137 ms·

Trump wins presidency for second time

• stonethrowaway 2y ago
  Morning boys, how’s the water?
• bovermyer 2y ago
  Just out of (actual) curiosity: is the culture divide now strong enough that dissolution of the Union is a possibility? If so, why? If not, why not?
  • DoctorOW 2y ago
    No, because the resources are owned by the United States regardless of how much the people like/dislike the United States, to leave the United States you have to physically leave it. You can't just announce your land is part of some other country. Sure, you could try and fight Civil War 2, but remember all the might of the US Military soldiers/weapons/intelligence/etc. belong to the United States side. You have a 2nd amendment right to form this opposing militia but you'd have to outspend the US Military using your own resources.
    • HaZeust 2y ago
      "Property of" is an abstraction quickly lost when the chips are down; there is no "Essential" property of something, and your honoring of such an idea (or lack thereof) is a direct reflection of your beliefs and values; and, more importantly, your motivations.
    • Galacta7 2y ago
      This would assume that there is consensus on what the "United States" is. If a significant portion of the US Military feels differently, then a civil war is inevitable. This is what basically happened in the actual American Civil War, as a number of U.S. officers and soldiers formed their own forces (under their new Confederate government) to fight against the United States.
      • eric-hu 2y ago
        My civil war knowledge is limited. Are you aware of what happened to larger assets like cannons and warships? I imagine today these would be far more of a deciding power than troops.
        • Galacta7 2y ago
          My understanding is that the Confederacy did seize federal armories, navy yards and other military depots located in the South, which would have supplied a non-insignificant amount of small arms and canons. But most of the antebellum industrial capacity for manufacturing more was in the North, so the Union always had a strategic advantage there. In terms of warships, the CSA did capture and convert existing Union ships in Norfolk, Virginia (despite the Union's efforts to scuttle them as they withdrew). A good number of ironclads were also constructed or purchased from England. With the remaining being commissioned and put into operations by the CSA itself during the war. Interestingly, this also included some very early submarines, which is I think the first time they were used in warfare. That said, the CSA was never able to effectively break the Union's naval blockades, and battles by the opposing armies were far more decisive in the war's outcome. Particularly in the strategically decisive Eastern Theater of the war.
  • stego-tech 2y ago
    I think we're very nearly there, and this could be the tipping point based on how things shake out. If we take Trump et al at their word, then the US economy is going to violently shudder under the weight of unreasonable tariffs, mass deportations, tax cuts on the obscenely wealthy, and a ramming through of unpopular policies that he proclaims (absent evidence) will fix a given problem. The man is a salesman, and he's good at selling lies to the desperate. So what happens if he goes so far that the United States loses or jeopardizes its global dominance? The same states that voted heavily for him would be the first impacted, with massive job losses and higher costs. Coastal states and cities wouldn't be too far behind, with higher costs tempered somewhat by proximity to logistics hubs, and unemployment would be more limited due to the higher concentration of jobs. That is, until our economic dominance falters, at which point our heavily-built-up services industry is likely to fracture and collapse in on itself under the weight of competition from countries like India and China. All of which is to say that, yes, it's a potential outcome that the United States does dissolve in some fashion, as some states seek to preserve their power and economic control even as the Federal Government loses its mind. Now then, do I personally think this is the outcome? No, not really. We lack debt to spend frivolously on deficit financing, so there goes that easy out. The stock market is not the economy, and workers will quickly realize that when stocks skyrocket and they're all laid off 2008-style, which would be bad for those with the most to gain (billionaires and Private Equity). I still think there's enough backstops in place to prevent runaway collapse and dissolution... ...although the biggest one of all is a divided Congress. If the GOP gets a trifecta (Executive, both Legislative chambers, and SCOTUS), then there's nothing stopping the full suite of plans from being implemented post-haste, at which point the music very suddenly stops and everyone realizes how screwed we are. Our prior backstops, our allied countries, cannot be depended upon with a President that is vocally supportive of Russia and while they're dealing with their own populism issues. All in all, my read is that while things are about to get really bad, they're not likely to be maximum bad, if that makes sense. The current world order has always been fragile post-Cold War, and this might be the time for a grand realignment. It'd be a shame to lose our dominance, but no empire lasts forever.
    • rozap 2y ago
      While this seems like a fairly rapid doom and gloom scenario if you think about it in the context of a single term, one has to wonder about what happens in 4 years. He had no problem trying to subvert previous elections. With all branches of government falling in line, it seems like he'll have plenty of time to do as he pleases. So I don't think this is all that far fetched if we look at it as a decade or two process. Obviously he'll die at some point but I imagine he'd appoint a similar successor. But Americans knew this because of Jan 6, so it's what we deserve I guess.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • cryptonector 2y ago
    No. For many many reasons, not the least of which is that an amicable split seems extremely unlikely, and so does a civil war. Next question.
  • latentcall 2y ago
    Yes I absolutely think so. It won’t be a total dissolution, but I would expect coastal states especially on the West Coast to band together and leave the union. This would only happen in my eyes if Trump consolidated power and attempts to extend his term indefinitely OR/AND Trump, being as vengeful as he is, attempts to get back at blue states via federal laws and orders. Some may say “no, to secede you need approval and they will say no!”. Okay, but in this scenario why would states with the GDP the rest of the union relies on just ask nicely? A Trump government threatened individual liberties everywhere and he’s vindictive enough to concentrate on blue states. Check the news today about Newsom’s special session. Plans already under way.
• seivan 2y ago
  [dead]
• Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
• CatWChainsaw 2y ago
  This is the first time I've ever seen HN lag from sheer comment load.
• koolba 2y ago
  For some of us this is not unexpected at all. But the margin and the likely win of the popular vote should send a clear message.
  • rdtsc 2y ago
    Indeed, how the heck did the Democrats lose the popular vote? With Biden getting 80M+ votes in 2020, where did those millions of voters go? Harris was supposed to be Biden++
    • brodouevencode 2y ago
      Because Harris was such a bad candidate.
      • rdtsc 2y ago
        I gotta admit, I didn't see it until the last minute. I had family members canvassing for her Michigan and everything. But hindsight is 20/20.
        • brodouevencode 2y ago
          She seemed so fake.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • panja 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • ainiriand 2y ago
      I would like to skip that rethoric here on HN whenever possible. You cannot possibly reduce 70M voters to that. I would like to explore the whys and hows of this apparent step backwards in so many things and why Trump was voted like he was and this reductionist view helps no one.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• aaron695 2y ago
  Prediction markets had this a fair few hours ago, which is interesting. https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024?tid=1730711795961 https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-20... There was a blip with the sweep though which is also interesting - https://polymarket.com/event/balance-of-power-2024-election?tid=1730878231000 https://polymarket.com/event/balance-of-power-2024-election?...
  • rapsey 2y ago
    And the pollsters were all so wrong. I guess we are in a new era of prediction markets.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > the pollsters were all so wrong They were wrong by about 3 points nationally, which is a normal error.
  • creato 2y ago
    The prediction markets pretty closely tracked NYT's probability estimate, which seems like the best possible analysis of the available data (partial current results, complete past results, at the precinct level). Anything else would have been surprising.
• rvz 2y ago
  and on track to win the popular vote with the senate and House all going... Red. How has this happened and what went wrong? Discuss. Edit: Flagged as usual.
  • tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    Running a primary is like checking in code to the build. You learn a lot of things you cant anticipate, without engaging with the real world. For elections this includes all the things that people think about a candidate that they don’t feel comfortable saying out loud, or even operate subconsciously. A candidate without a primary is extremely risky.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • throwaway-153 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • Ekaros 2y ago
    Maybe demonising major fraction of voters is not most effective tactic. Maybe you need to show that you actually did something for people in past term. Maybe you need to show that things that matter for many will get better. Say living conditions or cost of living.
    • cen4 2y ago
      They could learn more from Bernie.
    • 0xEF 2y ago
      I've been voting in the US since the 1990's. We've never had a presidential candidate that won and actually delivered on their promises, all of which have generally hovered around the idea that "things will be better this time." What makes you think this one will be any different?
    • toastercat 2y ago
• grecy 2y ago
  Love him or hate him, it will be fascinating to see if the democratic institutions of the United States can endure this. He has made it very clear he wants to dismantle as much as he can, including term limits. Time will tell if the US really is the greatest democracy and can withstand a wannabe dictator, or if he really can subvert it all. It’s going to be a wild four years, and I fear more wall building.
  • gadders 2y ago
    You think congressional term limits would be a bad thing?
    • bagels 2y ago
      Op is saying that presidential term limits will be removed/ignored, following Russia's example.
      • readthenotes1 2y ago
        Histrionic, but understandable given how many people have stridently compared Trump to Hitler. He's not that powerful
        • miningape 2y ago
          Literally, what are these people on about? He'll be out in 4 years chill
        • LunaSea 2y ago
          The entire Republican party lost their footing against him and were replaced.
      • kzrdude 2y ago
        The same thing was done in China a few years back
      • sixothree 2y ago
• thefounder 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • jpmoral 2y ago
    Regardless of your views on DEI, why should that be up to the government?
    • zmgsabst 2y ago
      The government sponsors a number of DIE programs. Also, it can enforce a ban on the discrimination we saw at Harvard and UNC (and which pervades institutions, both university and business).
    • thefounder 2y ago
      Because discrimination is bad and I don’t like to be told that I have to use a x race, gender, sexual orientation in the lead role of “my movie”.
• rapsey 2y ago
  Removing Lina Khan and Gary Gensler from their positions will do wonders for the tech industry.
  • EdwardDiego 2y ago
    Won't be great for consumers though, at least Khan.
  • jarbus 2y ago
    Lina Khan has been fantastic imo, even for tech. I think she forces companies to compete where we actually want competition, and not let us rely on insane levels of lock in
    • lynndotpy 2y ago
      Yeah. Tech employees and tech companies themselves are consumers of other tech. Lina Khan was what we needed for a long time, and it's a bad thing for everyone that she will be unable to finish what she started.
    • rapsey 2y ago
      Her strategy denies liquidity in the startup ecosystem. The very thing that enabled sillicon valley to become what it is. Generations of founders moving on and create new companies in new markets. If you disagree what are the examples?
    • nsokolsky 2y ago
      Such as preventing Microsoft from buying Blizzard to prevent a monopoly on checks notes... video games? :-) If you're worried about a 'monopoly' on Call of Duty, then I guess it's great. Otherwise I sincerely don't understand why the tech community would be supporting the FTC policies of the past 4 years.
  • ric2b 2y ago
    If by industry you mean exclusively the already giant tech companies.
• Quothling 2y ago
  It'll be interesting to see what this will mean for European dependence on US tech companies. I'm not personally against companies like Microsoft as such, in fact I think they are one of the better IT business partners for non-tech Enterprise. Often what they sell is vastly underestimated by their critics within the EU, not that I disagree with the problematic nature of depending on foreign tech companies either. With the proposed deregulation of US tech and their "freeing", however, I wonder if a lot of organisations will be capable of continuing using US tech services or it'll move in the direction of how Chinese (and other) services aren't legally available for a lot of things.
  • physicsguy 2y ago
    I work for a European company and we already have strict rules about what data we’re allowed to remit into the US. Typically we’re only allowed to use cloud products hosted within UK + EU. It’s actually causing problems for us now with some of the generative AI stuff since the Azure offering doesn’t match fully the APIs of OpenAI for e.g.
    • Quothling 2y ago
      It's similar for us. Since I work in the energy industry we're required to have plans for how to exit Microsoft if the EU deems it too dangerous for too much of the energy industry to be reliant on Microsoft. Which is part of why I worry, because we honestly can't. We can leave Azure, but we can't easily leave the 365 platform. By easily I mean that we may not survive as a company if we have to do it. It can obviously be done, we just don't have the resources required to do it.
