Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 11, 2024 8:05:07 GMT
Another good article by John Harris about Trump's victory and the currents that lay underneath it. From Trump’s victory, a simple, inescapable message: many people despise the leftThe tumult of social media and rightwing propaganda have successfully cast progressives as one judgmental, ‘woke’ massEssentially, people on the Right see people on the Left as one homogenous mass. It's as if on this board there is no difference between steve and Rafwan . On the left, we are aware of the finer divisions that seem to go unnoticed by the equivalents of turk ER, 3/4 of those in the USA eligible to vote, did not vote for Trump. Ditto of course, 3/4 did not vote for Harris. So when they say many despise the left, its equally true many despise the right. Trump is president elect BECAUSE he is a TV celebrity and not a career politician. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Nov 11, 2024 8:31:21 GMT
Nate Silver, US polling guru Updated estimate: Harris 76.2m votes (48.4%) Trump 78.5m votes (49.9%) other 2.6m votes (1.5%) Total turnout 157.3m votes (vs 158.6m in 2020) Trump margin +1.5% Which makes it the closest US Election result for a long time , and people seem to be forgetting that he was defeated four years ago as an incumbent. So I think a lot of tosh is being banded about, with folks using this result to bang their usual drums (both on the left and right). The Left / Centre Left are not doomed to the dustbin of history as result of one presidential election. Politically, parties such as the Democrats and Labour are not blind to the primacy of economics when it comes to political outcomes. Biden's main focus was on the economy as is Labour's - particularly looking to focus on growth areas that are sustainable in the longer term. Unfortunately for the Dems, in a similar way it was for Major, the benefits of what was done are yet to be felt broadly. Trump won this election, as a number of swing voters voted on the economy - these are people who voted for Obama, then Trump then Biden and now Trump again. This may be difficult for some to comprehend
I get the criticism of the supposed focus of the 'left' on social issues, but tbf the issue of women's reproductive rights (one I obviously personally feel strongly about) was one of the few cards they had to play. If the economy had performed better, and benefits more broadly felt, that would have been their platform, but they weren't able to do it. Social issues are not necessarily a vote loser, but I think for most voters they get trumped by economic/cost of living concerns.
Where I do think the criticism is more justified is in the timidity of centre-left parties towards re-distributive measures. Again this is more pertinent to the US than the UK. The most recent Labour gvts have actually applied such measures, but not explicitly/or trumpeted, but they are there. Not so in the US, from Clinton onwards, the Democrats have dropped it totally.
So I think the real challenge is much more around the need to move towards a greener economy, but balancing that with the need for growth recognising that those who jobs are at risk or may see raising costs, are actually the less well off. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 11, 2024 8:35:56 GMT
Disgusting. Don Jr. posted this anti-Ukraine video on Instagram saying that President Zelensky will “lose his allowance” when his father takes office
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Nov 11, 2024 8:45:03 GMT
When I was at work I showered every day, but now I don't Disgusting. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 11, 2024 9:07:06 GMT
A controversial valedictory article by Larry Elliott on retiring as The Guardian's Economics Editor From Thatcher to Trump and Brexit: my seven lessons learned after 28 years as Guardian economics editorSome of these I think would find broad agreement on this board, like Lesson No 1 is that the free-market experiment has failed, as some of us said it would all along.Others are more contentious, like As the Guardian’s resident Eurosceptic, I have to say I have never seen anything especially attractive in the EU’s economic model. Nor can the project of ever-closer union remotely be called a success. The EU is sclerotic and seething with voter rage at the inability of its governments to raise living standards or control immigration.
