It shouldn’t mean lower prices; deflation is bad, we just want a low rate of inflation. What we do want is for wages to outpace that, and for the past couple of years, they have for people at the lower end of the scale (which is also good)
It’s a really interesting test of how much conventional campaigning and turnout strategies really matter nowadays.
Quite a bit of what we do is because “we’ve always done it this way,” and there’s surprisingly little data on what actually makes a difference in an election at this level where both of the candidates are universally known.
I’d start by assuming that he’s either being paid somehow for suddenly supporting TikTok or if there’s something else in it for him. With trump, usually “it’s grift” is the likely explanation for many things.
Of course, but I don’t think that him as the VP candidate changes the odds of that much relative to the other contenders who don’t come with that risk.
VP candidates don’t usually matter much in an election unless they’re freaks with a couch fetish or something weird like that.
Assuming Harris wins, the first midterm federal election is usually ugly for the president’s party, so it’d be a risk. Especially coming off of this election where dems will have to be extremely lucky just to hold onto the majority (even with the vp tiebreaker).
Not hard to have “unity” when they’ve worked to purge anyone from the party who disagreed with the cult.
Ahem, Bush v Gore… bit longer than a decade. They’re certainly more shameless now that they have a larger margin, but republican justices have been pushing an agenda for awhile.
They’re not silly at all, they’re thugs. They want to influence the next one by showing the cost of going against them.
Now, we’re lucky that they’re mostly grifting, incompetent, blustery cowards, so the risk isn’t what it could be.
Gosh, you mean that he’s playing by the rules that the republicans have put in place and not unilaterally disarming? How scandalous.
They should flush the entire “money is speech” concept, but until we can replace most of the SC with people who don’t suck, we work with what we got.
Oddly, sort of related to some of these same complainers sitting out 2016. Weird how elections can have consequences.
Not (re)building in areas prone to wildfires, mudslides, floods, and the like would be a good start. Otherwise, someone has to pay to rebuild when the ever more frequent disaster hits. State farm and other insurers suck in many ways, but this isn’t unreasonable on their part.
Unfortunately, republicans will quite likely take the senate in the next cycle. With Manchin retiring, WV is essentially a republican lock. More broadly, Democrats are defending 20 seats to 11 for republicans, and the lowest hanging fruit for democratic pickups would be Rick Scott (FL) or Ted Cruz (TX), and as much as they both suck, that's still going to be tough.
So, just to retain their slim margin, they'd have to defend all of their other seats and knock off one of those two.
If she only had a record to check… oh, wait, she does:
Haley has consistently supported bills that give rights to an unborn baby and restrict abortion, except when the mother's life is at risk. In 2006, as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Haley voted for the Penalties for Harming an Unborn Child/Fetus law, which asserted that an act of violence against a fetus is akin to a criminal act against the mother. She has also re-signed a new state law that bans abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy.[38]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Nikki_Haley
Haley is opposed to Jail or Death Penalty for women who have abortions.[41][42][43]
Is that the moderate republican position?
If one of them gets into power, Canada might just pay for that wall.
The difference is that Manchin, for all of his many flaws, is probably the only Democratic senator that we're likely to see from WV in the foreseeable future. So, the option isn't "Manchin or a better Democrat", it "Manchin or a hard right-wing republican". WV is one of the reddest of states and it's almost shocking that a Democrat won there at all and it's easy to understand why he bucks the party.
Sinema has no excuse aside from her seeming delusions of importance and dreams of cushy corporate cash once she's out.
The ironic thing about all of this is that the Founding Fathers structured everything in such a way that this should have never been an issue at all. It was originally designed for all parties to vote on a speaker. Whether or not there were two parties, three parties, or 27 parties is irrelevant. The speaker was intended to be someone that all parties could agree on, not just the majority party.
How so? The structure has 'majority wins' and there's nothing to compel the majority to vote for a candidate that 'all parties agree on', nor would that even make sense.
It only got this way because tribal politics has taken over our entire political system, devolving into tribal warfare and an “us vs them” mentality…
This may not be your intent, but this reads like a very elaborate "both sides' argument, when it's really clear that the pathological behavior here isn't evenly distributed between the 'tribes'.
If the roles were reversed, I'd be shocked if Democrats didn't compromise and put in place a power-sharing agreement to allow the House to function.
The republican base isn't conservative in the modern sense, they're reactionary. In a similar vein, evangelical republicans don't support the people who embody the values that they profess to hold sacred, they fully, and loudly, back people who are quite the opposite.
I imagine that both groups feel that they're increasingly losing out in modern society and are seeking someone who'll crush their perceived enemies and return them to their rightful place ruling the rest of us. So, the allure of a strongman to return them to their imagined golden age.
I don’t see how this follows. He was never a serious contender for the DNC in the first place. It always seemed weird he was running as a Democrat instead of a Republican to me as his policies were much closer to Republican policies.
Because he's being funded as a spoiler to siphon off enough Democratic voters to potentially throw the race to trump? trump has a low cap to his general election support (probably mid-40's), but most of that is strongly committed, so he has a high base. With that, he won't win, but if they can run spoiler candidates to pull a few percent, that might be enough to win with his low cap.
The Democratic coalition is far broader, less cohesive, and thus overall more fickle than the modern republican one, so susceptible to these sorts of things.
Because they think that he will hurt people that they’ve been led to hate.