2024 US Presidential Election

[Lisnaholic]

It's fucked. I'm so angry at dumbfucks in my state for voting for the con man.

^ Yes, I'm afraid today is a bitter, heartbreaking day for many Americans - and I agree with where you point the finger of blame: at the voters.

As Trollheart and SGR have noted, the biggest issue for voters was probably the economy, but unfortunately I suspect that a lot of voters didn't do the research that would've taught them that Trump is a failed businessman whose silver-bullet solution of tariffs is not going to work. They also neglected to check, it would seem, that Biden's job growth figures and much else were better than Trump's. As they were saying in the British press recently, "America's economy is the envy of the world". 

As well as underestimating the robustness of Biden's economic policy, voters, imo, have also underestimated the value of having a working, checks-and-balances democracy. They may well have thrown that away in favour of an oligarchy of Trump loyalists who will be largely out of reach of a newly partisan justice system. Trump is now poised to escape accountability for any crimes - and as he wields his Wannabe-Putin powers, he'll also be ushering in a slew of Wannabe-Trump enablers: Bannon, Miller, etc, etc. Who knows? perhaps we'll have Sidney Powell back in the White House too.

As for blaming the Dems, I have a different view of events from Trollheart and SGR. What I saw from my armchair was a party that transitioned from the old guy to Kamala, perhaps late in the day, but none the less in time for people to see her: an energetic, rational speaker who out-manoeuvred Trump so successfully in a debate that he refused to debate her again. Any one notice how a bunch of artists and celebrities endorsed Kamala and her message of optimism, tolerance and inclusion ? The Dems laid the contrast on the table for all to see, but a lot of voters chose not to see it.

After Trump voters, my list of people to blame would go like this:-
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who didn't retire during Obama's term, but stayed on to die during Trump's term, thus skewing even further the Supreme Court.
Mitch McConnell for leading Trump's acquittal on two separate impeachments. He passed the buck big time, by saying Yes, he's guilty but I won't punish him.
Merrick Garland who was too slow, too cautious to do his job.
Judge A Cannon for neither recusing herself nor conducting a swift and fair trial of her patron, Trump. Let's see what furthur travesties of justice she performs if she makes it to AG.
The Supreme Court for giving POTUS immunity. That's a ruling that could excuse a lot of Trump's autocratic conduct in the years ahead.
Fox News, Elon Musk, etc for their years promoting disinformation -  a policy that has apparently paid off to judge from last night's election results.
oh yeah, nearly forgot: the entire Republican Party for abdicating  all their powers, principles and ethics to promote a loose-cannon conman to the highest office in the land.

[degrassiknoll]

As a Californian, aside from federal assistance during emergencies (lol) 47's re-election won't really be felt here. The impact is different with an economy as large as ours.

That hasn't stopped the slew of highly privileged Tenderqueers from feeling personally  victimized. It's like, chill out Lavender, you access queer spaces because you identify as fucking aro but you're just a cis white girl with two supportive parents that exist a notch or two above everyone else's tax bracket in this youth center, can you concede the floor for one fucking second? Ugh. Your crystals and imported white sage smudging bundles aren't doing anything for people literally losing their access to comprehensive healthcare at MINIMUM. Talking about being afraid to walk down the street in this liberal ass county with rainbow flags and "safe space" indicators on every business door lol. This state is bonkers but I'm not leaving it for the next four years I'll tell you that.

[Psy-Fi]

Jamarl L. Thomas - Thoughts on Kamala Harris

[DJChameleon]

I'm annoyed by all the people going around saying in hindsight that they knew she would lose and provided their in depth analysis why but never mentioned a peep before the results came out.

Also the pro Palestinian people that are cheering and gloating because Harris lost just because they didn't like her and voted for Jill Stein or not at all.

I was worried that they would go around playing the blame game and blaming black men but I have seen some graphics that the Latinos for Trump are who showed up in droves for him. Latino men and women and white men/women had the most vote percentages for him. The view black men claiming they were voting for Trump on social media wasn't what ended up happening in reality.

[Lisnaholic]

I really appreciate you quoting and name-checking me, SGR
Here are my thoughts on the points you raised:

This is the rub with democracy. If the worst fears of democrats and liberals come to pass, the system will look like two wolves and lamb voting on what's for dinner. Sometimes, the 'dinner' could simply be your tax dollars being allocated in a way you don't agree with - other times, obviously, 'dinner' is much more precarious (like war being declared and a draft being instituted).

