Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

The "security faction" is funny (in the sad kind of way). It's like they don't even read about the founding fathers and what folks like Benjamin Franklin had to say about giving up liberties for security.

[wobbly]

Been reading some stuff about America not being ready to elect a female. And generally conservatives being to blame for this. When I actually try and count successful female politicians most of them have been conservatives. Not looking at the numbers, but for instance Margret Thatcher, or the piece of lettuce who's name eludes me. I could name the Australian politicians. No one would know who they are, but I count more on the right then the left. The actual number on the left below the top (or contending for the top), is bigger but the number in the top job is smaller. Pretty sure the front bench for our current government is higher? (Labor party, which isn't left but left of the other major party). Can think of more female politicians at the top of far right parties (world-wide (france for instance)) then leftist.

[Duuvian]

The left is very different in different places just like conservatism is. Unlike conservatism, there doesn't seem to be much of an international cabal (or two or three). I can't speak for even the left in my country. What you are describing would be what is called the patriarchy, which is said to be systemic. I shrug but I do agree that it appears to be difficult for women because of it, and in my own small way I've tried to help change that. There is a longstanding trope that ladies are not as interested in political power traditionally as well but again that seems like something a patriarchy would say as it rouses from it's drunken nap and reaches for the Paddleboard of Non-Consent +2.

[Starver]

I think some of you have too much faith in a lot of swing voters.

I think an awful lot of them are heavily mis/uninformed. While we can argue about how they ought to be better informed, the truth is they aren't and won't be. You can tell them a bunch of stuff about tariffs or project 2025 or whatever, but they'll either not take it on board or ignore it, then choose to vote more on how they feel than with any real consideration.

Not so much malice as idiocy.

"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on."

(Using the actual quotable Pratchett version, not any of the variably apocryphal Mark Twain/Winston Churchill/Thomas Jefferson/Jonathon Swift/etc versions.)

[NJW2000]

Not in the least convinced Harris shifting left would have done any better. No-one has actually given a reason outside of stating it as a fact

Well, it's not like saying, "if Harris had just won an X% larger number of young men, she'd have won", which is objectively true for some value of X, with all other votes staying constant. It's a very broad counterfactual.

In fact, I'd suggest "a move to the left might have got the democrats in" is one of the more meaningless counterfactuals to discuss without context. The events that occurred did not lead to that leftward movement, and the outcome of such a movement, had it happened, would have depended largely on what made it happen. For example, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris leaning leftward, or even Andrew Yang being their own UBI-promoting accelerationist-pilled weirdo self would arguably be leftwards of the current democrat campaign. Which ones would have worked? Maybe none of them. The left-leaning Kamala Harris one, quite possibly not. But it's very difficult to tell one way or another, given Sanders or Yang have never led the democrats.

I do have one theory as to why leftward politicians might do somewhat better. It's not exactly evidenced, but you'll be pleased to know it's not a dogmatic one either.


I know at least one person who would have voted for Trump if they were a US citizen, and who quite possibly would have been a swing voter. They're a vegetarian who supported Jeremy Corbyn, but also some conservative MPs on the basis of their positions and career. That's not a suprising contradiction. I'd say it's a fairly typical take among UK people inclined to distrust career politicians and look at individuals rather than parties and backers, especially the naivete-masquerading-as-cynicism of the "ah, they're mostly in it for the money" take. This person also seems pretty vulnerable to falling for fake or misleading news, such as the Jimmy Carter voting image, which you could see was a miscaptioning from the google images search result they linked me to. Unsuprisingly, they get a lot of news from podcasters and youtube - and probably a lot more misinformation than they share with me.

That person told me they thought both presidential candidates were dangerous - but that Harris was "just a bit more dangerous than Trump".

I do wonder if some of the left-of-mainstream politicians might be better at attracting voters who experience the world through that kind of lens. If you remember the last few elections, and the stereotype of the hyped-up "Bernie-bros", or Yang getting endorsed by Elon Musk, it's easy to wonder if that kind of slightly obnoxious bro-ish energy might be what the left needs to muster in this new landscape of ten second reels and algorithmic suggestions. A parallel reason some people are proposing is that the economically left-wing end of the democrats are more able/willing to offer simple narratives for how US citizens being squeezed hard right now can be made better off through policy, though personally I wonder if that's crediting such people with a bit too much rationality and far too little cynicism. At the very least, the social media personal brand hype is slightly harder to find with people who consider themselves the political mainstream.

