Biden is now sitting around 306 electoral college votes.
Here's what Trump thinks that many EC votes is a landslide victory. Biden's win also comes with a popular vote win of + 5 million, whereas Trump's 2016 "landslide" came with a popular vote loss of - 3 million.
It's gonna end up being 5 or 6 million and almost 5%, and 36 EC votes over the threshold. It's probably the most resounding victory for anyone since 1988 (32 years). The fact that it's still spun as close is a reflection of the terrain the Democrats are working with.
I also think it's important to note that I bring up the history of the states and their association with the slavery question because it reinforces my points about one man one vote being a vital principle.
It's valuable to note that these anti-majoritarian systems not only fail on a test of democratic norms, but that they have also demonstrably failed in practice. A large number of lower population states kept the Senate in a 50-50 split -- prolonging the legality of slavery. The heads of the slave states knew that slavery would be outlawed if simple majorities of Americans had their way.
The 1876 election, which was the first election to see the popular vote winner (Tilden) not become president ended Reconstruction in the South and consigned black americans there to a nearly 100 year long apartheid rule.
The filibuster in the Senate grew into common usage during the Civil Rights era, again, to prolong this same apartheid rule for longer than it would have lived if simple majorities could rule.
Far from protecting vulnerable minority groups, as conservatives seem to like to argue, these mechanisms merely empowered entrenched factions to tyrannize other Americans.
And while it wasn't tyranny, our two most recent unpopular presidencies -- W Bush and Trump have both been unqualified disasters. Continuing to demonstrate the imprudence of minority rule, I'd argue.
It's gonna end up being 5 or 6 million and almost 5%, and 36 EC votes over the threshold. It's probably the most resounding victory for anyone since 1988 (32 years). The fact that it's still spun as close is a reflection of the terrain the Democrats are working with.
Well, 2008 but yeah. Second place in that category.
Okay. I'll refrain from assuming bad intentions. I've seen the arguing tactic in the past where one rejects every point and substitute even a nominal difference in order to avoid conceding on any point under any circumstances. Based on the past 5 pages, it's hard for me to see the difference. I'll try to keep an open mind.
I think this sort of points out that you cannot separate the two. Centrist Democrats rallied to Biden (despite his campaign finishing in worse position than Buttigieg's to that point in the primary) in part because he was viably seen as someone who would be less divisive in a post Trump USA. I do agree that those other things are all major contributing factors in his ultimately successful bid, but Biden was pretty emphatic from the beginning that his candidacy reflected a "return to normalcy". I'd include one other category:
He was seen as the most likely to be able to beat Trump. That was in part because he was seen as someone who had crossover appeal (rightfully so, it appears) - due to his stances.
I can't agree. Buttigieg was tactically in a slightly better position, but not strategically. South Carolina showed that Biden still had his base and could outright win. More importantly, it showed that the African-American portion of his base was not interested in moving to Buttigieg or anyone else - which meant Buttigieg likely couldn't beat Sanders, and Biden likely could. Biden also had far more resources behind him than Buttigieg or the other contenders. His ceiling was higher than anyone else's, and that's why he was the clear choice to rally around once he showed that he wasn't out of the running.
If black voters had "seen the writing on the wall" and moved to any other centrist candidate, that candidate would have been who the Democrats tried to rally around to beat Sanders. They didn't, so their guy won. You cannot realistically win the Democratic nomination without the black vote.
And really, most of the Democratic candidates were promising "return to normalcy". It's a pretty clear pitch to make against the Trump administration.
In disagreeing with me, you've seemingly agreed with my general thesis. Why are we arguing?
You have said yourself "If black voters had "seen the writing on the wall" and moved to any other centrist candidate, that candidate would have been who the Democrats tried to rally around to beat Sanders"
This claim instructively means that Democrats were looking to rally around a centrist candidate. Why centrist and not progressive (or even, something inbetween?). For precisely the reason I mentioned at the end of my post (and which you did not address) - Biden was seen as a candidate most likely to have crossover appeal with Republicans.
A centrist candidate will have an easier time earning GOP votes. A Democrat capable of earning some GOP votes will have an easier time winning an election that is a referendum on a GOP president.
Democrats intentionally selected a candidate that they thought would be less divisive than the other candidates in the field. There are many reasons why Biden was selected - and I'm not making a power ranking for them, but I dont see how one can dismiss out of hand that truth.
Okay. I'll refrain from assuming bad intentions. I've seen the arguing tactic in the past where one rejects every point and substitute even a nominal difference in order to avoid conceding on any point under any circumstances. Based on the past 5 pages, it's hard for me to see the difference. I'll try to keep an open mind.
I think this sort of points out that you cannot separate the two. Centrist Democrats rallied to Biden (despite his campaign finishing in worse position than Buttigieg's to that point in the primary) in part because he was viably seen as someone who would be less divisive in a post Trump USA. I do agree that those other things are all major contributing factors in his ultimately successful bid, but Biden was pretty emphatic from the beginning that his candidacy reflected a "return to normalcy". I'd include one other category:
He was seen as the most likely to be able to beat Trump. That was in part because he was seen as someone who had crossover appeal (rightfully so, it appears) - due to his stances.
I can't agree. Buttigieg was tactically in a slightly better position, but not strategically. South Carolina showed that Biden still had his base and could outright win. More importantly, it showed that the African-American portion of his base was not interested in moving to Buttigieg or anyone else - which meant Buttigieg likely couldn't beat Sanders, and Biden likely could. Biden also had far more resources behind him than Buttigieg or the other contenders. His ceiling was higher than anyone else's, and that's why he was the clear choice to rally around once he showed that he wasn't out of the running.
If black voters had "seen the writing on the wall" and moved to any other centrist candidate, that candidate would have been who the Democrats tried to rally around to beat Sanders. They didn't, so their guy won. You cannot realistically win the Democratic nomination without the black vote.
And really, most of the Democratic candidates were promising "return to normalcy". It's a pretty clear pitch to make against the Trump administration.
In disagreeing with me, you've seemingly agreed with my general thesis. Why are we arguing?
You have said yourself "If black voters had "seen the writing on the wall" and moved to any other centrist candidate, that candidate would have been who the Democrats tried to rally around to beat Sanders"
This claim instructively means that Democrats were looking to rally around a centrist candidate. Why centrist and not progressive (or even, something inbetween?). For precisely the reason I mentioned at the end of my post (and which you did not address) - Biden was seen as a candidate most likely to have crossover appeal with Republicans.
A centrist candidate will have an easier time earning GOP votes. A Democrat capable of earning some GOP votes will have an easier time winning an election that is a referendum on a GOP president.