      • GTP 2y ago
        I'm genuinely curious to hear why it would be so hard to leave the Office 365 platform, to the point that it could mean have to shut down the company. I know it isn't something that can be done overnight, but this is on a whole different level than what I assumed the case to be. To make my question more concrete, let's say the EU gives you two years to move away from Office 365, why would this jeopardize your company?
• kazinator 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • selimthegrim 2y ago
    Um, a 19th century Democrat philanderer might want a word from the grave.
    • kazinator 2y ago
      Ah OK, so Trump is only the second? And it's been well over 100 years since the previous occurrence, in any case.
  • Shawnj2 2y ago
    Grover Cleveland would like a word (also I think that Biden will be harder on Putin than Trump but idk)
  • slau 2y ago
    Grover Cleveland would like a word. He won the popular vote 3 times in a row, but lost the EC vote in 1888. Edit: I’m amazed all 3 replies to the parent comment used the phrasing “would like a word”.
    • imjonse 2y ago
      same initial prompt, different temperature and max_new_token settings.
  • luigi23 2y ago
    Grover Cleveland would like a word
• TrackerFF 2y ago
  This election has been a testament to the complete and utter obliviousness of the American voter, as far as economics goes. All polls have indicated that economy and inflation was the number 1 issue that voters on the right cared about, and yet they haven't flinched at the proposals that Trump have laid out. Musk even said it in clear language, that there will be "austerity" moving forward. The greatest grift in modern times - and the people that stood most to lose walked straight into it, cheering. I guess the only hope is that the economy is fine, and improving - which makes any radical changes much more visible and risky. If Trump and Musk want to set off the bomb and likely crater it, then they'll own that mess. But hopefully they'll just do nothing, and try to take credit for the trajectory they've inherited - for the sake of your average citizen. But the courts will be screwed for decades.
  • mbg721 2y ago
    Harris proposed peacetime price controls, an idea that hasn't been tried since Nixon, and for good reason. I don't think Democrats have the high ground on economics.
    • TrackerFF 2y ago
      Let's see how the trade war of all trade wars will play out for average Joe down in Mississippi. All while social safety nets are disintegrating underneath his feet. What's dangerous about this is not the plan itself, but that there won't be anyone to confront Trump about his half-baked, or downright disastrous plans.
      • selfmodruntime 2y ago
        You are severely underestimating the American ability to strong-arm other nations in their economic favor.
        • TrackerFF 2y ago
          Last time Trump tried, it ended up costing farmers tens of billions. That time (2018) the tariffs were under 30%, this time around, he's promised 60%.
• svara 2y ago
  This European travels to the US all the time, having probably spent an average of 1-2 months or so there yearly over the past couple years. With very few exceptions I've never met people there who outwardly seemed like they'd like someone as a leader who habitually lies and tries to usurp democratic institutions for personal gain. What the hell is going on there guys? Are you just voting for the person who promises the most "interesting" times, for better or for worse?
  • Shawnj2 2y ago
    The people in cities vote blue, and people in rural areas vote red. I doubt you’re meeting the latter on trips
    • a_victorp 2y ago
      Around 1 in 5 Americans live in rural areas. It's not enough to win the election
  • disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    He's promising reindustrialisation to a bunch of the Midwest and less competition for jobs to a bunch of poorer people. It's sort of rational, even though I disagree.
    • kzrdude 2y ago
      He is not trustworthy with either facts or consistent opinions, so voting for him for something he's /said/ he would do is the stupidest thing anyone could do.
      • disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        I didn't say I thought it was a good idea, but clearly a lot of American voters think this is worth trying.
    • selimthegrim 2y ago
• StefanBatory 2y ago
  As a Pole I'm very afraid what this will mean for my region. With Trump wanting to support Russia over Ukraine and his talk about leaving NATO, yeah.
  • stavros 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • moralestapia 2y ago
      The "no war" candidate is/was Trump.
      • stavros 2y ago
        Is this "no war anywhere", or "no war for us until it comes to our doorstep, other than that I don't care"?
      • V__ 2y ago
        He wants Netanjahu to go hard on Gaza and give half of Ukraine to Russia... easy to be a no-war candidate that way.
      • LunaSea 2y ago
        Yes, if you immediately give up and lose you're technically not at war anymore. Trump made the US look like a joke.
        • moralestapia 2y ago
          So the war has to continue in order to have no war? Let me put my clown mask on ...
          • LunaSea 2y ago
            Or, you know, you can win. The mask goes well with the candidate.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• kaon_ 2y ago
  Here's a European perspective that is somewhat pro-Trump, surprising as it may sound. I am Dutch and if someone would come along and promise the following: "We're gonna lower your taxes so you have more money to spend" "We're gonna take a sledge hammer to bloated policies so everything will run smoothly. Then we will build a million houses per year" I would very much consider voting for that person. That said, Trump is a madman, he lies all the time, is a danger to institutions etc. At the same time, I am so disgruntled by the current system and by not a single politician tackling or even speaking about relevant issues that I am easily swayed.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Etheryte 2y ago
    I think this is highly relatable, especially in the Netherlands where the housing situation is beyond bonkers. The protest vote is strong and/or gaining strength in many countries across the world to reflect this fact: the quality of life for the average person has either stagnated or fallen in many places, and that's a very strong rally point on election day.
    • Cthulhu_ 2y ago
      Yeah but whose fault is that? A vote for the right is a vote for the rich, the very same that hovered up and concentrated all the newly gained wealth because any taxation has been dropped or they found ways to avoid paying taxes altogether, thus preventing the redistribution of generated wealth. But this is the doublethink that the right-wing is somehow able to pull off. They aren't promising that people will be better off, that wealth will be distributed. Instead they're pointing at even poorer people like immigrants and saying "they're taking your jobs". Yeah the quality of life for the average person is stagnating, but that's down to politicians and the rich, not to whatever boogeyman they're pushing.
      • Etheryte 2y ago
        I think this misses the point entirely. It's not about blame, or promises of this or that, it's about hope for change. Whether that will be a positive change or not remains to be seen, but if your life is shit, any change can feel better than no change, because at least there's hope that it might be better.
• astkaasa 2y ago
  [flagged]
• wyattblue 2y ago
  Reasons I think why Trump won: - Biden's Inflation - Fortunate timing - Donald Trump is not too too old - Israel/Gaza split Democratic Base - Harris underestimated the podcasting world
  • foldr 2y ago
    > Biden's Inflation An international perspective is useful here: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/15/in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world-inflation-is-high-and-getting-higher/ft_22-06-08_globalinflation_2-png/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/15/in-the-u-...
  • JSDevOps 2y ago
    You know also immigration, price at the supermarket which yes is part of Biden inflation and also the assignation attempts. How quickly we forget.
  • anshumankmr 2y ago
    Trump also campaigned as firmly against progressive causes.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• aucisson_masque 2y ago
  Is there some statistical analysis on the reason people vote trump ? I refuse to believe the narrative that Americans are just a bunch of redneck retarded bigots. Tried to Google it but all I find is a bunch of American news website like CNN and website like https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-trump-voters https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/the-five-types-t... I'm trying to look beyond the propaganda, any idea if there has been scientific studies or anything remotely credible ?
  • svara 2y ago
    If you have access to the Economist this selection of reader's letters in response to their endorsement of Harris is quite enlightening. https://www.economist.com/letters/2024/11/04/letters-to-the-editor https://www.economist.com/letters/2024/11/04/letters-to-the-...
    • MaKey 2y ago
      Non-paywalled link: https://archive.is/QRAyX https://archive.is/QRAyX
    • nosianu 2y ago
      I just did. Unfortunately I did not learn much. The first few letters were pro-Trump, but with for me unconvincing reasoning, I think OP asked for something better - and I read it because I too wanted to hear something with more substance. Most letters were even against Trump. Most pro Trump arguments seem to be some vague statements about freedom of speech and "weaponizing of the Justice Department", which I find unconvincing given the things Trump said several times during the last few months, indicating he would do exactly that and worse. The letters are as vague as this example: > My concern is that Ms Harris will at a minimum continue the leftist direction of America that has been pursued, or at least tolerated, by Joe Biden. Not to mention the violation of basic constitutional rights that the president tried to introduce with his vaccine mandate during the pandemic. or > Mr Trump will cut bureaucracy and regulations to unleash creativity and productivity in the American economy, especially manufacturing. Ms Harris will inflict taxes and spending that will spur higher deficits and inflation. or > You overlooked the unacceptable risks posed by the Democratic Party and Vice-President Harris. These include support for censorship, political correctness, selective prosecution and soft totalitarianism. The Republicans spend more, impose tariffs, and obsess on immigration whereas the Democrats tax more, regulate more and censor. Neither party confronts the hard choices required to limit monetary expansion, deficits and entitlements that gnaw at the dollar. I choose the Republicans because I value freedom of speech and oppose the totalitarianism implied in weaponising the Justice Department. and that's most of the pro-Trump statements already. I have no doubt the arguments exist, and those I wanted to hear, because I too share OPs question.
• melodyogonna 2y ago
  Ah, so Twitter had the more quality real-world signal; who would have thought? It seems "hate and disinformation" are just what people were feeling, and what they were thinking.
  • TheAlchemist 2y ago
    How so ? This is Brexit all over again.
    • manquer 2y ago
      Don't think so, the Tory leadership at the time did not really want to leave, but it was a useful rabble rousing position to energize their base. Ideally just falling short was the best scenario they wished, so they could keep blaming Europe for everything but not really face the consequences of the exit they are facing now. Trump voters are not casting a protest vote, how much ever now it is going to be retconned as disinformation, stupidity or anti Gaza vote, the reality is they fully expected to win if not democratically then by force.
    • melodyogonna 2y ago
      I wouldn't know about that, I was not on Twitter when Brexit was being campaigned. What I do know is that, unlike possibly every other platform, on Twitter, it always felt like Trump would win.
      • bdcp 2y ago
        I'm convinced Twitter single-handedly won the election. Everyone that are pro Trump seems to be coming from Twitter, with the same talking points as Musk. Elon sure got it's money's worth.
      • TheAlchemist 2y ago
        Is it surprising ? Twitter is owned by a guy* who fully backed Trump and thrown a ton of money behind. *Which also happen to be a guy that needs a 'get out of jail free' card, that Trump can offer
• bdcp 2y ago
  I think people underestimate the impact of misinformation platforms like Twitter and TikTok.
  • cryptozeus 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • bdcp 2y ago
      Really I'm in a bubble because i don't use Twitter? Damn
      • cpursley 2y ago
        You don’t use Twitter, but you’re absolutely convinced with religious convention that Twitter is a misinformation platform? I don’t know about you, but I quite like the first amendment right that guarantees safe spaces to speak our minds.
        • bdcp 2y ago
          I did use it a lot. Have you considered Twitter might be an information bubble? Musk says sensible stuff. But his actions are completely opposite. "Free speech is essential to democracy" OF COURSE No one is taking that away. They said the same thing before Biden won. It's just fear mongering and people eat it up. He talks free speech and then buys Twitter and removes community notes from his account just to push his agenda. It's free speech but it's all fabricated propaganda. Trump on jan 6th commanded his goons in the bubble to try to steal the election with the fake electoral plot. Look it up. No mention of that on free Twitter. They are literally trying to install Trump as dictator under your nose. While you fight here about free speech. It's ridiculous, and people eat it up.
          • cpursley 2y ago
            Speaking of bubbles…
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• xenospn 2y ago
  Very happy I visited Ukraine earlier this year. Won't be much left soon, unfortunately.
  • throwaway-153 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      "Putin and Trump will together" Joking? So if Trump forces Ukraine to surrender by withdrawing aid, that is a 'working together'? That is peace? Russia is still the main enemy, right?
      • sirbutters 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • FrustratedMonky 2y ago
          Man. You think?? So easy to get pulled in and think it is a person.
  • beretguy 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • dang 2y ago
      Yikes, we have to ban accounts that post like this, so please definitely don't post like this, regardless of how wrong anyone is or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • xenospn 2y ago
        Apparently people feel very strongly about visiting Ukraine. I wonder why :)
• lancebeet 2y ago
  It's interesting how bad the democrats seem to be at the game of winning elections. They continuously seem to pick bad candidates and poor strategies resulting in them losing the election when they seem to have had the general conditions for winning. This time, the elephant in the room is of course the late ousting of Joe Biden, but there were similar issues that (in hindsight at least) were obvious in the Clinton 2016 campaign. This pattern can be seen in other countries as well, where it's clear that one group knows how to play the game while other groups don't, but it's surprising to me that a massive organization like the democratic party wouldn't have streamlined this process. It would be interesting to hear from someone more familiar with the inner workings of the democratic party why this is. I.e., if it's a cultural issue in the party, if it's economical, or if my view on this is completely off.
  • dyauspitr 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • zimpenfish 2y ago
    The Democrats are somewhat hampered by their focus on facts and rationality ("play fair") rather than spouting bullshit, conspiracy theories, and whatever bigotry is currently hot ("win at all costs").
    • komali2 2y ago
      Also by the fact that their unwillingness to turn on their capital sponsors, who don't really care whose in power and whose needs are ostensibly better met by republicans (so long as republicans don't start a trade war...) Dems will continue to make the mistake of coasting deeper into the right wing, picking up 0 voters in doing so (why would I vote for a "tough on immigration" candidate when I can vote for the one who gleefully promises to deport all the browns?), meanwhile disenfranchising any left wing voters left in the USA and creating no new left wing voter bloc by presenting a coherent alternative to the reactionaries. The same mistake is being made by neo liberal parties across the world.
      • 2y ago
• Signor65 2y ago
  Either way it goes, all I can say is "Good Luck everybody"
• TinkersW 2y ago
  Not a Trump voter so can't say exactly why they vote for him, but my guess would be the rather toxic race/sexism obsessed narrative the far left pushes. Every article nowadays rambles on about it, ever book/tv show also, it is tiresome and self defeating. Also so much negativity directed at males, especially white ones. The trans stuff is also a factor I'd guess, even as someone who voted for Harris I don't care for this level of anti science belief that a guy is now a women just because they say so. Harris didn't really push this narrative as far as I can tell, but unfortunately some of her supporters do(and the media outlets they run). Or perhaps the Trump voters actually believe he can somehow lower grocery store costs, though to me this seems like it would require some real mental gymnastics to believe, or deep ignorance.
  • cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    There is no "far left" in the United States electoral system, get a grip.
    • rightbyte 2y ago
      There is no left either. At least in any meaningful definition of the term. Maybe you could say there always is a 'more left' party. But that is not very usefull.
  • blashyrk 2y ago
    On the right you mostly have "proper" religion, mainly Christianity (in the western world at least), while on the left you have the church of identity politics. Everyone seems to be laughing at centrists nowadays, ya know the "enlightened centrist" meme, but it's the only truly secular position today. The left remains stubborn in persecuting even an ounce of independent thought (or any thought that goes against the established dogma) on topics related to gender/race/identity and dismissing people with different opinions as "bigots". And then they wonder why people simply stop expressing their opinions loudly and opt to express them via voting instead. And then when the voting results come in, they double down: "I can't believe 50+% of the population is RACIST, SEXIST, BIGOTED, UNEDUCATED, STUPID!" It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really.
  • 2y ago
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• innocentdang 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • jansan 2y ago
    I don't think Hackernews should multiply the emotions of some of its users.
  • ivvve 2y ago
    Please don't be histrionic, this is the last place that needs it.
• sebastianconcpt 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • talldayo 2y ago
    Surveillance is a bipartisan interest, and neither candidate would or will limit US surveillance capabilities. We do this to ourselves, by electing to only use products that are marketed to us as safe or private. Of course, the only businesses successful enough to mass-advertise their products are the ones that acquiesce to horrible surveillance states like China, Russia and FIVE-EYES. So... NSA wins, fearmongers and paranoia-mongering politicians win, international adversaries win, and all American voters on either side of the aisle lose. We're just too dumb of a nation to seriously resist surveillance, no matter who wins whatever election.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
  • manquer 2y ago
    Republicans perhaps have got value, Trump has got enormous real world value/benefit because of Musk's ownership. However unless Musk is actually able to capitalize using the Trump presidency enough to recoup the $44Billion cash he spent he hasn't got his money's worth it.
• major505 2y ago
  Well, we gonna have 4 years of amazing memes.
  • iLoveOncall 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • dataengineer56 2y ago
      He's quite old and no other Republican figure comes close to his popularity or cult-like following (assuming Americans aren't crazy enough to actually support RFK Jr). I'd imagine he'll do one term and then the next Republican candidate will be a more conventional politician.
      • major505 2y ago
        I think he chose Vance for a reason. I think he wnats him to be his sucessor. I dont know much about Vance, but I saw his interview in the Joe Rogan, and he went very well there. Seens to have a good head above the shoulds and can be this more conventional politician you are talking about
      • iainmerrick 2y ago
        You don’t imagine the next candidate will be an anointed successor, or at least somebody doubling down on the same approach? Why wouldn’t it be?
        • major505 2y ago
          I dont know, 4 years are hard to predict. I can see the current crisis in the world deepening and people search for a more traditional politician for that reason, like somoone more predictable in times of uncertain? Not that I think the next 4 years of Trump will be bad for the avarage american. I think I will be troubled for the whole world because things are already walking in this direction.
        • dataengineer56 2y ago
• bakugo 2y ago
  Don't really care much about this election since I'm not a US citizen, but I decided to check out Bluesky as the results were coming in and it confirmed my long-time suspicion that roughly 99% of its users are far left American political activists. Literally the entire discovery feed was post after post of said activists apparently suffering from legitimate mental breakdowns as if the entire world was crumbling around them.
  • irusensei 2y ago
    [dead]
  • bogle 2y ago
    Hold that thought. HN Commentators, feel free to correct me if I've mis-read the room, but I think there are very few here who do not realise that Trump's presidency will go poorly for the USA and the rest of the world's democracies.
    • cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      I think in fact you'll find there's been a huge rightward shift in the tech sector in the US and HN reflects that.
      • Tainnor 2y ago
        800 VCs backed Kamala Harris. There has been some rightward shift, yes, but probably not enough to offset the general vibe.
        • cmrdporcupine 2y ago
          Should be interesting to see how those folks are treated by the Musk-Vance-Thiel axis that just took power in the Whitehouse.
      • maxehmookau 2y ago
        The rightward shift in the tech sector seems to only apply to executives. ICs seem to be as lefty as they always have been.
• throwaway241106 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • thedrbrian 2y ago
    weird how Harris is so in favour of my body my choice but not like that.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• andy_ppp 2y ago
  My theory: people are just hacked off that life is getting worse for most people while billionaires get richer and richer. Every disaster the wealthy get handouts while the poor have to pay for them. Government can no longer afford anything because all of its assets have been sold and rented back at a profit. I don’t think either campaign made any difference to the outcome of this election at all. In conclusion it might be an amazing economy on the high level averages but when inflation caused by COVID handouts (I’m reading $16 TRILLION, but that can’t be real surely?) is always going to lose you an election badly.
  • patatero 2y ago
    Inflation were caused by mass factories shutdown in China and South East Asia. When they reopen they got so many orders that they simply increase their prices.
    • andy_ppp 2y ago
      Do you have any references for that? I think it could be part of the story but I still think printing trillions of dollars will make things more expensive, especially when you consider where this money went!
  • porbelm 2y ago
    But... but... Trump's policies are even more tax breaks for the rich and tariffs on everything, do people not understand this?
    • andy_ppp 2y ago
      I think they just assume things can’t get worse so f** it. Most people only vaguely know policies and are voting based on feelings.
    • justin66 2y ago
      Narrator: people did not understand this
    • 2y ago
• ramoz 2y ago
  As an American who grew from nothing, served in the military, and expanded in my career - I find the concerns for Democracy comical. Most of you do not understand the type of people that built and fought for democracy. There is no real fear amongst these same type of people in modern America.
  • selfmodruntime 2y ago
    Hopefully, the economy will recover with him as president.
    • pavlov 2y ago
      Recover? It’s better than ever on every actual metric. But I do look forward to February 2025, when journalists will once again travel to rural Pennsylvania to interview Trump voters in diners who will say that the economy is amazing now that the Great Man has been in power for a whole week. The magic of recovery!
      • e40 2y ago
        This will absolutely happen. Within days of taking office he will take credit for the “great” economy and his followers will eat it up.
        • xnx 2y ago
          I disagree. He will start taking credit for anything good that happens in the economy now, and blame anything bad that happens in the economy on Biden.
      • selfmodruntime 2y ago
        > Recover? It’s better than ever on every actual metric. Except for all metrics that matter. People are on average much poorer.
        • steve_adams_86 2y ago
• submeta 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • hughesjj 2y ago
    Statistically no. Stein has 0% vote in most swing states.
  • selimthegrim 2y ago
    Trump in MI had more of a lead than the 100k gap that went to Stein
  • lynndotpy 2y ago
    I am also critical of Israel's far-right government and their brutal war, and I was also worried that the protest vote might swing the election. But this narrative is not supported by the numbers we're seeing. Even in Michigan, Trump has a lead of >100K. Stein is at 36K, and RFK and the Libertarian party have a combined 47K. The Uncommitted Movement mobilized otherwise-unlikely voters.
  • Maken 2y ago
    It is probably one of the factors, but not the only one. Or maybe it's part of the "not a meaningful difference" factor.
  • submeta 2y ago
    > In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they'd be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they'd be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
  From my perspective, Harris mostly failed to convey what her agenda is. The way I inform myself about politicians is by typing "<name> interview" into YouTube and listen to a few hours of interviews with them. With Harris, nothing stuck except that she is pro taxing the rich. With Trump, what stuck is that he is pro border, pro Bitcoin, pro tariffs and pro Tesla.
  • lom 2y ago
    If you had actually done this you would’ve realized that Trump has “concepts of a plan” for childcare and healthcare. Despite promising us his plans for 8 years now.
    • ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
      This seems to be a misunderstanding. With "stuck" I mean information about the candidate that stuck with me.
• haunter 2y ago
  How did polls go so wrong? “gold standard” Ann Selzer predicted +3 Harris in Iowa and it became +14 Trump. That’s an incredible miss from a pollster.
  • acdha 2y ago
    That’s one poll and there are always outliers, but the averages were pretty accurate - roughly a tossup based on turnout, with error rates around the 2-3% we saw. As with 2016, those correlated in the same direction so the polling industry still hasn’t figured out how to weight Trump’s impact on turnout.
  • athrowaway3z 2y ago
    My guess: Goodhart's law > Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    The polls, in aggregate, were fairly accurate: 50/50 chance for the most part. The Selzer Iowa poll felt like false hope to me immediately.
• the5avage 2y ago
  Is there some analysis why the polls didn't correctly predict the result? A failure in representative polls like this should be avoided with statistical methods.
  • nojs 2y ago
    The betting odds were not particularly close, especially in the last few weeks. It’s better to look at these rather than polling.
  • astrange 2y ago
    The polls all said it was 50/50. They seem to be very accurate so far.
