The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well we'll wait and see about Arizona. Pundits seem to think it's a done deal; they don't seem to have considered it's only Election Day votes left to count.

Ohio called, but Texas and Florida not, which is very poor. Iowa should be called soon for Trump. Trump with healthy leads in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania...he needs 'em if Arizona's going blue.

Georgia seems to be faltering for Trump, but he's still ahead for now. North Carolina's probably in recount territory. unless Trump has more votes to secure it.

This mainstream media bias is quite something. Trump 49-48 ahead in Montana, 50% voted...oh yeah, that's too close to call. Trump 50-48 ahead in Virginia, 76% voted....oh yeah, we're calling that for Biden.

Nice to see some emotion from the President on the tragedy...Not sure with guns so rampant and readily available on the black market how regulation works..As for gun amnesties only good people turn them in...I wouldn't want families lacking the ability to defend themselves...

If we started over I'd like to burn the second amendment and chuck it on the fire...

But it's too far in...

As for Biden 43/56 with the GOP pollster Rasmussen suggests should he stay relatively cognitive a couple more years re-election looks good.

Be surprised though if he lasts...

Just out of interest Mitt Romney received 7 million more than any other Senator from the Gun lobby...

He is supposed to be a more Liberal republican...At least he was when he tried to unseat Uncle Ted in Massachusetts a while back.. U turns on Roe v Wade...Illegal amnesties..You name it..

Didn't last long though..

Very easy to say that more gun control is the answer, but the 'how do you get there from here' part of the question is much more difficult in the US than in other countries that have tightened gun laws in the last 30 years.

The question that really needs answering is why are Americans so inclined to use guns, and how do you reduce the prevalence of gun use from a position where a ban would be implausible or at least ineffective? While there are some immediate steps that could be taken, like better background checking and registration (the shooter in the Texas case was a few days past his 18th birthday, and had just legally bought the guns, even though he couldn't legally buy a beer for another 3 years), and better mental health care and screening, the biggest change has to be a cultural one - certain elements of US culture glamorise (Hollywood) or at least normalise (Rap) gun violence, and this needs to be changed.

I think that some serious changes to gun control legislation could be beneficial, but more from the perspective of a cultural change rather than directly having a major effect - move away from the NRA's foolish 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' mentality (especially when that's the kind of thinking that led to the Rittenhouse case), and try to create the perception in the public's mind that a gun is not necessary. At present I understand that several states are moving towards concealed carry as being the norm, and even in one State giving armed civilians similar legal protections to law enforcement in public use of a weapon in prevention of a crime (can't remember which State that is, possibly Mississippi).

I think many Americans - maybe not the majority, but not far off, and certainly a majority in many states - would rather have guns and massacres, than neither. The massacres are a price they are willing to pay. Which is why all the crocodile tears are annoying.

The Constitution is regarded as sacred maybe less so these days. ..

Second amendment reversal would be blasphemy to the founding fathers who liberated the Country from the exploitation of the British empire.

Perhaps outsiders don't get how wedded the Constitution is to the American psyche..

No American wants massacres....Unless you find a way to keep the pharmaceutical and gun lobbies out of politics you won't get change however small.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The Constitution is regarded as sacred maybe less so these days. ..

Second amendment reversal would be blasphemy to the founding fathers who liberated the Country from the exploitation of the British empire.

Perhaps outsiders don't get how wedded the Constitution is to the American psyche..

No American wants massacres....Unless you find a way to keep the pharmaceutical and gun lobbies out of politics you won't get change however small.

How about the 13th amendment? Was that blasphemy to the slave-owning founding fathers? Just because the 2nd amendment was appropriate in 1791, doesn't mean it is now.

As with anything, the American right is far too dogmatic on this issue. It's all guns or communism for them.

90% of Americans want more background checks for gun owners but the GOP is holding them hostage on it for the own interests. Go figure.