Democrats intentionally selected a candidate that they thought would be less divisive than the other candidates in the field. There are many reasons why Biden was selected - and I'm not making a power ranking for them, but I dont see how one can dismiss out of hand that truth.
Republicans have shown no interest in "working with Democrats". This should be obvious by Mitch refusing to allow Merrick Garland to be considered, slow walking Obama Court picks in order to leave vacancies, not calling witnesses at Trump's impeachment, confirming wildly unqualified judges during Trump's presidency, and a million other things.
We realize that Biden was selected because he was uncontroversial but getting Republicans to do the right thing is not working so this is a losers dream. It's the appeasement approach of neville chamberlain when he was confronted with fascism.
Okay. I'll refrain from assuming bad intentions. I've seen the arguing tactic in the past where one rejects every point and substitute even a nominal difference in order to avoid conceding on any point under any circumstances. Based on the past 5 pages, it's hard for me to see the difference. I'll try to keep an open mind.
I think this sort of points out that you cannot separate the two. Centrist Democrats rallied to Biden (despite his campaign finishing in worse position than Buttigieg's to that point in the primary) in part because he was viably seen as someone who would be less divisive in a post Trump USA. I do agree that those other things are all major contributing factors in his ultimately successful bid, but Biden was pretty emphatic from the beginning that his candidacy reflected a "return to normalcy". I'd include one other category:
He was seen as the most likely to be able to beat Trump. That was in part because he was seen as someone who had crossover appeal (rightfully so, it appears) - due to his stances.
I can't agree. Buttigieg was tactically in a slightly better position, but not strategically. South Carolina showed that Biden still had his base and could outright win. More importantly, it showed that the African-American portion of his base was not interested in moving to Buttigieg or anyone else - which meant Buttigieg likely couldn't beat Sanders, and Biden likely could. Biden also had far more resources behind him than Buttigieg or the other contenders. His ceiling was higher than anyone else's, and that's why he was the clear choice to rally around once he showed that he wasn't out of the running.
If black voters had "seen the writing on the wall" and moved to any other centrist candidate, that candidate would have been who the Democrats tried to rally around to beat Sanders. They didn't, so their guy won. You cannot realistically win the Democratic nomination without the black vote.
And really, most of the Democratic candidates were promising "return to normalcy". It's a pretty clear pitch to make against the Trump administration.
In disagreeing with me, you've seemingly agreed with my general thesis. Why are we arguing?
You have said yourself "If black voters had "seen the writing on the wall" and moved to any other centrist candidate, that candidate would have been who the Democrats tried to rally around to beat Sanders"
This claim instructively means that Democrats were looking to rally around a centrist candidate. Why centrist and not progressive (or even, something inbetween?). For precisely the reason I mentioned at the end of my post (and which you did not address) - Biden was seen as a candidate most likely to have crossover appeal with Republicans.
A centrist candidate will have an easier time earning GOP votes. A Democrat capable of earning some GOP votes will have an easier time winning an election that is a referendum on a GOP president.
Democrats intentionally selected a candidate that they thought would be less divisive than the other candidates in the field. There are many reasons why Biden was selected - and I'm not making a power ranking for them, but I dont see how one can dismiss out of hand that truth.
Republicans have shown no interest in "working with Democrats". This should be obvious by Mitch refusing to allow Merrick Garland to be considered, slow walking Obama Court picks in order to leave vacancies, not calling witnesses at Trump's impeachment, confirming wildly unqualified judges during Trump's presidency, and a million other things.
We realize that Biden was selected because he was uncontroversial but getting Republicans to do the right thing is not working so this is a losers dream. It's the appeasement approach of neville chamberlain when he was confronted with fascism.
I'm referring to voters, and the statistics have easily born out that Biden overperformed Clinton in heavily republican areas (including PA, where he underperformed her margins in Philadelphia, and overperformed them basically everywhere else in the state).
Boy. It's very clear to me that Democrats just absolutely hate Republicans. So much so that the guy they just elected to be president was clearly the person most interested in working with Republicans, and ran on a platform of trying to heal the nation.
Biden was elected not because he was interested in working with Republicans, but because (in the primaries) he wasn't Sanders and could beat him, and (in the election) he wasn't Trump and could beat him. His interest in reaching across the aisle was a plus for some Dems and a negative for others, but not a decisive factor, imo. I doubt it shifted many votes at all.
This claim instructively means that Democrats were looking to rally around a centrist candidate. Why centrist and not progressive (or even, something inbetween?). For precisely the reason I mentioned at the end of my post (and which you did not address) - Biden was seen as a candidate most likely to have crossover appeal with Republicans.
Because the non-left wing of the party was more or less hostile to Sanders (who is seen, not without any justification, as a non-Democrat attempting a takeover of the party). Now, granted, they see an advantage to a centrist: a centrist candidate appeals to the centrists, does not upset the remaining conservatives, and is acceptable to the left wing when the alternative is Trump, and thus had the highest potential ceiling. That's why Biden got such strong support from the establishment before the voting started. But it is NOT why they rallied around him after South Carolina.
A centrist candidate will have an easier time earning GOP votes. A Democrat capable of earning some GOP votes will have an easier time winning an election that is a referendum on a GOP president.
That most certainly does play into the calculations of many in the Democratic party, I agree. But I think you are undervaluing just how much Joe Biden was about "anyone but Sanders". That was the primary reason for his selection, at least in my view, which is why I disagreed with your original point. Everything else was minor in comparison - he was the guy who could deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. To put it a different way: Elizabeth Warren is not centrist, but if she could have peeled away Biden's black support she would most likely be President-Elect right now. Pete Buttigieg was centrist and tactically in a slightly better position, but he was not best-suited to deny Bernie, and that's why he isn't President-Elect right now.
Simply - I disagree. Among all other things, I dont know how I can "undervalue" anything when I havent associated a value at any point in this conversation. I even explicitly said I wasnt power ranking the reasons why Biden won the nomination.
I'm also just tired of arguing with you about it. The the argument has become 100% circular set of "Nuh uhs" and "Yeah huhs". At the end of the day, you and I have two different positions on the "both sides" and "mutual paranoia" concept, and we each want to bend the facts to support our position. Our arguments arent convincing to each other, and I'm not interested in the banal bantering.
@Ayiekie I understand your desire to get common agreement on what the problem is before discussing solutions. However, it doesn't appear to be likely that such agreement will be reached among posters in the near term. You mentioned that you had views on at least a direction of travel, even if not full solutions - I'd be interested in those views. It may also be that discussing something slightly more concrete would help approach the issue of what the problem is from a different perspective.