    • agumonkey 2y ago
      Trump seemed to have a head start early on, it really didn't feel like a close call somehow.
      • vdvsvwvwvwvwv 2y ago
        Do you mean early in the counting? Surely thay doesn't matter.
        • agumonkey 2y ago
          yeah it's was a fuzzy comment, i guess you mean the important/big states are always known last, but he really was ahead all along with a comfortable margin
          • drawkward 2y ago
            The order in which the votes are counted dows not matter!
            • rightbyte 2y ago
• phs318u 2y ago
  To all the people wondering why Trump has been elected, the answer is very simple and has been true in all countries that have had elections. When a large section of the voting public is chronically missing out on the benefits of what they're told is a "growing economy", only to observe continued "unfair" extremes of wealth distribution, they become disenchanted with the system that has generated this situation. By definition almost, they become very willing prey for any demagogue that threatens to upend the system, turn over the money-changers tables. It's irrelevant whether the demagogue's policies will work or not. It's irrelevant whether the demagogue is provably lying or not. It's all about repressed anger being unleashed and finding a target. Even if the target is not the cause of their misery. And so every latent form of bigotry finds expression and is easily exploited by the demagogue. It's worth re-reading Goebells primarily because his understanding of this psychology is what made Nazi demagoguery so devastatingly successful. Any attempt by a party to attack the demagogue without directly addressing the elephant in the room (the growing class of working poor) is not only destined to fail, but destined to fail badly. If I hate you - really hate you - I don't mind copping a few painful blows if it means I get to see you bludgeoned to near death. Vengeance is an incredibly powerful motivator. People trying to lump all of Trump's supporters as Nazi's are making a grave mistake and refusing to see the forest for the trees. Just as most Germans in WWII were not Nazis yet supported Hitler, so too with Trump. Latinos, blacks, gays and women all voted for Trump. Don't assume they're all stupid. When I hate you, I'm happy to burn in hell if you're there with me. Of course, this is a simple generalisation and there are lots of "sub-reasons" (the bro-vote, the foot-gun Democrat advertising - "he doesn't have to know!", etc). If the Democrats had chosen Bernie Sanders as their candidate back in 2016, they would've had eight years in power. It's no coincidence that Bernie had a lot of support from those that otherwise voted Trump. They felt that he was real and was really concerned about them and would really do something to assuage their pain. Now? Now they're just mad - "enough is enough". However, anger is not sustainable for too long and all demagogues eventually come undone because once the heat of anger is gone and you look around and realise things are worse than ever - well, that's when things can REALLY get dangerous.
  • squigz 2y ago
    Thank you for putting this into words. I have been struggling to articulate the 'why' myself.
• hyperdunc 2y ago
  Trump may not have deserved to win, but the Democrats deserved to lose - and I'm relieved they did. Maybe after this rematch the blue team will finally understand the loss was their fault, so they can start moving away from the abominable ideology and spiteful elitism that handed them this result.
• leke 2y ago
  This is weird because the information I was getting was that Harris was leading the opinion polls and the Trump supporters were dropping him at the last minute. Now this feels like a rigged election.
  • nikodotio 2y ago
    Or the information you were getting was not comprehensive.
  • hyperdunc 2y ago
    > the information I was getting What does this tell you?
  • throwaway314155 2y ago
    > Now this feels like a rigged election. As a fellow democrat, lose with some grace.
    • manquer 2y ago
      It is a rigged election, just not in the way republicans mean it. All American elections are rigged to make it deliberately difficult for many people to vote.
    • Spivak 2y ago
      It's a joke about mail in ballots in 2020 my dude.
  • rhdunn 2y ago
    There was a lot of rallying on the republican side to go vote online. I didn't see a lot of that on the democrat side. Pundits mentioned a lack of Trump's ground game, but I think online networking effects of republicans urging others to vote helped him whereas the ground game helped Harris. It was a close election. Possibly driven by the echo chambers people are in -- like seeing "I voted for Hilary" in left leaning sources and "I voted for Trump" in right leaning sources. Like when Anna Seltzer's poll came out the left ran with that but largely ignored the +10 poll for Trump that came out shortly after. I personally try to vary my sources to counter the echo chamber effects. I don't always agree with everything that is said, I just want to try and understand what is going on. I was seeing commentators on the left decrying the Puerto Recan joke, saying that it would hurt the Trump campaign. Then Biden made his comment about Trump supporters being garbage which the left dismissed. After that the right took it as a symbol, making memes about bins going to vote, Trump arriving to rallies in a garbage truck, people wearing bin bags to vote, etc. The left didn't see that going on, or dismissed things like the garbage truck as a stunt. A similar thing with Trump's McDonald's stint. Both of these helped connect with regular workers, something that Harris didn't have. Something that the commentators on the left failed to see or understand. I don't follow things like TikTok, but I heard a commentator mention how that helped women turn against Trump, especially amongst new voters. I suspect that due to the ranking algorithm and bubbles that this predominantly targetted democratic or left leaning voters as there were many women that voted for Trump.
• mbix77 2y ago
  Sad day for the world.
  • amai 2y ago
    But a good day for USA. With Trump winning a civil war is avoided.
    • fullstackchris 2y ago
      Civil war is a bit of an overstatement for what would again be a bunch of clowns trying to storm the capitol
    • amai 2y ago
      And a good day for the stock holders in the USA. The stockmarket likes Trump.
  • sidcool 2y ago
    What? Why? I am genuinely curious. I am not an American, so can't vote or have a strong opinion. Trump is weird, but does it spell doom?
    • guerrilla 2y ago
      The entire world will be affected. Trade wars against China and Europe, the loss of Ukraine, the end of Palestine, war with Iran, potential dissolution of NATO and that's only what's likely. Who knows what other shit is coming down the sewer.
      • haizhung 2y ago
        Not talk of basically losing all prospective of doing something against climate change.
        • badpun 2y ago
          Most people already believed climate change won't be mitigated.
• amanzi 2y ago
  “The government you elect is the government you deserve.” —Thomas Jefferson
  • vinni2 2y ago
    Tell that to the Puerto Ricans.
  • tigroferoce 2y ago
    OK, but what about the rest of the world that doesn't get to vote for this?
    • bretanac93 2y ago
      Easy, the rest of the world gets to watch, and solve their own problems.
      • tankenmate 2y ago
        That's the problem though isn't it. A lot of the problems don't just belong to the US, or just belong to everyone else. The problem with isolationism is that everyone else gets to do their thing without your input.
        • benfortuna 2y ago
          If at all possible, I am perfectly fine with a diminishing role of the US in world politics.
      • smatija 2y ago
        Historically main problem of a large part of the world (from Vietnam to Yemen) is USA bombing them ...
        • DeathArrow 2y ago
          It's called "protecting democracy and freedom".
• kookamamie 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • ryukoposting 2y ago
    Hell if I know. - Wisconsin
  • jeffhuys 2y ago
    America, thank you. Regards, Europe. (You can't talk for all of Europe.)
    • stouset 2y ago
      [flagged]
  • oytis 2y ago
    Europe is doing the same though.
    • DeathArrow 2y ago
      Hopefully.
    • ben_w 2y ago
      I don't claim perfect knowledge of the 30-ish countries in Europe, but I've not heard of any of us reelecting a double-impeached convicted felon where the impeachments were for (1) abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and (2) incitement of insurrection; and the 34 felonies he's been convicted for were related to misreporting finances related to hush money relevant to a potential scandal that could have influenced the 2016 election, while also being on trial for another 54 related to mishandling of classified documents. Even Boris Johnson didn't mange all that mess.
      • oytis 2y ago
        Details might differ, the big picture is pretty much the same. The left-wing are shy and try not to annoy the voter base by being too radical, while the right-wing are getting more aggressive and outspoken. And still the right-wing mostly win the elections. Literal fascists in Italy, right-wing populists in Hungary, Slovakia and Netherlands. And the upcoming elections in Germany is not going to be very good either - we basically get to vote between right-wing traitors and just right-wingers. People en-masse don't value freedom, human rights or rule of law any more, I wouldn't think there are any hurdles to get Europeans to vote convicted felons either.
• dandanua 2y ago
  "Kill and eat the others" ideology has won
• ThinkBeat 2y ago
  He has not won yet. Perhaps there may be a last minute change. If the results remain roughly where they are now, then that is one important positive outcome.. and I would say exactly the same if the election had gone the other way.d If it had been as close, or closer than last time, then who becomes presient is nearly random, as WP once wrote, and an enormous amount of drama would ensue. Which it might still do depending how tight the swing states are. As it looks now it will be a solid win.
  • sidcool 2y ago
    The odds of a reversal are so low now, it's practically useless.
  • pknerd 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • remram 2y ago
      There is an "electoral college", whatever that is for.
  • autoexec 2y ago
    Even if recounts or whatever showed the results were changed they would be challenged in the courts until eventually Trump's supreme court would hand him the win anyway.
  • pcunite 2y ago
    I would like to see faster ways of counting. Only just recently AZ and NV have been called. How do other states, with millions of votes to count get it done quicker?
• Dalewyn 2y ago
  Between a clean sweep win of the Electoral College, the popular vote (by a Republican president for the first time in 20 years!), the Senate, and very likely the House this is an epic, bottom of the ninth comeback victory for the history books. And I thought the World Series Dodgers comeback in game 5 was incredible, I guess we just keep on winning. I am also absolutely vindicated in my opinion that "journalism" (the mainstream media) are cancers upon society. The polls fucking lied and the "journalism" was the real garbage. And yes, I voted for Trump and the Republicans as an Oregonian. No, my vote didn't count for his EC win, but I don't care: My vote still helped deliver a mandate that the Democrats and their policies are not acceptable.
  • christophilus 2y ago
    I don't think the polls lied (lied implies intent). I think a few things happened. Pollsters have a really hard time getting hold of Trump voters for a few reasons: folks are scared to admit they voted for Trump, and those who are proud Trump supporters have such disdain for the media (of which pollsters are a part) that they simply hang up / don't engage. So, Trump tends to get underrepresented in the polls. At any rate, the polls showed that there was a dead heat, so this really came down to the margin of error which has historically somewhat favored Trump.
  • canucker2016 2y ago
    from https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1851766313279963218 https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1851766313279963218 Anonymous TV exec: "If half the country has decided that Trump is qualified to be president, that means they're not reading any of this media, and we’ve lost this audience completely. A Trump victory means mainstream media is dead in its current form."
  • crakhamster01 2y ago
    Which policies did you find unacceptable?