Maybe just maybe, if the weapons available at the time were a bit more sophisticated they might have reconsidered that amendment

Maybe we should make anybody that wants a gun in the US go through the same steps as anyone that wants an abortion. They have to have consent from a medical professional, they have to watch a long video explaining the potential consequences of their purchases. There will only be one or two places in the entire state where they can buy guns, so they'll have to stay in another town overnight in order to be able to purchase the gun. Then, when they go to the shop that sells the guns, they will be accosted by zealot anti-gun protesters who will hurl verbal abuse at them and thrust in their face pictures of people who have been killed as a result of gun violence.

But anyway, flippancy aside, the US is knackered and the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Its all been building since the Reagen era when the NRA went full “they want to take your guns” and they started pushing this faux fear of some invisible evil that wants to hurt you and the people you care about so you need atleast 3 guns just incase.

Freedom isnt free, so gun owners need to seriously ask themselves when is enough enough? How many more children are they willing to see killed in school - in Frak school - before they are willing to voluntarilly give up their guns? They wont answer because then they have to face the uncomfortable truth that they value the individual more than the collective.

Samo wrote:Its all been building since the Reagen era when the NRA went full “they want to take your guns” and they started pushing this faux fear of some invisible evil that wants to hurt you and the people you care about so you need atleast 3 guns just incase.

Freedom isnt free, so gun owners need to seriously ask themselves when is enough enough? How many more children are they willing to see killed in school - in Frak school - before they are willing to voluntarilly give up their guns? They wont answer because then they have to face the uncomfortable truth that they value the individual more than the collective.

Yeah, pretty much this. They may not want massacres, but they are willing to accept them as the price of gun ownership.

The second amendment is about establishing a private militia to offset the need for a private army (in the 1790s, and when the USA was a lot smaller than it is today), not about allowing any small-dicked degenerate to stock up on assault rifles and such.

I doubt the founding fathers would recognise America for what it is today. And most Americans don't even know what their constitution is, let alone being closely wedded to it.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/index.html
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/more-americans-need-actually-read-the-constitution

You can't outright ban guns overnight in America because it would literally lead to Civil War. But a drip-feed of legislation needs to come through that slowly, stealthily reduces and restricts the availability of guns. Will this happen? No, because America's democratic system is broken and deadlocked with the two corrupt parties that have a monopoly on American politics. And also no because, in line with what Julius said, many Americans will accept the price of school shootings and massacres in exchange for keeping their guns.

What a strange country it is. Grateful to be from Western Europe, the true land of the free.

Am sure I said it on another thread on here somewhere - if you accept what happened at Sandy Hook and don't do anything to prevent something like that happening again, there's nothing that can happen which will ever lead to any change.

It's pathetic to be enslaved by a constitutional right that was enacted more than 200 years ago and which demonstrably has zero relevance now - it's no better than flag-shagging because due to a biological miracle and a complete accident of birth you happen to be born inside an arbitrary border.

superflyweight wrote: it's no better than flag-shagging because due to a biological miracle and a complete accident of birth you happen to be born inside an arbitrary border.      

Or not be prepared to help another person, or group of people, because they happen to be born outside that border, above those born inside it

The 2nd amendment believe it or not had much to do with Oliver Cromwell who reigned barely a Century before after kicking out I think Charles the 1st ???..By military coup..

Scared of it happening in the new Country...

Not a purist by any means and certainly would welcome measures but it won't happen..Not wholesale Centrally..

The Southern politicians would never allow it...Not much difference between Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans.....

Perhaps US gun legislation might change if several (preferably GOP wingnuts) Senators' families were wiped out by a cretin with an assault weapon and a gazillion rounds? Can only hope, but even then they'd say it was worth it to keep their own weapons. Then again, they're no doubt happy to send their kids to private schools in upmarket boroughs, probably with armed-to-the-teeth security on every aperture to every building? Everyone else can go **** themselves.

Re. 2nd amendment - the clue's in the title. It's an amendment and can be altered or even removed. I actually couldn't give two hoots anymore as they're clearly not going to do anything meaningful (or, indeed, anything at all) about this or anything else where absurd political parties can posture over having the alternative opinion to the most common sense proposals imaginable.