Possibly. My hope was that "No, I don't agree the country's going off a cliff and here's why" is at least more productive than... an endless stream of accusations of being the enemy and trying to sneak in Republican viewpoints.
Of course, I'm not blameless. I came in too aggressive and too "fools, only I have the right answer!", which is why upon realising I screwed up I pulled back and kept trying to engage in productive conversation and tried to shrug off hostility and keep plugging.
Really, in essence, this whole conversation is in microcosm the problem in America. Nobody talks to (rather than at) anyone else. Nobody sees humanity in anyone else. It's natural to think your side is right - that's why you're on it - but there is no recognition that being wrong and being evil are not synonymous.
(Of course, it's more complex than that. Even if certain posters could be persuaded I'm actually on "their side", and then listen, it isn't going to necessarily change the feeling the other side is an amorphous mass of evil. The fact is, individual Democrats and Republicans do listen to each other and see each other as people. Hillary Clinton achieved personal connections and bipartisan links with many Republicans while she was a Senator, and many of them commented on how surprised they were at that... but it didn't change the Republican view of Hillary Clinton, or what her presidency would mean, or what Democrats are in aggregate.)
So, you asked for my views. This'll be long, so I'll spoiler it for those not interested.
Okay, let's establish base assumptions: Excessive negative partisanship is emerging as the driving force in American political life, which is fundamentally dangerous to the survival of the republic. This is characterised, amongst other things, by a) ongoing disconnection and estrangement physically and socially from members of the other side, b) an increasing tendency to subsume all political issues into two sides (and an according lack of media or public interest in any issue or viewpoint that does not fit into the Republican/Democrat dichotomy), and c) an increasing willingness to shift positions to follow the Party or the Leader. This is an ongoing process which has taken decades but is currently accelerating. Partly this is because it has become a zero-sum game where intransigence is not politically punished, because the public increasingly views the "other side" as an Enemy, to be vanquished by any means necessary.
I used to think that Republicans would be punished electorally for being the worse of the two sides. But I stopped thinking that, both because they really haven't consistently been, and because of observing Australian politics both historically and in the present day. Right now, both sides benefit (in the short term) from this situation, even as in the long term it threatens them both. It also means one side trying to unilaterally fix the situation would entail at least a medium-term near-total loss of political power, which is unacceptable at any time and even more so now that the other side is the Enemy.
But it's not hopeless. For one, America has been worse off than this before. Noone is (yet) beating another senator near to death with a cane, and there is no serious take of states seceding and a second civil war breaking out. Second, the public still values things like compromise between the parties, even if it's very difficult to find acceptable specific compromises. And of course, other countries have come back from the brink, as you brought up.
The upshot of all that long buildup? One of the fundamental problems is the nature of the Democratic and Republican coalitions, which are increasingly held together more by hatred of the other side than by shared bonds. To name two simple examples (and to counter the expected comment, no they are not exactly equivalent, but they are both examples of a similar phenomenon), on the Republican side business interests and religious interests have always been an uneasy fit with many competing goals, and on the Democratic side, their coalition increasingly relies on minorities who often lack connection to the Democratic party platform (much-talked-about is the fact that blacks are more socially conservative than other Democrats, but there are other examples). As the country increasingly sorts itself into rural and urban, that makes the situation worse by physically segregating the two sides and making dehumanisation even easier.
Historically, in these situations, sometimes a great crisis realigns things. But 2020 happened, and the divisions sailed right through it without pause. Historically, sometimes notable leaders have a vision that causes a large political realignment. But both Obama and Trump were notable leaders in their own ways ("notable" is not an endorsement), and while both of them shifted what their side believed in, they didn't shift the side. Sometimes new parties arise and tear apart the established ones. This has happened in American history before, but the fear of the other side winning is so strong, and the American system so weighted towards a two-party system, and the extant party infrastructure so powerful, that the odds are steep even though people do keep getting their hopes up.
If the parties could see the problem, I'd argue what they need to do is find what their actual core is, and then see what they could find common cause with as many of the other side as they can, while being willing to jettison everyone on their own side that won't go along. Let us take abortion as an example. Once upon a time, there were many pro-choice Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats. Now, largely, those groups are just "Democrats" and "Republicans". Is being pro-choice fundamental to being a Democrat? Then fight for it. On every level. Not to win an election, but to win the argument. Make it the law of the land rather than relying on a decades-old limited Supreme Court ruling. Make a new tent. And if it is not? Then it is not, and those who can't stand anti-abortion activists being in the party are enemies, and you need a new tent that excludes them.
You need a tent based on principles beyond "stop the other party", and more to the point those principles have to not be catered purely to the people who are already in your tent. It needs to be big, and it needs to capture the imagination.
But this would lose elections, because your own will leave you and they won't be replaced immediately. And that is unacceptable, because the other side is the Enemy and they will cause Catastrophe if they're ever allowed to win.
So I don't think this can happen. And I don't think either a leader or a crisis can force realignment on a new axis and destroy these unnatural coalitions that are bound together by hating and fearing an Other. But they have to be destroyed, because fear and hate is all that can keep them together, they have nothing else in common. Nor is it really feasible to fix America's system to make the existence of more parties more stable, nor is either side going to gain a permanent majority because the oscillation is built up in how the American system works. (I realise that statement could be disputed, and I have arguments in its favour, but this is lengthy enough to please bear with me.)
Both the current Republican and current Democratic parties have to die. Something with their name can continue, but not their nature. As they cannot be opposed by normal political means, they have to be bypassed, made irrelevent, made to change because the situation that created them is no longer extant.
The primary way I can see to do this is to return local, grassroots politics (of one form or another) to prominence, because local people have to (or, at least, have strong incentives to) acknowledge each other's humanity in a way that the Republican and Democratic coalitions do not. It's not a wonder-cure, because it sure didn't fix racism, but it is the only mechanism I can see actually breaking the deadlock that produces the current zero-sum game in a way that actually benefits people involved (as opposed to solutions that end up benefitting primarily corporations, say).
How to do this, I freely admit I have no idea. It would need a movement that didn't easily break into "left" or "right". I wonder if the climate crisis might provide a means for that. It will certainly shake up where people live and how in ways most don't currently anticipate.
TLDR, and who could blame you: The fundamental problem is that increasingly (note: not totally, yet) both major parties stand against things rather than for things, because either one standing for something would sunder their current fear-based coalitions. This is not easily solved by conventional mechanisms due to a variety of factors. I propose that one option (that doesn't require, say, a civil war) is that they could be bypassed and rendered unimportant by action and politics happening at a more local level, where people have to talk to, deal with, and most importantly live with each other. I don't know what could lead to this paradigm shift, but I do wonder if the displacements caused by climate change could be an impetus.
