2024 Elections Thread

[Kron3007]

Illegal immigration is a clear example for rule by decree. There were no majorities to be had in Congress for liberalizing immigration laws [which I heartily support, by the way]. So the President, or his surrogates, did an end run around Congress and promulgated non-enforcement of the law at the border. This is surely the work of some interest group in the Democratic party, no matter how small.

People do not like the abrogation of the rule of law.

Which president?  It seems this issue has been building for many many years, and several presidencies, from both parties. 

It is rich that republicans shout so much about this when they were the ones who sunk the border legislation they helped write.  Based on their actual actions and votes, what have they done to stop it? 

 

[dismalist]

Illegal immigration is a clear example for rule by decree. There were no majorities to be had in Congress for liberalizing immigration laws [which I heartily support, by the way]. So the President, or his surrogates, did an end run around Congress and promulgated non-enforcement of the law at the border. This is surely the work of some interest group in the Democratic party, no matter how small.

People do not like the abrogation of the rule of law.

Which president?  It seems this issue has been building for many many years, and several presidencies, from both parties. 

It is rich that republicans shout so much about this when they were the ones who sunk the border legislation they helped write.  Based on their actual actions and votes, what have they done to stop it? 

 

As I said upthread: Trump, Trump, Trump!

[Sun_Worshiper]

In general, Americans aren't paying attention to whether Congress passed immigration reform or the President put an executive order into place. To the extent that immigration was a key factor to voters, they were just upset that there seemed to be a lot of undocumented people in the country while they themselves were struggling. If Biden had used executive authority earlier in his term, then that particular issue would have been partially neutralized (partially because Rs would have made a big stink about it anyway). But it still wouldn't have saved Kamala, because people were pissed off about inflation/CoL - and rightly so, although whether that should be laid at the Democrat's feet is a complicated question.

Overall, folks are overthinking the election. Media folks need to write think pieces and we all like to talk politics to death - I get it - but looking ahead Dems should be careful not to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

[marshwiggle]

In general, Americans aren't paying attention to whether Congress passed immigration reform or the President put an executive order into place. To the extent that immigration was a key factor to voters, they were just upset that there seemed to be a lot of undocumented people in the country while they themselves were struggling. If Biden had used executive authority earlier in his term, then that particular issue would have been partially neutralized (partially because Rs would have made a big stink about it anyway). But it still wouldn't have saved Kamala, because people were pissed off about inflation/CoL - and rightly so, although whether that should be laid at the Democrat's feet is a complicated question.

Overall, folks are overthinking the election. Media folks need to write think pieces and we all like to talk politics to death - I get it - but looking ahead Dems should be careful not to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

And probably try not to appear to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

[Sun_Worshiper]

In general, Americans aren't paying attention to whether Congress passed immigration reform or the President put an executive order into place. To the extent that immigration was a key factor to voters, they were just upset that there seemed to be a lot of undocumented people in the country while they themselves were struggling. If Biden had used executive authority earlier in his term, then that particular issue would have been partially neutralized (partially because Rs would have made a big stink about it anyway). But it still wouldn't have saved Kamala, because people were pissed off about inflation/CoL - and rightly so, although whether that should be laid at the Democrat's feet is a complicated question.

Overall, folks are overthinking the election. Media folks need to write think pieces and we all like to talk politics to death - I get it - but looking ahead Dems should be careful not to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

And probably try not to appear to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

Yes, I tend to agree. That "I'm for you, she's for they/them" advertisement was partly playing on people's prejudices/fears, but it was also about Dems focusing on these social issues instead of the "kitchen table" issues that people were most concerned about. That doesn't mean the Dems need to stop being the party of inclusion and protecting minority rights, including the rights of trans people, but too many people think that is all the Democrats have to offer.

[marshwiggle]

In general, Americans aren't paying attention to whether Congress passed immigration reform or the President put an executive order into place. To the extent that immigration was a key factor to voters, they were just upset that there seemed to be a lot of undocumented people in the country while they themselves were struggling. If Biden had used executive authority earlier in his term, then that particular issue would have been partially neutralized (partially because Rs would have made a big stink about it anyway). But it still wouldn't have saved Kamala, because people were pissed off about inflation/CoL - and rightly so, although whether that should be laid at the Democrat's feet is a complicated question.