... So my final lesson from the past 36 years is this: it is always worth questioning the status quo. Just because something is the received wisdom doesn’t mean it is right.This, I definitely agree with and think that Reeves' major failing is her lack of willingness to question the status quo. I see as an avowed eurosceptic he reckons brexit is an opportunity for the UK to change direction. Problem is, he doesnt say what that direction should be, or what party is going to push it through. The 'voter rage' is of course only in the group which has lost out. Admittedly that is the majority, but then since again they have no party seeking to do anything about this, it really isnt a problem caused by the EU but rather by individual political parties across all the member states. Perhaps the majority of those most affected dont bother to vote. There are various reasons why we will never return to past levels of growth, the bottom line explanation is that once you have enough goods and services, there is little scope to want more. The more developed a country, the smaller the scope for growth. The least developed countries are certain to grow faster than the UK. We need to accept growth isnt coming back, and instead address an equitable division of the cake which exists. Established parties fear to do this, because the current winners are also most likely to vote. But then along comes someone like Trump or Farage who points out the simple truth the established parties are just lying to voters, and whips up enough support to supplant them. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 10:19:41 GMT
Speaking of fascism, sometimes people post almost as if they don’t give a stuff about democracy. Anyways… Some argue now that money is lessening in importance, and mainstream media along with it. vloggers online having more reach than the news channels etc.? And influencers have more reach than old school celebs, film stars etc.? Democracy gives people the right to moan about the winner of an election. That's not giving a 'stuff about democracy' that is democracy. and in Trumps case he is either a fascist or a wannabe fascist...time will tell, but it ain't looking good. That doesn’t have much to do with what we were talking about, which was to what extent people might be able to sway elections by spending loads of dosh. And simply noting that Democrats had rich donors does not mean one wants Trump to win And they greatly outspent Republicans with Musk But Musk bought Twitter and made it a right wing propaganda tool. That is essentially the modern version of Murdoch buying up left leaning papers like the Sun and making them right wing in the days when newspapers really mattered. Billionaires funding the Democrats is not an argument against my point. I said the oligarchs own political parties (plural). That's the point - Republicans or Democrats; Conservative, Labour or Reform, the interests of the super-rich will always be catered for. I didn’t argue against your point. Indeed I reinforced it by talking about how the democrats got more money. That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him. And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat. Also, wasn’t the Sun originally the Herald, a paper of the left? |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2024 10:41:33 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter "I get the criticism of the supposed focus of the 'left' on social issues, but tbf the issue of women's reproductive rights (one I obviously personally feel strongly about) was one of the few cards they had to play. If the economy had performed better, and benefits more broadly felt, that would have been their platform, but they weren't able to do it. Social issues are not necessarily a vote loser, but I think for most voters they get trumped by economic/cost of living concerns." Yes, like this. One factor I hadn't fully understood in the US elections was the complexity of their system and how it works at different levels. On abortion rights, the over turning of Roe v Wade didn't end abortion rights, but instead removed a Supreme Court imposed interpretation of those rights. That's absolutely not the same thing. While some of Trumps backers obviously did/do want draconian restrictions on abortion, in the US you don't have to elect a president to fight against this. Indeed, while I'm no expert, I'd imagine that any federal pro-abortion law might risk early termination in the Supreme Court. What Trump said was that he wants to leave it up to states to decide their approach, which is a very Republican model. Ten states had votes on abortion measures this time around, 7 went in favour of greater access. Even in Missouri they voted to protect access under the state constitution. So if Harris was making an appeal to women on the issue of abortion in that state her key pitch, it was irrelevant, because the voters could elect Trump and protect their constitutional right to abortion under state law at the same time. If the fundamentalists backing Trump want to push this issue with draconian judgements at the Supreme Court, then they place themselves in direct confrontation with the constitutional rights of states, which open a huge can of worms for them. But yes, I do agree with you post. This isn't the end of the Democrats. Before the vote Nate Silver correlated vote shares with state by state inflation; there was a good fit between Republican support and recent inflation levels across individual states. That's the story, and next time around either Trump will have made voters feel better off or he won't, and that will be the story in 2028.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 10:42:13 GMT
Nate Silver, US polling guru Updated estimate: Harris 76.2m votes (48.4%) Trump 78.5m votes (49.9%) other 2.6m votes (1.5%) Total turnout 157.3m votes (vs 158.6m in 2020) Trump margin +1.5% Which makes it the closest US Election result for a long time , and people seem to be forgetting that he was defeated four years ago as an incumbent. So I think a lot of tosh is being banded about, with folks using this result to bang their usual drums (both on the left and right). The Left / Centre Left are not doomed to the dustbin of history as result of one presidential election. Politically, parties such as the Democrats and Labour are not blind to the primacy of economics when it comes to political outcomes. Biden's main focus was on the economy as is Labour's - particularly looking to focus on growth areas that are sustainable in the longer term. Unfortunately for the Dems, in a similar way it was for Major, the benefits of what was done are yet to be felt broadly. Trump won this election, as a number of swing voters voted on the economy - these are people who voted for Obama, then Trump then Biden and now Trump again. This may be difficult for some to comprehend
I get the criticism of the supposed focus of the 'left' on social issues, but tbf the issue of women's reproductive rights (one I obviously personally feel strongly about) was one of the few cards they had to play. If the economy had performed better, and benefits more broadly felt, that would have been their platform, but they weren't able to do it. Social issues are not necessarily a vote loser, but I think for most voters they get trumped by economic/cost of living concerns.