The solution is to not 'identify' with a party. 'Identify' with your own principles and adjust accordingly. That's why I still consider myself a conservative on principles, but could not in good conscience vote for Donald Trump. That is in no small part due to conversations in this very thread so don't discount the fact that some people can be persuaded by well thought out arguments. I only hope that maybe more people will wake up to the fact that blind partisanship leads to the shit we're dealing with now. Deadlock!
Well, there's a lot of "YOU", "NO YOU" stuff going on here. Y'all mind if we focus the discussion on a specific issue?
I don't mind at all. Which specific issue would you like to discuss? Take the lead by all means. This is a pretty eclectic group so I'm sure you'll get some enlightening feedback...
original post https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10165808228805725
One last thing. I an not "conservative". I an libertarian. I don't like the left authoritarianism nor right wing authoritarianism. Eg of left wing authoritarianism - criminalizing owning guns, wanting crippling regulations and the state eating most of profits without the regulators being accountable and sharing the risks, nor right wing authoritarianism ie - ultra rigid IP laws, prohibition on marijuana, etc. Nor the authoritarianism without a political side, like for eg, prohibiting prostitution. However, between living in a right wing ultra authoritarian state like Pinochet Chile and a left wing authoritarian state like Cuba, I would chose Chile ANY day.
Okay, let's establish base assumptions: Excessive negative partisanship is emerging as the driving force in American political life, which is fundamentally dangerous to the survival of the republic. This is characterised, amongst other things, by a) ongoing disconnection and estrangement physically and socially from members of the other side, b) an increasing tendency to subsume all political issues into two sides (and an according lack of media or public interest in any issue or viewpoint that does not fit into the Republican/Democrat dichotomy), and c) an increasing willingness to shift positions to follow the Party or the Leader. This is an ongoing process which has taken decades but is currently accelerating. Partly this is because it has become a zero-sum game where intransigence is not politically punished, because the public increasingly views the "other side" as an Enemy, to be vanquished by any means necessary.
I used to think that Republicans would be punished electorally for being the worse of the two sides. But I stopped thinking that, both because they really haven't consistently been, and because of observing Australian politics both historically and in the present day. Right now, both sides benefit (in the short term) from this situation, even as in the long term it threatens them both. It also means one side trying to unilaterally fix the situation would entail at least a medium-term near-total loss of political power, which is unacceptable at any time and even more so now that the other side is the Enemy.
But it's not hopeless. For one, America has been worse off than this before. Noone is (yet) beating another senator near to death with a cane, and there is no serious take of states seceding and a second civil war breaking out. Second, the public still values things like compromise between the parties, even if it's very difficult to find acceptable specific compromises. And of course, other countries have come back from the brink, as you brought up.
The upshot of all that long buildup? One of the fundamental problems is the nature of the Democratic and Republican coalitions, which are increasingly held together more by hatred of the other side than by shared bonds. To name two simple examples (and to counter the expected comment, no they are not exactly equivalent, but they are both examples of a similar phenomenon), on the Republican side business interests and religious interests have always been an uneasy fit with many competing goals, and on the Democratic side, their coalition increasingly relies on minorities who often lack connection to the Democratic party platform (much-talked-about is the fact that blacks are more socially conservative than other Democrats, but there are other examples). As the country increasingly sorts itself into rural and urban, that makes the situation worse by physically segregating the two sides and making dehumanisation even easier.
Historically, in these situations, sometimes a great crisis realigns things. But 2020 happened, and the divisions sailed right through it without pause. Historically, sometimes notable leaders have a vision that causes a large political realignment. But both Obama and Trump were notable leaders in their own ways ("notable" is not an endorsement), and while both of them shifted what their side believed in, they didn't shift the side. Sometimes new parties arise and tear apart the established ones. This has happened in American history before, but the fear of the other side winning is so strong, and the American system so weighted towards a two-party system, and the extant party infrastructure so powerful, that the odds are steep even though people do keep getting their hopes up.
If the parties could see the problem, I'd argue what they need to do is find what their actual core is, and then see what they could find common cause with as many of the other side as they can, while being willing to jettison everyone on their own side that won't go along. Let us take abortion as an example. Once upon a time, there were many pro-choice Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats. Now, largely, those groups are just "Democrats" and "Republicans". Is being pro-choice fundamental to being a Democrat? Then fight for it. On every level. Not to win an election, but to win the argument. Make it the law of the land rather than relying on a decades-old limited Supreme Court ruling. Make a new tent. And if it is not? Then it is not, and those who can't stand anti-abortion activists being in the party are enemies, and you need a new tent that excludes them.
You need a tent based on principles beyond "stop the other party", and more to the point those principles have to not be catered purely to the people who are already in your tent. It needs to be big, and it needs to capture the imagination.
But this would lose elections, because your own will leave you and they won't be replaced immediately. And that is unacceptable, because the other side is the Enemy and they will cause Catastrophe if they're ever allowed to win.
So I don't think this can happen. And I don't think either a leader or a crisis can force realignment on a new axis and destroy these unnatural coalitions that are bound together by hating and fearing an Other. But they have to be destroyed, because fear and hate is all that can keep them together, they have nothing else in common. Nor is it really feasible to fix America's system to make the existence of more parties more stable, nor is either side going to gain a permanent majority because the oscillation is built up in how the American system works. (I realise that statement could be disputed, and I have arguments in its favour, but this is lengthy enough to please bear with me.)
Both the current Republican and current Democratic parties have to die. Something with their name can continue, but not their nature. As they cannot be opposed by normal political means, they have to be bypassed, made irrelevent, made to change because the situation that created them is no longer extant.
The primary way I can see to do this is to return local, grassroots politics (of one form or another) to prominence, because local people have to (or, at least, have strong incentives to) acknowledge each other's humanity in a way that the Republican and Democratic coalitions do not. It's not a wonder-cure, because it sure didn't fix racism, but it is the only mechanism I can see actually breaking the deadlock that produces the current zero-sum game in a way that actually benefits people involved (as opposed to solutions that end up benefitting primarily corporations, say).
How to do this, I freely admit I have no idea. It would need a movement that didn't easily break into "left" or "right". I wonder if the climate crisis might provide a means for that. It will certainly shake up where people live and how in ways most don't currently anticipate.
Thanks for the response. I agree with a lot of that. The main issue where I would take a different tack is on how the parties should set out their positions. I agree they should take clear positions, but I don't think those should determine who's welcome in the party.