Overall, folks are overthinking the election. Media folks need to write think pieces and we all like to talk politics to death - I get it - but looking ahead Dems should be careful not to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

And probably try not to appear to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

Yes, I tend to agree. That "I'm for you, she's for they/them" advertisement was partly playing on people's prejudices/fears, but it was also about Dems focusing on these social issues instead of the "kitchen table" issues that people were most concerned about. That doesn't mean the Dems need to stop being the party of inclusion and protecting minority rights, including the rights of trans people, but too many people think that is all the Democrats have to offer.

That will probably continue unless/until they explicitly backtrack (or don't go ahead with) some of the most unpopular policies that are proposed. That would be the best way to make it clear that these things aren't as important as the "kitchen table" issues.

[Kron3007]

Illegal immigration is a clear example for rule by decree. There were no majorities to be had in Congress for liberalizing immigration laws [which I heartily support, by the way]. So the President, or his surrogates, did an end run around Congress and promulgated non-enforcement of the law at the border. This is surely the work of some interest group in the Democratic party, no matter how small.

People do not like the abrogation of the rule of law.

Which president?  It seems this issue has been building for many many years, and several presidencies, from both parties. 

It is rich that republicans shout so much about this when they were the ones who sunk the border legislation they helped write.  Based on their actual actions and votes, what have they done to stop it? 

 

As I said upthread: Trump, Trump, Trump!

Oh, you mean the very one who shut down the bi-partisan immigration bill that included funding to enforce immigration law for electoral gain.  Well played on his part I suppose.

[dismalist]

Illegal immigration is a clear example for rule by decree. There were no majorities to be had in Congress for liberalizing immigration laws [which I heartily support, by the way]. So the President, or his surrogates, did an end run around Congress and promulgated non-enforcement of the law at the border. This is surely the work of some interest group in the Democratic party, no matter how small.

People do not like the abrogation of the rule of law.

Which president?  It seems this issue has been building for many many years, and several presidencies, from both parties. 

It is rich that republicans shout so much about this when they were the ones who sunk the border legislation they helped write.  Based on their actual actions and votes, what have they done to stop it? 

 

As I said upthread: Trump, Trump, Trump!

Oh, you mean the very one who shut down the bi-partisan immigration bill that included funding to enforce immigration law for electoral gain.  Well played on his part I suppose.

Trump, Trump, Trump.

[secundem_artem]

Related to the election and the role that we "elites" and our obsession with pronouns, LatinX (I still don't know how to pronounce that), defund the po po, and who pees where played in losing it for the D's.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/academes-divorce-from-reality

[Sun_Worshiper]

In general, Americans aren't paying attention to whether Congress passed immigration reform or the President put an executive order into place. To the extent that immigration was a key factor to voters, they were just upset that there seemed to be a lot of undocumented people in the country while they themselves were struggling. If Biden had used executive authority earlier in his term, then that particular issue would have been partially neutralized (partially because Rs would have made a big stink about it anyway). But it still wouldn't have saved Kamala, because people were pissed off about inflation/CoL - and rightly so, although whether that should be laid at the Democrat's feet is a complicated question.

Overall, folks are overthinking the election. Media folks need to write think pieces and we all like to talk politics to death - I get it - but looking ahead Dems should be careful not to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

And probably try not to appear to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

Yes, I tend to agree. That "I'm for you, she's for they/them" advertisement was partly playing on people's prejudices/fears, but it was also about Dems focusing on these social issues instead of the "kitchen table" issues that people were most concerned about. That doesn't mean the Dems need to stop being the party of inclusion and protecting minority rights, including the rights of trans people, but too many people think that is all the Democrats have to offer.

That will probably continue unless/until they explicitly backtrack (or don't go ahead with) some of the most unpopular policies that are proposed. That would be the best way to make it clear that these things aren't as important as the "kitchen table" issues.