Oh no ! Not another SGR metaphor At least this one is slightly easier to follow than the plumbing one

It's a problem with the system that is pretty well hinted at by @Lisnaholic below:

In a democracy, voters are voting on more than just the health, maintenance and stability of the system that allows them to vote. I don't have the polls offhand, but there are polls out there that show how relatively low January 6th was on voters' list of concerns/priorities. People are voting for a whole host of issues, and most of them don't strictly require a system of democracy to be in place to fix them, whether that's the economy, immigration, or even abortion. Democracy can be inherently self-destructive. Or in other words, democracy is the means by which voters submit their prescriptions to their elected government...but democracy isn't necessarily a prescription in and of itself.

^ You have a point about democracy not being essential to implement some changes, I suppose, but that point is surely outweighed by this detail: "People are voting for a whole host of issues..." and that "people voting" thing does require democracy; if you accidentally vote away democracy there wouldn't be any more voting again, and there won't be any more" submitting prescriptions to the elected government." Scarily enough, "you'll never have to vote again" is something that Trump has said quite recently.

Fox News...Jeff Bezos...Elon Musk: it's possible that Trump and co. could effect a real strangle-hold on the media, and intimidate the voice of the opposition, so that it becomes more cowed and muted. Along with death-threats and doxing, another intimidation technique that Trump (or one of his staff) has already practiced is to have the IRS audit his political opponents, which can be very daunting I imagine. If those things happen then the US may end up with Mexican-style elections - notable for the fact that, even though they were ostensibly "free and fair", the same party was re-elected for a period of 70 years, uninterrupted. This election result could be a significant step down that road imo.

So that's the paradox that Democrats will have wrestle and come to terms with: that the democracy that they cherish, laud and want to protect can, at the same time, result in who they believe to be one of, if not the most anti-democratic candidates in US history winning the election not just in the electoral college, but in the popular vote as well. They lost the election and popular vote to Donald Trump: a convicted felon, a man who tried to overturn the 2020 election, a former president who was impeached twice, had his mugshot taken, and had his mug shot at. A man who banged a porn star, cheated on his wives (and claims to be a Christian), and stiffed his business associates. Americans knew full well who he was, what his character is, and what he represents, and the majority of voters still rejected Democrats in favor of him.

^ I agree, SGR. You summarise Trump's credentials pretty well, and I'm surprised to see you so critical of him in his moment of victory.
Nice writing about "mugshot" and "mug shot", and "banged" and "stiffed"

I don't have the heart to do much analysing about what this election result implies; for the moment I'm going to stick with what a CNN commentator said, "I suppose America is not the country we thought it was."

[SGR]

^ You have a point about democracy not being essential to implement some changes, I suppose, but that point is surely outweighed by this detail: "People are voting for a whole host of issues..." and that "people voting" thing does require democracy; if you accidentally vote away democracy there wouldn't be any more voting again, and there won't be any more" submitting prescriptions to the elected government." Scarily enough, "you'll never have to vote again" is something that Trump has said quite recently.

I think there are some underlying assumptions to your counterpoint - but I don't think the 'people voting' thing necessarily does require democracy, nor does it imply a democracy. I suppose it all depends on how we define democracy. For example, in North Korea, every four-to-five years the people vote for the Supreme People's Assembly and the Local People's Assembly - but of course, many argue that these aren't real elections, because all candidates are chosen by the government. Or we could look to the Soviet Union which also held elections - unfortunately, the only party that was legal (until 1990) in the state was the Communist Party, so every candidate that would appear on the ballots were pre-approved by the party (even if the candidate wasn't a member of the party - some candidates were unaffiliated technically, but were from trade unions for example). And we could even include your example of 'Mexican-style elections' (which I don't know much about, but I'll take you word for). There has been, in the past 20 or so years, many fair criticisms from both sides of the political aisle in America about our own 'democracy' and two-party system (which is ran by two private corporations) that have outsized control on both the selection of our candidates and what their message is. Of course we then also have a similar problem with our media landscape - candidates and media arms alike funded by the same corporate donors - and if needed, those party functionaries and media outlets will collude together to screw over and ruin any grassroots or organic independent political campaigns that might have real enthusiasm from people behind them and might actually exercise real change were they given power (anyone remember Bernie Sanders? And how Donna Brazille shared town hall debate questions with Hillary's camp during the Democratic primaries? - or the backroom deals that were made in 2020 to get several candidates in a crowded Democrat primary to suspend their campaigns and endorse Biden, by no coincedence, right before Super Tuesday where Bernie would've picked up multiple primary victories in said crowded field?).

I guess my point here is: if there is some vaguely and nebulously defined line between 'democracy' and 'not a democracy', we're not going to cross that line by voting ceasing to exist. Voting is an essential part of making your citizenry feel invested as a contributor and voice to the nature of their country and government. More cynically, one might argue that voting and the people's ability to vote serves as an opiate for their frustrations and desires for change, as without the ability to vote (even if the wishes of people aren't ultimately honored or fulfilled), people might decide to take more violent recourses which wouldn't be a good thing for either the state, or the rich and powerful who are benefiting from state preference or policy. And even in countries that we could agree don't have a true democracy, said state can offer choices to the people that are within the bounds of what the state finds acceptable, and even honor those choices after a vote.