You referred to abortion for instance, which is a good example because of the strength of feeling about that. A stance that says you can't be a Democrat unless you believe in pro-choice would undoubtedly result in significant numbers of people leaving the party. Multiply that up with other leavers on hot-button issues like transgender rights, gay marriage, reparations for slavery, positive discrimination, taxation, pandemic response etc etc and you would not have a viable party left.
One of the things that concerns me about party politics (in the UK as well as the US) is the increasing tendency in recent years to defining people as either with you or against you in relation to specific issues. Agreeing a manifesto for a party is never an entirely comfortable process, but this tendency is making it harder. While the pandemic and Trump's dislike of thinking about policies are the immediate causes for the failure of the Republican party to produce a new manifesto for 2020, underlying that I think was a realization that setting out what they believe in would lose them more votes than they gain.
To address that tendency I think there's a need for parties to both be clear about their position on issues and clear that supporting the party does not mean agreeing with the party position on every specific issue. If there were a more tolerant attitude within parties that should also bleed across to some extent to make it easier to see other parties as opponents and not enemies.
Those who do feel strongly about particular issues can of course try and move the party to their point of view, but also make their opinions felt through single issue groups outside the party structure. I don't think participating in such groups should be seen as being disloyal to your party, even if they don't represent the party's official position. A party is aiming ultimately to form a government - which should govern on behalf of all people. That naturally requires a broad church and involves compromises and is very different in nature from a single-issue campaign group.
I agree with the idea that local action is helpful when trying to get more mutual acceptance, but I think the party leader also has a major part to play. It's pretty obvious how Trump has accelerated the tendency to regard opponents as enemies as a consequence of his general dislike of policy and division of people between those "for me" and "against me". I don't think though that this is a one-way street. A strong party leader who's prepared to both take a clear stand on the party's position and defend the right of party members (and of course other parties) to hold a different view could reverse that tendency. Just writing that I can see it's a big ask , but I don't think it's impossible.
Trump's imagination is the source. In case you didn't know, he lies. Constantly. Just makes shit up all the time. He's not a serious person and nobody should believe a word he says ever.
He says things that are lies. When it's time to prove the lies, he can't. He's like 0/15 in election lawsuits. That's the reality, not these stupid lies.
Essentially it's just made up. The original source of the story appears to be a human error in Michigan which led to briefly reporting incorrect vote totals - see this fact check article. Trump's tactics are to pick up any oddity or mistake in the election (and in such a huge process there are bound to be some of those) and claim that was not only deliberate fraud, but also systematic across the election. While his Twitter account gives a different picture, the reality is that all his legal challenges have proved entirely fruitless because the courts require more than Trump's words as evidence of problems.
I referred a while ago to 2 international groups of monitors who had both confirmed there were no problems with the election. Other than Trump loyalists, that's also the case with all US observers. This story describes just how fed up election officials generally are with Trump's antics. The Election Infrastructure Government Co-ordinating Council (made up of senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the US Election Assistance Commission as well as state-level officials who oversee elections and representatives of the voting machine industry) said: "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result," the group said.
"While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too."
That statement was posted to the website of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. The assistant director of Cisa was asked to resign last week for debunking election misinformation and the director says he expects to be fired anytime now - that could possibly be due to the post he shared saying: "Please don't retweet wild and baseless claims about voting machines, even if they're made by the president."
Essentially it's just made up. The original source of the story appears to be a human error in Michigan which led to briefly reporting incorrect vote totals - see this fact check article. Trump's tactics are to pick up any oddity or mistake in the election (and in such a huge process there are bound to be some of those) and claim that was not only deliberate fraud, but also systematic across the election:p
To proof that was systematic across the election, would need far more.
But what would be ironic is if Trump pressures more investigations and states where he wons closely flips towards Biden... I believe that what helped many states to flip to Biden is not "fraud". Is the fact that many Californians are leaving California and it can explain why Arizona flipped after 24 years of they voting for republicans.
If was or not fraud, an detailed investigation will not hurt. Will at worse, give more information for both parties about the voters and help to reduce human errors in future.
Essentially it's just made up. The original source of the story appears to be a human error in Michigan which led to briefly reporting incorrect vote totals - see this fact check article. Trump's tactics are to pick up any oddity or mistake in the election (and in such a huge process there are bound to be some of those) and claim that was not only deliberate fraud, but also systematic across the election:p
To proof that was systematic across the election, would need far more.
But what would be ironic is if Trump pressures more investigations and states where he wons closely flips towards Biden... I believe that what helped many states to flip to Biden is not "fraud". Is the fact that many Californians are leaving California and it can explain why Arizona flipped after 24 years of they voting for republicans.
If was or not fraud, an detailed investigation will not hurt. Will at worse, give more information for both parties about the voters and help to reduce human errors in future.
There has been a net outflow of people from California. State by State information can be found here, but for instance in 2018 there was a net movement of 35k from California to Arizona. While that number is clearly sufficient in principle to have influenced the election, that doesn't necessarily mean it did. Around 1/3 of voters in California supported Trump in the 2020 election and it seems quite plausible to me that this group is considerably more likely to move out than Democrat voters - both for cultural reasons and because a major motivation for moving seems to be financial (and there is a correlation between wealth and voting patterns).
I agree an investigation of the election makes sense, though of course that happens to some extent in every US election anyway - that's one reason for the long delay between the election and certifying results that you don't see in other western democracies.
I posted some months ago about the controversy over Dominic Cummings - the special adviser to Boris Johnson who had appeared to interpret the rules of the first lockdown to suit himself. He has just resigned (forced out).
He had been very successful as a campaign adviser in putting across simple messages to the public (such as 'take back control" during the Brexit campaign, or "get Brexit done" during the last general election). However, his confrontational style has been less suited to government. That had been a major reason why the majority of the most senior civil servants (permanent secretaries) have resigned over the last year or so. Johnson appeared to be happy enough with this reshaping and Cummings' desire to get "weirdos and misfits" into the civil service, but the problems with that sort of cultural shift have been exacerbated by the need to respond so quickly to Covid-19.
Ultimately though, I would say Johnson's withdrawn his support not due to battles with the civil service, but those with members of his party. Backbench MPs have been unhappy about seeming to have been sidelined by unelected officials, while cabinet members are also frustrated by the idea that policy decisions have been taking place without their knowledge. Despite having a comfortable majority on paper, there have been growing indications that Johnson was facing real difficulties in getting things done in Parliament and I think he will hope the calmer atmosphere without Cummings will help with that.
