For stuff about the 2024 election
a.) I guess no amount of ring kissing was going to work
b.) SecState's probably going to be a tech billionaire
Time for a party split? The two new parties can still mostly function as a single entity, whether governing or in opposition, but they’ll be able to better address and motivate their respective bases. This is a typical system in other countries.
Our two party system is far too entrenched to make that even remotely viable. It would be handing the party that doesn't split guaranteed wins. If we had Ranked Choice Voting everywhere it'd be doable, but most of the places where it was on the ballot this year voted against it.
Try anything else when the current system is broken? Have to start somewhere? Etc.
The problem is that Republicans like that the system is broken because it's broken in their favor. RCV is absolutely one of the better places to start, but Republicans will fight it every step of the way, so it only really stands a chance in states that are already blue, and it requires the Dems to actually support it (which a lot don't because in the past they've been the ones relying on spoiler candidates to help them win elections). We only got it here in Maine because we had just spent 8 years with an absolute embarrassment of a Republican governor who won with less than 38% of the vote, so the Dems were almost entirely supportive of implementing RCV to try to prevent such a failure of the system from happening again.
Trying something like splitting the party before fixing the entrenched two party system is like adding an extra story to a house with a crumbling foundation. It's just going to make the problem you're seeking to solve even worse.
Edit - there was a point where it could have been possible to get Republicans on board with with RCV, but that was before Trump demonstrated that no one can control MAGA voters like he can and the cowardly Republicans all fell in line behind him.
Well, if there is a realistic path forward for RCV then fine, otherwise, spill those damn apples. Ideally, 2 parties in a coalition need to decide which party should run a candidate in which electorate. This kind of negotiation happens even in countries that use RCV. RCV does make things a whole lot smoother because it makes it viable to run 2 candidates in the same electorate where necessary so I understand why it's desirable.
The Democrats aren't an actual coalition of two distinct parties though. Liberals and the Left are two factions with8n the same party that grudgingly work together because the alternative is to split the vote and hand the conservatives the win and neither faction wants that. Democrats and Republicans have spent *a lot* of time and effort on solidifying and reinforcing the two party system in ways that makes third parties most dangerous to the main party they're most similar to. For instance, in almost every state, in order to remain a recognized political party, you *have* to run a candidate for the major races, and your candidate needs to receive a certain % of the vote, too. That means you *have* to run a spoiler candidate for the major races if you want to retain ballot access for the minor races you actually want to win.
I realise it's easy for me to talk from half a world away, but from where I'm sitting I think the answer lies in a sustained, grassroots takeover of the Democratic Party apparatus.
In the Adam Conover video I shared before the election https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Ue... he talked about joining an organisation to help homeless people, they had a massive local impact and got one of their organisers onto the city council.
Make a case for progressive and leftist values.
Join local mutual aid groups, run for office or get someone to run for office. Join school boards, city councils. Show up to city council meetings, see who else shows up to the meetings and get to know them. Find or start a community garden.
Start networking in your community and making a difference, however small, in people's lives.
Then get reps into as many levels of local and state government as possible. Then get people running for national office.
It will be a slow process, possibly a decade or more, but it will be a lot faster than expecting the Democratic Party leadership to wake up and face reality. And a lot easier and cheaper than starting a counter-propaganda media network.
The Democrats aren't an actual coalition of two distinct parties though. Liberals and the Left are two factions with8n the same party that grudgingly work together because the alternative is to split the vote and hand the conservatives the win and neither faction wants that. Democrats and Republicans have spent *a lot* of time and effort on solidifying and reinforcing the two party system in ways that makes third parties most dangerous to the main party they're most similar to. For instance, in almost every state, in order to remain a recognized political party, you *have* to run a candidate for the major races, and your candidate needs to receive a certain % of the vote, too. That means you *have* to run a spoiler candidate for the major races if you want to retain ballot access for the minor races you actually want to win.
Firstly I would just say that, if you look at some coalition partners, they are really close in policy, that's how a long lasting coalition can work. I'm primarily thinking of the Liberal/National coalition in AU for those familiar. But, you bring up lots of important details that I'm not familiar with as to why so much would need to happen before it could even be a possibility. So, really only a violent disruption of the system could improve things?