    • Dalewyn 2y ago
      Quite a lot, actually: * The southern border is non-existent. Say what you want about Trump, he actually secured the border where literally noone before nor since has done so. It was very nice actually seeing value in passports, green cards (residency status), and citizenship. * The military industrial complex is utterly abhorrent. Ukraine needs defending, Israel has a right to defend itself, both should win. Neither makes it okay for us to trickle resources to them to keep the wars going but not so much that it ends so we can keep trickling resources, because the resources trickled are replaced by new resources produced by the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense. Sincerely fuck this noise, my tax dollars are not fucking blood money and I am tired of seeing America partaking in constant and neverending wars one after another. * The lack of conviction in policies. This was especially apparent in Harris's election strategy where she ultimately ended up saying anything and everything in a desperate bid to garner more votes. Sincerely, that is not how voting works. I vote for someone because I agree with what they say and do; Democrats don't say or do anything other than call Trump Hitler and Republicans Nazis and Americans either deplorables or garbage. I don't have time to waste on that nonsense. * The refusal to nourish and, if required, protect our industries from foreign entities with extreme prejudice. No, CHIPS Act does not fucking count. Everyone in public office with one possible exception has pissed away American excellence and drive through policies that do not favor America. There is a very real reason that Make America Great Again resonates so much with Americans. * The inequality and unfairness. In the land of the free and the home of the brave where all men are created equal, bullshit like forgiving of student loans after-the-fact is preposterous. What does that say about people with real financial and life discipline? Nothing good, that's for sure. That is not how we nurture the great Americans of tomorrow; we should reward being responsible, not punish it. * DEI (Diversity-Equity-Inclusion). As a Japanese-American, I am classified as an Asian and a minority. I loathe DEI because it is literally racial and gender discrimination and I am squarely in its crosshairs. I firmly believe that all men should be judged on the quality of their character, not by the color of their skin or the type of their genitals. I firmly believe that meritocracy is the foundation of an abled and healthy society, and Trump and Republicans align with that philosophy. * High taxes. Democrats are the party of big government, and candidates like Harris always speak of redistributing wealth. I believe in meritocracy, and consequently I believe that the fruits of someone's labor is strictly theirs and only theirs to enjoy as they see fit. I refuse to vote for such redistribution policies, regardless which side I might end up in that supposed redistribution. * The attacks on free speech and expression. By far it is the Left who have pursued agendas censoring speech for no reason other than they do not like it. This expands well beyond just America and I despise it, both because I firmly believe in the 1st Amendment and because that bullshit literally ruins my fucking day as a simple consumer of mundane entertainment. Trump and Republicans are champions of free speech, so they will get my vote even on just that alone. I can keep on ranting, but this comment is probably long enough already. Basically the Democrat Party and Leftism simply do not resonate with me, and that only gets worse as more time passes. I still consider myself a centrist with both conservative/liberal and progressive/authoritarian opinions across a wide variety of subjects, but the Democrats just keep moving lefter and lefter that I've ended up on the Right despite not moving at all.
• helgee 2y ago
  Shower thought: People vote for Trump because he is actually predictable. You never have to guess whose interests he is protecting. It's always his own. You never have to guess whether he is lying. He sure as hell is but there is also no hidden agenda. It's unfiltered mental diarrhea but it's raw and authentic. I think a lot of the unease and disdain for the Western political class stems from their attempts to be inoffensive and appeal to everybody. Whatever policy you enact there is always going to be a trade-off, winners and losers, and if you do now acknowledge that, how can I be sure that you are acting in my interest? “Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid.” ― Captain Jack Sparrow
  • manquer 2y ago
    He is not predictable, mere selfish interests doesn't make him so, he doesn't have an ideology and therefore very flexible on what he will do, is easily manipulated by anyone and also there are many more dangerous people who will run his administration(RFK is in-charge of health!) while he spends his days on the golf course.
  • alach11 2y ago
    I think authenticity is being hugely underrated as a factor for why Trump won. People inherently trust someone who is visibly flawed and speaks off-the-cuff. This preference for authenticity has always existed, but is extra strong as a reaction to social media.
• yodsanklai 2y ago
  This really sucks and is making me incredibly worried. I know we don't discuss politics on HN, and there's not much point in debating this. But seriously... this clown? what's wrong with the US.
  • tomrod 2y ago
    Citizens United allows for money to speak. Recent SCOTUS case allows for paths towards legalized bribery. Neither party offers a real solution, so folks go with the person promising to break everything, even if he has already proven he won't follow the law, enriches himself, and destablizes global politics. Yeah, it might break a logjam. But don't expect things to be better after a flood.
    • seanp2k2 2y ago
      Bubububutttt he’s totally going to bring back those 6-figure factory jobs in the Midwest and make houses cost $150k again by….deporting large portions of the underpaid manual labor force, taxing foreign goods at 100%, and ending all government programs including public education.
      • defrost 2y ago
        I'm still staggered by the thought of brain-worm being charge of all things health related and potentially (although that appeared to be a joke) in charge of everything save oil profits.
        • ericmcer 2y ago
          RFK says some wild stuff, but he does have a track record of being pretty vicious with large corporations that threaten public health. I am scared of him cutting a bunch of vaccines, but I am excited that he will go after food manufacturers who have been maximizing profits at the cost of public health.
          • tomrod 2y ago
• VonGuard 2y ago
  [flagged]
• archagon 2y ago
  Well, my hope for humanity is permanently eroded. Half the populace elected a blubbering rapist, felon, and fascist to lead them. Again. I'm making rapid plans to get the fuck out of this shithole country, and as far as business goes, no known Trump supporter will ever get my handshake.
  • JodieBenitez 2y ago
    > I'm making rapid plans to get the fuck out of this shithole country. I keep hearing people say that sort of thing in my country in similar situations and yet they never do it.
    • archagon 2y ago
      Good for them. My Australian application is presently sitting in the queue, and I've already had extensive conversations with a number of lawyers about UK and Dutch immigration.
      • JodieBenitez 2y ago
        You're seriously considering UK over US ? Seems odd to me, that's like choosing only downsides.
        • archagon 2y ago
          Even Boris Johnson can't hold a candle to the imbecility of Trump. And a parliamentary system generally acts as a better safeguard of sensible governance. UK might not be doing great right now, but I feel tentatively positive about the next 5-10 years. Plus, as a self-employed business owner, I need health care, and I'm not confident that Obamacare will survive the next administration.
          • JodieBenitez 2y ago
            Good luck to you then. You might need it.
• icar 2y ago
  How is this relevant to HackerNews?
  • sidcool 2y ago
    HN is mainly American audience. So it's something rest of the world has to bear.
    • schnitzelstoat 2y ago
      This affects the whole world though. The USA is the economic and military hegemon and by a large margin too.
    • siffin 2y ago
      As someone in a small but wealthy western nation, the US elections are far more important than our own. We can't destroy the world, they can.
      • hnfong 2y ago
        hear hear
  • jonathanstrange 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • _ink_ 2y ago
    Are you suggesting that politics has no influence on the tech world?
    • ImaCake 2y ago
      Especially considering that Peter Thiel, who was a partner at Y Combinator, was fairly involved in the Republican Ticket. This is very on topic for HN and rightfully so, even if the comments are a mess.
      • 2y ago
• cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Doesn't seem to be much commentary here on what an axis of Musk/Vance/Thiel (and Andreesen, etc.) influence and power in the US federal administration now means for the technology sector. Remember it is Musk who began the wave of layoffs a bit over two years ago. Bezos evidently saw the way the wind was blowing already. I also see almost zero discussion about climate change policy. For many of us non-Americans, this (the disengagement of the US from even the pathetic half-measures it moved towards under Obama) is one of the key things that was horrifying to watch.
  • bagels 2y ago
    What are your thoughts on it? Why are the layoffs related?
    • cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      Because among these people there was definitely a perception that we had/have acquired too much bargaining power.
  • gigatexal 2y ago
    What’s there to talk about: they bought a President. They puppet the incompetent VP. They stand to make billions. The TikTok ban basically sealed the Trump win because its American investors were hellbent on him winning and they paid him to switch his stance on it. That’s just one example.
• DiscourseFan 2y ago
  There might be a cultural issue here for the Dems. Many of the canvassers I met who were not retirees tended to be young women, often college-aged or a bit older, very liberal and very much benefitting directly from the economic status quo. To them, voting for anyone besides Harris was just completely insensible and they did not even bother to try and understand the views of anyone they spoke with (from what I could tell), they were just pushing "get out the vote" but no substantial reasons as to why. I suspect that many of these young women are fairly out of touch with the sentiments of most americans and the daily hardships of those without college degrees, especially young men. I suspect that many of these young women will be forced out of the party for that reason, and if they aren't, then they will have to learn to actually talk to people with opposing viewpoints and figure out how to get along with the so-called "deplorables." But most likely they will just end up working somewhere else; not all at once, but the dems will be forced to change their platforms, new candidates will get elected who will change their staffs, and an entire cohort of well-to-do liberal poly sci majors will be gradually shifted out of Washington.
  • matsemann 2y ago
    > then they will have to learn to actually talk to people with opposing viewpoints Why is there a different standard applied to one of the sides?
    • halgir 2y ago
      It's an observation on what it takes to win for this particular "side", not a moral comparison of the two.
    • zpeti 2y ago
      Because OP is talking about the side that lost. If you want to win, you probably need to change. This isn't about standards, it's about what works.
  • throwaway314155 2y ago
    This is satire right?
• bArray 2y ago
  AP News at this time are reporting 224 (Harris) vs 267 (Trump) [1]. A lot of political thoughts in these comments. I think the important thing going forwards is to figure out how to maximise the opportunity that you find in your environment. For our team we were looking to relocate our manufacturing from China and get additional investment. One of our objectives today is to figure out how the recent result in the US will affect this planning. [1] https://apnews.com/hub/election-2024 https://apnews.com/hub/election-2024
  • vintnes 2y ago
    The AP refusing to call Alaska all night is deeply embarrassing. I respect their right to present an angle but come on, Jack
    • mixmastamyk 2y ago
      It's only at 72% right now.
• smrtinsert 2y ago
  Welcome to the world social media gave us
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• gedy 2y ago
  The DNC reminds me of the board a formerly successful company with good people - but has terrible management and keeps promoting unpopular leaders.
  • kwere 2y ago
    i imagine the person that can climb the corporate ladder in an major organization to the level of board member with a lot of qualities, being a good person is not one of those
• goethes_kind 2y ago
  From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. It is a clear reiteration of the message to the Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad. The Democrats should have fielded a strong personality in their own right. This is not about left or right. It's about mobilizing people by giving them something to care about. "More of the same" and "not like that guy" isn't very enticing. I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, if you can make a strong case and gain the confidence of the electorate.
  • ecuaflo 2y ago
    Probably not a good message to circumvent the democratic process and skip the primary either
  • agumonkey 2y ago
    I sincerely fear this will inject way too much inertia in wrong directions globally even if it sends a clear message to non right wing crowds.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • spwa4 2y ago
      I've often found this is a mistake WAY too many people make. A successful team has a failure. Often, the reaction is restructuring, big changes, ... I try to tell people that. "You're a 10 person team. You've had some 50 successful projects before this failure. That means this justifies at most a 2% change. A 2% change in the team is about half a day change, once per month, NOT more than that". Invariably, the whole team is changed entirely, randomly, or going with the political winds, usually with much worse quality as a result. And afterwards they do see it didn't work. And then they respond differently: they'll no longer admit failure, because they do see that the changes were a disaster, but you apparently fix that by refusing to admit anything ever goes wrong ... I'm different. I think every project is a failure, it's just a matter of degree. You don't succeed in projects, you minimize how bad they are. Drives people up the wall though.
• John23832 2y ago
  There is a lot of "Don't believe that Republican voters are stupid" in the comments, but why is that true? Why can't it be true that many people voted stupidly? As a third party to Brexit, it was apparent that many people voted stupidly. -- edit: In my opinion, it's very simple. I became a one issue voter after one of the candidates tried to obstruct the process (violently), the last time. That's antithetical to America. It's ironic because it's the type of thing that happens in the "shithole countries" that we're so focused on keeping out (I say this as a person who thinks immigration reform with strong structure is long needed). Rewarding Trump by giving him the keys is stupid if you can even muster the courage to say you believe in anything America stands for.
  • dmichulke 2y ago
    I suppose your definition of stupidity doesn't fit their definition of stupidity
  • yapyap 2y ago
    > There is a lot of "Don't believe that Republican voters are stupid" in the comments, but why is that true? I’m taking a shot in the dark here but I’m guessing they voted R themselves, we can all portray ourselves to be objective in comments when we really aren’t. This happens a lot on social media, especially the faux-smart part.
