Politics & Stuff

[cosmicway 1,313]

9 minutes ago, Vesper said:

you need to go to the US, lolololol

talk to Latinos and black men, to give two groups who are, on balnce, far too misogynistic at times on cwertian things

and of course many white people

the US is crazy complicated

You are making it sound like Afghanistan.
In England - Greece I never heard such talk about political personalities.
Now there have been some jeune premiers for whom people were saying they had an edge because they were jeune premier but that description certainly does n't apply to Trump.

Edited 6 hours ago by cosmicway

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,918]

17 minutes ago, Vesper said:

and that triggered off a huge counter movement of racial grievenance poltics

it opened the door as soon as he was elected

and he was a man

Harris was both black (and racially mixed inca pretty complicated way) and a women

as I said right above I do agree that the big facts on the ground (especially cost of living) hurt the incumbent party (it always does, think Clinton 1992, when his campaign smashed Bush Sr with 'it's the economy stupid'

think Obama 2008, when the global economic crisis was exploding, and the Republicans (McCain) took a huge hit

I just do not think that the Dems in 2028 should try to push a woman or a gay person for their nominee again

it is too risky, as much as that internally makes me extraordinarily sad on its face

Wes Moore is a black man. He is the only black man who has a shot at winning the 2028 Dem Primary atm. Booker is not going to be able to do it (and I would prefer Moore by far over him atm).

MAYBE Raphael Warnock (US Senator from GA)

He would make a superb POTUS too.

Should they risk it? (it is NOT the America of 2008 or 2012 anymore, and even in 2012 there was huge racial pushback already in full (and growing) effect.

I would love to see Wes Moore win or Warnock win(not at all because they are balck, but because they would make great POTUS's)

I just do not know atm if they are too risky to nominate.

I am pragmatic about US politics, especially in the Trumpian age.

MASSIVE changes will now happen (globally as well unfortunately) due to Trump winning.

It is too early to say if Moore or Warnock are viable ways to go.

Time will tell.

Warnock is the biggest narcissist this side of trump, especially with the way he treats(treated) his wife around Atlanta. If he is what the Democrats will drag out then its over before it starts. No feelings on Wes.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,918]

16 minutes ago, Vesper said:

you need to go to the US, lolololol

talk to Latinos and black men, to give two groups who are, on balance, far too misogynistic at times on certian things

both (granted not only becuase Harris was a woman, but that did hurt her) shifted massive to Trump versus previous elections

and of course many white people also will, not vote for a female POTUS

the US is crazy complicated

Black men have voted for the woman on the national ticket overwhelmingly every time except for Palin when was on the McCain ticket. The idea that black men are more misogynistic than White or Latino men is one not based in reality.

 

Black men are so egalitarian, they dont even demand to lead in relationships. They dont demand their partners lose weight the way other groups do. They dont lead houses full of domestic violence. Black men are 50-50 to a fault. In fact, talk to white women. If they want to be in a relationship where a guy wont be overbearing they will even tell their daughters to date black men. Of course this is speaking of black American men. I cant speak on Africans who make up the majority in Europe.

[Fulham Broadway 16,799]

26 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

I don't know anyone who pays attention to the candidate's sex.
Margaret Thatcher was the milk snatcher or the non-milk snatcher to people. But man or woman who cared ?
Same for Angela Merkel, Giorgia Meloni, Dora Bakoyannis ...
You guys read pulp fiction all day.

The thing here is we have a crazy president who hijacked the republican party. 
While it is normal for the two parties to win and lose presidential elections, this one was a hijack and had to be opposed tooth and nail by all sensible men.
Back in 2015 we heard about him as a joke candidate and De Santis was the clear favourite for the 2016 election. But he managed to hijack the rep party.
So it was -really- a fight of freedom and democracy against fascism and the man does indeed have fascist ideas - the only thing we doubt is that he will actually manage to suspend free elections forever.
This fight could have been won narrowly but it was lost and there have been some mistakes to be analyzed.
They must be analyzed thoroughly and not by intuition.

The US is a different phenomenum. 

Yes in theory a Liberal democracy (the reality being democracy doesnt exist there or anywhere else imo)- but due to the ethnic patchwork there are large demographics of ethnicities mired in patriarchy/misogyny. Trumps victory stage was a microcosm of that. Not being patronising, but on a larger scale than in Europe, and in places the religious fervour is something else, where entertaining the idea of a woman with executive power is something to be discouraged.

[cosmicway 1,313]

1 minute ago, Fulham Broadway said:

The US is a different phenomenum. 

Yes in theory a Liberal democracy (the reality being democracy doesnt exist there or anywhere else imo)- but due to the ethnic patchwork there are large demographics of ethnicities mired in patriarchy/misogyny. Trumps victory stage was a microcosm of that. Not being patronising, but on a larger scale than in Europe, and in places the religious fervour is something else, where entertaining the idea of a woman with executive power is something to be discouraged.

You been to America ? Traveled to all the states ?

[Vesper 28,706]

the view from a centrist Democratic site:

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-shattering-of-the-democratic

The Republican Party, according to Democrats, has given rein to some of the darker impulses in the national psyche, has shown flagrant disregard for democratic norms and offers little to the American people in terms of effective policy. There is considerable truth to this indictment and Democrats have not been shy about making their case in uninhibited language, including the obligatory comparison of their opponents to “fascists” and “Nazis.”

Yet Democrats cannot decisively beat their opponents as this election has shown once again. The party is uncompetitive among white working-class voters and among voters in exurban, small town, and rural America. This puts them at a massive structural disadvantage given an American electoral system that gives disproportionate weight to these voters, especially in Senate and presidential elections. To add to the problem, Democrats are now hemorrhaging nonwhite working-class voters across the country.

The facts must be faced. The Democratic coalition today is not fit for purpose. It cannot beat Republicans consistently in enough areas of the country to achieve dominance and implement its agenda at scale. The Democratic Party may be the party of blue America, especially deep blue metro America, but its bid to be the party of the ordinary American, the common man and woman, is falling short.

There is a simple—and painful—reason for this. The Democrats really are no longer the party of the common man and woman. The priorities and values that dominate the party today are instead those of educated, liberal America which only partially overlap—and sometimes not at all—with those of ordinary Americans.

This election has made this problem manifest in the starkest possible terms, as the Democratic coalition shattered into pieces. Trump not only won, he won fairly easily, carrying all seven swing states and, much to Democrats’ shock, the national popular vote. Below I review the demographic trends driving this shattering.

Recall that before the election, there was much debate, bordering on denialism, about whether and to what extent demographic trends revealed by most polling data would actually undercut the Democratic coalition in the election. Now we have results and it is clear those trends were real and that they did massively weaken the Democratic coalition.

Here are some demographic comparisons using the AP VoteCast data—which I consider to be far superior to the exits. These are national comparisons using 2024 and 2020 VoteCast data. Comparisons of state level demographic patterns between the two elections generally follow the national pattern.

The gender gap: Contrary to much pre-election discussion, Harris’s margin among women was actually less than Biden’s in 2020, 7 points for Harris vs. 12 points for Biden. And the Trump margin was better among men, 10 points vs. 5 points in 2020. The overall gender gap went from 17 points in 2020 to….17 points in 2024. How about that. The Democrats invested so much hope in the women’s vote, especially the idea that the abortion issue would spike their margin among women, and it just did not pan out.

Even more startling, Democrats believed with an almost religious fervor that young women would move sharply in their direction given liberal trends among this demographic and, again, the salience of the abortion issue. And, again, it did not happen. Women under 30 supported Biden by 32 points in 2020 but supported Harris by just 18 points in this election, a 14-point shift toward Trump. Among young men, the swing was even harder: these voters supported Biden by 15 points in 2020 but supported Trump by 14 points in 2024. That’s a 29-point pro-Republican swing. As a result, the gender gap did widen among young voters, but it was because young men moved more sharply toward Trump than young women did. That’s not exactly what Democrats had in mind.

 

The nonwhite vote: As predicted by the polls, we saw declines across the board in Democratic margins among nonwhite voters. Among all nonwhites: Harris carried them by 35 points compared to Biden’s 48-point margin in 2020. Among black voters, Harris’s margin was 67 points compared to 83 points for Biden in 2020; Trump got 16 percent of the black vote and 24 percent among black men. Among Latinos, the Democratic margin was cut in half, plunging to 14 points compared to 28 points for Biden in 2020. Trump got 42 percent of the Hispanic vote and 47 percent among Hispanic men.

The working-class (non-college) vote: Among all working-class voters, Trump dramatically widened his advantage, tripling his margin from 4 points in 2020 to 12 points in this election. That included moving from 25 to 29 points among white working-class voters and radically compressing his deficit among nonwhite working-class voters from 48 points in 2020 to 33 points this election. Compare that margin to what Obama had in 2012: according to Catalist, he carried the nonwhite working class by 67 points in that election. That indicates that Democrats have had their margin among this core constituency more than cut in half over the last 12 years. Ouch. So much for the “rising American electorate.”

And it’s time to face the fact that the GOP has become the party of America’s working class. Democrats hate to admit that and mutter that they represent the “interests” of the working class. But the numerical pattern is now too powerful to be denied. Instead of denying the obvious—or, worse, blaming the dumb workers for not knowing their own interests—Democrats would be well-advised to accept this new reality and seek to change it.

Unless they’re content to be primarily the party of America’s well-off. Harris lost voters under $50,000 in household income as well as voters from $50,000 to $100,000 in income. But she did carry voters with over $100,000 in household by 8 points, one place where Harris did improve over Biden in 2020. This is not, as they say, your father’s Democratic Party. Not even close.

The youth vote: The idea that the youth vote might bail out on the Democrats this election was strenuously resisted in Democratic-friendly quarters but happen it did. Democrat support among voters under 30 collapsed from a 25-point advantage in 2020 to a mere 6 points in this election.

This should be especially disturbing for Democrats since this is the first presidential election where this age group is overwhelmingly composed on Gen Z voters. This does not augur well for the future. Nor does their performance among voters 30-44, now dominated by the Millennials, where Harris’s advantage over Trump was only 4 points. The great generational replacement theory of future Democratic dominance is another theory Democrats would be well-advised to discard.

There is much more to be said about shifting voting patterns in this election (and it will be said!) But for now, these data do indicate that a lot of the trends the polls were picking up on the compression of Democratic margins among key groups was real. And that should be food for thought for Democrats as they sift through the wreckage of their shattered coalition.

---

As they do so, here’s an idea to start with: have every Democrat ostentatiously say they subscribe to the following principles. These principles would signal to normie voters, particularly working-class voters of all races, that Democrats’ values and priorities are not so different from theirs. That’s a prerequisite for getting these voters to listen to Democrats’ pitch and take it seriously.

• Equality of opportunity is a fundamental American principle; equality of outcome is not.

• America is not perfect but it is good to be patriotic and proud of the country.

• Discrimination and racism are bad but they are not the cause of all disparities in American society.

• Racial achievement gaps are bad and we should seek to close them. However, they are not due just to racism and standards of high achievement should be maintained for people of all races.

• No one is completely without bias but calling all white people racists who benefit from white privilege and American society a white supremacist society is not right or fair.

• America benefits from the presence of immigrants and no immigrant, even if illegal, should be mistreated. But border security is hugely important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.

• Police misconduct and brutality against people of any race is wrong and we need to reform police conduct and recruitment. However, more and better policing is needed to get criminals off the streets and secure public safety. That cannot be provided by “defunding the police”.

• There are underlying differences between men and women that should not all be attributed to sexism. However, discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong and should always be opposed.

• People who want to live as a gender different from their biological sex should have that right. However, biological sex is real and spaces limited to biological women in areas like sports and prisons should be preserved. Medical treatments like drugs and surgery are serious interventions that should not be available on demand, especially for children.

• Language policing has gone too far; by and large, people should be able to express their views without fear of sanction by employer, school, institution or government. Free speech is a fundamental American value that should be safeguarded everywhere.

• Climate change is a serious problem but it won’t be solved overnight. As we move toward a clean energy economy with an “all of the above” strategy, energy must continue to be cheap, reliable and abundant. That means fossil fuels, especially natural gas, will continue to be an important part of the mix.

• We must make America more equal, but we also must make it richer. There is no contradiction between the two. A richer country will make it easier to promote equality.

• Degrowth is the worst idea on the left since Communism. Ordinary voters want abundance: more stuff, more opportunity, cheaper prices, nicer, more comfortable lives. The only way to provide this is with more growth, not less.

• We need to make it much easier to build things, from housing to transmission lines to nuclear reactors. That cannot happen without serious regulatory and permitting reform.

• America needs a robust industrial policy that goes far beyond climate policy. We are in direct competition with nations like China, a competition we cannot win without building on cutting edge scientific research in all fields.

• National economic development should prioritize the “left-behind” areas of the country. The New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt did this and we can do it today. “Trickle-down” economics from rich metropolitan areas is not working.

A Democratic Party united around these principles would be a far more appealing party to those millions of voters who are leaving the Democratic Party behind. It’s time to start calling them back.

 

 

[Fernando 6,447]

11 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Black men have voted for the woman on the national ticket overwhelmingly every time except for Palin when was on the McCain ticket. The idea that black men are more misogynistic than White or Latino men is one not based in reality.

 

Black men are so egalitarian, they dont even demand to lead in relationships. They dont demand their partners lose weight the way other groups do. They dont lead houses full of domestic violence. Black men are 50-50 to a fault. In fact, talk to white women. If they want to be in a relationship where a guy wont be overbearing they will even tell their daughters to date black men. Of course this is speaking of black American men. I cant speak on Africans who make up the majority in Europe.

In general African Americans vs Blacks from Africa, and other part is the same as we look at Latinos born or raise in the USA vs Latinos from South America, Asian American (ABC) vs Asian from actual Asia. 

Even though same race, different way of thinkin. 

Of course I'm generalizing and this does not apply to everyone, but on the most this is what I notice. 

Example a person born and raise in Colombia vs a Colombian that came here for example at 5 and was raise here, or born here and have mother/father Colombian on the general will have different point of views. 

Like I said this over generalizing and this is NOT the truth for every case, but I see this a lot. 

[Vesper 28,706]

23 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Warnock is the biggest narcissist this side of trump, especially with the way he treats(treated) his wife around Atlanta. If he is what the Democrats will drag out then its over before it starts. No feelings on Wes.

Warnock was not one of my previous list of the current frontrunners

nor was Booker

I just discused those 2 as I was discussing black male Dems who may run in 2028

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,918]

5 minutes ago, Fernando said:

In general African Americans vs Blacks from Africa, and other part is the same as we look at Latinos born or raise in the USA vs Latinos from South America, Asian American (ABC) vs Asian from actual Asia. 

Even though same race, different way of thinkin. 

Of course I'm generalizing and this does not apply to everyone, but on the most this is what I notice. 

Example a person born and raise in Colombia vs a Colombian that came here for example at 5 and was raise here, or born here and have mother/father Colombian on the general will have different point of views. 

Like I said this over generalizing and this is NOT the truth for every case, but I see this a lot. 

Black men dont have the power to be sexist and demand of their female counterparts that other groups do by and large also.

 

A latino immigrant can be working in a home depot parking lot, go home and still have respect from a female counterpart. Most black women, rightly or wrongly, grew up with the same negative black tropes that every other group in America grows up with. That is why you'll quickly hear:

"All men are dogs"

"Niggas aint shit"
ect

As soon as a man messes up in their life. The expectation is for a black man to let you down, and that leads all dynamics. That is why when a black man gets with a non black woman he will be OVER-accommodating. They have to be because a man with little resources, and bad reputation, has to take what they can get.

 

Also black men will usually, because of the former, bounce on kids. Black boys are raised with women being the center of the community, of their identity, and their ideology. They can take a female boss because mom ran the house. Other groups are less likely to take that. Voting for a black woman to lead is nothing because women already lead most parts of their lives.

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Mikel OBE

[Vesper 28,706]

21 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Black men have voted for the woman on the national ticket overwhelmingly every time except for Palin when was on the McCain ticket. The idea that black men are more misogynistic than White or Latino men is one not based in reality.

 

Black men are so egalitarian, they dont even demand to lead in relationships. They dont demand their partners lose weight the way other groups do. They dont lead houses full of domestic violence. Black men are 50-50 to a fault. In fact, talk to white women. If they want to be in a relationship where a guy wont be overbearing they will even tell their daughters to date black men. Of course this is speaking of black American men. I cant speak on Africans who make up the majority in Europe.

Black men slid to Trump hard this election. Around 1 in 4 voted for him. That is extraordinary, especially as it was a fellow non RW black person running versus Trump.

I made no statement in regard to which goup of men was the most misogynistic.

As for the rest, I mostly disagree with your characterisations of many black men in America.

I have lived there for several years, and I think you are painting a false picture for a huge number of them.

I do appreciate that you did separate them from Africans and West Indian black men, who are even worse in many cases, when it comes to misogyny. Many of thsoe 2 othe rgorupds are horrific .

Finally, I am NOT saying (not saying at all) that ALL black men are bad. The majority are good humans, But there are many who are not, at least in terms of the subject (misogyny) at hand.

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,799]

29 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

You been to America ? Traveled to all the states ?

Three times 

[Fernando 6,447]

38 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Black men dont have the power to be sexist and demand of their female counterparts that other groups do by and large also.

 

A latino immigrant can be working in a home depot parking lot, go home and still have respect from a female counterpart. Most black women, rightly or wrongly, grew up with the same negative black tropes that every other group in America grows up with. That is why you'll quickly hear:

"All men are dogs"

"Niggas aint shit"
ect

As soon as a man messes up in their life. The expectation is for a black man to let you down, and that leads all dynamics. That is why when a black man gets with a non black woman he will be OVER-accommodating. They have to be because a man with little resources, and bad reputation, has to take what they can get.

 

Also black men will usually, because of the former, bounce on kids. Black boys are raised with women being the center of the community, of their identity, and their ideology. They can take a female boss because mom ran the house. Other groups are less likely to take that. Voting for a black woman to lead is nothing because women already lead most parts of their lives.

Your point of view reminds me of this movie that I saw. Crazy movie but I got the message it was giving. The movie Get Out. 

 

[cosmicway 1,313]

22 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Three times 

I don't believe what you say.
So I would n't vote KKE under her:



But I would vote KKE under him:

[Fulham Broadway 16,799]

1 minute ago, cosmicway said:

I don't believe what you say.

You shouldnt judge other people by your life of fantasy and made up bollocks

[cosmicway 1,313]

6 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

You shouldnt judge other people by your life of fantasy and made up bollocks

Why have I life of fantasy ?
I lived in England for so many years, visited Europe.
I don't know what was happening in the days of king Edward but what you say about women politicians is just not happening.
In Afghanistan maybe but not even in Turkey.
Women politicians are called names by those who don't like them just like men are called names.
By those who like them, the opposite.

Edited 4 hours ago by cosmicway

[Fulham Broadway 16,799]

3 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

Why have I life of fantasy ?
I lived in England for so many years, visited Europe.
I don't know what was happening in the days of king Edward but what you say about women politicians is just not happening.
In Afghanistan maybe but not even in Turkey.
Women politicians are called names by those who don't like them just like men are called names.
By those who like them, the opposite.

Sorry, but around 80% -90% of your posts with 'facts' are proved wrong. When confronted you either slink off, or spout irrelevancies as above.

Next day, another vat of ouzo, rinse and repeat...

[robsblubot 3,496]

3 hours ago, Vesper said:

I also want to keep this simple in terms of the actual election loss.

I do not care who the Dems ran, they would have likely lost because of several main issues

The cost of living explosion

Food, rent, mortgages (ie cost of buying a flat or house), energy (in terms of American cost, they are used to energy prices FAR below ours over here in Europe(UK included)

The US Mexican border explosion of illegal immigration (regardless of how it has lowered, it was out of control under Biden (and the Republicans made sure it was not fixed by blocking bi-partisan reforms, with the blocking done to aid Trump's campaign)

Far too many fringe, bad, extreme social justice stances taken by radical elements that allowed the RW to smear ALL (including some 100 per cent legit things that were simple fairness stances, not extreme AT ALL) remotely related stances as 'Woke' and bonkers

Agreed.

On the last one, excluding the stupid fringe stuff, the issue IMO isn't even the stances, which are in most cases good as they promote inclusion; it's the amount of it and the volume. Some folks felt "bombarded" constantly with a message that they did not ask for, so yeah, I think there was a bit of a rejection there too.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,918]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

Black men slid to Trump hard this election. Around 1 in 4 voted for him. That is extraordinary, especially as it was a fellow non RW black person running versus Trump.

I made no statement in regard to which goup of men was the most misogynistic.

As for the rest, I mostly disagree with your characterisations of many black men in America.

I have lived there for several years, and I think you are painting a false picture for a huge number of them.

I do appreciate that you did separate them from Africans and West Indian black men, who are even worse in many cases, when it comes to misogyny. Many of thsoe 2 othe rgorupds are horrific .

Finally, I am NOT saying (not saying at all) that ALL black men are bad. The majority are good humans, But there are many who are not, at least in terms of the subject (misogyny) at hand.

 

I agree culture definitely is king here, but I also think the experience you had in America isnt the experience the average black person would have in terms of the community, and relationship dynamics that come with it though.

 

You have things in your favor that the unambigious black women dont have:
Foreign-ness

Biracial-ness

 

That is the jackpot exotical in the black community. Especially back in days of old where an outright white woman makes you a sellout. You get a redbone to get the benefit, without going all the way over. You "Stay woke" with a redbone as donald glover hints in the song of the same name. You got men, and women, at their best behavior because that inherent proximity to whiteness means something to black people.  Even at Kamala's school Howard, the shining beacon of black colleges. When I was a kid in the 90's those sororities were still paper bag checking people for leadership. They still do it now.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Mikel OBE