Of course, none of this is based on any correlation between the political positions of leftwing politicians and the opinions of swing voters. But I don't think my reasoning would be any more reliable if it was.

[Starver]

[...]for instance Margret Thatcher, or the piece of lettuce who's name eludes me.

Coincidentally, the other day I idly mentioning in passing conversation that the Conservatives had managed to elect three female and two non-white leaders[1], before Labour had managed to have any of either[3]. General agreement about that fact. Only later did I suddenly realise that I'd completely forgotten Truss* (which, apart from maybe in acting as a salutary lesson, seems to me an exactly justified and proportionate given what actually happened there).

They can also claim the first (and only[4]) Jewish one, in Disraeli (19thC). And the first+only one who was Catholic, in Johnson (21stC); noting that Blair didn't officially convert until after leaving office.

(But of course they've been going since 1834ish, rather than 1924ish.)


[1] To wit: {Thatcher*, May* and Badenoch} and {Sunak*, Badenoch again}.
* - Just these ones also being PM. (As of time of writing...)

[3] They bagged "First female Chancellor", of course. And, perhaps it just needed a Corbyn government (down a different trouserleg of time) to have managed to give Abbott a decent shot as successor, for the most obvious twofer.

[4] Unless you heavily believe in certain ZOGish conspiracy theories, naturally.

[hector13]

Isn’t Milliband Jewish? He was Labour leader for a bit.

I don’t think he’s practicing, though you might make a joke about that and his inability to eat a bacon sandwich.

[Starver]

I'd say it's a fairly typical take among UK people inclined to distrust career politicians and look at individuals rather than parties and backers,

Strangely, this attitude also often often coexists with the "Get rid of the House Of Lords! Have a second elected chamber instead!" opinion.

While I, in many ways easily labelled as more 'socialist' than not, value the contributions of people who can stay as far aloof from "populism" as possible. I think that it's a terrible idea to make the entire shebang into a public popularity contest.

(I mean, I'd also mix up the Lords Spiritual to be a wider and more representative mix of not-necessarily-CofE 'bishops'. Some Presbyterian representation, as well as Imam's, Rabbis, Brahmins, etc, as well as a good solid Humanist representative. Some of these might already exist within the ranks of the viable Lords Temporal, but obviously some groups are structured so it's easier to define an "Archbishop Of Canterbury" equivalent than in others.)



@Hector: Ah yes. The Millibands' parents were Polish-Jewish, so ethnically (and matrilineally, where it counts), but he was avowedly atheist (as in "hard atheist") in ways that Disraeli wasn't. (Not that it was really so much of an option for anyone in his time, so YMMV on that assessment.)

((Of course, Disraeli was baptised as Anglican, in part due to his lapsed-Jewish father recognising problems with his children "not being Anglican", so you could also argue that as a point against him being Jewish, or Milliband being just as Jewish. A lot of this rationalising could have been avoided if I'd have just switched straight back to mentioning Disraeli/Johnson/etc being the Prime Minister, rather than leader of the party. Especially as you could wonder why we're just looking at Conservative/Labour party leaders, and why I haven't thoroughly checked Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem/Plaid Cymru/SNP/SF/BNP/Natural Law/OMRLP parties for their leaders. ))

[hector13]

The SNP had the first Muslim leader of a party in the UK I think.

There was also a point about a decade or so ago in which the three main parties in Scotland were lead by women, two of whom were gay.

[Starver]

Aye, Scotland's interesting.

Scottish Labour has Anas Sawar (Muslim), but a couple(?) of leaders ago was Kezia Dugdale (Female, LGBT).
Scottish Conservative had Ruth Davidson (likewise)
SNP indeed recently had Humza Yusaf (Muslim), after Nicola Sturgeon (Female).