The chuffing Founding Fathers had to consider black pounder, muzzle loading, single-shot, unrifled weaponry when drafting the 2nd amendment. It's utterly disingenuous to suggest that they'd consider the current situation, with thousands of gun deaths every year, to be remotely sensible. I'd put money on the Founders (good grief; in the context of the times, they were far more sensible than people ~250 years more 'advanced') being disgusted with the current situation if there was any way they could be here.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not mean a free-for-all to have any weapon one wants. The clue is in "well regulated Militia", but that's probably too obvious for the morons who're more than happy to accept mass murder on a routine basis. What is "well regulated" about the current situation? What Militia is it we're discussing? Perhaps a lesson in the English language would be a place to start?

A pox on the lot of them.

Welcome back, Navy, good post.

South Carolina's Tom Rice one of the highest profile Republicans to want Trump impeached...Has lost the GOP primary to a Trump endorsed challenger...

Ohio Senate race has the Republican challenger 9pts ahead of her Democrat incumbent..

Standard of living crisis is hurting Biden...and sending $1 billion to the Ukraine today won't help with the malcontents..

Normal day in Biden world as he gives a speech rife with gaffes. Claims that Glasgow is in England, says he has cancer when he doesn't, mispronounces some bloke's name and then refers to him as a she.

This would be front-page news for days if Trump was making these errors, but the mainstream media gives Biden as much protection as possible.

Fortunately the American people aren't being fooled and Biden's current net approval at this stage of his Presidency (-18.6%) is only superior to Truman (-19%) for post WW2 Presidents. And Truman has a rebound coming up so Biden will soon be the worst.

Mid-terms are going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats, and unless Biden is dispensed with quickly 2024 is going to be an easy slam-dunk for the Republicans.

Duty281 wrote:Normal day in Biden world as he gives a speech rife with gaffes. Claims that Glasgow is in England, says he has cancer when he doesn't, mispronounces some bloke's name and then refers to him as a she.

This would be front-page news for days if Trump was making these errors, but the mainstream media gives Biden as much protection as possible.

Fortunately the American people aren't being fooled and Biden's current net approval at this stage of his Presidency (-18.6%) is only superior to Truman (-19%) for post WW2 Presidents. And Truman has a rebound coming up so Biden will soon be the worst.

Mid-terms are going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats, and unless Biden is dispensed with quickly 2024 is going to be an easy slam-dunk for the Republicans.

Who cares? Biden is hamstrung by the clown's circus that's Congress etc, especially Manchin. If they want to vote wingnut (Republican) just because of some totally unimportant words, more fool them and they get exactly what they deserve.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Normal day in Biden world as he gives a speech rife with gaffes. Claims that Glasgow is in England, says he has cancer when he doesn't, mispronounces some bloke's name and then refers to him as a she.

This would be front-page news for days if Trump was making these errors, but the mainstream media gives Biden as much protection as possible.

Fortunately the American people aren't being fooled and Biden's current net approval at this stage of his Presidency (-18.6%) is only superior to Truman (-19%) for post WW2 Presidents. And Truman has a rebound coming up so Biden will soon be the worst.

Mid-terms are going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats, and unless Biden is dispensed with quickly 2024 is going to be an easy slam-dunk for the Republicans.

Who cares? Biden is hamstrung by the clown's circus that's Congress etc, especially Manchin. If they want to vote wingnut (Republican) just because of some totally unimportant words, more fool them and they get exactly what they deserve.

I don't think it's unimportant. Biden's mental state is so reduced that he struggles to read off an autocue. If he's that bad what's he like in meetings and at policy development? I imagine people will be voting Republican in 2024 to improve the economy, curb inflation and renew America's foreign policy, all of which are elements the Democrats under Biden have completely failed at.

And if Biden is hamstrung by Congress now (with a majority in the House and a practical tie in the Senate) he's going to struggle immensely when he loses both houses in November.

A new poll for Echelon, a Republican polling company, has found the Democrats with a 7-point lead on the generic ballot. Just saying.

Still doesnt really make good reading while the GOP are tearing themselves apart from the inside, with the pro and anti-Trump factions forming. They are in the same boat as the Tories at the minute, they need to decide which direction the party is going to go.

