guilty of that than the Democrats. Which means that all this time they spent not bothering with some minorities because it was simpler to just make them not vote too much, they have pandered towards other voters. And now, they are faced with the fact that they can't stop people from voting anymore, and they are much further away from positions that could make them expand their electorate.
It is a political strategy that has backfired. They can either double down on it and cry foul, or try to analyze it. They clearly are doing the former at the moment, but, again, once Trump leaves nothing will stop them from smoothing things over.
This is getting more into about what democracy is, what value it has over other systems. And since Trump just announced he's running again, the GOP's tied to him for at least 6 more years. I suppose my question is, even if everyone can vote, should everyone vote? What is the expected value of that compared against the expected value of only people who want to vote? Or people who are at some arbitrary level of informed? For example, New York is a blue to the bone state, solely on New York City, with its massive population density. The rest of it is not, to varying degrees. So if we instituted mandatory voting, the city would dominate the state politics even more, and the rest of the people would have less than what little say they have now. It would be objectively the most democratic possible system, yet it would disenfranchise everyone who isn't a city dweller, because they would never, ever have say over their masters. Clearly, there must be a balance between disenfranchising minority populations and empowering urban populations.
I mean, let's take the Black electorate. It is seen as super Dem, and is the prime target of voter suppression in the country. But if a GOP candidate came and really toned down the Blue Lives Matter talks in the party line, what would stop black people from voting GOP? A large majority of them are not really swayed by woke arguments.
It's something to the effect of 90% of black women and 85% of black men. Trump had some success in peeling support, by having famous black people support him, releasing a plan to uplift the communities, but didn't swing the vote or anything. A half black friend of mine explained it, in short, as that black people distrust the government completely, with good reason, but need it to survive, and the GOP isn't offering anything to address either concern.
Honestly, economic lines have become blurred between the parties as of recently. The quintessential blue state is California which is both super woke/progressive and home to some of the biggest Evil Inc. companies in the world. And the Dems at the moment are really missing an opportunity to show they care about blue collars and poor people - mostly because they are losing that vote - and by focusing on social issues. So even if it's not as shiny as the American Dream, the GOP promising better days for people who are struggling might be both realistic and enticing for the younger generations who already know they will not experience the abundance of their parents (and don't necessarily want to - consumerism is not at an all-time high when it comes to popularity, especially in the youth).
True. The hardcore "no handouts, economic jungle" Boomerisms of the neocons has been fading on the right. Though there's still some idyllic resistance, there's a core of morality there, that even if government is a horrid vessel for delivering it, caring for the poor and sick is a cross to bear, is becoming more evident on the right.
What can you even offer people that isn't money? A family? Stability? I mean, if the GOP offered me a comfy hobbit house, a plain Jane wife, and enough food and money to live a simple, comfortable lifestyle, I'd register to vote. But I suspect that's not what the spirit of the age is demanding most young people to desire. Though you are a teacher, so you must have a much better perspective on this.
If Trump is candidate again though, oh boy. It will be the same as 2020, except that he will be the sore loser of the election. I really don't see it ending any better than it did in 2020...and if somehow it does, I don't see the US ever getting back up from that, because he will have proven you can disrespect the rules of the election, refuse to peacefully leave your place, send some rabid idiots to threaten the Congress, and still be re-elected. That's textbook banana republic stuff.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our Chud dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility
In a long view of history, America has lasted well past expectations, no?