Where I do think the criticism is more justified is in the timidity of centre-left parties towards re-distributive measures. Again this is more pertinent to the US than the UK. The most recent Labour gvts have actually applied such measures, but not explicitly/or trumpeted, but they are there. Not so in the US, from Clinton onwards, the Democrats have dropped it totally.
So I think the real challenge is much more around the need to move towards a greener economy, but balancing that with the need for growth recognising that those who jobs are at risk or may see raising costs, are actually the less well off. This is sort of the Liberal economic prospectus in a nutshell, and potentially the reason why the liberal hegemony is in a spot of bother though it remains to be seen how much. That focus on growth and redistribution tends to be what Liberals offer. Free market globalism etc. supposed to result in growth. But there might be quite a lot of jobs lost in some sectors, while in some other sectors wages are driven down. Meanwhile prices of essentials often go up as capital corners the markets. The liberal response to this tends to be give the losers a bit of redistribution. But they may still be trapped in the hole, unable to have a good standard of living, without a good job, unable to afford a house, or even heat their home et cetera. Hence the rise of socialism and the post-war approach, where you didn’t just let the market rip and have a bit of Third Way stuff like minimum wage and more benefits to just take the edge off a bit. You aimed to get good jobs under conditions of full employment and drive down the price of essentials, giving rising prosperity for as many as possible. If instead on top of the free market stuff you encourage increasing amounts of immigration, that can also drive down wages some more in some sectors, while driving up prices in others like housing. This may even get to the point where even existing immigrants may rebel because they can see their own wages also being forced down while the price of things like housing continues to go up. @lulu You're right about Kiev looking West around '08 - and you could say exactly the same about Moscow at that time too. Unfortunately Putin made it his life's work to stop it. That's an interesting point about the 'rules-based international system' - which can be invoked by anyone who wants to defend the status quo and is ignored by anyone with a powerful army. Playing devil's advocate, where is the rule written that Taiwan is not part of China, that the Falklands belong to the UK, that Israel now owns the land that used to belong to Palestinians, that the US has the right to invade Iraq? Surely 'the rules' are just the embodiment of the current power balance at the time and can be changed at any time by the the will of the powerful? . Clearly I'm referring to what is in IR terms described as Liberal Internal Order/Rules Base Order which is based on the principle of liberal democracy, internationalism etc as opposed to state based approach favoured Russia and China, in which their are no universally applicable rights, norms or responsibilities etc...
Because of the prevalence of the attempt to enshrine liberal democracy in the rule-based order you were on about the other day, it is difficult for a genuine party of the left to address issues of job losses and of the prices of essentials, as their remedies tend to have been ruled out or curtailed by the rules of the international economic agreements. Enshrining democracy is one thing, ensuring that it is only a liberal economic affair is something else. Perhaps ironically, the Democrats had begun to see some of this, and Biden had begun to reject some of these right-wing trade arrangements with his inflation reduction act (in effect daring the EU to sue. Instead they followed suit somewhat). But it was possibly too little too late, as was Harris’ grocery price cap. It isn’t inevitably the case, but it is quite often the case that those more to the liberal in the economic terms, are not that keen on lots of state action, but unfortunately ensuring good jobs and lower prices tends to involve more state action than liberals or Social Democrats often like. Biden and Harris had perhaps begun to shift, but it is possible a greater shift is required. Trump played to this by focusing on immigration and tariffs. But for people of the left, they might want to see more focus on job creation in more sectors, not just in the green sector that middle-class people like, more effort to drive down prices of essentials et cetera |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2024 10:50:37 GMT
Quick addition to my post last night about how the left approaches issues; one thing that has puzzled me but is quite illustrative of the point I was trying to make was the approach of the left to the two wars in the news at the moment, in Gaza and in Ukraine.
Without remotely downplaying the brutality of either, objectively, there's no question that Russian aggression is more damaging to more people's lives that Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon. The levels of destruction are similar, except in Ukraine it's happening across a far wider area. Israel was subject to an horrific military assault which butchered innocent civilians with absolutely no possible justification (and yes, of course they over reacted) but Russia suffered zero provocation or threat. Everything on the left is about standing with Palestine, virtually nothing about standing with Kyiv. The two aren't mutually exclusive, yet I'm not seeing the candlelit vigils for Ukrainian children kidnapped and abused by Russia.
I may be being unfair, but it feels more about making the attendees to the vigils feel better about themselves, because it enables them to identify with some remote, unknown group of victims of oppression. It's difficult to do this for Ukraine, because they're giving Putin's troop a rare old hiding on the battlefield, and are fighting back, so the judgement on who the real villains are gets distorted.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 11:01:57 GMT
Democracy gives people the right to moan about the winner of an election. That's not giving a 'stuff about democracy' that is democracy. and in Trumps case he is either a fascist or a wannabe fascist...time will tell, but it ain't looking good. That doesn’t have much to do with what we were talking about, which was to what extent people might be able to sway elections by spending loads of dosh. And simply noting that Democrats had rich donors does not mean one wants Trump to win But Musk bought Twitter and made it a right wing propaganda tool. That is essentially the modern version of Murdoch buying up left leaning papers like the Sun and making them right wing in the days when newspapers really mattered. Billionaires funding the Democrats is not an argument against my point. I said the oligarchs own political parties (plural). That's the point - Republicans or Democrats; Conservative, Labour or Reform, the interests of the super-rich will always be catered for. I didn’t argue against your point. Indeed I reinforced it by talking about how the democrats got more money. That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him. And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat. Also, wasn’t the Sun originally the Herald, a paper of the left? Na. You were doing a sly attack on those that dislike Trump and comparing them to be undemocratic fascists. 'Speaking of fascism.' America can vote who it wants and just did. But his fascism needs calling out. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 11:08:58 GMT
That doesn’t have much to do with what we were talking about, which was to what extent people might be able to sway elections by spending loads of dosh. And simply noting that Democrats had rich donors does not mean one wants Trump to win I didn’t argue against your point. Indeed I reinforced it by talking about how the democrats got more money. That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him. And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat. Also, wasn’t the Sun originally the Herald, a paper of the left? Na. You were doing a sly attack on those that dislike Trump and comparing them to be undemocratic fascists. 'Speaking of fascism.' America can vote who it wants and just did. But his fascism needs calling out. You made the sly attack, suggesting some might want Trump to win just because they pointed out how both sides were trying to skew things. I just pointed out that being ok with one side outspending others might not be very democratic. It doesn’t seem to be that you want to discuss the matter at hand of party funding and media influence, you just wanna have a go... |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2024 11:40:35 GMT
As it stands at the moment the democrats are likely to win 213 seats in the house however if the Democrats won all remaining tight races with 20%+ of votes yet to be counted that would take them to 2019, as a matter of interest as 6 of these are in California and therefore applying the convoluted reasoning one of our contributors has presumably this would mean that California would have " won " it for the democrats.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 11:44:22 GMT
A controversial valedictory article by Larry Elliott on retiring as The Guardian's Economics Editor From Thatcher to Trump and Brexit: my seven lessons learned after 28 years as Guardian economics editorSome of these I think would find broad agreement on this board, like Lesson No 1 is that the free-market experiment has failed, as some of us said it would all along.Others are more contentious, like As the Guardian’s resident Eurosceptic, I have to say I have never seen anything especially attractive in the EU’s economic model. Nor can the project of ever-closer union remotely be called a success. The EU is sclerotic and seething with voter rage at the inability of its governments to raise living standards or control immigration.