It will be a slow process, possibly a decade or more, but it will be a lot faster than expecting the Democratic Party leadership to wake up and face reality. And a lot easier and cheaper than starting a counter-propaganda media network.
It is something already being worked on (see AOC and The Squad) but it's slow going. Even if progressive did end up taking over the party, though, we'd still want to set up our own messaging system, otherwise we'd be continuing to make the same mistake liberals have been making for the last several election cycles.
Firstly I would just say that, if you look at some coalition partners, they are really close in policy, that's how a long lasting coalition can work. I'm primarily thinking of the Liberal/National coalition in AU for those familiar. But, you bring up lots of important details that I'm not familiar with as to why so much would need to happen before it could even be a possibility. So, really only a violent disruption of the system could improve things?
There is a saying/meme like that, but I don't agree with it entirely. It goes "You say the system is broken and needs to be fixed, I say the system is working exactly as intended and needs to be destroyed." I personally think the system is still just broken, and can still be fixed, but the people responsible for breaking it are doing so in order to make it work for them how they want it to. If they're allowed to continue to have their way, they finally break it in such a way that it will not be fixable without destroying it all first. That's exactly what Project 2025 aims to do. That said, there are real steps that could be taken to start fixing it, but a lot of them require actual control over Congress before they can happen. Despite Dems having, on paper, control of the senate in 2020, Manchin and Sinema joined the Republicans to block all the really important things, so they did not have functional control over it. The RCV effort is something that gets done at a state level though, and will clearly need to be like the gay marriage effort was, and take several election cycles to build up enough support until it passes. RCV isn't a silver bullet for our problems either, it's just a good start. It only really helps prevent the spoiler effect third party or independent candidates can cause in the current system, but that is one of the methods Republicans like to use to win seats from Dems without actually needing to receive a majority of the votes, and it keeps the Left and Liberals arguing rather than uniting against them. Basically, I think it's the best first step to take because I think it is far more likely that we can get it to pass than it is that we'll ever see centrist dems voluntarily cede power to progressive dems. Campaign finance law overhaul is way more of an important thing to fix, but that's something that'll require actual control over Congress to get done, which means winning more seats from Republicans first.
NPR just aired some clips of interviews with trump voters in Nevada about their reasons for voting the way they did, and it all basically boiled down to magical thinking that electing trump is going to bring everything back to the way it was in 2016.
It was just a couple of folks and anecdata is not data etc etc, but it made my blood boil to the point that my wife asked me why I was clenching my fist while drinking coffee.
I think I had really bought in to the whole demographics is destiny argument and was hoping that as my own millennial cohort and gen z behind us came to represent a larger share of the population as boomers died out, the country as a whole would start shifting to the left. Seeing how this election has played out and hearing how people explain their votes has largely dashed those hopes.
The problem of messaging is that once you settle into propaganda as your approach, you are no longer attached to reality. For both sides to do that would be utter disaster. It would also just be a spending contest.
In the end, it would just entrench people further, but based on false understandings on both sides. All that "both sides do it" bullshit would be literally true...
So the two videos I posted do sort of focus on the media and it's role in giving Trump his victories, and screwing bernie, but the other point he brought up, the endless stream of broken promises and lack of attention to the voters being courted is absolutely true. Both videos pretty much say the same thing.
Dude used to be on young turks before he was fired.
Okay. If you guys don't believe the two videos I posted (or want to watch them) Take a look at David Brooks latest article. I cant (and wont) access it past the paywall but even he got a little more then half right. It's titled "voters to elites can you see me now?"
I would nail both of my eyelids to a table and throw it off a bridge before reading anything by David Brooks
I would nail both of my eyelids to a table and throw it off a bridge before reading anything by David Brooks
Well sometimes I don't know how to reach people. Forumites here for the most part are educated, smart and in the middle of successful careers. I'm a guy who works a job a couple of dollars over minimum wage in one of the most expensive cities in the US. I got the degree but was never afforded the chance to use it. Now I'm locked out, and bitter about it would be an understatement.
