news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Wonderland]

4 minutes ago, anti-***** said:

Is there a way for the Democratic Governors to defy whatever draconian laws and decisions might be coming through Congress or SCOTUS in the next years? For example, total abortion ban or anti-trans laws?

I think the model would be similar to what the red states did in pushing the envelope with state laws that wind up at the supreme court.

 

It won't end well though.

 

I guess Texas had that drama with the court and cutting wire but idk what came of that.

 

Edited November 9 by Wonderland

[canvey916]

13 minutes ago, dawnettakins said:

If there's one thing the 2024 election has proven, it's identity politics is well as over and is a losing strategy.

 

Most people don't move through the world interacting with others with a hyper-breakdown of their identity categories. People don't conceive of themselves that way, and don't consider their sexual identity, racial identity, gender identity, etc as the most important things to them. Period.

 

That's how terminally online people talk on Twitter. The rest of people, and a huge majority of them, just want to put food on the table and have the means to get by.

Those on the left, here and Twitter and everywhere else, have got to learn this if they actually want to win.

 

Almost no one cares if you're gay, Black, trans, cis, etc. People just want a working economy and to live their lives. To the extent that they do conceive of themselves based on their identity, it's much less salient and important to them than their economic situation. Period. 

I think this is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. It's absolutely true that someone's economic situation is front and center in their political ideology, and the Democrats need to offer real economic populist solutions to the working classes across all races. There's a very real sector of the votes Trump just got who could be won back with those sorts of policies, who voted for him out of desperation and not because they liked his views on race, gender, etc.

 

That being said...minimizing the prevalence of bigotry and prejudice in the United States, the role they play in Trump's base of cult-like support, and the way they shape the lives of millions of people systemically and institutionally...is NOT the answer. "Almost no one cares if you're gay, Black, etc." is demonstrably untrue, and I think the left will end up turning people away if this is the tact that's used.

 

Part of the problem, I think, is the misuse of the phrase "identity politics." By its actual definition, it's a necessary thing: there ARE issues/societal forces that target or have targeted specific identity groups. When pregnant Black women have complications that are dismissed by doctors because a staggering number of people in this country (even well-educated doctors!) still believe the age-old trope that Black people feel less pain than whites...when trans people's very existence is legislated as "grooming" children...when hardworking Haitian immigrants are accused of eating people's cats...these things are specific to certain groups. Conservatives will continue to target the marginalized, wherever and however they can: they've been doing it since the dawn of the United States. 

 

I think what a lot of people are calling "identity politics" would be more accurately termed "identity reductionism." It's identity reductionism to assume that someone will (or should) vote a certain way based on their race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc. Democrats should absolutely stop doing this, and stop taking entire identity groups for granted. I think there's even an argument to drop "privilege" language, since it never really encapsulated the way hierarchies work in a country like America. The left must of course appeal, first and foremost, on class - but it has to also acknowledge and confront how social forces like racism continue to be used as a wedge to divide the working class. The answer to identity reductionism isn't class reductionism.

[bunnyeyes]

On 10/28/2024 at 10:17 AM, bunnyeyes said:

The issue I have with running a status quo campaign is that polls show that the majority of Americans think we need significant change in this country though we obviously disagree on how. That's why you see a lot of Bernie bros go down the alt right pipeline. If the dems don't pick up on that they're just delaying the inevitable and leaving the door open for someone even more extreme than trump. Just look at the people who voted for him despite not agreeing with any of his policies because they thought he'd destroy the system and then their political ideologies could rise as a result of opposition. 

Gonna just leave this here again 

[dawnettakins]

23 minutes ago, Communion said:

You don't even have to be this extreme and get into a kind of posturing that in itself almost falls into right-wing rhetoric about "DEI" or "wokeism".

 

I know people don't wanna hear about Bernie 2020 again, but it's just so weird how like.. leftists in that moment at least got to a point of understanding the assignment in a really illuminating way and everything before it and after is people either landing too far into class reductionism and too far race reductionism.

 

Bernie 2020 really was just a hugely expansive policy platform of class + race and truly having not just a plan for everything a la Warren but understanding a general sentiment of how economic suffering manifests for different people. It was a strategy of no one will resent others getting something if everyone's needs are met by policy. That there's little oxygen for people to be mad about policy that addresses material suffering unique to queer people or black people if everyone is getting wide-sweeping policies like M4A.

 

(@Dera To address your post, since I don't wanna look like I ignored it, but I did just mean in terms of voting patterns and Dem-leaning voters. Obviously once these attitudes go on for decades and cement, it moves beyond just economic anxiety and becomes a culture onto itself. That like... religious bigots can convert people to their stance. Biden, for his faults, seemed invested in trans issues in a way Harris abandoned, so it'd be odd to think 15M Biden voters abandoning Harris was because of an ontological hatred of trans-ness in and of itself. You don't want to let these ecosystems capture voters for so long them and transform - and that could happen but you just then must cut the fuel source)

In what world is appealing to a broad coalition across a plethora of identities with economic populism and fixing a broken economic and political system "falling into right-wing rhetoric about "DEI" or "wokeism"?? It's just good political strategy and how you actually win.