... So my final lesson from the past 36 years is this: it is always worth questioning the status quo. Just because something is the received wisdom doesn’t mean it is right.This, I definitely agree with and think that Reeves' major failing is her lack of willingness to question the status quo. I see as an avowed eurosceptic he reckons brexit is an opportunity for the UK to change direction. Problem is, he doesnt say what that direction should be, or what party is going to push it through. The 'voter rage' is of course only in the group which has lost out. Admittedly that is the majority, but then since again they have no party seeking to do anything about this, it really isnt a problem caused by the EU but rather by individual political parties across all the member states. Perhaps the majority of those most affected dont bother to vote. There are various reasons why we will never return to past levels of growth, the bottom line explanation is that once you have enough goods and services, there is little scope to want more. The more developed a country, the smaller the scope for growth. The least developed countries are certain to grow faster than the UK. We need to accept growth isnt coming back, and instead address an equitable division of the cake which exists. Established parties fear to do this, because the current winners are also most likely to vote. But then along comes someone like Trump or Farage who points out the simple truth the established parties are just lying to voters, and whips up enough support to supplant them. It is a problem with Brexit, that it doesn’t necessarily afford the opportunity for a lot of change. Because in order to continue to get things like tariff-free trade, You have to cede somewhat on other things, and continue to accept things like limits on state investment. They pressure you to accept more right wing economics to get the concessions on tariffs etc. A reason it’s easier for less-developed nations to grow faster, is that they still have more of the low-hanging fruit, the easier gains of productivity to secure. They can still build more roads and hospitals and universities et cetera. Once an economy is more developed, it has already built most of the roads and hospitals et cetera it needs, the existing ways to get growth, and now to make further productivity progress it tends to need to innovate and to come up new ways to increase productivity, and that in turn is why state investment becomes very important, to do whatever investment in new R&D the private sector won’t. Unfortunately the globalist approach has tended to install rules that place limits on state investment, which in turn limits growth. This doesn’t just apply to the EU but to more global arrangements like the WTO, though it seems they might be easier to ignore in the latter. We are now seeing a reaction to that, which is why the Americans ignored international limits on state investment and subsidy et cetera with that “inflation reduction act” |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 11, 2024 11:59:03 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w'That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him' Disagree, twitter under Musk uses algorithms to actively promote pro Trump propaganda and throttle the Democrat message. He also bans journalists who wote critical messages about Trump/Musk He allowed and even endorsed far right racist posts Trump was only banned after the 2020 US Election for breaking twitters rules by publishing conspiracy theories that the election was stolen and inciting violence Twitter prior to Musk gave equal access to everyone providing it was within the law There is no equivalence between twitter pre and post Musk
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 12:02:53 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w'That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him' Disagree, twitter under Musk uses algorithms to actively promote pro Trump propaganda and throttle the Democrat message. He also bans journalists who wote critical messages about Trump/Musk He allowed and even endorsed far right racist posts Trump was only banned after the 2020 US Election for breaking twitters rules by publishing conspiracy theories that the election was stolen and inciting violence Twitter prior to Musk gave equal access to everyone providing it was within the law There is no equivalence between twitter pre and post Musk I thought we had already done this? I wasn’t drawing an equivalence between Twitter pre/post Musk. My point was that if one side has an unfair advantage in terms of funding and in terms of media support, others might then react by securing an unfair advantage in terms of how they deploy a platform. It’s not really a moral argument so much as just observing the dynamics of what happens. The question is what happens next... |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Nov 11, 2024 12:08:40 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w'That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him' Disagree, twitter under Musk uses algorithms to actively promote pro Trump propaganda and throttle the Democrat message. He also bans journalists who wote critical messages about Trump/Musk He allowed and even endorsed far right racist posts Trump was only banned after the 2020 US Election for breaking twitters rules by publishing conspiracy theories that the election was stolen and inciting violence Twitter prior to Musk gave equal access to everyone providing it was within the law There is no equivalence between twitter pre and post Musk I thought we had already done this? I wasn’t drawing an equivalence between Twitter pre/post Musk. My point was that if one side has an unfair advantage in terms of funding and in terms of media support, others might then react by securing an unfair advantage in terms of how they deploy a platform. It’s not really a moral argument so much as just observing the dynamics. Yes and my point twitter wasn't against Trump as you claimed until after the election, when he broke their very clear rules about not inciting violence So it didn't impact the 2020 election result at all for either side, they were neutral, now they're not |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 12:13:35 GMT