There's a bit of a lived experience gap. Most of the time I go out on tangents to kind of explain where my thinking came from. It's an oddity.
I think I had really bought in to the whole demographics is destiny argument and was hoping that as my own millennial cohort and gen z behind us came to represent a larger share of the population as boomers died out, the country as a whole would start shifting to the left. Seeing how this election has played out and hearing how people explain their votes has largely dashed those hopes.
Same. I thought we were finally there. And I thought that only the 25% of die hards watched Fox News. But I guess I underestimated how much of the "both sides" coverage from everyone else let's that Fox propaganda seep through. I bet if you polled the Trump voters most of them would think crime is up, even thought it's been declining for years.
It's not just the cult of Trump that is living in alternate reality anymore, it's a lot more people getting reached by the propaganda
Here's the one time I will do this, the Democrats should have run hard on economic populism and anti-corporatism. At the same time, if the media insists on presenting educated professionals who are wage earners as 'elites' while the guy who shits in a golden toilet is a champion of the working man, reality is upside down.
Well sometimes I don't know how to reach people. Forumites here for the most part are educated, smart and in the middle of successful careers. I'm a guy who works a job a couple of dollars over minimum wage in one of the most expensive cities in the US. I got the degree but was never afforded the chance to use it. Now I'm locked out, and bitter about it would be an understatement.
There's a bit of a lived experience gap. Most of the time I go out on tangents to kind of explain where my thinking came from. It's an oddity.
Yeah, I sympathise. I don't think I've actually addressed you directly ever, but I've seen your stress. Your concern is palpable and understandable.
I feel like you're (and not just you, a lot of people) are looking for answers that aren't there, and definitely not where you're looking for them.
David Brooks is the platonic ideal of a conservative who pretends to be centrist who as Freya eloquently puts it presents "educated professionals who are wage earners as 'elites' while the guy who shits in a golden toilet (as) a champion of the working man" he's out of touch with reality.
I simply don't believe anyone would have beaten Trump. If Harris had run on economic populism and anti-corporatism, she'd have lost. If she ran on supporting Palestine she'd have lost. If the Dems had an open primary, the nominee would have lost.
Trump ran on a simple story, "You're suffering and it's those people's fault." The dems needed to start building a narrative in 2021. Instead they did a bunch of good work that helped people, and didn't make a big deal about it, and whiffed on telling a story.
I found this on reddit earlier and found it fascinating and deeply informative.
I am a black man from NC. I did not vote and most of the black men I know did not vote. Here is why:Note: Everything I wrote in this post are things that we discuss in local black communities in NC all the time. I would never have bothered explaining all this since we know dems don't listen to us or understand our experience but since it seems like this election might make some of you more open minded i'm giving it a shot.
The reason we did not vote has nothing to do with Kamala and very little to do with this election in particular. My community always has a low voter turn out and lots of people I know have NEVER voted. If my community and communities like it actually voted NC would go blue way more often.
That being said I never see anyone truly understand why we forgo voting. I've watch all kinds of political media where people sit around and theorize why poor black men don't vote, but you know what they never do? Ask poor black men... (Broke black men do not have a political voice and that hits at the problem.)
We don't abstain from voting because we are ignorant or dumb. Yes we might have less education on paper because the community is poor, the k-12 is trash, and college is ridiculously expensive but we are politically aware and know what's going on. After discussing with my friends and community we came to the conclusion that Kamala was objectively better for society than Trump. The tariffs and tax policy are honestly just bad for the average American and we know that. That being said only one 1 or 2 black men I know actual went to vote. The rest of us did not vote because we simply do not care about society or its trajectory.
As far as we are concerned society does not care about us so we do not care about society. The democrats are the establishment and even though they won't make things worse, they have no intention of upending the class system.