(You can look in Wales's leaderships/party-leaderships, for a few more "not pale, male and stale" examples (or at least not all these things at once), and indeed NI currently has has Michelle O'Neill + Emma Little-Pengelly, but that setup is that odd arrangement of SF+DUP as well, and I admit I had to go and check what the current status was... just in case I'd missed a crisis.)

Significantly subordinate to the Westminster game, of course, in most people's eyes.  Especially amongst the sais, who only have Westminster (no sub-national level, above council concerns) to worry about!


Of course, some people might not necessarily be grateful for some of those examples. But generally the story seems to be the same for everyone, regardless of background. Supporting someone who may indeed turn out to be a bastard(/bitch), but is more "my" kind of b(/b) than the alternative. At least until they aren't.

[Truean]

Please do not quote

Republicans Right wing Trump party don't have to beat democrats. Democrats beat themselves: infighting, blame, and not supporting anything unless every problem in the world is addressed (pick one, any one is a reason not to vote unless addressed).

Meanwhile, the right wing has basically one voice, one unified message, and a very well funded media empire liberals ignore as it beats them over the head.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-does-no-one-understand-152523953.html

A lot of it is lies, effective ones. Many didn't hear about them on social media. Cats and dogs being eaten in Springfield, Ohio was a lie boomers and many gen X heard on radio in their cars. This has been building since Rush Limbaugh gobbling up "failing" media industries, which means "available at a discount," to be purchased by Sinclair Group and IHeart_____ (Formerly Clear Channel). The liberals love the techy things and maybe that's good for the younger voters, but those are also more prone to protest votes.

Radio isn't dead. It's just slow motion rebranding as podcasts.
Cable TV isn't dead. It's slow motion rebranding as streaming.
Newspapers aren't dead, but they are sicker than radio and cable because rebranding as websites means reading....

It's a sophisticated propaganda machine combined with 40 or 50 years of education funding cuts.
"I love the poorly educated," Trump. "Shut down the Department of Education" Trump.

No, it has nothing do to with "local control" of education or parent's rights. "Sending Abortion back to the states," is crap too.
It's all a power grab. Getting abortion out of the federal courts and into anywhere else (States) is so a national ban can happen.
Getting Education out of the federal government and anywhere else is the the same. Why do you think Trump supporters are running for school board positions as school board meetings have recently become violent affairs. They used to be sleepy meetings.

Abortions out of fed courts ---> States ---> National Ban
Education out of fed ---> (They don't care where) ---> Unified policies spread by radio podcasts and cable streaming.
They're going to ban transgender things ----> banning gay things ---> more racism lies like "Slavery was a work program"

"The Florida State Board of Education’s new standards includes controversial language about how “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit,” according to a 216-page document about the state’s 2023 standards in social studies, posted by the Florida Department of Education."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-florida-standards-teach-black-people-benefited-slavery-taught-usef-rcna95418

“How can our students ever be equipped for the future if they don’t have a full, honest picture of where we’ve come from? Florida’s students deserve a world-class education that equips them to be successful adults who can help heal our nation’s divisions rather than deepen them,” Andrew Spar, president of the union, said in the statement.

“Gov. DeSantis is pursuing a political agenda guaranteed to set good people against one another, and in the process he’s cheating our kids," Spar said. "They deserve the full truth of American history, the good and the bad.”

The union said it is troubling that at the high school level, the standards conflate the 1920 Ocoee Massacre, when at least 30 African Americans were killed for attempting to vote, with “acts of violence perpetrated by African Americans.” And in middle school, the standards require students be taught slavery was beneficial to African Americans because it helped them develop skills, the union said.

There needs to be more education funding put to good use and more diverse media before the "alternative" (right wing) gobbles up the remainder of the "main stream" (CBS, ABC, NBC, independents etc).

