US Politics

What are the odds on another assassination attempt before the end of the year?

Depends on who he appoints to his government. If he overlooks the neocons, says he wants to reform the cia, etc, then I wouldn't rule it out!

With election pledges to come good on like the Jan 6 pardons, suicidal import tarriffs, huge deportations ... and with a looming sentencing date where he's threatened to sack the special counsel leading his own prosecution.... I think we're going to see a lot of wild shit from a variety of places

Snore

According to the Democratic Party, the election they just lost in a humiliating landslide was the most important election in anyone’s lifetime, a last-ditch effort to protect democracy itself from Trump’s incipient authoritarianism. Out of the entire population, they could only choose one person to be their champion, to go head-to-head against Donald Trump and stop his new fascist cacocracy from becoming reality. The lives and welfare of millions—billions!—depended on their making the right choice. And who did they pick? One of the least popular politicians in the country, the goofy cackling woman who says things like ‘It is time to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day,’ who seems mildly but permanently xanned, who moves through the world like a pat of half-melted butter. For the Democrats to lose one election to Donald Trump by nominating an obviously terrible candidate is an honest mistake. Two, and something’s up. The question isn’t why Harris lost to Trump—why was she ever in a position to lose to him in the first place?
...
The reason Kamala Harris lost is the same as the reason she was the candidate to begin with: the Democratic Party is allergic to democracy. It’s the instrument of a particular form of class power; its role is basically disciplinary. When it comes to an actual crisis, all it knows how to do is coil in on itself, breathe in its own fumes, suck itself off until completion. The party knew that Joe Biden’s brains kept running out of his nose and into his morning coffee, but they kept pretending until it was far too late that he was running laps around the White House lawn and solving new problems in theoretical physics in his spare time. They really seemed to think that people wouldn’t notice what was right in front of them, or maybe they simply didn’t care. And when people did notice, when Biden stretched his arm too wide at the first debate and all the stuffing came out, the party made sure his overthrow and replacement went as smoothly and as seamlessly as possible. No messy primaries, no ideological bickering, just a slick, stage-managed show. They’re very good at politics too.

https://samkriss.substack.com/p/i-told-you-so

After every election, a lot of people use the result to justify all their theories about pretty much everything, usually without doing the legwork to provide some evidence of how much it contributed to the result, or was relevant at all. Just a lot of shouty venting. "I told you so" is what they're all saying, but this person making it the title of their post really doesn't endear them to me.

I can read through that and be thinking "Maybe. Seems true. Probably relevant." and then I get to

They really seemed to think that people wouldn’t notice what was right in front of them, or maybe they simply didn’t care.

And all I could say to the author would be "Grow the fuck up, you ranty child." I mean, I'm pretty sure Biden's people didn't think that and did care, but it would be a waste of time trying to say that to them.

I could make a list of the specious arguments, but

But ‘democracy is on the ballot’ is an incredibly antidemocratic slogan.

Is a fucking corker of nonsense, and I don't have the energy to reread the rest.

well the richest 10 people in america are $64bn richer today compared to monday thanks to trumps election. the donations they made to the trump campaign have provided a good return !

roughly $20mn to $6.4bn , i'm sure some of that will trickle down to the minimum wage workers ... right ?

ranty

not the author so IDGAF really, but it is a weird flex to criticise anyone for being angry right now imo

Anger is understandable, but to say the way they're expressing it isn't constructive would be grossly bexaggerating its virtues.

Can we criticise them for writing tiresomely florid and vapid shite like a lefty-zeitgeisty Boris Johnson?

Yes. I didn't post it because I thought any of you would enjoy reading it.

Still, I look forward to hearing the further very correct opinions of people who thought that Harris was nailed on for victory.

Lulz. I thought it was ok, but got distracted before I finished reading it.

You would hope the Democrats would learn that a genuinely competitive primary was the best method of candidate selection.

the Democratic Party is allergic to democracy.

I thought it was quite a good analysis. This bit particularly rings true, and ties in with what I've heard first hand from people who have been involved in politics in the US.

It's the same as Clinton in 2016 I guess - she got to run because it was her turn, no one noticed that she'd been kicking around politics since the mid nineties and no-one liked her.

I thought when Biden was elected, he was meant to have been elected to beat Trump, that would be his legacy. In the meantime the party weas meant to expose and groom his sucessor.

It's mental, they did very little it seems. I heard all kinds of stories - more supreme court judges, more elecotral college votes in various places. I don't follow US politics that closely, but I'm not sure that anythings been reinforced to stand up to someone like Trump a second time.

genuinely competitive primary

This is where I think you have to go back to Biden* not going at it as a 1 term president.

Even with hindsight, given when Biden stepped down I'm still not convinced an open primary was the way to go. Neither do I think Harris was a bad candidate nor ran a bad campaign. But I do think not having more time worked against her.

*and possibly Obama for making the deal with the Clintons, as Imo Joe would have beaten Trump.

she got to run because it was her turn

Is that true? I thought the full weight of the Clintons' support for Obama was contingent on Obama backing Hillary over Joe.

In the meantime the party weas meant to expose and groom his sucessor.

This is also my memory.

If you play through all the counter factuals it is hard to imagine being in a worse position than now.

Even Trump winning in 2020 would have been better than him winning now.

Yes, I get the feeling the dems could have won it if they could have been bothered.

Biden did a job for them in 2020 and they could have immediately gone for succession planning. But they didn't, and the family - apparently - wanted to keep him in place. But the time the party realised how cooked he was, they couped him, but they'd left it too late, which meant they couldn't run a primary, so they were stuck with Harris, who they knew was a weak candidate.

But they could have run a primary earlier, if they believed in democracy. They didn't because they knew that Kennedy, or most likely anyone else, would absolutely shred Biden in the debates.

But that was a reason to get a new candidate, not prevent the contest. Their aversion to democracy backfired big time.

Still, I look forward to hearing the further very correct opinions of people who thought that Harris was nailed on for victory.

Of course, thet's the only reason anybody could dislike it.

But I do think not having more time worked against her

Actually this is the one bit I disagree with. The more time she had the worse it would have got. The high point of Kamala was when there was relief that it wasn't going to be Biden. It was a mirage.

For someone counselling not being angry and finding a constructive response, you don't half spend a lot of time picking rows on here!

I need to go back find where I heard it and double check the numbers, but one commentator I heard said that the Republicans won in spite of Trump.

Essentially; the economy, incumbency, backlash against institutions across the West, etc. meant the Dems were up for a fucking kicking. Had Nikki Haley been on the ticket the results would have been even worse for the Dems.

Idk if that's true, but it made me pause on my initial hot take of the decisiveness of the Trump win.

It's hard to argue isn't it though?

Had she had more time, then could she have distanced herself and come up with some better lines of defense?

What is certain is that more time would have definitely resulted in a primary.

I can't get my head around the fact that Trump is broadly flat (72.7m votes versus 74.2m in 2020), while Biden got 81m in 2020, versus Harris getting 68m.

I know there are some votes still to count, but it won't get the total votes cast anywhere near 2020. Turnout must be way down, but I can't find any accurate data on it. And it surprises me that turnout is down.

Definitely.

He will reap the benefits of Biden's economy, just as he did with Obama's. His accolites have had even more time to plan. He'll have the House and the Senate.

It's a fucking shit show.