Here is what lead to this mentality:
1. LIFE IN POOR BLACK COMMUNITIES IS REMARKABLY CONSISTENT:
During Clintons presidency life was ass, during Bush's presidency life was ass, during Obamas presidency life as ass, during Trumps presidency life was ass, during Biden presidency life was ass, and we are convinced that no matter who won this election life would continue to be ass. We simply have nothing to lose and when America is doing well we do not get to partake in the gains. As quality of life dropped in America our lives stayed the same while the average American began to live more and more like us. And as the average American got poorer they suddenly began to understsnd systemic inequality and the impact of generational wealth and poverty. Maybe Trumps reforms will be a good thing because as the cost of living rises more of America will wake tf up.
2. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US THEY JUST WANT OUR VOTES.
When it comes to our communities the Democratic Party practices a principle of benign neglect. They say I'm listening, I hear you... Then do as little as possible for our community. The have simply taken our vote for granted and believe that it is owed to them. The black men who do vote were overwhelmingly Kamala supporters but we had Obama already calling us mysoginists before the election... They do not care about us, our perspectives, or experiences we are simply a useful statistic. Many of us have actually begun to believe that voting so overwhelmingly democrat is part of the problem. Why would the democrats actually try to help us if we are going to vote for them regardless? If our vote is always guaranteed then the democrats best strategy is to ignore us, focus on other issues, and shame/scare us into voting for them when it's time.
3. LOCAL DEMS HAVE BEEN PLAYING IN OUR FACES
When the Dems actually do things for our community it is rarely something that is truly transformative for the community. Rather what they do is create pathways for a few phenomenal black people to succeed. Their policies give us room to succeed as individuals but not as a group! But the thing is not everyone can be above average. All the super smart black people get college scholarships but there are millions of us. Not all of us can be super smart and get a scholarship. To help the community and not just raise your select DEI tokens we need systemic change and they would never do that since it threatens the class system that puts those local dems at the top in the first place. I live in a heavily democratic area is shit is so rigged you would not believe it. My freshman year of high school they even restricted people from taking AP classes based on neighborhood to rig school rankings (AP's at my high school were weighted +2 so an A in an AP was a 6). That has changed now but that is just one example of local dems giving lip serviced and then using their power to further rig the class system. We have seen this shit done in our face forever so no we don't belive the dems really want to help the community.
4. LOTS OF BLACK PEOPLE ARE SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE
Lots of black people are socially conservative and actually agree with a lot of republican social policy. I personally am not against LGBTQ+ or abortion but many of the black women in my life (who voted Kamala by the way) are heavily against abortion and all things LGBTQ. Black people support the dems despite their social beliefs for ECONOMIC REAONS ONLY, so the people who have already given up hope on their economic situation are not motivated to vote.
5. DOWN HERE BLACK MENS LIVES DON'T MATTER
When the Black Lives Matter protest broke out we got to hear everyone and their momas opinion on the movement. The only demographic that did not get a chance to get a word in was the demographic most effected, BROKE BLACK MEN. As a veteran broke black man, here is what we were thinking: We appreciate the sentiment we really do, but we simply know that the our lives don't matter down here. At no point in our lives were we ever allowed the delusion that our lives, safety, opinions, emotions, or general well being mattered as much as a white woman's. Growing up I was told that I should never be alone with a white woman since I would get Emitt Tilled. I was told that that in a 1v1 in court white women will win. Im 25 this was not long ago. In fact just recently my friend went on a tinder date with this liberal white girl and she accused him of dragging her 20 feet with her car. This girl did not have a scratch on her she was just crazy but they still took it to court. The case was eventually thrown out due to how ridiculous it was but he spent thousands he did not have trying to defend himself. His lawyer, a white man, literally told him, "Your a black man she is a white woman you know how it is." And this is in a city that is OVERWHELMINGLY democrat. In short, as black men our lives do not matter under democrat or republican rule. We are not more scared now that at any other time in our lives.
6. WE DO NOT LIKE HOW DEMS REPRESENT US IN ALL FORMS OF MEDIA
The democrats have been pushing representation in media for a while and yes representation is important but it is so painfully obvious that the people representing us often know NOTHING about black people. Often times we hate the black characters the libs give (Finn from Star Wars in a great example, no ni*** f*cks with him). If I had a dollar for every pathetic ass black male character written by some white suburban millennial from California who doesn't even know what ashy knees are I be able to immigrate already. Again we don't complain about this to much since I understand their hearts are in the right place but as far as we are concerned democrats representing us the way they do is not the favor they think it is. Rather it highlights the arrogance and ignorance towards our people. If western media had never before included black men in any way shape or form black men would probably be better off.
I could go on but this post is going long enough. The main point is that black men in particular only vote for the democrats for economic reasons. And yes Kamala's policies are economically better for us but the truth is many of us have simply given up on society already. Society turned their back on us long ago and only give us lip service and shit representation while our lives remain trash. Most of the black men in poor NC communities are doomer crash outs or aspiring immigrants. We are completely disconnected from society at this point and we have no stake in the game. Whether America goes up or down is not longer a concern to us. We voted democrat for years and our community is now in WORSE shape then in the MLK days. Yes individual black people are doing better than ever, but as a whole our families are destroyed, housing is more unaffordable than ever, our factory jobs were sent over seas, during the crack epidemic the dems did not have our backs, and the aftershocks of these things decimated us.
The dems upheld the status quo and class system locally and federally and they once again want us to come out and save America for others. Were done. Were tired.
In short the point of the videos were as follows:
Dems ran on 15 minimum wage. As soon as he became president it became "oh we cant do it the parliamentarian says so, Biden ran on a public option. Never heard from again. Biden ran on 2000 check, heres 1100. Biden passed a childcare credit that expired in a year, wouldn't fight Manchin and Sciema. Didn't use the pulpit of the presidency to fight, name and shame or anything. Biden could have threatened to pull the subsidies of oil, agriculture etc.
I found this on reddit earlier and found it fascinating and deeply informative.
I am a black man from NC. I did not vote and most of the black men I know did not vote. Here is why:
That is setting off a bunch of "white alt-right guy pretends to be black person online" alarms for me. Particularly the "friend" who was falsely accused by a story that absolutely would have generated a bunch of news stories, both when he was arrested and charged and again when it was dropped *after* making it to court. It's a variation of a claim that misogynists loves to make online, always without any links to a real story to verify. It presumes the reader believes just as strongly as they do that women falsely accuse men all the time. It's possible he's just a black alt-right guy, but he's absolutely not as neutral as he claims to be.
'Starlink' Election Conspiracy Theory Spreads Online (Newsweek)
I knew they weren’t but would have hoped that Dems are better than this- I’ve been seeing this election conspiracy nonsense since thursday and it only seems to be getting more prevalent.
I’ve also seen variations claiming that all the voting machines in swing states run on a fictional software called “Starship” made by Musky or that poll workers were hired to inject Musky’s code into the voting machine software.
I have to imagine (for my own sanity) that a lot of it is the work of disinfo ops and trolls, posting false conspiracies hoping to pick up a bunch of support from credulous idiots.
Whether that article is genuine or not...the harsh reality is that on average everywhere around the world the average person has lived in a period of increasing social inequality.
Another harsh truth is that no ruling or opposing political party in a democratic society will upset the economic status quo.
It has become increasingly difficult to succeed financially in the face of structural inequality. Kids born in wealth increasingly likely to have parents who fund their increased chances of success. Tutoring, after school curriculum, you name it. Not only that, they'll more likely than not inherit wealth and get assistance with accumulating wealth.
The only difference between now and past 1000 years of human history is that economic servitude is barely enough to keep people clothed and fed such that they don't topple over the precipice of starvation and desperation. Humans have a huge threshold of suffering before they will put their life at risk.
'Starlink' Election Conspiracy Theory Spreads Online (Newsweek)
I knew they weren’t but would have hoped that Dems are better than this- I’ve been seeing this election conspiracy nonsense since thursday and it only seems to be getting more prevalent.
I’ve also seen variations claiming that all the voting machines in swing states run on a fictional software called “Starship” made by Musky or that poll workers were hired to inject Musky’s code into the voting machine software.
