“I want things to be worse for everyone who isn’t exactly like me.”

You’re the worst kind of person.

I feel like most people I have heard talking about them while supporting Trump seem to know that tariffs are taxes, but have no concept of how they play out in a real economic situation. Most fall into one or both of two camps:

A) Tariffs are taxes, but they’re taxes for companies not individuals, and they’re only applied to importing, so they won’t affect me.

B) Tariffs are taxes for foreign companies, to level the playing field and keep American business competitive. Since the companies that have to pay it are foreign, it won’t affect me.

Spoiler alert, guys: no matter where the tax is levied in the system, the consumer is the only person who ever pays for it, since they’re the only ones that can’t pass that cost on to anyone else.

Also, while this can make domestic competitors more competitive, it’s important to remember two things: first, if it works, it’s only working by making things more expensive for consumers, and second, this assumes that the domestic competitors want more business, have the ability and posture to increase their production to meet the new greater demand, and will operate in good faith. Much more likely is that they simply also increase their prices in reaction to the tariffs, so they’re not producing or selling any more volume and aren’t creating any jobs… they’re just padding their profit margins at the corporate/shareholder level while doing nothing for their employees, all while having the average consumer foot the bill.

That’s exactly what happened with the steel tariffs in the first Trump term and that’s exactly what will happen now…the only difference is that this time it seems like there will be significantly fewer economic buffers between the tariff and the consumer, so more people will more directly feel the sting here…and presumably the mental gymnastics from the MAGAts will be even sadder in their attempts to somehow make it not a criticism of their orange leader’s incompetence.

Implying anything needs to be proven in court when the judge is a Trump appointee.

Could the Democrats do more? Sure. But they’re still recovering from the fever that took the party over with Clinton in '92.

If that’s true, Jesus H. Christ, Democratic party, just get out of the way and let someone else fight fascism. If you’re “still recovering” 32 goddamn years later, you’re not recovering. That’s just a permanent part of the party identity. And the people are clearly not wild about what you’ve become if you lose to Donald Fucking Trump two out of three times.

So just quit.

Shut the party down and let something else take its place, because whatever happened in 92 is chronic and terminal, and you’re bringing the rest of the country down with you.

I think the American middle got taken by surprise at their own apathy in '16. Then in '20 they were motivated by fear. This week, they showed that they’ve simply lost faith in the Democratic party, plain and simple. That they’re tired of what they’ve been getting from the party and they’ll accept a horrible person over perpetuating the arrogance and inaction of the Democrats.

And while I can’t say I was too fed up to support Harris, now that Tuesday is behind us, as much as I despise Trump, I have to admit that the Democrats got exactly what they deserved at the ballot box: the same lukewarm apathy they’ve shown the American people the past 12 years.

Maybe they’ll finally get the message and put together a cohesive, intelligent, inspiring platform and message for the midterms, but if history is anything to go by, I’m guessing that this time in 2 years, they’re thrilled as fuck to take back the House (with too slim a majority to do much beyond hold up legislation), with progressives gaining slightly more seats than now, and the party as a whole will still have the same lack of focus, direction, and message…

…and I would bet money that this time in 2026 they still don’t have anything close to an idea of a possible presidential nominee that gets people excited.

Agreed 100%.

If they did this, they would easily carry states with high populations of blue collar and union laborers. Stop paying lip service and actually do it.

States that have had major manufacturing centers in the late 20th century like the Rust Belt.

Like…Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The Democratic party is just paying the price for ignoring blue collar middle class voters since the late 80s. They took those votes for granted, and they lost them over time. Just like after blue collar folks they then took the votes of minorities for granted…and now they’re losing those.

All they need to do is ask what they’ve done for these people lately…like in the past few decades. And when they came really answer that in any terms other than what they prevented the other guys from doing, they shouldn’t have to wonder why enthusiasm for their party’s candidates is at an all time low.

Literally ZERO people I know personally have actually liked and actively, enthusiastically supported any democratic presidential nominee since Obama. That’s twelve fucking years and zero candidates that got people excited and inspired. Most of my friends voted for these candidates, but nobody liked them.