  • elric 2y ago
    Brexit was a special case of stupid. There should never have been a referendum with such a stupid question, devoid of any context or potential impact. Democracy only works when voters are informed.
    • diggan 2y ago
      > Democracy only works when voters are informed. Since most people in the world aren't informed nor wants to be informed, are you saying democracy doesn't work in the real world?
      • 2y ago
• 43natashalog 2y ago
  oh lord, I was afraid of it
• LeoPanthera 2y ago
  It's clear that this is actually what the American voters want. It's not a glitch or a fluke or a quirk of the system. I've never been more ashamed to be American.
  • dangsux 2y ago
    [dead]
  • jacknews 2y ago
    I'm not so sure. The democrats keep throwing up these lame/hated candidates (Harris this time, Clinton in 2016) whom they appear to assume will prevail, because, Trump. And so faced with a choice of bad vs bad, the result ends up being quite close and unpredictable. As my daughter says, the first female US president should be someone actually good. Blame the system, not the voters, maybe.
    • mixmastamyk 2y ago
      There are no good candidates that want the job of national punching bag. Haven't been for a while, especially since the rise of the internet.
  • mattmanser 2y ago
    I never get this sort of rhetoric. Its literally 50/50 split. 50% of Americans DON'T want this. Ita a quirk of democracy, but talking about 'Americans' wanting this, when the result is entirely a coin toss. And one weighted towards repiblicans by the way their state system works, giving the smaller states a dispropotinate say. Same thing happens in the UK. A fairly small percentage of the UK voted for Labour and yet it was 'a landslide'. More people voted for Jeremey Corbyn than Kier starmer, but one is apparently 'out of touch' and the less popular politician is somehow a 'genius'. It's such a bizarre rhetoric that has no basis in reality, just electoral technicalities.
    • senectus1 2y ago
      its more than half so far... not quite as close a split as I would have expected 66,181,515 votes (47.5%) 71,113,511 votes (51%) But yeah.. roughly half the country doesnt want him
• cococococ 2y ago
  An unsurprising result. There is a worrying global rise in right-wing popularism and this is part of it. We can look forward to more war, more crime, more suffering, more scapegoating of minorities. This is the start of a long decline that ends in death and destruction. That Harris and Trump were apparently the best that the US political machine could spew up as choices to run one of the most powerful countries in the world is concerning in itself. Just shows how severely politics is broken in the US.
  • max51 2y ago
    >We can look forward to more war Do you really believe the Dems would do less war? They are literally siding with Dick Cheney. They were always very pro-war (eg. Hilary Clinton) but now they don't even hide it and they are embracing the whole "security through strength" and "escalation to de-escalate" in the middle east. If you look back at the past few presidency (incl. Obama), Trump was far more peaceful. He was the first president in a very long time to not invade a new country. I don't think he does it out of love or empathy, I suspect he just thinks it's a waste of money, but the end result is the same.
    • ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
      The admin nearly started a war with Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#2019_escalation_in_tensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel... https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promis... And, in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve (Trump continued the Obama admin policies in the middle east) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Donald_T... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_Donald_Trump_during_the_2016_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_Donald_Trump... All evidence points to Trump supporting Russia in its expansionist efforts, which means more war, not less. Trump had nationalistic parades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Salute_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Salute_to_America I mean, you can make an argument based on speculation, but we have the evidence of what has happened in the past.
• lousken 2y ago
  where is "stop the count", "rigged elections" and other messaging like this? it's disappointing that democrats can't call that out
• locallost 2y ago
  It's dissatisfying that he could win, but it's not the first time, so I've already accepted a long time ago that the world is not what I wish it to be. In that context, I am more curious what his policies will be because even though he rides different waves of general discontent in society, ultimately he doesn't care about anything except the economy and money. So I think he will double down on tariffs, but some things are irreversible - saving the e.g. coal mining industry is a lost cause and he'll throw those people down the drain because it doesn't make economic sense anymore. What I am most curious about is how he'll handle Biden's policies with regards to blocking acquisitions on monopoly prevention grounds. Also the markets are not open in the US, but over here in Europe they're already skyrocketing. So "Wallstreet" is expecting massive growth in what is already quite an inflated market.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• romellem 2y ago
  I genuinely don’t understand. I really hope I am wrong, but I believe we are about to enter a post-truth state.
  • OldMatey 2y ago
    We have been in a period of post-truth. We are entering a period of epistemological breakdown
  • user3939382 2y ago
    The terrifying state we’ve been entering for several years now is where people in power believe they both know and get to dictate what the truth is. Unfortunately despite the rhetoric I don’t see that reversing since it’s coming from the uniparty.
  • dgellow 2y ago
    Already there since a decade
  • Clubber 2y ago
    >I believe we are about to enter a post-truth state. Who was the last president that didn't lie?
• throwtts 2y ago
  [flagged]
• _ink_ 2y ago
  > In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote. Donald J. Trump, 07/28/24 Unbelievable.
• thrwfox 2y ago
  [flagged]
• smackeyacky 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • lgvln 2y ago
    Calling him a fascist would be an understatement
    • siffin 2y ago
      It's true, not all fascists are also necessarily convicted sexual abusers, amongst a host of no doubt other horrible things.
  • account42 2y ago
    Unsurprisingly, "being a woman" is not enough to get elected.
• akmarinov 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • mib32 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • amarcheschi 2y ago
      Us is not involved with boots on the ground. Now, try to imagine what you just said, but shift it to your country being invaded and imagine being told you're weird because you want soldiers to defend your motherland rather than giving away land
    • lawn 2y ago
      If you stop and think a little longer you should realize that if you give after to Russia you prove that aggression works. And now they'll get to rebuild their military to attack Ukraine again, or maybe another country, leading to many more civilian deaths. Russian apologists are not just weird, they're dangerous.
      • miroljub 2y ago
        > If you stop and think a little longer you should realize that if you give after to Russia you prove that aggression works. It's already proven that it works for the USA. Why shouldn't it work for Russia? Except, at least in this case it's not aggression. > And now they'll get to rebuild their military to attack Ukraine again, or maybe another country, leading to many more civilian deaths. You mean like USA does all the time. > Russian apologists are not just weird, they're dangerous. USA apologists are even weirder.
        • Paradigma11 2y ago
          Russia is waging a war of conquest to annex its former colonies and restore its empire. There is zero reason to believe this will stop unless it is stopped.
• leptons 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • frereubu 2y ago
    This is a confusing comment that I don't think answers my question.
  • lelanthran 2y ago
    > fascists have come to power in the past, or they are just into fascism and prefer that kind of thing. This, right here, has been the focal point of Dem supporters everywhere - doubling down on the name-calling. I seriously doubt that more than half the voters are homophobic, misogynistic fascists, but calling them that only stops them from engaging, it doesn't magically cause them to rethink their position and switch their vote.
    • zimpenfish 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • ekianjo 2y ago
        Who is homophobic?
    • master-lincoln 2y ago
      So these people care more about what other people call them than how their nation is governed?
      • lelanthran 2y ago
        > So these people care more about what other people call them than how their nation is governed? When it is the people governing them, that's a perfectly rational decision - why would someone who views me with contempt govern me fairly?
        • deleted 2y ago
• gtvwill 2y ago
  Rip America. China and russia are gonna love this. Astounding they have elected a literal criminal as a president. Bonkers even.
  • ibz 2y ago
    China will definitely not love the tariffs. Criminal? What are you even talking about?
    • timomaxgalvin 2y ago
      Trump is a criminal. I think that is fact. Not sure it matters.
    • WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
      tariffs? the world is fed up with tariffs and sanctions, they came up with the BRICS+ the US will definitely _not_ love the death of the USD, or no longer having access to rare earth materials located in China ;)
    • NickC25 2y ago
      Criminal, yes. He's a convicted felon. He also sold the entirety of the CIA's intel on Israel's nuclear weapons capacity to the Saudi Arabians in exchange for the Saudis sponsoring a golf tournament at a Trump resort, so there's that too.
      • ibz 2y ago
        I see. Language barrier here. In my language "criminal" is somebody that killed another person. Seems in English the word can be used for any "unlawful activity". Good to know.
• whoitwas 2y ago
  [flagged]
• apexalpha 2y ago
  Not super worried from a European perspective, it might even spur on some cooperation in our own union, which I support. Just a bit nervous for Ukraine... I wish Europe could step up on that front but we just don't have the capacity for it. Which is entirely our own fault, Trump is right to call us out on our reliance on the US. It's our continent we should be the one spearheading this. Hopefully that will change in the near future. But that doesn't help Ukraine now. The democrats need to do some serious introspection on their policies and priorities. And perhaps just return to running a white male as candidate... Oh well at least it's a very clear victory, so no weeks or months of anxiety over the results.
  • Yaina 2y ago
    I'd be nice if the EU would step up and become more self sufficient with Trump in the White House. Though I am nervous. I think Trump could still do us a lot of harm.
    • doublerabbit 2y ago
      The EU was holding world peace. This destabilisation is in part caused by America. Iraq, war on oil. Isreal funded by US arms Russia owns Trump and Russia wants the EU dead. By no means should the EU get cosy with the US. Why shouldn't the US get cosy with the EU?
      • gg82 2y ago
        Why would Russia want the EU dead. They were selling 10's of billions of dollars of oil and gas to it each year. Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security, having being invaded numerous times over the centuries and wants to keep control of its own economic destiny. Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.
        • account42 2y ago
          > Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security, having being invaded numerous times over the centuries and wants to keep control of its own economic destiny. In soviet Russua, Russia is the one constantly being invaded.
• krypgeen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • asah 2y ago
    Alas, this is everyone's "circus" - you'll see.
    • morkalork 2y ago
      Canadians sitting in the front row, hoping they don't get plastered with monkey shit...
  • gandalfgreybeer 2y ago
    What happens in that circus has ripple effects on yours
  • distalx 2y ago
    But if the acrobats start dropping stuff, we all might feel it.
• pavlov 2y ago
  There’s lots of blame and anger directed at Democrats, but ultimately it’s the Republicans who picked Trump. They could have won against the unpopular Biden/Harris with practically any other candidate. Nikki Haley polled well against all possible Democrats. The party was already done with Trump in February 2021, but then they explicitly decided that they prefer one more try with an old man who doesn’t spare much thought to actual policies but does brag about sexual assault, tried to orchestrate a coup last time he lost an election, etc. etc. It’s not inflation or Biden’s unpopularity or some other external factor. Lots of Americans really want what Trump is selling.
  • lgvln 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • casenmgreen 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • class3shock 2y ago
      That is not what they prefer because that's not the image Trump voters see when they see him. - They see an outsider who is not lying to them telling them things are great when in their daily lives things seem decidedly not great. - They see someone who says he will stop illegal immigration, not someone who is anti immigrant, but someone who will actually enforce the law that democrats either refuse to or have been incapable of enforcing. - They see someone who says he doesn't want to involve us in expensive long wars overseas like the ones everyone was sick and tired of being involved in for the last two decades. - They see someone who has taken actions that align with their deeply held religious beliefs about what constitutes taking a life (abortion). - They see someone who says he will bring jobs back that all the "swamp" politicians (on both sides) sent overseas in the name of globalization. I want to be clear that I'm saying that he is or isn't a narcissistic misogynistic billionaire rapist, but that's not who the majority of americans just voted for. You can say that they are wrong, misinformed, idiots, etc. but focusing on that and not why they voted for him is exactly why the democrats lost and will continue to lose.
  • 2y ago
• truthsocial99 2y ago
  [flagged]
• Aeolun 2y ago
  It’s absolutely insane to me that someone that literally incited their followers to storm the capitol, has been charged with so many counts of fuck knows what, and has (somehow) survived multiple assassination attempts can come back to win the presidency. It’s just a “only in the US” kind of thing.