So yes, by all means protest vote or don't because XYZ policy isn't perfect. Pick an issue, any one around the world.
Don't like the Biden climate change fixes not doing enough? Trump and Moreno want no electric cars and more gas cars.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/11/08/senator-bernie-moreno-trump-auto-industry-ev-incentive-cafe-freeze/76132597007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p
Upset about the complicated issues in Gaza and middle east conflict? Biden calls for cease fire. Trump uses "Palestinian" as an insult.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/09/politics/jake-sullivan-israeli-hostage-rescue-operation/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-criticized-palestinian-insult-debate-with-biden-2024-06-28/
Ukraine? It seems relatively clear how Trump is going to deal with that so quickly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hungarys-pm-orban-says-trump-will-quit-ukraine-war-forcing-eu-rethink/ar-AA1tJU38

Yes, it shouldn't be a "lesser of two evils" choice. We don't have it. Take something imperfect but trying; or something actively against what you want. Looks like a lot of people couldn't get everything they wanted immediately as they wanted it, so they complained about Biden. The result: Red wave. Trump won't care about Gaza, he uses "Palestinian" as an insult. Good luck everyone.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-brink-clinching-us-house-161410769.html

A republic if you can keep it.
Please do not quote

[None]

Radio isn't dead, and it's a horrifying place. My last cast about the AM bands featured various right-wing nutjobs, religious leaders urging callers to leave for more transphobic churches, weird church investment scams where you go to hell if you doubt a 100% safe return on your money, and a gambling station. Limbaugh sowed the seeds and our parents and grandparents are still reaping the harvest. At thirty, I hadn't willingly touched the AM bands until this year when I thrifted an enthusiast radio receiver. At thirty, I realize now that this tripe has been filling the airwaves for as long as I've been alive, and people are listening.

It's a bit of a diversion from the point at hand, but really, it's unnerving what's being piped into the ears of our elders. See what you can catch on the AM radio some time, it's disturbing.

[Duuvian]

NJW2000: The problem was that by the time of the election, the left had been discredited and not least by it's own party. That of course dragged the rest of the party down since they were affiliated with the same things. A bunch of moderates lost this cycle in places where they drove out the left after saying they couldn't compete there. They lost to economic concerns that in some ways were lifted from the left who could not supposedly win, much less in such areas. The reason that such wins are difficult is because your party are a bunch of snakejudases who aren't getting my vote anymore because they don't deserve it.

As to the populism thing, do you think I would want populists after this horseshit? They can go flip flop onto moderate laps, then go to hell together and not read books there either. What I want is a technocratic left that is capable of better governance than the foolish center.

EDIT: Right now there is an identity politics wizard on npr saying something like "Nancy Pelosi is the moral center of the party". Lol how unaware! Firstly it was that group that put Biden in. Then threatened anyone who tried to run in the actual primaries. Then legit did a fucking interparty coup! What the hell man I don't even. I am distancing myself from this house fire, and it's unlikely I'm coming back. I cannot stress how much political people like Pelosi are disliked and distrusted by the people you are losing from the party.

EDIT2: See? Competitive. In a period where the moderates have lost and the independent should have thus underperformed if the party logic had held up rather than only being elbows.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/deb-fischer-nebraska-senate-win-dan-osborn-rcna178532

In fact if the Democrats won't change I think I'd advise that it's time to break off from them and set up a seperate organization.

[Truean]

Please do not quote

Yeah, Radio, particularly AM radio but more too are like that.

Understandably upset. Remedy is the issue. Division/disbandment is Trump's dream, "The democrat party died after I got reelected."
Determine root cause. Identify reservations/refusal to change. Plan practical mechanisms to change. Pitch mechanisms.
Division probably cost Gore the 2000 election. Unity helped Trump get all 7 swing states in 2024.

Make no mistake. Trump has a unified, well funded effective political machine. Splintered groups don't compete with that, much less beat it.

Please do not quote

[Folly]

I'm seeing lots of blame going towards the left, saying that they need to change if they want to connect with the people. Personally, I disagree. The left honestly did everything right. The problem with this election was the People.

The day of the election, one of the top google searches was 'Did Biden drop out?'. Of course Trump's lies will sound more appealing to people who never bother to get informed and find out what's really going on. People have grown complacent, and most don't bother to vote at all, while those who do vote don't really understand what they're voting for.

Hopefully, if we still have a country in 4 years, the people will have learned a hard lesson about the importance of politics, and supporting sane stable leaders.