No, but it shows that the dissatisfaction with Biden doesn't automatically translate into dissatisfaction with the Democrats as a whole.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:A new poll for Echelon, a Republican polling company, has found the Democrats with a 7-point lead on the generic ballot. Just saying.

Not sure about them being Republican, but the polling average overall still has the Republicans in a narrow lead over the Democrats.

Mid-terms will be horrific for the Democrats, and it could be a good thing for them as it may ensure that Biden doesn't run in 2024.

Under a week until the mid-term elections, a key test for Biden.

The Democrats currently hold a 220-212 advantage in the House of Representatives, but the Republicans are strongly favoured to flip that right around and gain a majority next week.

The Senate is currently tied at 50-50, with the Democrats holding sway because the Vice President is blue, and the race to gain or keep a majority is very close. It essentially boils down to four separate contests in Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona. If the Democrats can win three of those battles, they should keep the Senate at 50-50; if the Republicans can win two, they'll probably push the Senate to 51-49 in their favour.

In Nevada, the Republican candidate has a narrow polling advantage which appears to be growing. The Republicans are 3/10 to win it, or 56% on 538.

In Georgia, the Republican candidate has recovered from a big polling deficit to take a narrow lead, which appears to still be on an upward trend. 8/13 the Republicans win it, or 53% on 538. Very close.

And in Pennsylvania, the Democrat candidate had what appeared to be an unassailable lead, but this has narrowed considerably to just a 1% lead, principally because the Democrat candidate performed horrifically during the TV debates. The Democrats are actually outsiders to win this one on the betting - 6/4 - but 538 says they have a 57% chance.

There's also the potential of a fourth Senate battle getting closer, in Arizona, which is one the Democrats thought they had locked-in. The Democrat candidate still has a 2% lead in the polling, but this has been complicated by the Libertarian candidate pulling out and endorsing the Republican, which has opened the door for the GOP. As such the Democrats are now only 4/6 to win this, but still a hefty 67% on 538. If the Republicans were to win here then they'd be looking at a 53-47 majority.

If Biden loses both houses then the second half of his Presidency becomes even more difficult.

As the party continues to face an uphill fight for next week's midterms, the President addressed a series of three gatherings in the state to drum up support, but ended up making a series of bizarre gaffes. The 79-year-old mistook the American war in Iraq with the Russian invasion in Ukraine, said his son Beau died in Iraq and claimed he met the "inventor" of insulin. In a point that President Biden makes regularly in public speeches, he attempted to blame rising costs on Russia's war in Ukraine, which has sent energy prices rocketing. Instead he confused his geography and history, saying: "Inflation is a worldwide problem right now because of a war in Iraq and the impact on oil and what Russia is doing," before interjecting: "Excuse me, the war in Ukraine." He then added: "I'm thinking Iraq because that's where my son died." Beau Biden passed away after a battle with brain cancer in May 2015 in Maryland, at the age of 46. He had returned from a yearlong deployment to Iraq five years earlier.

Biden was also mocked online for claiming he "spoke" to the man who "invented" insulin, one of whom died the year before Biden was born.

Sounds like Biden's on top form.

Shouldn't the mid-term elections be posted into a new thread? The spectre of Donald Trump seems to live on even though he was only ever in political power for four years - and part of that was spent learning on the job and then campaigning for the 2020 elections. Even Ronald Reagan had 8 years as Governor of California before getting the Presidency. Trump will be 78 at the time of the next elections and it is not clear whether he is really wanted by the Republican Party - I think the majority don't really like him as he is not a career politician.

Trump has dropped very big hint he'll run again. Lot of sane Republicans don't like him but they know he probably has best chance of winning as his support base still huge. Like many, I was astounded he won before so him running again and winning not inconceivable.

Whoever the Republican candidate is will be favourite to win the election, with the current state the Democrats are in. First and foremost for the Democrats is making sure Biden doesn't run in 2024, distancing themselves from him, and painting themselves as a party of renewal.

I imagine Trump wants to announce an early run to head off DeSantis; the Florida governor being his only realistic challenger to winning the Republican nomination, as things stand. Trump knows if he gets DeSantis out of the way his path is pretty clear.