I'm not sure to what extent, if any, Brexit ties into the departure. There still appear to be significant differences between the EU and UK and time is rapidly running out to get a deal ahead of the end of the transition period on 31 December. I'm conscious of the impact of that partly because it affects my work. A couple of business cases for major energy projects are being taken forward for approval in December, but the uncertainty over whether tariffs will apply to equipment sourced from abroad and the possibility of sudden exchange rate changes is a significant complication. My heart sinks a bit for those companies, whose actual business is importing and exporting, who don't even know what forms they will require for goods that they are already ordering now. Back to the point though, which is that, if a deal is to be done, that will undoubtedly require significant concessions from both the UK and EU. One possible reading for Cummings being forced out now is that Johnson is preparing to make such a concession and wanted a possible distraction out of the way.
I wonder if Cummings is leaving before the Brexit **** hits the fan.
It makes you wonder why Johnson wasted so much political capital defending him after the Barnard Castle incident five months, which almost certainly helped the spread of Covid as it gave people an excuse to not follow the rules (I know people in the police who have been told by people breaching the rules that they can do what they like because Cummings did). It was very damaging to the idea that we should all be in this together.
The sight of Cummings sat in the Downing Street rose garden peddling lies about why he went back into work with Covid and then drove halfway across the country in a lockdown to get childcare and then strapped his kid in the car several days later to drive to a local beauty spot on his wife’s birthday to test his eyesight was sickening.
Cummings and Johnson are good at campaigning but dreadful at governing (remind you of anyone we know in the US?) - to be fair campaigning is easy when you just make ludicrous promises and don’t worry about implementing them. Much has been made of his “genius”, because he tapped into people’s racism, wrote a big lie on a bus and didn’t get drawn on the specifics of Brexit during the campaign. Only the latter showed much acumen but it is now causing big problems for the country as there was never an agreed way forward. It is great that Cummings is leaving as he was only part way through some undesirable changes to the civil service and local planning laws.
The saga of Cummings and Symonds (Johnson’s latest fiancé) has become tiresome - neither elected and wielding significant power. I thought we left the EU because we hated unelected power holders. It’s no surprise that the person that can appeal to the lower part of Johnson’s anatomy won out on the day.
Cummings leaving is as likely to be because of a petty issue as a significant one. Nothing to do with principles, all about some power struggle. Sadly it’s unlikely to affect how the British Government approaches anything, although it may alter the tone of its messaging just a little. No doubt his blogs will get a decent readership anyway- “wordpress Rasputin” was the last nickname I heard for him.
Essentially it's just made up. The original source of the story appears to be a human error in Michigan which led to briefly reporting incorrect vote totals - see this fact check article. Trump's tactics are to pick up any oddity or mistake in the election (and in such a huge process there are bound to be some of those) and claim that was not only deliberate fraud, but also systematic across the election:p
To proof that was systematic across the election, would need far more.
But what would be ironic is if Trump pressures more investigations and states where he wons closely flips towards Biden... I believe that what helped many states to flip to Biden is not "fraud". Is the fact that many Californians are leaving California and it can explain why Arizona flipped after 24 years of they voting for republicans.
If was or not fraud, an detailed investigation will not hurt. Will at worse, give more information for both parties about the voters and help to reduce human errors in future.
There has been a net outflow of people from California. State by State information can be found here, but for instance in 2018 there was a net movement of 35k from California to Arizona. While that number is clearly sufficient in principle to have influenced the election, that doesn't necessarily mean it did. Around 1/3 of voters in California supported Trump in the 2020 (...)
Biden also has less rejection than Hilary and the outflow of people from CAlifornia é something predictable. People tend to vote for bigger government and then, move to places where the government is smaller.
Also, a question about election. Can Trump runs again in 2024?
IDK much about USA legislation in that regard. Because lets be real. All of the investigations are more likely to not change anything or to flip a red into a blue state then to flip a lot of blue states to Trump. If I had to bet, I would say about 80% chance of not flipping anything, about 15% of flipping an state to Biden and about 5% of chance of flipping enough states to make Trump wins.
Also, a question about election. Can Trump runs again in 2024?
He can - the restriction is a president can't serve more than 2 terms, but they don't have to be consecutive. There is in fact one example of a president who successfully did that (Grover Cleveland, who won in 1885, lost in 1889 and won again in 1893).
Also, a question about election. Can Trump runs again in 2024?
Legally, yes. A president that has served only one term - or one term and a bit - can run again even if it's not consecutive. Before the relevant constitutional amendment was passed in the mid-20th century, there were no restrictions at all on running again.
In practice, they don't, at least in recent memory. Jimmy Carter didn't run in 1984. George Bush didn't run in 1996. The last time a major party nominated a candidate that had previously lost a general election ... Richard Nixon. He served two terms as Eisenhower's vice president, was nominated for President and lost in 1960, then came back in 1968 and won.
If you go farther back, losers trying again gets more common. Eisenhower beat Adlai Stevenson twice. Truman beat Thomas Dewey twice. William Jennings Bryan lost three times. And, of course, there's Grover Cleveland, who sandwiched a lost election between his two presidential terms.
With Richard Nixon as a precedent? I wouldn't be surprised at Trump defying the norms on this one, or trying to.
Also, a question about election. Can Trump runs again in 2024?
He can - but he most likely won't. He's a loser and generally once you lose you don't run again, because you don't win.
Bernie sanders lost the Democratic nomination in 2016 and picked up a lot of momentum and fell short this time too.
Trump, viewed as a disaster and despised by the majority of Americans, will be unlikely to be the nominee in 2024 though he's welcome to try. He is popular among the people that voted for him.
Comments
Biden is now sitting around 306 electoral college votes.
Here's what Trump thinks that many EC votes is a landslide victory. Biden's win also comes with a popular vote win of + 5 million, whereas Trump's 2016 "landslide" came with a popular vote loss of - 3 million.
Trump is a loser who has gotten 240k Americans killed.
It's valuable to note that these anti-majoritarian systems not only fail on a test of democratic norms, but that they have also demonstrably failed in practice. A large number of lower population states kept the Senate in a 50-50 split -- prolonging the legality of slavery. The heads of the slave states knew that slavery would be outlawed if simple majorities of Americans had their way.
The 1876 election, which was the first election to see the popular vote winner (Tilden) not become president ended Reconstruction in the South and consigned black americans there to a nearly 100 year long apartheid rule.
The filibuster in the Senate grew into common usage during the Civil Rights era, again, to prolong this same apartheid rule for longer than it would have lived if simple majorities could rule.