  • vdvsvwvwvwvwv 2y ago
    Time to gaterade the crops.
    • bagels 2y ago
      Can't wait for the great ideas ol brain worms has for agriculture.
  • nashashmi 2y ago
    Or maybe the competition is that pathetic
    • Aeolun 2y ago
      I mean, if all the country votes for is dirty old men, then maybe?
  • siffin 2y ago
    No kidding, I was saying to my partner earlier how friggin crazy the timeline is getting. That 15 years ago, I couldn't have even imagined writing a fictional timeline like this. The most striking aspect to me is how blatent and brazen trump is with his lies, how fake he is, and how so many can't see it or just don't care for some reason. He pretends to be religious of all things, he so obviously isn't and couldn't give a damn, but pious people of all people should care about honesty and respect, at least in the public sphere.
  • monstertank 2y ago
    Perhaps it's time for you to reflect on the legitimacy of those claims?
• maxglute 2y ago
  House and senate sweep? Interesting times intensifies.
  • ant6n 2y ago
    The whole world now lives in interesting times.
• whoitwas 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s
• casenmgreen 2y ago
  There's a story Winston Churchill tells of, of an old man who lived a long life on his death bed surrounded by his family, where one of his grand-children asks him for the dying man's advice about life. The man thinks for a moment and then says : "I've seen a lot of trouble in my life, most of which never happened". We can all now think of a million ways in which Trump will be a disaster. I predict that bad as he will be, most of what we now worry about will not happen.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • cbeach 2y ago
    A lot of people predicted WW3 as soon as Trump took office in 2016. The reality was that Trump's unpredictability and Machiavellian approach to diplomacy put a chill on many of America's global rivals. With the Abraham Accords, Trump brought the Middle East a step closer to stability. And despite some rhetorical silliness with North Korea, the situation on the Korean peninsula was more stable under Trump than it became under Biden. Regarding Russia, I feel Russia waited for the election of Biden (a decrepit, predictable leader on the World stage) before invading Ukraine.
    • casenmgreen 2y ago
      I have a rather different view - I thought Trump was so scattered, and his party ungovernable due its internal splits, that he was unable to implement his crazy ideas. Regarding Russia, I may be wrong, but I think Putin's judgement of the situation was so insular, based purely on everyone agreeing everything would go just fine and no one thinking for one second about what might go wrong and what to do if it did, that Putin's assessment of the situation was not meaningful.
• gred 2y ago
  As a conservative American, I'm... Cautiously optimistic about: curbing government spending, reducing illegal immigration, protecting unborn lives, restraining Iran + proxies, continuing economic growth Nervous about: Ukraine, additional inflation caused by tariffs, ongoing political polarization
  • agumonkey 2y ago
    what are the most probable policies regarding russia ? since russia and iran are in the same bed i wonder how things are going
    • sAbakumoff 2y ago
      Lifting all sanctions against Russia. Putin helped Trump to win this election in the end.
      • gred 2y ago
        Past performance is mixed: Trump 45 used mostly the carrot with the North Koreans, but mostly the stick with the Iranians and Chinese. I think it's pretty clear that Ukraine aid will decrease, but I'm not sure how much carrot vs stick will be applied to Russia.
  • siffin 2y ago
    How do you figure that not providing life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant mother and letting her and her baby die is going to protect that unborn life?
    • account42 2y ago
      Well for one, strawmen are very flammable and fire is bad for unborn life.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
• 01jonny01 2y ago
  [flagged]
• whoitwas 2y ago
  [flagged]
• drumhead 2y ago
  Trump is transactional. He'll do something for you if you don't something for him. Want an abortion law nationally? Give him corporate tax cuts. Want to fund Ukraine? Give him more deregulation. He's got no political principles. He's anyone's if the price is right. 8 more years of Trump then
  • vdvsvwvwvwvwv 2y ago
    4 you mean
    • Wololooo 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • sirbutters 2y ago
      no, no, he really meant 8, at least. Laws and constitution don't mean shit no more.
• hello_computer 2y ago
  People are tired of competing with 3rd-world wages while having to meet 1st-world expenses—especially in a ChatGPT world. It’s no surprise that shutting the borders and capping the visas is a mildly popular platform—especially when the Democrats (with a few exceptions, like Sanders) abandoned their labor constituencies back in the 90s.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• casenmgreen 2y ago
  Do we have any sense of to what extent Russian interference played a part in the outcome?
  • bigodbiel 2y ago
    I don't think it mattered much. It was the will of most Americans to join the Russians.
  • kingaillas 2y ago
    The sad truth is even if XYZ country "interfered" with a misinformation campaign... they didn't actually manipulate the votes. Enough US citizens voted for Trump.
  • itomato 2y ago
    Suppose Russian "interference" is just business as usual. A long play to undermine the Republican Party and take it over like a parasite. Strong-arming "The Good Ones" until they play along. Once that happens, the fight is won. They want to undermine it All and make it irreversible. Utterly.
• pubby 2y ago
  Something I've been wondering lately is how big of a blind spot I have from being habitually online. Like, I'll read the news, and I'll read political discussions on HN and r/politics and r/conservative and Twitter, and I'll try to get a sense of what everyone is thinking, but unfortunately I don't think that's possible. The posters on these sites all have one thing in common: they're into politics and current events. Having a chance to talk to more people in meatspace this year, it was a surprise to find out how many people have only a passing interest in politics, but still vote. Like, the average user here probably reads 5+ news articles a day, but there are plenty of people IRL that will read one a month, or maybe just skim a headline. They don't really keep up-to-date with the race. They mostly vote by feel and pragmaticism. People always talk about "shy" Trump voters, but what makes me more curious are voters that match the description above. If you put someone in a voting booth who isn't interested by news, who do they vote for? I mean, Trump has a lot of surface-level qualities - he's a tall, confident white man who's a successful boss of business and an anti-establishment outsider - and maybe that's enough to capture this demographic.
  • cynicalpeace 2y ago
    You were respectably drifting away from your elitism in the first two paragraphs. Then the last paragraph shows you have a long way to go. > If you put someone in a voting booth who isn't interested by news, who do they vote for? I mean, Trump has a lot of surface-level qualities - he's a tall, confident white man who's a successful boss of business and an anti-establishment outsider - and maybe that's enough to capture this demographic. I live in a rural working class region. I have beers with these guys all the time. They're my best friends and I'm the odd coder guy that works from home. They do not care about the surface level qualities, besides the fact that he's hilarious. They might not read articles but they listen to podcasts a lot on their commutes at 4AM in the morning. They don't want war with Russia, they're pissed about the COVID stuff, and they aren't happy with the price of gas. They don't care that he's tall.
    • egonschiele 2y ago
      What do they care about, then? I have no connection with people like you're describing, so anything you can say would be interesting to hear. My understanding is based on the news is the economy, and gun control.
• sexy_seedbox 2y ago
  Congrats Melania!
• rad_gruchalski 2y ago
  Congratulations to Elon Musk. Best $44b spent.
• Spacemolte 2y ago
  "America first" (read: "Trump first"). It is going to be interesting to see all the different ways that guy is going to enrich himself and businesses, again..
• nirav72 2y ago
  Looks like he also might win the popular vote. First republican to win the popular vote since 2004. If this is true, then this was a clear mandate that the a majority of voters prefer Trump's policies over the other side. We might not like it, but this is how democracy works. There is certainly going to be domestic and international chaos in the coming years. But a realignment of the world order and domestic politics was inevitable. It's not going to be end of the world like some are making out to be. Nor is it going to be the end of the United States. There will be opportunities. Buckle up and find opportunities where you can.
  • ethagnawl 2y ago
    > Nor is it going to be the end of the United States. We're looking at the possibility of a 7-2 Supreme Court stacked with activist judges (the new ones will be even more so). Now, it depends on your definition of "the United States" but whatever comes out the rear end of this is going to look different to the point of potentially being unrecognizable. They already have the playbook. A few bleary-eyed, scatterbrained possibilities: mass deportations, end of the free press/open internet, end of the Department of Education (public school?), end of birth control, bans on vaccines, etc., etc.
    • aketchum 2y ago
      we are not going to end public school. Just look at Kentucky where trump and R candidates won easily but the school choice amendment was crushed
  • xyst 2y ago
    > opportunities where you can Guess I’ll become a grifter like the rest of them. Become a parasite on society. Fuck everyone else, I guess.
  • latentcall 2y ago
    >Nor is it going to be the end of the United States I’m not so sure about that. If it happens I’m not so sure it would be a bad thing either. This country’s system makes no sense. If I was from Texas I wouldn’t want my taxes paying for things I don’t believe in and if I was from California ditto. This country truly makes more sense as several different countries that can choose to cooperate.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• WiSaGaN 2y ago
  Apparently claiming the other side is worse in Gaza issue is not enough. Democratic voters simply refuse to turn out in swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin.
  • Satam 2y ago
    Is there reason to believe that the extra voters would've helped Kamala instead of Donald?
    • eightysixfour 2y ago
      Not necessarily, but the total number of voters for both candidates is down compared to 2020. This election will be a story of who chose not to vote.
    • tootie 2y ago
      Harris' vote total was down from Biden 2020 by 15M and Trump's was down from 2020 by like 4M. So a net 11M Dem voters didn't show up.
      • twohaibei 2y ago
        Only if you assume people who voted for Biden in 2020 would vote for Harris in 2024.
    • culi 2y ago
      Because we know that those who didn't turnout who've voted before were mostly democrats
  • dcchambers 2y ago
    You can't blame the swing states for this one. Trump over-performed polls EVERYWHERE and by the looks of it he dominated the popular vote.
    • culi 2y ago
      Not really everywhere but most of the eastern half of the US. The popular vote should narrow to within 2 million votes. California still owes us over 7 million votes, mostly from blue cities. That alone should net Harris almost 3 million
• data_maan 2y ago
  [flagged]
• dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  [flagged]
• yalogin 2y ago
  Today we learned that immigration is more important for Americans than even abortion, so much that 3 states didn’t even codify it.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • code_runner 2y ago
    FL had 57% in favor but needed 60 for an amendment to state constitution. Generally speaking it seems that this issue has popular support, which hopefully counts for something.
    • jahsome 2y ago
      It counts for exactly as much as the votes your comment got, which is to say a few warm-and-fuzzy feelings, but in a legal sense -- zilch.
      • code_runner 2y ago
        my hope is that somehow, someway, somewhere.... there is a politician who will think twice about further stripping reproductive rights because of this. Or maybe even someone who will help expand. It is a popular position with wide support.... and hopefully that does mean something. you've got to stay hopeful. votes do count, but a 60% threshold means a minority have more sway in this instance.
        • jahsome 2y ago
          That's a great counterpoint. Thanks!
    • Gormo 2y ago
      Florida unfortunately does not have an actual ballot initiative process. People have been misusing the constitutional amendment process as a makeshift ballot initiative process for the past couple of decades. Unfortunately, this has a lot of drawbacks. Amending the constitution requires a 60% supermajority, which I think is appropriate for constitutional questions, but is too high of a threshold for ordinary policy legislation. In this case, repealing the laws against abortion and marijuana have majority public support by a wide margin, so why should we have to pass new constitutional amendments with a 60% supermajority just to repeal bad statutes that were passed via the ordinary legislative process in the first place? On top of that, because measures passed this way become constitutional provisions, rather than normal legislation, it makes it difficult for the courts to exercise judicial review and reconcile these measures with extant law. It's sort of the worst of both worlds. Maybe we should try to get an actual ballot initiative process into a draft constitutional amendment for the next election cycle.