Unlike Trump, DeSantis should have plenty of time on his side (he's 44) so there's no real haste for him to make a run in 2024, and get in to a messy battle with Trump, if he doesn't want to.

Watched a documentary the other day that suggested 20% (iirc) of Americans are actively preparing for civil war in one way or another.

Duty281 wrote:In Nevada, the Republican candidate has a narrow polling advantage which appears to be growing. The Republicans are 3/10 to win it, or 56% on 538.

In Georgia, the Republican candidate has recovered from a big polling deficit to take a narrow lead, which appears to still be on an upward trend. 8/13 the Republicans win it, or 53% on 538. Very close.

And in Pennsylvania, the Democrat candidate had what appeared to be an unassailable lead, but this has narrowed considerably to just a 1% lead, principally because the Democrat candidate performed horrifically during the TV debates. The Democrats are actually outsiders to win this one on the betting - 6/4 - but 538 says they have a 57% chance.

There's also the potential of a fourth Senate battle getting closer, in Arizona, which is one the Democrats thought they had locked-in. The Democrat candidate still has a 2% lead in the polling, but this has been complicated by the Libertarian candidate pulling out and endorsing the Republican, which has opened the door for the GOP. As such the Democrats are now only 4/6 to win this, but still a hefty 67% on 538. If the Republicans were to win here then they'd be looking at a 53-47 majority.

Nevada has a solid 3% lead for the Republican, but the odds are now 4/11 and 538 only has it at 51% for the Republicans.

Georgia has a narrow 1% lead for the Republicans, but they've strengthened to 1/2 and 63% on 538.

Pennsylvania now has switched to the Republicans in the lead by 0.4% on polling averages and 538 has completely flipped from giving the Democrats a 57% chance to a 43% one. Republicans 8/11.

In Arizona, after complete Democrat dominance in the polling, the Republican candidate has now eked out a narrow 0.3% polling average lead, but 538 has remained largely unmoved, giving the Democrat candidate a 66% chance. Republicans even money with the odds.

New Hampshire has also gotten tighter in recent days. The Democrats were at an 85% chance on 538 at one point, but now they're down to 72%, and their polling lead has come down from around 9% to 1%, so a chance exists for quite a sizable Republican upset.

Democrats will need to win four of these five battles to keep it at 50-50 and retain their effective majority, or all five to get it 51-49 in their favour. Republicans just need to win two or more of the above to regain control of the Senate. The House is harder to follow, but 538 are giving the Republicans an 84% chance of regaining their majority in that place.

There's also Wisconsin. Any idea how the race is going there, Duty?

I was flipping between CNN and Fox last night here as the polling opened.

I noted that Fox had people asking questions to diners in those crucial states... all the punters were angry about the cost of living, food and gas prices, inflation, rising crime rates and border control. Might have missed one or two.

Meanwhile on CNN they opened the news hour with COP 27 in Egypt followed by a candid interview with Nancy Pelosi... before finally moving on to "Our Democracy is under threat".

Democracy is on its way out. States will be run by election deniers. It's not about serving the people anymore, it's about getting people to turn on each other.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Democracy is on its way out. States will be run by election deniers. It's not about serving the people anymore, it's about getting people to turn on each other.

Yes, the world seems to be unravelling at a faster rate.
There's so much spite, vitriol and downright nastiness on display from both sides of the political spectrum.

I thought you wrote "election diners" above.  I think some of the waitresses could do a better job of providing common sense and keeping everyone happy. They should be promoted and paid more.

Should you stand and fight
Should you die for what you think is right
So your useless contribution will be remembered?
If you’re asking me I say no, surrender.

Pal Joey wrote:There's also Wisconsin. Any idea how the race is going there, Duty?

I noted the Guardian has this one in the 'toss-up' category, but it doesn't look particularly close. Republicans are currently 1/12 to win it, and 538 puts the Republicans at 81% chance. Would be a huge upset if the Democrats won in that state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ITSchwNKg

John Kennedy from Louisiana wins my award for 'funniest political advert that I actually thought was a parody'.

Duty281 wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:There's also Wisconsin. Any idea how the race is going there, Duty?