I thought we had already done this? I wasn’t drawing an equivalence between Twitter pre/post Musk. My point was that if one side has an unfair advantage in terms of funding and in terms of media support, others might then react by securing an unfair advantage in terms of how they deploy a platform. It’s not really a moral argument so much as just observing the dynamics. Yes and my point twitter wasn't against Trump as you claimed until after the election, when he broke their very clear rules about not inciting violence So it didn't impact the 2020 election result at all for either side, they were neutral, now they're not We agree that the Twitter ban didn’t affect the 2020 election given it occurred after. Musk was more concerned with the impact on the following election. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 12:38:42 GMT
Na. You were doing a sly attack on those that dislike Trump and comparing them to be undemocratic fascists. 'Speaking of fascism.' America can vote who it wants and just did. But his fascism needs calling out. You made the sly attack, suggesting some might want Trump to win just because they pointed out how both sides were trying to skew things. I just pointed out that being ok with one side outspending others might not be very democratic. It doesn’t seem to be that you want to discuss the matter at hand of party funding and media influence, you just wanna have a go... Those posts came across as gleeful. There is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting Trump to lose, considering he's a fascist wannabe dictator. Its not about one side or the other, its about Trump. I've previously said (this country) true democracy means tax payers pay parties and not business/unions. America can be the same, should be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 12:41:59 GMT
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 12:47:43 GMT
You made the sly attack, suggesting some might want Trump to win just because they pointed out how both sides were trying to skew things. I just pointed out that being ok with one side outspending others might not be very democratic. It doesn’t seem to be that you want to discuss the matter at hand of party funding and media influence, you just wanna have a go... Those posts came across as gleeful. There is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting Trump to lose, considering he's a fascist wannabe dictator. Its not about one side or the other, its about Trump. I've previously said (this country) true democracy means tax payers pay parties and not business/unions. America can be the same, should be the same. Yep, you do like having a go at people, making up even more stuff to do it. I haven’t suggested there is anything wrong with wanting him to lose, and there is nothing in them that is even slightly pleased at his victory. It is just the old cheap shot one sometimes sees when people don’t confine scrutiny to one side. People got the same crap if they were critical of Blair. “You just want the Tories to win” etc. You can’t seem to discuss what we were discussing, you mostly want to make up more stuff to have a go at That said we can agree reforming funding might be an idea. Until that happens though, we have to deal with the unfortunate reality as it is... We already went down the road of what happened to Twitter and I haven’t seen anyone disagree... |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 11, 2024 13:27:08 GMT
As it stands at the moment the democrats are likely to win 213 seats in the house however if the Democrats won all remaining tight races with 20%+ of votes yet to be counted that would take them to 2019, as a matter of interest as 6 of these are in California and therefore applying the convoluted reasoning one of our contributors has presumably this would mean that California would have " won " it for the democrats. As things stand according to 270 to win the Republicans are likely to win the last Senate seat so far uncalled (Pennsylvania). PA has called it for the Republicans, but no-one else so far. This will give them a 53-47 majority in the Senate. In the House, the Republican net gains are back to zero at 216-209 called so far. If Nick Begich (R) fails to get 50%+1 vote in Alaska (he's on 49.6%), they count second and later preferences, so that will delay the official declaration there. A comment about California's counting from Politico.com: The state is notoriously slow at tallying ballots, the result of a concerted effort to ensure every legitimate vote is counted. Mail-in ballots can arrive up to a week after Election Day, so long as they’re postmarked by Tuesday. Residents can drop their ballot off at polling sites or election offices anywhere in the state. Voters can “cure” their ballots after the fact to verify their signatures. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Nov 11, 2024 14:14:44 GMT
Remember that a great many of those who voted for Trump were not struggling or ‘just about managing’. The Republican Party remains that of the wealthy, for the obvious and unchanged reason that they are the ones who will actually benefit from him being in office.
I speak with a group of colleagues in the US (New York state and North Carolina) almost every day. All, as far as has been discussed, are staunch democrats with the exception of one guy.
Speaking to them made me wonder if part of the problem is a lack these days of verifiable sources of truth and shared feel, experience of the economy/society. We used to talk about the ‘feel good factor’ but is it possible that people can be manipulated into thinking things are far worse economically than they really are by propaganda alone?
Two of my colleagues are friends despite one being a staunch democrat and one a Trump voter. They like doing stocks and it's a big topic of conversation between them. The democrat told me how well his investments and the wider economy seem to be doing from his perspective but that if one of the Trump voter’s investments goes down a bit for so much as a day he (the Trump voter) sees it as a precursor to immediate economic armageddon and looming recession even though they recover in the subsequent days.
He seems to be primed for negativity at the slightest suggestion of it. This also chimes with stories related in the NYT and elsewhere of Trump voters who are doing well economically themselves being led to believe that they are somehow the exception and everyone else is doing badly.