Honestly, if it weren’t for the opposition being so unbearably awful, I’d almost be happy to see the Democratic party handed loss after loss until and unless they learn their lesson and stop taking their base for granted.

Agreed.

Ultimately, polls are simply unable to account for the demographic of “doesn’t participate in advance polling”, and Anthony they attempt to do to account for that glaring weakness is guesswork.

Fair point

A lot has shifted over time, but the default state of American politics has always been two dominant parties.

That said, I could absolutely see a scenario where an American centrist party forms, still solidly to the right of most Western democracy, but centrist by current local standards, which not only pulls in the non-MAGA Republicans but also moderate Democrats, blue collar Dems from purple states, and once it gains traction and wins a few races, massive support from corporations and lobbies.

They’d win landslide victories over both older parties, especially as progressives and leftists gained greater control of the Democratic party through the flight of the moderates to the new centrist party, which would in turn drive even more establishment Dems to the new party.

They could run on nothing more than “common sense compromise, unity, and moving beyond the partisan squabbling that has plagued the country for decades”, and be successful for at least 3 cycles before they even had to really take up any issues in earnest.

The deep South would stay red, the West cost, new York, and Illinois would stay blue, but I could see all of the mid Atlantic, Midwest, plains states, new England, and Southwest going for a viable centrist party.

For a long few years, national level politics would be absolute fucking chaos.

Since he owns the Post, it is very strictly speaking “his business”.

On one hand, I’d love to see the Post endorse Harris, but on the other hand, I do feel that the owner of a company absolutely should have this level of control over their own company.

It might be different if he were compelling the paper to compromise on it’s integrity or something, but simply preventing his own paper from endorsing a political candidate is absolutely something that he should be able to do.

Please note that this isn’t a commentary on his immense wealth, or the role of the ultra wealthy in America…simply an observation on what a business owner should be able to do with their own company.

He’s been alive longer than Hawaii and Alaska have been US states.

I mean…so is my dad…and he’s not even to retirement yet.

I wouldn’t have a problem with a (healthy, sane, responsible, democracy-minded) president in their 60s.

Hell, given those conditions, while I wouldn’t love the idea, I’d be okay with a president in their 80s too.

But my main problem is that Trump ticks exactly zero of those boxes.

Indiana?!

Whoever suggested that she go spend time in a solid red state where the opposing VP was from needs to be tarred and feathered.

Interesting that it works the other way…I assume that in that scenario, there’s also no guarantee that the table would be anywhere close to level in whatever position eliminates wobble?

I’d be totally onboard with a system where they ran it as a tax incentive to vote. Better yet if it were a flat, fixed amount.

Like, in every precinct, you get your name checked off in the voter roll when you vote. It makes no record of who you vote for, only that you did, in fact, go to the polls and exercised your right.

Somehow export that data, send it to the IRS for cross referencing, and at tax time, if you voted in that year, it adds $100 to your tax return. Not a percentage of your income (which benefits the wealthy more than the poor) just a flat amount that basically is the government thanking you for voting. If you didn’t vote there’s no penalty… there’s just no reward.

…that said, this system would depend completely on having election day become a national holiday with businesses closed, etc. Or at the very least, mandating that employers nationwide must schedule every worker for a half day, maximum, on election day, with the other half day being a paid holiday…which would cause an absolute uproar in American politics.

This is one of those things that works in a simulated environment but not in practice in the real world.

That’s just so wildly not true that I can’t believe you didn’t work it out for yourself in the time it took you to type that up.

To test your theory, envision a floor that is a perfectly level pane of glass. Then picture a 4 legged table where one leg is just an eighth inch shorter than the other 3.

You can spin that table all day and there’s never going to be a position where it doesn’t wobble.

I wouldn’t want to make martyrs out of them, which is what that would do.

Instead, have a significant law enforcement presence on standby, and if things go that way, call them in, and round up every single one of them, in the moment, and put them all in jail, pending prosecution.