I noted the Guardian has this one in the 'toss-up' category, but it doesn't look particularly close. Republicans are currently 1/12 to win it, and 538 puts the Republicans at 81% chance. Would be a huge upset if the Democrats won in that state.

Might be a huge upset in the offing, as the Democrats are running the reds close in Wisconsin. Still narrowly forecast there for the Republicans to win.

Democrats have put New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in the blue column. Arizona looks to be going the same way, but still a chance for the Republicans in that one.

Republicans need Georgia and Nevada (plus Wisconsin!) to achieve a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Nevada hasn't yet started counting. Georgia is presently v.close, the Republicans ahead by 7k after 3.67m votes. They could hold on, or it could be a run-off.

Wisconsin set to go red so that makes it 49-48 to the Republicans. They need two more of the three battles remaining in the Senate to gain a majority, and so do the Democrats:

Arizona - Looks blue. Democrats have a 6% lead with a third of the votes left to count, albeit mostly in 'red' areas.
Georgia - Going to a run-off in December, it seems. The Republican candidate trails by 0.9%; the Libertarian candidate (who won't be in any run-off) picked up just over 2%, so where that vote goes will decide the race.
Nevada - Republican lead of 2.7% with a quarter of the votes left to count, most of which are in 'blue' areas, so it's incredibly tight.

House looks to be going Republican by a decent margin.

Big winner of the night is DeSantis who retained his Governorship of Florida by a mammoth margin, outperformed Trump's returns in 2020, and flipped the county of Miami-Dade. His star has never been more ascendant.

Duty281 wrote:Wisconsin set to go red so that makes it 49-48 to the Republicans. They need two more of the three battles remaining in the Senate to gain a majority, and so do the Democrats:

Arizona - Looks blue. Democrats have a 6% lead with a third of the votes left to count, albeit mostly in 'red' areas.
Georgia - Going to a run-off in December, it seems. The Republican candidate trails by 0.9%; the Libertarian candidate (who won't be in any run-off) picked up just over 2%, so where that vote goes will decide the race.
Nevada - Republican lead of 2.7% with a quarter of the votes left to count, most of which are in 'blue' areas, so it's incredibly tight.

House looks to be going Republican by a decent margin.

Big winner of the night is DeSantis who retained his Governorship of Florida by a mammoth margin, outperformed Trump's returns in 2020, and flipped the county of Miami-Dade. His star has never been more ascendant.

I see Trump has already started going at DeSantis re: a potential presidential bid against him - clearly quite threatened by his performance and rising star. I suspect DeSantis will make a bid for the Republican nomination?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Wisconsin set to go red so that makes it 49-48 to the Republicans. They need two more of the three battles remaining in the Senate to gain a majority, and so do the Democrats:

Arizona - Looks blue. Democrats have a 6% lead with a third of the votes left to count, albeit mostly in 'red' areas.
Georgia - Going to a run-off in December, it seems. The Republican candidate trails by 0.9%; the Libertarian candidate (who won't be in any run-off) picked up just over 2%, so where that vote goes will decide the race.
Nevada - Republican lead of 2.7% with a quarter of the votes left to count, most of which are in 'blue' areas, so it's incredibly tight.

House looks to be going Republican by a decent margin.

Big winner of the night is DeSantis who retained his Governorship of Florida by a mammoth margin, outperformed Trump's returns in 2020, and flipped the county of Miami-Dade. His star has never been more ascendant.

I see Trump has already started going at DeSantis re: a potential presidential bid against him - clearly quite threatened by his performance and rising star. I suspect DeSantis will make a bid for the Republican nomination?

DeSantis certainly could. He may go for it on the basis that he's never been more popular, may never get a better chance, and (if he won the Republican nomination) would be up against an unpopular Democratic party in 2024.

He may hold off on going for it on the basis that he's still relatively young (44), may not want to get drawn into a battle with Trump that could get very ugly, and his second (and final because of term limits) term as Governor of Florida will end in early 2027, allowing him to make a full and focused run leading up to the 2028 election. Of course holding off would be a gamble because it's near-impossible to predict the political landscape in four years time, but Trump would (presumably) be out of the way by 2028.

Trump's standing has been hurt by these midterm elections, as many candidates he backed lost, but for now he's still the main man in the Republican Party.

Imagine he runs if for nothing else but to place himself as the de facto successor. Don't think he'd take it all the way to the end though

JuliusHMarx wrote:Democracy is on its way out. States will be run by election deniers. It's not about serving the people anymore, it's about getting people to turn on each other.

Personally, I think too many have forgotten what it took to earn the democratic freedoms etc that we have. For most of history, we've been killing each other willy nilly and Europe/US have not been involved in serious armed conflict for at least a generation. One of the few positives of the Ukraine conflict might actually be to remind people in 'The West' (and to show them enough horror) what actual warfare really is, along with the human costs involved. Won't hold my breath though.

navyblueshorts wrote:.... US have not been involved in serious armed conflict for at least a generation. One of the few positives of the Ukraine conflict might actually be to remind people in 'The West' (and to show them enough horror) what actual warfare really is, along with the human costs involved. Won't hold my breath though.

Secret War: How the U.S. Uses Partnerships and Proxy Forces to Wage War Under the Radar, Katherine Yon Ebright, Nov. 2022, Brennan Center for Justice,  New York University School of Law.

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Libya. If you asked the average American where the United States has been at war in the past two decades, you would likely get this short list. But this list is wrong — off by at least 17 countries in which the United States has engaged in armed conflict through ground forces, proxy forces, or air strikes. .........  This proliferation of secret war is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it is undemocratic and dangerous.

Countries with 127e programs (Surrogate Forces to Counter Terrorism): Afghanistan, Iraq, Cameroon, Egypt, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen.

Countries with § 333 programs (Train & Equip): Afghanistan, Albania, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Africa, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/secret-war

No name Bertie wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:.... US have not been involved in serious armed conflict for at least a generation. One of the few positives of the Ukraine conflict might actually be to remind people in 'The West' (and to show them enough horror) what actual warfare really is, along with the human costs involved. Won't hold my breath though.

Secret War: How the U.S. Uses Partnerships and Proxy Forces to Wage War Under the Radar, Katherine Yon Ebright, Nov. 2022, Brennan Center for Justice,  New York University School of Law.

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Libya. If you asked the average American where the United States has been at war in the past two decades, you would likely get this short list. But this list is wrong — off by at least 17 countries in which the United States has engaged in armed conflict through ground forces, proxy forces, or air strikes. .........  This proliferation of secret war is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it is undemocratic and dangerous.

Countries with 127e programs (Surrogate Forces to Counter Terrorism): Afghanistan, Iraq, Cameroon, Egypt, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen.

Countries with § 333 programs (Train & Equip): Afghanistan, Albania, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Africa, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/secret-war

You're missing the point and I said 'The West', not simply the US. You could make a bit of case re. certain points in Iraq/Afghanistan, perhaps. I'm talking about full-on mechanised land warfare of the type seen in WWII (especially), Korea and Vietnam. We're off-topic here anyway...

Based on current reported vote tallies (ABC News)

Looks like the Republicans will take back the House of Representatives with about 222* seats (218 needed for a majority).
* best guess, but looking at the current numbers I'd estimate the range as being about -2 to + 5 (i.e. 220 to 227) on this number - a Dem majority doesn't look possible.

The Senate, currently at 48 seats each, is at least nominally waiting for Alaska, but they have an unusual election system with both an open primary and ranked choice on the one ballot, and the two leaders (by miles) are both Republicans, although one being the incumbent, a notable moderate. (so call 49 R to 48 D)

Arizona looks like the Democrat is likely to win - leading by 6% with 80% of the votes counted.
Nevada much tighter, but the Republican in front by 1% (about 9000 votes) with 88% counted.

Which leaves Georgia - as with the 2020 election, it looks likely that neither of the first two candidates will reach 50% of the vote (the Democrats are at about 49.6%, so will fall just short given there's basically no votes left outstanding), and so based on Georgia's rules, this is likely to go to a run-off election. As with 2020, this could well be the difference between a 50-50 split (which gives the Democrats notional control, because the Vice President casts a vote in the event of a tie) or a 1 seat Republican majority.

Arizona and Nevada are both a complete joke in terms of their vote counting. Yesterday, it was announced that it would take until Monday to count 50k ballots. No wonder people have a lack of faith in their voting system when they see Florida able to count 7 million votes in a few hours, but Nevada (1 million votes) takes a week!

Arizona is practically banked for the Democrats. They should win Nevada as well, which would be an upset, but that one is going to be very narrow.

Should add to the above, that this is considered a success for the Democrats, who would have normally expected much higher losses in a mid term fought during high gas prices, high inflation etc. If they retain control of the Senate, it's a big plus.

Leaves the Republicans with a conundrum over Trump - his endorsement really hasn't been a positive during this campaign, but he still has a loyal following who are less likely to vote for a Republican Party that moves back to their more traditional policy areas. But does a more moderate GOP attract the independents and moderates away from the Democrats sufficiently to offset the loss of the Trump loyalists? And did the recent Supreme Court decision over abortion rights have an unusual 'one off' influence on this election that will have waned in 2 years?

As for the Democrats, looking towards 2024, is an 80 year old Joe Biden the candidate they want to get behind for another 4 years, or is there someone (quite) a bit younger and more dynamic?

The alternative is probably Kamala who nobody really wants. Would guess running against Biden is a layup for DeSanctis

dummy_half wrote:Should add to the above, that this is considered a success for the Democrats, who would have normally expected much higher losses in a mid term fought during high gas prices, high inflation etc. If they retain control of the Senate, it's a big plus.

Leaves the Republicans with a conundrum over Trump - his endorsement really hasn't been a positive during this campaign, but he still has a loyal following who are less likely to vote for a Republican Party that moves back to their more traditional policy areas. But does a more moderate GOP attract the independents and moderates away from the Democrats sufficiently to offset the loss of the Trump loyalists? And did the recent Supreme Court decision over abortion rights have an unusual 'one off' influence on this election that will have waned in 2 years?

As for the Democrats, looking towards 2024, is an 80 year old Joe Biden the candidate they want to get behind for another 4 years, or is there someone (quite) a bit younger and more dynamic?

Yes, it's been a fairly OK showing from the Democrats. They've lost the House but are likely to keep the Senate as things stand. I think the recent Supreme Court decision that you reference was the telling factor in these elections, as it drove turnout in the 18-30 category and motivated Democratic voters who may have otherwise shrugged their shoulders and not bothered.

The Democrats obviously need to get rid of Biden, and they should probably steer clear of Kamala as well. I think the field is very wide open.

Not sure about the Republicans. Trump has been hurt by these midterms, while DeSantis' prospects have never looked better, however the average polling lead for Trump over DeSantis before these midterms was around 25-40%. Has Trump been harmed enough for that lead to have disappeared?

Duty281 wrote:...

Yes, it's been a fairly OK showing from the Democrats. They've lost the House but are likely to keep the Senate as things stand. I think the recent Supreme Court decision that you reference was the telling factor in these elections, as it drove turnout in the 18-30 category and motivated Democratic voters who may have otherwise shrugged their shoulders and not bothered.

The Democrats obviously need to get rid of Biden, and they should probably steer clear of Kamala as well. I think the field is very wide open.

Not sure about the Republicans. Trump has been hurt by these midterms, while DeSantis' prospects have never looked better, however the average polling lead for Trump over DeSantis before these midterms was around 25-40%. Has Trump been harmed enough for that lead to have disappeared?

I think Harris has no chance for 2024 - she's not come across as competent, and has obvious drawbacks from both her gender and race that only a really strong candidate would overcome.
I think Mayor Pete is probably the most competent Democratic candidate, but his personal life (being a married gay man) is probably too big a negative for middle America.

As for the Republicans, De Santis is a smarter version of Trump - strongly socially conservative. The problem he faces is that he doesn't have Trump's celebrity, and so doesn't necessarily have the support around the country that Trump has. Head to head in the Primaries, Trump beats him (at the moment) and also probably any mainstream Republicans who want to run.