As far as I know all that Biden did for gays or trans people is to make it more difficult to discriminate against them in a few areas, which I would bet is not unpopular at all. Of course, Republicans made it seem like forcing trans athletes into every girl's locker room in America was all Democrats cared about and that may have resonated with voters, but the answer for Dems is not to make a big show about where they now stand on trans rights, but to instead lean more into economic policies that people like, such as healthcare coverage, paid family leave, minimum wage, etc., while not overly talking about stuff that people clearly don't care much about.

Of course, everything may look different by 2026. Trump is inheriting a mostly good economy. There is a good chance that wages adjust up further and CoL doesn't seem like such a big deal in 26 - although the Admin could mess that up with tariffs or by overdoing it with deportations. There is also a good chance that they blunder in some other ways, such as being too aggressive on rounding up and deporting immigrants, overstepping further on abortion access, or dropping the ball if there is a crisis.

Overall, the point is that the Democrats should not hyperventilate or try to totally reinvent themselves in the next couple of months because of some oped in the NYT or some talking head on Morning Joe. Take a deep breath, have some patience, and see how things go over the next couple of years.

[ciao_yall]

In general, Americans aren't paying attention to whether Congress passed immigration reform or the President put an executive order into place. To the extent that immigration was a key factor to voters, they were just upset that there seemed to be a lot of undocumented people in the country while they themselves were struggling. If Biden had used executive authority earlier in his term, then that particular issue would have been partially neutralized (partially because Rs would have made a big stink about it anyway). But it still wouldn't have saved Kamala, because people were pissed off about inflation/CoL - and rightly so, although whether that should be laid at the Democrat's feet is a complicated question.

Overall, folks are overthinking the election. Media folks need to write think pieces and we all like to talk politics to death - I get it - but looking ahead Dems should be careful not to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

And probably try not to appear to focus on a bunch of shiny objects instead of the economy.

Yes, I tend to agree. That "I'm for you, she's for they/them" advertisement was partly playing on people's prejudices/fears, but it was also about Dems focusing on these social issues instead of the "kitchen table" issues that people were most concerned about. That doesn't mean the Dems need to stop being the party of inclusion and protecting minority rights, including the rights of trans people, but too many people think that is all the Democrats have to offer.

That will probably continue unless/until they explicitly backtrack (or don't go ahead with) some of the most unpopular policies that are proposed. That would be the best way to make it clear that these things aren't as important as the "kitchen table" issues.

As far as I know all that Biden did for gays or trans people is to make it more difficult to discriminate against them in a few areas, which I would bet is not unpopular at all. Of course, Republicans made it seem like forcing trans athletes into every girl's locker room in America was all Democrats cared about and that may have resonated with voters, but the answer for Dems is not to make a big show about where they now stand on trans rights, but to instead lean more into economic policies that people like, such as healthcare coverage, paid family leave, minimum wage, etc., while not overly talking about stuff that people clearly don't care much about.

The D's do talk about those things. But it's more fun to listen to Trump holler about tariffs, mass deportations, men in dresses parading through women's bathrooms and immigrants eating dogs.

Any rational conversation gets drowned out.

Of course, everything may look different by 2026. Trump is inheriting a mostly good economy. There is a good chance that wages adjust up further and CoL doesn't seem like such a big deal in 26 - although the Admin could mess that up with tariffs or by overdoing it with deportations. There is also a good chance that they blunder in some other ways, such as being too aggressive on rounding up and deporting immigrants, overstepping further on abortion access, or dropping the ball if there is a crisis.

Overall, the point is that the Democrats should not hyperventilate or try to totally reinvent themselves in the next couple of months because of some oped in the NYT or some talking head on Morning Joe. Take a deep breath, have some patience, and see how things go over the next couple of years.

I would like to, but every day there is a new grift in the works with the new administration. How much damage can these greedy m-f'ers do in 4 years? And will voters get it, or will Fox News keep distracting them with transgender illegal aliens crossing the border twice and getting two welfare checks, one for each of their identities?

[marshwiggle]

Any rational conversation gets drowned out.

An example follows.

And will voters get it, or will Fox News keep distracting them with transgender illegal aliens crossing the border twice and getting two welfare checks, one for each of their identities?