 

You don't win by further dividing people up based on identity and categories that elites impose on everyone else. It doesn't mean identity isn't important or that you don't talk about it, but it shouldn't be the main focus when the numbers themselves bare out that the economic situation is the most important issue for people.

 

Not to mention that people are fed up with the status quo and hollow identity politics that only seem to amount to shallow "representation" without any actual meangiful change or things that address the massive inequities and discrimination in our society.

 

I guess I can change it to hollow, corporate identity politics is over, which only ever seem to translate to mean shallow representation but no actual policy change (because the establishment doesn't want to change the status quo since they benefit from it).

Edited November 9 by dawnettakins

[GraceRandolph]

1 minute ago, Bloodflowers. said:

 

They hated Prophet Williamson for saying some major radical truth telling. They rejected her message just like people rejected Jesus' message over 2000 years ago.

 

 

Hopefully that Republican will be Tulsi Gabbard and NOT Nikki Haley or Liz Cheney. Can't wait to watch her end Nikki on that debate stage in 2028.

 

 

When Marianne runs an amazing campaign in 2028, defies all the odds and send JD Vance packing, becoming the first female POTUS.

 

 

[Marianah Adkins]

19 minutes ago, Onyxmage said:

Trumps entire candidacy and existence is rooted in white nationalism.  This little economic argument would make sense if Republicans actually passed any legislation to actually help people. They literally won the house in 2022 based on the promise that they would do something about inflation but couldnt even pass a BASIC budget for 2 years.   The Republican house was the least productive and most dysfunctional house in almost a century and Republican voters still voted for them. Even if grocery prices dont go down one cent and the economy tanks  under Trump the Republicans  will still run to the polls to vote for the next Republican candidate to save their white majority.   

Yes and he still got tons of minorities to vote for him. I would agree that it was white Christian nationalism in 2016 but in 2024? I'm sorry but to act like the DNC didnt trot out identity politics more than the GOP is pure cope and explains everything why the party got clobbered. 

 

If you go out of your echo chambers for once, you will see that most MAGA voters were not voting for white Christian bullshit, they were voting for (false) promises of economic relief if Trump is elected (hence the slogan "Trump will Fix It").

What bothers me is that this posturing is the traditional Democrat line from the days of the New Deal and FDR. And yet we have conceded this with the other party. The Democrats truly lost their way

[HBK-79]

On Election Eve, everyone here was perched for a Kamala win, and in the aftermath, everyone here is saying 'she was a doomed to flop'.

 

2016 teas all over again.

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

Just now, HBK-79 said:

On Election Eve, everyone here was perched for a Kamala win, and in the aftermath, everyone here is saying 'she was a doomed to flop'.

 

2016 teas all over again.

About 5 or 6 long timers here, myself included, predicted a Trump win, so that's not true. I said Kamala's chances would improve via Selzer and gave my reasoning why, but that was it.

[GraceRandolph]

3 minutes ago, HBK-79 said:

On Election Eve, everyone here was perched for a Kamala win, and in the aftermath, everyone here is saying 'she was a doomed to flop'.

 

2016 teas all over again.

The Selzer poll gave people a lot of false hope. 

[Vermillion]

 

[khalyan]

1 minute ago, Vermillion said:

About 5 or 6 long timers here, myself included, predicted a Trump win, so that's not true. I said Kamala's chances would improve via Selzer and gave my reasoning why, but that was it.

Yeah, I think most of us were cautiously optimistic but the majority of us refused to say Kamala was the favorite because there were issues we could see. 

[ClashAndBurn]

29 minutes ago, Beyonnaise said:

It is so funny to me how there's been nothing but establishment Dem infighting since Trump won  Like have we even heard anything besides Susie Wiles becoming his chief of staff? He's been so quiet, and most of the media attention is going to the Democratic blame game.

 

I think it's clear the Dem party internal reckoning is only beginning. The circular firing squad of establishment types will probably continue through the new year. There's definitely going to be such a visible power vacuum after the inauguration when it's clear there's no party figurehead or coherent vision to speak of.

It needs to though. The entire party leadership structure needs to be raked over the coals, rolled up,  and tossed out like garbage.

 

Like, people here have been having this hopium talk about how the pendulum will swing back eventually even if Dems change nothing. Like... No. This wasn't just a pendulum election. It was a rejection. EVERY swing state said NO to Kamala Devi Harris. All the safe blue states just became purple. All the red states got a darker shade of red. The meltdown is cataclysmic, and Trump having more votes than Obama TWICE should show how his coalition is growing while the Dem tent is rapidly shrinking. And it's only going to get smaller as Democrats keep losing elections,

 

She lost to a felon who was indicted 34 times.

 

She lost to a mentally declined blowhard who called her r****ded, and a *****. His surrogates called her a ***** managed by pimp handlers. The anti-Christ. And she lost women voters across every racial demographic except for black women. They're the only ones who remained loyal to her, while Trump gained among every other despite being more misogynistic against her than he was to Hillary Clinton.