Here's another of my analogies that I know you like so much. 

You might go into a movie theater and feel a bit thirsty. You're really in the mood for an iced tea. You go to the concession stand and ask about an iced tea, only to find that there's no iced tea on offer. But yet they still have a choice for you to make; you can either have the 'red slushy' or the 'blue slushy'. Don't like it? Want a different drink? Too bad, you need to make a choice in the movie theater's pre-approved 'democracy of drinks', and choose which slushy you want - or else go thirsty while you watch the movie.

[degrassiknoll]

Except you'll never be offered iced tea from a slushy machine and it's ridiculous to keep trying to get iced tea out of it. Meanwhile you're holding up the line and people are dying of thirst.

[SGR]

Except you'll never be offered iced tea from a slushy machine and it's ridiculous to keep trying to get iced tea out of it. Meanwhile you're holding up the line and people are dying of thirst.

The analogy wasn't about trying to get iced tea from the slushy machine, it was about trying to get iced tea from the concession stand/movie theater (or in this analogy, the country/state).

[Trollheart]

Again, I'm not entirely certain about your analogy @SGR but would it not be more accurate to say that if you want iced tea, the big orange grumpy giant will only give it to you if you're wearing one of his badges that shows you voted for and supported him? If not, perhaps a free one-way plane ticket to "anywhere but here" might be offered to you?

[Marie Monday]

The analogy wasn't about trying to get iced tea from the slushy machine, it was about trying to get iced tea from the concession stand/movie theater (or in this analogy, the country/state).

lol I'm sure everyone understands that, and as if that makes a difference

[SGR]

Again, I'm not entirely certain about your analogy @SGR but would it not be more accurate to say that if you want iced tea, the big orange grumpy giant will only give it to you if you're wearing one of his badges that shows you voted for and supported him? If not, perhaps a free one-way plane ticket to "anywhere but here" might be offered to you?

No, because the analogy is not specifically about America, the election we just had, or our two party system. It was about what constitutes a 'democracy' in relation to the discussion I was having with Lisna. One of his points was that people having the ability to vote does require democracy. While I believe voting is a fundamental feature of a true democracy, voting itself neither requires or implies democracy, which was the point I was trying to make with North Korea and the Soviet Union. A state can provide its citizenry with the ability to vote or 'choose' between two (or more) candidates, while also ensuring that there's no meaningful difference between those choices. Put more simply, in my opinion, you can't have democracy without voting, but you can have voting without democracy.

[Trollheart]

Okay. Is this like Iraq then, where you had two choices: Saddam or Saddam? Or am I once more managing to miss the point?

[SGR]

Okay. Is this like Iraq then, where you had two choices: Saddam or Saddam? Or am I once more managing to miss the point?

The broader point I was making that led to this somewhat tangential discussion about what constitutes democracy was that voters are, by and large, driven by emotion, and will run the risk of a deteriorated or damaged democracy in return for the promise of fixing other issues they might care about more in the moment. The risk to democracy was one of the Democrats' primary talking points this entire election cycle, and it was obviously not enough - not even enough to win the popular vote, which is something they typically do win. But why? 'Democracy' is a very abstract and conceptual thing - it's a difficult thing for voters to feel, especially when they currently enjoy the luxury of having it. Democracy inherently relies on the collective judgement and wisdom of the people who are voting - and the more fractured, polarized, and divided the people become, the more tenuous democracy will likely become as a result - because in that scenario, people would reasonably be more likely to vote for what they want and stick it to the other guy, even if they need to risk some future democratic efficacy and stability to do so. In very large countries like the USA, with such a diverse group of people, living in different places, material conditions, and lifestyles, it becomes harder and harder for results of democracy to serve everyone in a way they are satisfied with. Eventually, if enough people, for a long enough time feel ill-served by democracy, the risk of losing it becomes much less compelling.

Even if that comes to pass, and the slow slide to greater and greater levels of authoritarianism takes place, voting will surely be there still - just as Nazis and Communists held 'elections' - but it's not the vote - or the ability to vote that gives you democracy, it's the ability for your vote to reflect your beliefs and convictions, and collectively with the votes of others, to have the capability to enact some kind of meaningful change. Your choices on offer when voting should, at their core, be driven primarily by the people - because when they're driven primarily by the state, that's not a democracy, even though you still technically have a vote.

Since we're talking about democracy and the collective wisdom and judgement of the people who vote in them, I felt like this old Carlin bit might be apropos 

[jimmy jazz]

Anyone checked on Chula?

[Trollheart]

That was really funny, and right on the money too. That guy's good.
Something he said reminded me of this Twilight Zone episode: