U.S. Politics, November 2024: GARBAGE DAY!!

It was a tangential question

Commercial residential property can get a range of different tax breaks (federal, state, local). But yeah there's no equivalent of the FHA.

Fixed mortgage rates are pretty important to keeping people in houses they've already bought imo. When they are higher, they work against people who are trying to buy, it's definitely a bit of a crapshoot. That's something that spiked housing prices, people who maybe wanted to sell but were locked in at low rates and weren't going to trade that for high rates at a new house.

thanks to all for this good discussion

A little rant: do you remember the Kamala Harris's ad when she launched her original presidential campaign in 2019? Within the first 10 seconds, she says "while Trump is a sexual predator, I've prosecuted them!" she also mentioned Trump's being a rapist on a few other campaign appearances in '19. But for some reason, when she ascended to the top of the ticket in July, that attack basically got eliminated from her speeches and her messaging. Why did this happen? Who abandons their most potentially-damaging line of attack? I wonder if her team of consultants were mostly men, and if some of whom may have been perps themselves, at one time or another, like many of the major political reporters like Glenn Thrush and Mark Halperin. My theory is that they pressured her into avoiding that subject, claiming that "it makes Trump look strong", but in reality, it was out of their own personal guilty feelings.

Remember how Harris almost went on the Joe Rogan podcast? I think it would have been really good for her, and real missed opportunity that she didn't do it (basically worth 40 million in ad dollars, maybe even more). It would have been far more valuable than a(nother) rally in a swing state where only 15,000 could take part.

What if Harris, after the opening pleasantries, within the first 15 minutes of her time on the show, tossed aside her consultants' guilt and said this:

"Men, I know several of you are listening. Imagine the women in your life - your girlfriend, your wife, your daughter, your mom. Now imagine if a man, even after your wife/daughter/girlfriend said "NO!", still insisted on forcing himself upon her, and fucking her without her consent. You would be mad at that motherfucker, right? You'd want to smash that guy's face with a baseball bat! Now imagine if that guy had a chance to be our president - wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to make sure that fuckhead got crushed in the election? You sure as hell would not want to vote for him! This is what we are faced with in this election. Donald Trump is a rapist! He forced himself on multiple women even after they said NO! If he wins, you are sending message to the women in your life that if you are a rapist, you force yourself upon someone without their consent, nothing will happen to you. Instead, we elevate you to the highest office! We reward you! Is that the world that you want for the women in your life?"

Even though I've only listened to maybe a dozen or so episodes over the past decade-plus, I know that Rogan would have let her cook, and then maybe offered a story about a person in his life who was raped. It would have been illuminating to the millions of men who listen, and may have flipped several of 'em. Would it have won the election? I don't know, but it definitely would not have hurt her - it would have made her look stronger to the very demo that "strength' matters (her real chance to call Trump a rapist fuckhead to his face at the debate? Damn, if only...).

There are waaaaaaaaay too many men in the political consultant world who don't understand the visceral side of politics. Either they have never had anyone in their life who was raped, have ever had to drive over to a friend's house to console her afterwards, to try to put together pieces of evidence, or help her rebuild herself after such a horrific event (or were the victim themselves!) - or if they have, they don't even think about it. Jesus fucking christ, we men in politics need to get our heads out of our asses!

I picked this up the other day & am just about done. In the light of multi-decade trends, the way the 2024 election came out feels almost inevitable. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28957152-the-populist-explosion

I’m certainly not a specialist in this field and if someone who is and has read it wants to refute it, by all means — but it looks pretty solid to me. Basically says that since the beginning of the collapse of the Keynesian consensus in the 70s and accelerated by the globalism and free trade movements of the ensuing decades, the draw of populism (basically, the people against the elites) is more or less fated to grow, and that the neoliberal order is more or less on the rocks.

It was published in 2016, before the election. Obviously some water under the bridge since then but maybe not as much as you might think, given the macro trends.

One thing that stands out for me is how the RW populism of Trump and Le Pen doesn’t seem like an inevitable victor here, but in the absence of a LW populism that could catch on it seems to be the wave that history is riding — amplified by how the Democratic Party has more or less abandoned the working class in many important ways.

I agree that structural trends play a bigger role, and a lot of elections are in some ways decided years and even decades before they take place as people shift over time (in the aggregate). Though I think it may be the potential unwinding of the post 1945 world more so than the post 1970s world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39V5_ui0XAA

This touches on some similar themes, in regards to Central Europe 2005 onwards

(^ esp re the conflation of political liberalism with economic liberalism)

Some of it is, I think, about other people getting “nice things” that you didn’t get. Like, reading that transcript summarizing discussions with Latino Trump supporters, it made me think about how I grew up with Reaganomics and how that social safety net that Reagan trashed was something that many people didn’t have. So when it gets re-introduced, and people who don’t get those benefits, or feel like they aren’t getting them see it… they get into “those people don’t deserve nice things that I didn’t get.” I think the RW crusade against DEI is part of it, and all the stuff about snowflakes and coddling children etc

And Trump fanning the flames of “forgiving student debt is unfair to the people who paid it off” — yep, there’s definitely a core conservative psychology that HATES seeing other people get things they don’t. They’d rather everyone lose than someone else win.

and why leftists blow a gasket over liberal means testing

which is to say it's not just conservative psychology (the person I know who was maddest about student debt cancellation, my old roommate, because she paid hers off is the most blue wave emoji person possible)

Related to that, I just listened to Ezra Klein interview pollster Patrick Ruffini, who offered this anecdote:

I did a poll in Texas of Hispanics in Texas, where I asked them, “What is the No. 1 problem that you see today with the Democratic Party?”

The answer they gave wasn’t that it was too woke or the buzzword of “socialism.” The answer was very interesting, and it’s something you don’t see come up with virtually any other group you talk to. And that is they perceive the Democratic Party as being the party of welfare benefits for people who don’t work.

And if you look at how the Democratic Party has been perceived in the last four years, in particular in terms of, “We’re letting immigrants into the country, illegal migrants into the country,” there’s a perception that they’re getting government benefits and not working. All of this is coming at the expense of people who made their way in America, who started from the very bottom of the rung and worked their way up the economic ladder — through their own hard work and not necessarily through government policies.

That is the interview I was referring to lol

they perceive the Democratic Party as being the party of welfare benefits for people who don’t work.

That makes me think so much of the Reagan/Bush era, when voting Republican meant that you “made it” (in an Alex P. Keaton way).

I heard similar on NPR this morning from Hispanic trump voters in Wisconsin. I don’t know how the dem party can make it clear to people that illegal I’m migrants do not in fact get free houses and money. Some people granted asylum get benefits. That’s it.

The UK equivalent of this is refugees being put up in hotel rooms, which in the popular imagination becomes "they're ordering room service at the Ritz!" when the reality is closer to families of five being put into ratty single hotel rooms where they have to figure out how to cook, wash their clothes, etc on their own.

This goes back to a different thread, but highlights the difference between figurative and literal truths - and the ways in which they compete for the same space.

And why debunking or correcting a literal truth doesn't address the underlying figurative truth, leading to the belief persisting even when a literal truth is accepted by someone

Ok so you proved in that particular hotel what I said isn't happening, I accept that now of course. But what about all the other hotels, there's no smoke without fire

That all depends on who is holding the tinderbox.

also related: the phenomenon of white people assuming that all nonwhite people are going to college for free

to wit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq-hx73or30

y'all should look at AOC's stories, she asks folks why they voted for her + Trump. illuminating

here it is

AOC asked her followers who split their ballots either for Trump/her or Trump/downballot Dem to explain why and posted the replies: pic.twitter.com/LuTcD29szt

— aaron from queens 🇵🇸 (@aaronnarraph) November 11, 2024

I just saw this. This shit is stupid. Trump talks about war like it's bad? WTF do they think will happen in Gaza and Ukraine once he's in?

I guess the 'wars' will be 'over' because everyone will be dead

Huh

Trump talks about war like it's bad? WTF do they think will happen in Gaza and Ukraine once he's in?

It's not about what he will do, it's how he talks about it.

jamelle bouie posted this on bluesky this weekend

i’ll say this: i did a video on tiktok about the fact that federal limits on abortion would supersede all state protections and a lot of people refuse to believe it

It's not about what he will do, it's how he talks about it.

this is p much true about everything tbh

i guess it's worth wondering whether AOC will run 28.

for Prez? yeah was wondering same

love aoc but it's hard for me to imagine her winning given how reviled she is on the right. mgp, on the other hand...

(not just reviled but caricatured as the embodiment of far left lunacy. not sure how she can shake that off.)

AOC for Schumer's Senate seat in 2028, please!

who is MGP

i imagine whitmer will run, maybe Maura Healey (who I am a fan of), Pete. tbh Dems should find some white straight guy given how fucked the US is (so I assume Newsom is now going to run). but maybe things will get so much worse in the next 4 years it'll leave an opening.

xp Marie Gluesekamp Perez

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/08/us/politics/marie-gluesenkamp-perez-interview.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/magazine/marie-gluesenkamp-perez.html

opposes student debt relief and assault weapons bans? she sounds like she sucks to me but who knows

love aoc but it's hard for me to imagine her winning given how reviled she is on the right. mgp, on the other hand...

(not just reviled but caricatured as the embodiment of far left lunacy. not sure how she can shake that off.)

And if several posters in her feed indicated that they supported her AND Trump, well, it reminds me of the Sanders/Trump voters of 2016.

hey look I would love to be wrong about her

the biggest obstacle to aoc as a candidate comes from the donor class

donor class needs to learn to eat a little shit but of course they never will

Gyac otm — Trump is a total caricature of lunacy. This path of catering to haters hasn’t really succeeded very well.

People on twitter are making a case for Gavin Newsom, as the kind of psycho bastard attack dog you want on your side.

there's been a lot of discussion about 2004 as an analogue to 2024, with the hopeful reminder that dems thought they needed a hawkish white veteran from the south to compete in bush's america, but ended up winning with an anti-war black guy from chicago with the middle name hussein. obama and aoc are v different figures, but the overall lesson is perhaps worth remembering. esp. since one of obama's strengths was being able to position himself as a charismatic relatable outsider.

i think one of the greatest barriers to her running for president is being of prime childbearing age :( obama had someone else to outsource that work to iirc.

i have no idea what her reproductive goals are, so i could be wrong and she doesn't want to reproduce, but if she does i don't see that as being compatible with a presidential campaign