The main difference that I'm seeing is that the people that are listening are saying that maybe we should investigate this a little, and see if there's any truth to it, instead of just assuming with zero evidence that the claims are all true. Count a couple of ballots in a few random counties in some of the swing states, just to see if the numbers match up, and if everything's fine then that's the end of it.
On the other hand, we remember 2020, and every accusation is a confession, so...
Whether that article is genuine or not...the harsh reality is that on average everywhere around the world the average person has lived in a period of increasing social inequality.
Another harsh truth is that no ruling or opposing political party in a democratic society will upset the economic status quo.
It has become increasingly difficult to succeed financially in the face of structural inequality. Kids born in wealth increasingly likely to have parents who fund their increased chances of success. Tutoring, after school curriculum, you name it. Not only that, they'll more likely than not inherit wealth and get assistance with accumulating wealth.
The only difference between now and past 1000 years of human history is that economic servitude is barely enough to keep people clothed and fed such that they don't topple over the precipice of starvation and desperation. Humans have a huge threshold of suffering before they will put their life at risk.
Yep.
Whether that article is genuine or not...the harsh reality is that on average everywhere around the world the average person has lived in a period of increasing social inequality.
Another harsh truth is that no ruling or opposing political party in a democratic society will upset the economic status quo.
It has become increasingly difficult to succeed financially in the face of structural inequality. Kids born in wealth increasingly likely to have parents who fund their increased chances of success. Tutoring, after school curriculum, you name it. Not only that, they'll more likely than not inherit wealth and get assistance with accumulating wealth.
The only difference between now and past 1000 years of human history is that economic servitude is barely enough to keep people clothed and fed such that they don't topple over the precipice of starvation and desperation. Humans have a huge threshold of suffering before they will put their life at risk.
Tl,dr: This isn't the new normal. This is the old normal, back again. The 20th century was the aberration.
Bfgp wrote:Whether that article is genuine or not...the harsh reality is that on average everywhere around the world the average person has lived in a period of increasing social inequality.
Another harsh truth is that no ruling or opposing political party in a democratic society will upset the economic status quo.
It has become increasingly difficult to succeed financially in the face of structural inequality. Kids born in wealth increasingly likely to have parents who fund their increased chances of success. Tutoring, after school curriculum, you name it. Not only that, they'll more likely than not inherit wealth and get assistance with accumulating wealth.
The only difference between now and past 1000 years of human history is that economic servitude is barely enough to keep people clothed and fed such that they don't topple over the precipice of starvation and desperation. Humans have a huge threshold of suffering before they will put their life at risk.
Tl,dr: This isn't the new normal. This is the old normal, back again. The 20th century was the aberration.
The old normal had class consciousness, and healthy communist/socialist/anarchist movements. This is something new.
The RCV effort is something that gets done at a state level though, and will clearly need to be like the gay marriage effort was, and take several election cycles to build up enough support until it passes.
That makes sense. Then the challenge becomes how to capture the imagination of voters to pass the legislation.
Post-WW2 up to the invention of the internet (late 1980s although later released to non-military applications in the early 1990s if memory serves) had amazing leaps and bounds in technology.
Penicillin is discovered late 1920s.
Refrigerators and freezers take off in residential settings in the 1940s. So too did automatic washing machines.
Edit: I forgot the Nazi scientist who basically invented synthetic fertiliser, the guy who weaponised chlorine gas.
Can you imagine how huge that was on food logistics and freeing women up to participate in the economy as paid workers? Around that same time, air conditioning was invented. That was one reason why Singapore, once a tropical nightmare, could become a global economic powerhouse.
We get the invention of semiconductors in the late 1940s, integrated circuits in the 1950s. Computing isn't far beyond, then the invention of mobile phones, wifi and finally the smartphone (though that's an early 21st century invention).
In the midst of all that, the world uplifted a billion people in China to a reasonable level of wealth.
The post WW2 20th century arguably achieved the greatest advances for the most humans ever in our species' history. It's small wonder people look back at the 20th century and consider the last 24 years are lacklustre.
Pages