Speedy trial, sure, but another event like that will easily take months for investigators to sort out all the details and build the state’s case against them. Meanwhile, they’re all sitting in cells, losing their jobs, falling behind on rent and payments, having things repossessed, bringing shame and embarrassment to their families, and just so the state can’t be accused of any sneaky legal maneuvers, their names and faces are to be plastered all over the media.

And bring reasonable charges, no plea deals or consideration of good behavior or lack of prior issues. When these people come out the other end of their sentences (years from now) make sure they have a nice felony conviction dogging any attempts to get their lives back on track for the next decade or three.

Make their actions and the consequences truly hurt. For them and their families. Make the spouses and children feel the pain, create resentment toward their flawed ideology that will last for a generation. And again, make it public. If these idiots want to overthrow our government, they don’t get to slink back into the shadows of whatever armpit they crawled out of for the next 4 years. Let the media hound them, cameras in the street in front of the house, investigative reporters digging up embarrassing details of how they lost their jobs, the whole nine yards. Make their lives suck bad enough that the neighbor’s wife starts telling her husband, “You can be pro-Trump all you like, but so help me, if you bring that shit storm to our family, I will divorce you and take the kids somewhere safe so fast your head will spin!”

In short, don’t make martyrs out of them, make examples out of them.

I’ve long felt that regardless of the levels of “we factored that into our results” that pollsters can accomplish, at the end of the day, these polls can only survey that demographic of “people who agreed to be polled”.

That being said, I feel that Trump gets a slight advantage in any advanced polling thanks to his cult of personality: between Trump and any opponent thus far, a greater percentage of Trump’s followers are more likely to be “loud and proud” enough to want to have their voice heard by a pollster.

I feel this effect is even more pronounced now, with a significant portion of the voting public falling into the camp of “conservative, but put off by Jan. 6th”. People who voted for Trump twice but who won’t this year. These people are also less likely to want to participate in polls.

Where I feel this effect may have tricky implications is whether they stick to their beliefs in the polling booth or just cave in the final moment and still vote Trump…or if they simply don’t vote at the top of the ticket (or vote 3rd party)…but still vote for Republicans down-ticket.

While I’m no pollster, I would not be surprised to find that Trump underperforms vs projections, even as the GOP overperforms in House and Senate elections.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Marjorie Taylor Greene looks like the second or third pic from an Animorphs cover.

Share your art, not your fart!

It’s really impossible to keep this brief, but I’ll try to keep it understandable:

The EC is a body of “electors”, who serve as an intermediary body between the direct democracy of a popular national vote and the actual selection of a president. Their purpose is literally and intentionally to serve as a middleman, both to give a safety net to the ruling classes to make sure that whoever wins an election is someone they approve of, as well as to install a system that takes a national popular vote and basically applies an overlay to it…an overlay that leaves the process open to manipulation, stacking the odds, etc.

I’m not just saying this as a criticism of the system (though it is), this is the explicit purpose of the existence of the system.

Now to the nuts and bolts:

The US has a federal government with three branches: the executive (headed up by the president and including all of the various “Departments” like the departments of State (handling all diplomatic affairs), Defense (the military), Justice Department (FBI), Interior (National Park Service), Education, Agriculture, Homeland Security, etc.

Then there’s the Judicial Branch, which is the federal court system, spearheaded by the Supreme Court. In addition to criminal trials involving federal crimes, they also have the responsibility of deciding on whether laws or actions of other government bodies are constitutional. If not, they have the authority to strike them down.

Last there’s the legislative branch, which is responsible for creating laws and deciding how to spend money. Within the legislative branch, there are two bodies: the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This is because when the government was being created, states were much more independent than they are now, and there was a serious disagreement over how not only the people, but also the states would be represented in federal government.

So for the House, the number of Representatives each state sends is (roughly) proportional to that state’s population; ie. a state with more people living in it will have more representatives than a state with fewer people living in it. The specifics have changed over time, and the way this system works is another issue, but that discussion is for another time.