Far from protecting vulnerable minority groups, as conservatives seem to like to argue, these mechanisms merely empowered entrenched factions to tyrannize other Americans.
And while it wasn't tyranny, our two most recent unpopular presidencies -- W Bush and Trump have both been unqualified disasters. Continuing to demonstrate the imprudence of minority rule, I'd argue.
Well, 2008 but yeah. Second place in that category.
In disagreeing with me, you've seemingly agreed with my general thesis. Why are we arguing?
You have said yourself "If black voters had "seen the writing on the wall" and moved to any other centrist candidate, that candidate would have been who the Democrats tried to rally around to beat Sanders"
This claim instructively means that Democrats were looking to rally around a centrist candidate. Why centrist and not progressive (or even, something inbetween?). For precisely the reason I mentioned at the end of my post (and which you did not address) - Biden was seen as a candidate most likely to have crossover appeal with Republicans.
A centrist candidate will have an easier time earning GOP votes. A Democrat capable of earning some GOP votes will have an easier time winning an election that is a referendum on a GOP president.
Democrats intentionally selected a candidate that they thought would be less divisive than the other candidates in the field. There are many reasons why Biden was selected - and I'm not making a power ranking for them, but I dont see how one can dismiss out of hand that truth.
Republicans have shown no interest in "working with Democrats". This should be obvious by Mitch refusing to allow Merrick Garland to be considered, slow walking Obama Court picks in order to leave vacancies, not calling witnesses at Trump's impeachment, confirming wildly unqualified judges during Trump's presidency, and a million other things.
We realize that Biden was selected because he was uncontroversial but getting Republicans to do the right thing is not working so this is a losers dream. It's the appeasement approach of neville chamberlain when he was confronted with fascism.
I'm referring to voters, and the statistics have easily born out that Biden overperformed Clinton in heavily republican areas (including PA, where he underperformed her margins in Philadelphia, and overperformed them basically everywhere else in the state).
Simply - I disagree. Among all other things, I dont know how I can "undervalue" anything when I havent associated a value at any point in this conversation. I even explicitly said I wasnt power ranking the reasons why Biden won the nomination.
I'm also just tired of arguing with you about it. The the argument has become 100% circular set of "Nuh uhs" and "Yeah huhs". At the end of the day, you and I have two different positions on the "both sides" and "mutual paranoia" concept, and we each want to bend the facts to support our position. Our arguments arent convincing to each other, and I'm not interested in the banal bantering.
The solution is to not 'identify' with a party. 'Identify' with your own principles and adjust accordingly. That's why I still consider myself a conservative on principles, but could not in good conscience vote for Donald Trump. That is in no small part due to conversations in this very thread so don't discount the fact that some people can be persuaded by well thought out arguments. I only hope that maybe more people will wake up to the fact that blind partisanship leads to the shit we're dealing with now. Deadlock!
I don't mind at all. Which specific issue would you like to discuss? Take the lead by all means. This is a pretty eclectic group so I'm sure you'll get some enlightening feedback...
original post https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10165808228805725
One last thing. I an not "conservative". I an libertarian. I don't like the left authoritarianism nor right wing authoritarianism. Eg of left wing authoritarianism - criminalizing owning guns, wanting crippling regulations and the state eating most of profits without the regulators being accountable and sharing the risks, nor right wing authoritarianism ie - ultra rigid IP laws, prohibition on marijuana, etc. Nor the authoritarianism without a political side, like for eg, prohibiting prostitution. However, between living in a right wing ultra authoritarian state like Pinochet Chile and a left wing authoritarian state like Cuba, I would chose Chile ANY day.
Thanks for the response. I agree with a lot of that. The main issue where I would take a different tack is on how the parties should set out their positions. I agree they should take clear positions, but I don't think those should determine who's welcome in the party.
You referred to abortion for instance, which is a good example because of the strength of feeling about that. A stance that says you can't be a Democrat unless you believe in pro-choice would undoubtedly result in significant numbers of people leaving the party. Multiply that up with other leavers on hot-button issues like transgender rights, gay marriage, reparations for slavery, positive discrimination, taxation, pandemic response etc etc and you would not have a viable party left.
One of the things that concerns me about party politics (in the UK as well as the US) is the increasing tendency in recent years to defining people as either with you or against you in relation to specific issues. Agreeing a manifesto for a party is never an entirely comfortable process, but this tendency is making it harder. While the pandemic and Trump's dislike of thinking about policies are the immediate causes for the failure of the Republican party to produce a new manifesto for 2020, underlying that I think was a realization that setting out what they believe in would lose them more votes than they gain.
To address that tendency I think there's a need for parties to both be clear about their position on issues and clear that supporting the party does not mean agreeing with the party position on every specific issue. If there were a more tolerant attitude within parties that should also bleed across to some extent to make it easier to see other parties as opponents and not enemies.
Those who do feel strongly about particular issues can of course try and move the party to their point of view, but also make their opinions felt through single issue groups outside the party structure. I don't think participating in such groups should be seen as being disloyal to your party, even if they don't represent the party's official position. A party is aiming ultimately to form a government - which should govern on behalf of all people. That naturally requires a broad church and involves compromises and is very different in nature from a single-issue campaign group.
I agree with the idea that local action is helpful when trying to get more mutual acceptance, but I think the party leader also has a major part to play. It's pretty obvious how Trump has accelerated the tendency to regard opponents as enemies as a consequence of his general dislike of policy and division of people between those "for me" and "against me". I don't think though that this is a one-way street. A strong party leader who's prepared to both take a clear stand on the party's position and defend the right of party members (and of course other parties) to hold a different view could reverse that tendency. Just writing that I can see it's a big ask
Trump's imagination is the source. In case you didn't know, he lies. Constantly. Just makes shit up all the time. He's not a serious person and nobody should believe a word he says ever.
He says things that are lies. When it's time to prove the lies, he can't. He's like 0/15 in election lawsuits. That's the reality, not these stupid lies.
Essentially it's just made up. The original source of the story appears to be a human error in Michigan which led to briefly reporting incorrect vote totals - see this fact check article. Trump's tactics are to pick up any oddity or mistake in the election (and in such a huge process there are bound to be some of those) and claim that was not only deliberate fraud, but also systematic across the election. While his Twitter account gives a different picture, the reality is that all his legal challenges have proved entirely fruitless because the courts require more than Trump's words as evidence of problems.