It used to be the case even in the regular cycles of boom and bust in decades past that at the points when people felt wealthier, however fleeting it might be, they would reward the governing party. I wonder if 2008 did so much damage, and living standards stagnated at best for so long that many people don’t believe things can improve much anymore even when they appear to be.
One other thing I read in the Dutch press which gob-smacked me was about recent Latino immigrants who voted for Trump. One had relatives and friends, including his own partner for crying out loud who are undocumented and exactly the people who could be at risk of deportation. Instead he said he voted for Trump and that he ‘knows’ they’ll be fine as Trump won’t hurt those who voted for him! He also said he understands Trump demonising Latino immigrants as ‘that’s what many Americans want to hear’. I mean Oh my God!
Makes me wonder how far we are off people being persuaded that shooting themselves in the head would be in their long term interest.. It seems to me that in the absence of objective and trusted sources of information as is largely the case in the US now democracy simply does not function.
No idea what can be done about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 11, 2024 14:17:41 GMT
Ah the caring sharing left still telling us how more intelligent they are and how stupid everyone else is. I wonder why it is that all these intelligent left wingers seem to have a default position on those who they disagree with by resulting to childish insults and name calling .
I have several friends who voted Trump none of whom are Facists or religious fanatics or women haters, just ordinary people mostly farmers trying to make a living who thought Trump would be marginally better for them in that respect than Harris who had plenty to say about the opposition but nothing to say how she would improve people’s lives.
Those same people also know we voted Democrat and campaigned.for Harris ,I haven’t Experienced any of the Bile I’ve read on these pages the last couple of days from them. But then there not a bunch of aggrieved left wingers crying about losing to Trump in a democratic election, rather just ordinary people who had a deep mistrust of State interference and meddling in how they run there lives who saw Trump as the lesser of two nobodies both of which who shouldn’t have been running for President in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 14:56:41 GMT
Those posts came across as gleeful. There is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting Trump to lose, considering he's a fascist wannabe dictator. Its not about one side or the other, its about Trump. I've previously said (this country) true democracy means tax payers pay parties and not business/unions. America can be the same, should be the same. Yep, you do like having a go at people, making up even more stuff to do it. I haven’t suggested there is anything wrong with wanting him to lose, and there is nothing in them that is even slightly pleased at his victory. It is just the old cheap shot one sometimes sees when people don’t confine scrutiny to one side. People got the same crap if they were critical of Blair. “You just want the Tories to win” etc. You can’t seem to discuss what we were discussing, you mostly want to make up more stuff to have a go at That said we can agree reforming funding might be an idea. Until that happens though, we have to deal with the unfortunate reality as it is... We already went down the road of what happened to Twitter and I haven’t seen anyone disagree... Hmm, you need a hug? |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Nov 11, 2024 14:57:21 GMT
This is sort of the Liberal economic prospectus in a nutshell, and potentially the reason why the liberal hegemony is in a spot of bother though it remains to be seen how much. . No not really, well not in the UK context at least. Social Democracy and Socialism seek/always sought economic growth and active redistribution policies. The 'liberal' economic prospective in a nutshell is economic growth via liberating markets and everyone getting wealthier by fact of having a bigger cake/trickle down, which is what Clinton and Blair signed up to, and is not a redistributive approach. However, Biden has probably been the most economic interventionist president in a long while - not really in line with your liberal economic hegemony theory
Brown/Reeves/Starmer are Social Democrats, the problem they have/had is that 'redistribution' as an explicit goal/political concept is not popular with our overwhelmingly economically right leaning media/commentariat. So they don't explicitly state it as a motive, but it does lie behind a lot of their decisions. My view clearly is that Dems in the US would needed to have focused more on redistribution as a policy to have stood a better chance of wining the Presidency this time round.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 14:58:51 GMT
Ah the caring sharing left still telling us how more intelligent they are and how stupid everyone else is. I wonder why it is that all these intelligent left wingers seem to have a default position on those who they disagree with by resulting to childish insults and name calling . I have several friends who voted Trump none of whom are Facists or religious fanatics or women haters, just ordinary people mostly farmers trying to make a living who thought Trump would be marginally better for them in that respect than Harris who had plenty to say about the opposition but nothing to say how she would improve people’s lives. Those same people also know we voted Democrat and campaigned.for Harris ,I haven’t Experienced any of the Bile I’ve read on these pages the last couple of days from them. But then there not a bunch of aggrieved left wingers crying about losing to Trump in a democratic election, rather just ordinary people who had a deep mistrust of State interference and meddling in how they run there lives who saw Trump as the lesser of two nobodies both of which who shouldn’t have been running for President in the first place. You comparing the left to 'caring sharing' right? Think you'll find its the left who doesn't want women's rights, gay rights etc taken away. Your anecdotal bull means nothing in the grand scheme of what's going on in America. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 15:03:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 11, 2024 15:07:29 GMT
Ah the caring sharing left still telling us how more intelligent they are and how stupid everyone else is. I wonder why it is that all these intelligent left wingers seem to have a default position on those who they disagree with by resulting to childish insults and name calling . and why it is they don't understand that patronising the electorate and taking them for granted is not , in the end, a vote winner ? I was thinking about that Julia Roberts advert clanger and then the queue of celebrities wheeled out to support Harris. What made them think that a bunch of wealthy celebs spouting platitudes about hope and democracy has any appeal to a voter who is struggling to pay the food bills and the rent and lives in a neighbourhood ruined by crime and drugs ? Tony Blair did it a bit with all that Cool Brittania stuff. I don't get it. Credit to Starmer that he seems to steer clear of it. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 15:09:41 GMT
Richard Murphy www.youtube.com/watch?v=VayHEUuKeHk(sure he got something wrong. I'm sure Trump gave tax breaks to workers as well as rich, just for not as many years?) Also, got British polls wrong. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 15:14:29 GMT
This is sort of the Liberal economic prospectus in a nutshell, and potentially the reason why the liberal hegemony is in a spot of bother though it remains to be seen how much. . No not really, well not in the UK context at least. Social Democracy and Socialism seek/always sought economic growth and active redistribution policies. The 'liberal' economic prospective in a nutshell is economic growth via liberating markets and everyone getting wealthier by fact of having a bigger cake/trickle down, which is what Clinton and Blair signed up to, and is not a redistributive approach. However, Biden has probably been the most economic interventionist president in a long while - not really in line with your liberal economic hegemony theory
Brown/Reeves/Starmer are Social Democrats, the problem they have/had is that 'redistribution' as an explicit goal/political concept is not popular with our overwhelmingly economically right leaning media/commentariat. So they don't explicitly state it as a motive, but it does lie behind a lot of their decisions. My view clearly is that Dems in the US would needed to have focused more on redistribution as a policy to have stood a better chance of wining the Presidency this time round.
Yes, agree there is a difference between the neoliberal and more redistributive forms of liberalism*. Keynesian liberalism and ordoliberalism (the German variant) tend to be more redistributive, as does the Blairite variant. (You can call it social democracy if you like, but Blair basically lifted a load of Third Way liberalism from the States, everything from minimum wage to more workfare). Biden actually moved further left than the likes of Brown. Brown did a liberal Keynesian stimulus in a crisis. Biden did a stimulus when the economy was doing okay. To the extent that it broke those liberal economic international rules, but the EU chose to follow suit rather than contest it. The key point though, is the whether one calls it the friendlier-sounding social democracy, or a variant of liberalism, there is a key difference with the postwar settlement. Where with the postwar arrangement, the goal was to ensure rising prosperity for all, by making sure all had a good career prospects, and all could afford the essentials. Involving rather more “state” action than liberals or Social Democrats typically enjoy. Whereas instead under some of these forms of liberalism and social democracy, you get rising inequality, and sticking plasters that don’t properly work. The other point, is that Social Democrats and associates quite often point to how increasing immigration can keep a lid on inflation. However, they don’t tend to stress that the way it does this can be by driving down wages, or offshoring jobs altogether. Nor do they stress that while it might drive down the cost of blueberries, it might also inflate house prices. So it can be rational for even existing immigrants, to be economically worried about further immigration, since it may drive down their wages more and inflate house prices and rents beyond them. This is an irony the Democrats or their media do not seem to have engaged with much. * (it is common for redistributive liberals to prefer to compare with neoliberals, rather than with the more socialist left. Since if they compare with the latter, it makes more evident the acceptance of the growing inequality arising under various forms of social democracy and liberalism. Whereas if they compare with neoliberals, they can focus on how they do redistribution, and the neoliberals don’t do so much). |
|