However, smaller states, and (especially) states with slaves were concerned that even though they had a serious impact on the nation, they had a small voice in government. They wanted a system where their state was on equal footing with more populous states. Where just because they had less people (and by “people”, in that time, they of course meant “land owning white male people”), they wouldn’t have less power.

Thus there were two concessions given to these states to get them to join the union:

First, the three-fifths compromise: when determining population (to see how many representatives each state could send to the House), states were allowed to count each slave living in that state as three-fifths (0.6) of a person. Yes, these slaves, who their states regarded as property any other time, and who sure as hell weren’t allowed to vote…were nonetheless to be allowed to count toward how much voting power their owners would have.

And second…the Senate. The Senate is the other house of Congress, where instead of determining members by population, it’s much simpler: every state gets two. Regardless of population. This puts the smallest state on equal footing with the largest in the Senate.

And since both chambers of Congress (the Senate and the House) must pass a bill in order for it to become law, this is why it’s so hard to get anything done for Congress.

SO!

Now that we know about the house and Senate and why and how they are the way they are… what’s that have to do with the electoral college?

Well…the number of electors from each state are determined by adding up the number of Representatives and Senators that the state sends to Congress. So a small population state like say, Wyoming has one representative because very few people live there…and they get two senators because they are a state and all states get two. 2 + 1 = 3. So in a presidential election, Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes. For a more populous state, like my home state of Pennsylvania, we’ve got 17 representatives. Adding our two senators to that means that Pennsylvania gets 19 electoral votes for president.

Adding up all these electoral votes, it works out such that whichever candidate gets 270 electoral votes wins the presidency.

So you might be thinking, “Hmm… sounds like proportional voting and democracy with extra steps… what’s the big deal?”

Well… there’s two issues going on:

First: It’s only proportional in allocation, but not so much in casting those votes. Of all 50 states, all but two (Maine and Nebraska) are set up such that whoever wins the state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. So take my Pennsylvania for example: we’ve got about 13 million people living here. Obviously not everyone can vote, and not everyone that can vote will vote, but if next month, let’s say all 13 million of us vote…if 12,999,999 people vote for Trump and 1 person votes for Harris, Trump wins all 19 votes. That makes sense. However, if Trump gets 6,500,001 votes and Harris gets 5,999,999 votes, that two vote difference means that Trump still gets all 19 votes. We don’t split them so that he gets 10 and she gets 9. Winner take all.

Not only does this distort the popular vote, but it also has the effect of making a narrow victory in one area the same as a landslide in another.

Second: With the way votes are allocated, the fewest that any state can have is three (one representative and two senators). Even if ten people lived in that state, they still get three votes in the electoral college. Meanwhile, with the way congressional laws work, states with bigger populations do get more representatives…but as a state’s population gets bigger and bigger, even though they get more electoral votes, each of those votes encompasses more and more people.

So looking (approximately) at Wyoming and California: Wyoming has a population of 582,000 and gets 3 votes, California has a population of 39,000,000 and gets 54 votes. That means that every vote in Wyoming represents about 194,000 residents, while every vote in California represents about 723,000 residents.

Doing the math, this means that every vote in Wyoming carries about 3.73x more power than a vote in California.

So in summary: the biggest criticisms of the electoral college are:

1. The lopsided way votes are allocated in the first place.

2. The winner-take-all system awarding the same number of votes for a landslide and a narrow victory distorting the actual voting numbers.

3. The lopsided allocation resulting in a situation where some Americans living in low population states having dramatically more power than others, based simply on where they live.

Of course these issues lead to lots of other weirdness and wrongness…for example: with the winner take all system, candidates don’t even try to win states that are projected to safely go to one candidate or the other…they focus all attention on “battleground” states where the election is set to be close, ignoring millions of people nationwide because they happen to live in a state that’s not competitive. A national popular vote would eliminate state political boundaries and make everyone’s vote matter equally.

Likewise, this is how you end up with a case like 2016: more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump…but those people lived in the wrong states, so basically she won by bigger margins but the margins meant nothing because he won narrow victories in more areas…so even though more people wanted her to be president, because of the electoral college, he got enough votes in the right geographical areas to win the presidency with fewer votes.