I referred a while ago to 2 international groups of monitors who had both confirmed there were no problems with the election. Other than Trump loyalists, that's also the case with all US observers. This story describes just how fed up election officials generally are with Trump's antics. The Election Infrastructure Government Co-ordinating Council (made up of senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the US Election Assistance Commission as well as state-level officials who oversee elections and representatives of the voting machine industry) said:
"The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result," the group said.
"While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too."
That statement was posted to the website of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. The assistant director of Cisa was asked to resign last week for debunking election misinformation and the director says he expects to be fired anytime now - that could possibly be due to the post he shared saying:
"Please don't retweet wild and baseless claims about voting machines, even if they're made by the president."
To proof that was systematic across the election, would need far more.
But what would be ironic is if Trump pressures more investigations and states where he wons closely flips towards Biden... I believe that what helped many states to flip to Biden is not "fraud". Is the fact that many Californians are leaving California and it can explain why Arizona flipped after 24 years of they voting for republicans.
If was or not fraud, an detailed investigation will not hurt. Will at worse, give more information for both parties about the voters and help to reduce human errors in future.
There has been a net outflow of people from California. State by State information can be found here, but for instance in 2018 there was a net movement of 35k from California to Arizona. While that number is clearly sufficient in principle to have influenced the election, that doesn't necessarily mean it did. Around 1/3 of voters in California supported Trump in the 2020 election and it seems quite plausible to me that this group is considerably more likely to move out than Democrat voters - both for cultural reasons and because a major motivation for moving seems to be financial (and there is a correlation between wealth and voting patterns).
I agree an investigation of the election makes sense, though of course that happens to some extent in every US election anyway - that's one reason for the long delay between the election and certifying results that you don't see in other western democracies.
He had been very successful as a campaign adviser in putting across simple messages to the public (such as 'take back control" during the Brexit campaign, or "get Brexit done" during the last general election). However, his confrontational style has been less suited to government. That had been a major reason why the majority of the most senior civil servants (permanent secretaries) have resigned over the last year or so. Johnson appeared to be happy enough with this reshaping and Cummings' desire to get "weirdos and misfits" into the civil service, but the problems with that sort of cultural shift have been exacerbated by the need to respond so quickly to Covid-19.
Ultimately though, I would say Johnson's withdrawn his support not due to battles with the civil service, but those with members of his party. Backbench MPs have been unhappy about seeming to have been sidelined by unelected officials, while cabinet members are also frustrated by the idea that policy decisions have been taking place without their knowledge. Despite having a comfortable majority on paper, there have been growing indications that Johnson was facing real difficulties in getting things done in Parliament and I think he will hope the calmer atmosphere without Cummings will help with that.
I'm not sure to what extent, if any, Brexit ties into the departure. There still appear to be significant differences between the EU and UK and time is rapidly running out to get a deal ahead of the end of the transition period on 31 December. I'm conscious of the impact of that partly because it affects my work. A couple of business cases for major energy projects are being taken forward for approval in December, but the uncertainty over whether tariffs will apply to equipment sourced from abroad and the possibility of sudden exchange rate changes is a significant complication. My heart sinks a bit for those companies, whose actual business is importing and exporting, who don't even know what forms they will require for goods that they are already ordering now. Back to the point though, which is that, if a deal is to be done, that will undoubtedly require significant concessions from both the UK and EU. One possible reading for Cummings being forced out now is that Johnson is preparing to make such a concession and wanted a possible distraction out of the way.
It makes you wonder why Johnson wasted so much political capital defending him after the Barnard Castle incident five months, which almost certainly helped the spread of Covid as it gave people an excuse to not follow the rules (I know people in the police who have been told by people breaching the rules that they can do what they like because Cummings did). It was very damaging to the idea that we should all be in this together.
The sight of Cummings sat in the Downing Street rose garden peddling lies about why he went back into work with Covid and then drove halfway across the country in a lockdown to get childcare and then strapped his kid in the car several days later to drive to a local beauty spot on his wife’s birthday to test his eyesight was sickening.
Cummings and Johnson are good at campaigning but dreadful at governing (remind you of anyone we know in the US?) - to be fair campaigning is easy when you just make ludicrous promises and don’t worry about implementing them. Much has been made of his “genius”, because he tapped into people’s racism, wrote a big lie on a bus and didn’t get drawn on the specifics of Brexit during the campaign. Only the latter showed much acumen but it is now causing big problems for the country as there was never an agreed way forward. It is great that Cummings is leaving as he was only part way through some undesirable changes to the civil service and local planning laws.
The saga of Cummings and Symonds (Johnson’s latest fiancé) has become tiresome - neither elected and wielding significant power. I thought we left the EU because we hated unelected power holders. It’s no surprise that the person that can appeal to the lower part of Johnson’s anatomy won out on the day.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/13/donald-trump-political-exile-napoleon-436439
Biden also has less rejection than Hilary and the outflow of people from CAlifornia é something predictable. People tend to vote for bigger government and then, move to places where the government is smaller.
Also, a question about election. Can Trump runs again in 2024?
IDK much about USA legislation in that regard. Because lets be real. All of the investigations are more likely to not change anything or to flip a red into a blue state then to flip a lot of blue states to Trump. If I had to bet, I would say about 80% chance of not flipping anything, about 15% of flipping an state to Biden and about 5% of chance of flipping enough states to make Trump wins.
He can - the restriction is a president can't serve more than 2 terms, but they don't have to be consecutive. There is in fact one example of a president who successfully did that (Grover Cleveland, who won in 1885, lost in 1889 and won again in 1893).
Legally, yes. A president that has served only one term - or one term and a bit - can run again even if it's not consecutive. Before the relevant constitutional amendment was passed in the mid-20th century, there were no restrictions at all on running again.
In practice, they don't, at least in recent memory. Jimmy Carter didn't run in 1984. George Bush didn't run in 1996. The last time a major party nominated a candidate that had previously lost a general election ... Richard Nixon. He served two terms as Eisenhower's vice president, was nominated for President and lost in 1960, then came back in 1968 and won.
If you go farther back, losers trying again gets more common. Eisenhower beat Adlai Stevenson twice. Truman beat Thomas Dewey twice. William Jennings Bryan lost three times. And, of course, there's Grover Cleveland, who sandwiched a lost election between his two presidential terms.
With Richard Nixon as a precedent? I wouldn't be surprised at Trump defying the norms on this one, or trying to.
He can - but he most likely won't. He's a loser and generally once you lose you don't run again, because you don't win.
Bernie sanders lost the Democratic nomination in 2016 and picked up a lot of momentum and fell short this time too.
Trump, viewed as a disaster and despised by the majority of Americans, will be unlikely to be the nominee in 2024 though he's welcome to try. He is popular among the people that voted for him.