By combining a whole bunch of issues into a ridiculous caricature, it precludes rational discussion of each issue individually. Suggesting that the combination is clearly unrealistic is used to imply that the none of them by themselves have any merit.

[ciao_yall]

Any rational conversation gets drowned out.

An example follows.

And will voters get it, or will Fox News keep distracting them with transgender illegal aliens crossing the border twice and getting two welfare checks, one for each of their identities?

By combining a whole bunch of issues into a ridiculous caricature, it precludes rational discussion of each issue individually. Suggesting that the combination is clearly unrealistic is used to imply that the none of them by themselves have any merit.

I don't care what bathrooms people use.

I don't care about who plays which sports.

I believe we have plenty of peace and prosperity in this country and room to welcome those fleeing otherwise.

I believe global trade brings global cooperation.

I believe we should fund more social services and education and less police and prisons.

If that makes me an out of touch elite, then I guess that's just what I am.

[marshwiggle]

Any rational conversation gets drowned out.

An example follows.

And will voters get it, or will Fox News keep distracting them with transgender illegal aliens crossing the border twice and getting two welfare checks, one for each of their identities?

By combining a whole bunch of issues into a ridiculous caricature, it precludes rational discussion of each issue individually. Suggesting that the combination is clearly unrealistic is used to imply that the none of them by themselves have any merit.

I don't care what bathrooms people use.

If a single dad sends his 5 year old daughter into the women's bathroom, and a 6 foot, 250lb guy with beard and tattoos follows her in, he cares A LOT.

I don't care about who plays which sports.

When the guy's daughter hits middle school and her soccer team plays against a team with a male player who wieghs 20 lbs more than any girl on her team, and is physically aggressive, he will care A LOT.

I believe we have plenty of peace and prosperity in this country and room to welcome those fleeing otherwise.

There are about 7 billion people on the planet.  If 1% of them wanted to come to the U.S., that would increase the population by 20%. The system couldn't remotely cope with that.

I believe global trade brings global cooperation.


I believe we should fund more social services and education and less police and prisons.

The people who want more police are the victims of crime, who live in the same neighbourhoods as most of the perpetrators of crimes. The only people for whom less police seems realistic are people who are privileged enough to live in areas that are already low on crime.

If that makes me an out of touch elite, then I guess that's just what I am.

Those are all examples of what Rob Henderson calls "luxury beliefs", that can be espoused by the people privileged enough to not have to deal with the realities that they create for the less-privileged.

[ciao_yall]

Any rational conversation gets drowned out.

An example follows.

And will voters get it, or will Fox News keep distracting them with transgender illegal aliens crossing the border twice and getting two welfare checks, one for each of their identities?

By combining a whole bunch of issues into a ridiculous caricature, it precludes rational discussion of each issue individually. Suggesting that the combination is clearly unrealistic is used to imply that the none of them by themselves have any merit.

I don't care what bathrooms people use.

If a single dad sends his 5 year old daughter into the women's bathroom, and a 6 foot, 250lb guy with beard and tattoos follows her in, he cares A LOT.

I don't care about who plays which sports.

When the guy's daughter hits middle school and her soccer team plays against a team with a male player who wieghs 20 lbs more than any girl on her team, and is physically aggressive, he will care A LOT.

I believe we have plenty of peace and prosperity in this country and room to welcome those fleeing otherwise.

There are about 7 billion people on the planet.  If 1% of them wanted to come to the U.S., that would increase the population by 20%. The system couldn't remotely cope with that.

I believe global trade brings global cooperation.


I believe we should fund more social services and education and less police and prisons.

The people who want more police are the victims of crime, who live in the same neighbourhoods as most of the perpetrators of crimes. The only people for whom less police seems realistic are people who are privileged enough to live in areas that are already low on crime.

If that makes me an out of touch elite, then I guess that's just what I am.

Those are all examples of what Rob Henderson calls "luxury beliefs", that can be espoused by the people privileged enough to not have to deal with the realities that they create for the less-privileged.

These are all examples of what is called "the parade of horribles" where someone stretches to imagine the worst possible scenario, insists it is going to be the case all the time, and thus try to convince voters that they must vote to prevent these 0.000001% of situations even if it causes harm and suffering in many more cases.