 

That says so much about how toxic the Democratic Party brand is now. I truly believe they are toast, and there is no coming back from this without a full restructure and rebrand of the kind that the leadership would NEVER be willing to undergo. And the voters that stick behind will be loyal to the establishment and do what they're told, as they always have done.

[Wonderland]

I am a bit concerned about the bomb threats going forward tbh. I'm not saying they altered the course of this election but there's no reason a future and more widespread effort couldn't.

[Bloodflowers.]

3 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

When Marianne runs an amazing campaign in 2028, defies all the odds and send JD Vance packing, becoming the first female POTUS.

 

 

 

When Marianne exposes Vance's dark psythic forces on ABC debate stage, the audience gasps and Bob, Susan, Scott, Mary, John, Matt, Jeff, Anne and Katie from Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Arizona swing back to Democratic Party after 4 years of Donald Trump's dark demonic forces that undermine American democracy finally comes to an end and politics of LOVE can finally begin with Bernie Sanders being on secretary of newly created Department of Peace 

 

 

[ttsmu]

This is just the begining

 

 

[dawnettakins]

19 minutes ago, canvey916 said:

I think this is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. It's absolutely true that someone's economic situation is front and center in their political ideology, and the Democrats need to offer real economic populist solutions to the working classes across all races. There's a very real sector of the votes Trump just got who could be won back with those sorts of policies, who voted for him out of desperation and not because they liked his views on race, gender, etc.

 

That being said...minimizing the prevalence of bigotry and prejudice in the United States, the role they play in Trump's base of cult-like support, and the way they shape the lives of millions of people systemically and institutionally...is NOT the answer. "Almost no one cares if you're gay, Black, etc." is demonstrably untrue, and I think the left will end up turning people away if this is the tact that's used.

 

Part of the problem, I think, is the misuse of the phrase "identity politics." By its actual definition, it's a necessary thing: there ARE issues/societal forces that target or have targeted specific identity groups. When pregnant Black women have complications that are dismissed by doctors because a staggering number of people in this country (even well-educated doctors!) still believe the age-old trope that Black people feel less pain than whites...when trans people's very existence is legislated as "grooming" children...when hardworking Haitian immigrants are accused of eating people's cats...these things are specific to certain groups. Conservatives will continue to target the marginalized, wherever and however they can: they've been doing it since the dawn of the United States. 

 

I think what a lot of people are calling "identity politics" would be more accurately termed "identity reductionism." It's identity reductionism to assume that someone will (or should) vote a certain way based on their race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc. Democrats should absolutely stop doing this, and stop taking entire identity groups for granted. I think there's even an argument to drop "privilege" language, since it never really encapsulated the way hierarchies work in a country like America. The left must of course appeal, first and foremost, on class - but it has to also acknowledge and confront how social forces like racism continue to be used as a wedge to divide the working class. The answer to identity reductionism isn't class reductionism.

I agree in many ways with you. I'm also not arguing to minimize prejudice and discrimination nor that we don't address them.

 

But it's clear that the focus to talk about Trump's bigotry didn't work. The fact is that these aren't the most important issues to people, for better or worse, and especially in a shitty economy that any regular person feels isn't working for them. Since a person's economic situation is more salient than most of their other identites, an appeal on the basis of class rather than these other categories is how you win a broad coalition across various identity categories.

 

There are ways to do this without ignoring the impact of racism, sexism, etc., and I don't mean to say they aren't important or you don't talk about them. They just clearly aren't the way you speak to and bring together a winning coalition without putting the focus on an issue that appeals across race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Edited November 9 by dawnettakins

[Thuggin]

35 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

 

What happened to only judging people by the content of their characters? I thought Republicans loved that quote 

[Breathe On Moi]

4 minutes ago, ttsmu said:

This is just the begining

 

 

fatty still wanted his food, you can tell his wife is terrified to speak up. 
 

all jokes aside, these are some examples, paired up with the "you're getting picked up to go pick cotton" texts being sent nation wide. It's just starting. 

[Thuggin]

 

Blaire White is so pathetic

 

People always said she would eventually detransition but it looks likely to actually happen now. She and Milo hate themselves so much, that's why I can't ever get mad at them. I know they'll always be more miserable than the people they inflict misery upon

[XDNA]

14 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

 

Garland will be known as a cowardly loser forever.

Shame on Obama and Biden for shoving him down our throats twice.

[TROPICUM]

america LOVES a dynasty so if trump doesn't commit a huge, non-excusable error that pisses off the entire world his supporters will try to take trumpism onward even after his term

 

 

all this to say that i'm 90% sure the first female US president will be Ivanka Trump

 

[ClashAndBurn]

Oh my god. OH MY GOD! She ran to the right of Bill Kristol, Oh my ******* GOD!

 

 

He told her she should do what we've been saying here and her response to him was "pound sand" Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOD

[GraceRandolph]

9 minutes ago, Thuggin said:

What happened to only judging people by the content of their characters? I thought Republicans loved that quote 

Republicans? Caring about character? Bffr. The fact that people take Republican claims about their values seriously is so comical to me. 

[welham]

I know the writing is kind of on the wall, but... what are the chances that the Dems could eek out a majority in the House?