• hokumguru 2y ago
  I can’t imagine what it’s like trying to moderate this thread right now so I just want to say thank you Dang!
  • Gud 2y ago
    Yes! Thank you Dang, we all owe you a beer!
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • Rinzler89 2y ago
    I don't have the feeling it's being moderated at all at the curent time. Plenty of comments calling out Trump voters as Nazi, bigots, fascists and misogynists here are not flagged/removed while other comments explaining why democrats lost do get flagged. Regardless of ones feelings towards the Orange Man and his voters (over half the country!) you shouldn't be able break HN ToS and get away with it. So either moderation efforts are being overwhelmed (hats off to Dang) or HN is heavily politically biased from the userbase to moderation team.
    • dang 2y ago
      Moderation efforts are always overwhelmed in the sense that it's impossible for us to read everything that gets posted, if even 10% of it. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=likeliest%20explanation%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
  • isoprophlex 2y ago
    Maybe this is the containment zone, an unmoderated section on the front page, one place that is actually about the elections where we can rage a bit and get it out of our systems... Which doesn't seem too bad in terms of everyone getting an outlet to process things one way or another, and keeping the rest of the front page clean.
• data_maan 2y ago
  America now stands in line with various developing nations and sports a convicted felon as head of state. Bravo!
  • metabagel 2y ago
    He's our Sergio Berlusconi.
• rkhassen9 2y ago
  With all of the hacking and newfangled ai tools out there, perhaps hand counting removes some of that element.
  • dotancohen 2y ago
    And when electronic voting was first introduced, it was seen as a step towards reducing fraud in the hand counted voting process. I suppose that one could conclude that electronic voting simply moved the fraud from local fraud to remote fraud.
  • smallstepforman 2y ago
    Casino slot machines are highly regulated and certified by accredited agencies. They give accurate results. Vote counting machines, not so much.
    • TOMDM 2y ago
      Extraordinary claims require if not extraordinary evidence but at least evidence at all. And please not the dominion claims that even Fox settled out of court on because they knew they were lying.
      • laverya 2y ago
        There have been quite a few demos over the years where voting machines are hacked. Now, this does not mean that they were hacked, for real, in a real election. It does mean that it is possible to do, and in ways that paper ballots are not.
        • TOMDM 2y ago
          [flagged]
• antback 2y ago
  As a European, I’m trying to see the positive side of this situation. Here are a few thoughts: - It appears that Democrats are often seen as part of an "elite," which makes it difficult for people at home to relate to or understand their message. A full reset might be needed to bridge this gap. - Europe has long been under the shadow of the United States. Perhaps this could be a good start toward greater independence for Europe.
  • maxehmookau 2y ago
    Right-wing demagogues have been playing this game for years. Imagine being the party of billionaires and pointing to the other side and shouting "elites!" I've never understood it, but it's an impressive party trick.
    • bigodbiel 2y ago
      It worked. Putin now is on top. And Europe must prepare. America now will be hostile.
  • bigodbiel 2y ago
    There is no positive for Europe. Only bad to worse. Globalization is dead. In Africa hunger and mass migration to Europe. Europe needs to militarize: Defense budget >5%, deportations, conscription, nukes and a fully functional independent army against expansionist Russia who now will have Trump's acquiesence. America must be seen as possible enemy. I am not being hyperbolic. It's parabellum.
    • antback 2y ago
      But that’s precisely the point. If there are new adversaries, new obstacles, it’s essential to work toward becoming stronger, more independent, more prepared and building greater unity among states. I agree with you, things are looking bad... Today, I'm just trying to be positive. Tomorrow, maybe not ...
      • arp242 2y ago
• data_maan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• DiabloD3 2y ago
  Everyone is ignoring the obvious problem: Georgia is a state with 16 EV, and was targeted in 2020 with a scheme that resulted in multiple convictions across multiple states, with members of a conspiracy now serving prison time. This scheme was in at least 7 states, but focused on Georgia. Although the government was already out looking for a repeat of it, Trump's illegal dealings seem to have been actually effective this time (at least for now, legal challenges in some states are apparently already being filed). Trump repeatedly discussed via Truth Social and via multiple speeches and interviews that he was planning on doing it again, and had things in place to do it again. Trump also has multiple legal hurdles (a convicted 34 time felon, and facing another 54) that he still has to deal with. We have no clue if he's been elected President, we don't know if he can serve (the issue with the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment was never handled; the Supreme Court merely ruled that they can't keep him off the ballot, a very narrow ruling), and we don't know if he is going to be serving from a prison cell (since he cannot pardon himself). What I don't get is why there are so many pro-Trump/anti-American puppet accounts on HN, especially ones that essentially claim Harris lost because shes a woman and/or because her message was one of facts, inclusion, and moving forwards instead of feelings, exclusion, and moving backwards. She "lost" because people are bigoted, racist, and self-sabotaging and Trump resonates with them. She also "lost" because some states seem to have been lost by merely thousands of votes, and I know for a fucking fact some Democrats did not vote this year because she wasn't a 100% perfect ticks-all-the-boxes candidate for them; somehow Trump being convicted of being a rapist and also the ongoing issue with him having had sex with a 13 year old in 1994 wasn't enough for them. If Trump becomes the revenge quest protagonist he claims he wants to be, every single Democrat that didn't vote this year, you may not deserve this, but you certainly did this to yourself (and by extension, to all of us). I'd also like to thank dang for his hard work, I've been seeing a lot of the outright insane comments become dead, and I appreciate that.
  • trallnag 2y ago
    "Puppet accounts" meaning controlled by some outside force like Russia or China? I think there's also a fair share of throwaway accounts being used to troll or share very controversial opinions
• Pigalowda 2y ago
  I guess they let all the Russian bots vote this time. Oh wait, they weren’t actually bots..
• giantg2 2y ago
  The big thing to remember is the election isn't over. I'm not talking about the president, but the house. Most of the things on the list of actions in the article, or list of concerns in the comments, will require congress to enact. We could still end up with a split congress. Even narrow majorities should imped the most extreme items. In my opinion, narrow majorities or a split is beneficial. It helps keep stuff from being rammed though without real thought or debate.
  • montagg 2y ago
    The big picture still is what it is. Americans want a king. You can get into the more nuanced weeds and there is plenty more nuance there, but the overarching dynamic is people made a tradeoff, and they chose a king.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • charlieflowers 2y ago
      I've often knocked Russia for continually choosing thugs to run their country (I know its more nuanced than that, but still). And now America is doing essentially the same thing.
      • TomK32 2y ago
        Actually Russia is better off here, I don't think Putin has ever been convicted of any crimes.
        • disqard 2y ago
          If only all those people would stop dying in jail, or defenestrating themselves...
    • 2y ago
• cynicalpeace 2y ago
  Parties basically switched sides this election. From 2008 to now: - Pro war party: Repubs -> Dems - Dick Cheney party: Repubs -> Dems - Elitist party: Repubs -> Dems - Working class party: Dems -> Repubs - Pro free speech party: Dems -> Repubs - Bigger spending party: Dems -> Repubs - Skeptical of large corps: Dems -> Repubs There are some issues where they haven't switched (eg. abortion)
  • croisillon 2y ago
    Liz Cheney voted with the GOP for the four long Trump years, how is she not a Republican
    • psychlops 2y ago
      It's become evident that Cheney's will wear whichever color funds more war.
    • _heimdall 2y ago
      Because the partied seem to have largely flipped when it comes to platform and Cheney followed the platform rather than the party allegiance.
  • dtquad 2y ago
    How are the repubs not pro-war? They are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine. They are pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.
    • _heimdall 2y ago
      The republicans I know have pretty varying opinions on those two wars. One pretty common thread is that they don't want us involved though, regardless of which side of the wars they align with.
      • philistine 2y ago
        Ultimately those opinions will not matter. The president has full control of the State department and will align with the autocrats who stroke his ego: Putin and Netanyahu. Expect the money to stop flowing to Ukraine, and to keep going to Israel, and try to divine a logic for that.
• dtquad 2y ago
  Keep in mind that "Union Joe" holding a pro-union EV summit in August 2021 arranged by anti-Tesla unions is what radicalized Elon Musk and a lot of the Silicon Valley billionaires to openly come out as right-wing. The union members ended up voting for Trump. American unions are a joke and should never be pandered to.
  • metabagel 2y ago
    Disagree. We need to build unions back up.
• m4r1k 2y ago
  the biggest problem is the climate. with trump winning, most/all of the climate policies will be revered irreparably damaging our planet bringing us to the brink of extinction. ofc it won't be all trump fault, current trends are gloomy enough yet those are the very last few years to actually do something..
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    I also expect Trump to roll back many of those policies and create new, worse ones like opening up more federal land for drilling and mining. That said, you must have a lot more faith in the current policies than I do. The sole focus on limiting carbon in the atmosphere has been woefully misguided in my opinion. We need to focus on reducing our total impact on the planet, not just trying to mitigate it a bit while we continue to consume more resources and use use more energy every year. If human impact on the planet is going to kill us all with Trump in office, it was going to happen either way.
    • reportingsjr 2y ago
      > opening up more federal land for drilling and mining I'm honestly not sure how much a difference Trump will make in this. The US greatly increased oil and gas production under Biden. It seems that policies that supported an energy transition were generally working. If those get rolled back, hopefully things are in a good enough place that more sustainable energy continues dominating.
      • _heimdall 2y ago
        I'm still not actually clear how an energy transition will even work unless its paired with a huge reduction in how much total energy we actually use. Moving from fossil fuels to renewables or even nuclear is all well and good, but it takes a huge amount of natural resources to pull off. Nuclear may be easier, renewables require a lot more resources than we currently have.
        • moogly 2y ago
• cranberryturkey 2y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1gkwo2u/chatgpt_blunt_take_on_why_harris_lost/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1gkwo2u/chatgpt_bl...
• nemo44x 2y ago
  Republicans did a great job mobilizing voters. They’ve learned from the tactics the Democrats pioneered and it worked well. Things like early voting, etc. This election will be a landslide but looks like and I believe in large part because of how they exploited the early voting opportunity.
• whoitwas 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • JansjoFromIkea 2y ago
    Maybe it wrecked the economy but all my US stock done extremely well over that span of time, even excluding the big crazy bump a bunch of them had over the first year of covid. I expect the stock market to bloat like hell for a year or two at the expense of pretty much everything else.
    • eemil 2y ago
      Unfortunately I agree. With things like climate policy out of the way US stocks could end up doing very well over the next couple years at the expense of future generations, and probably the world.
    • kristopolous 2y ago
      GE did great under Jack Welch. The Republicans strategy is the same, extract record profits and leave everything a hollowed out piece of trash
  • yurishimo 2y ago
    And buying etfs? You’re insane if you think any dip will last more than a few months. The powers that be won’t allow it.
    • whoitwas 2y ago
      Stocks and ETFs are the same. I don't think the markets will dip now. They will soar until they crash.
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    Its really hard to parse out why stock prices are higher when the currency has been debased so aggressively through money printing. When adding trillions each year in new money you could easily see prices go higher simply because (a) the dollar lost value and (b) most of that new money ends up in the hands of major corporations. You can look to CPI and inflation data to say that stocks have out competed inflation, though at least right now many Republicans and MAGA supporters don't trust anything coming out of the federal government so the CPI data isn't a metric they would use for comparison. In my experience, there's been a surprisingly large number of conservatives the last few years that deeply distrust our monetary system. Stock prices just don't mean anything with that view.
• amelius 2y ago
  Made possible by the internet.
  • giraffe_lady 2y ago
    The outcome elon musk paid $44 billion for.
    • tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      If Reddit isn’t real life, then twitter definitely isn’t. No website could do what you saw.
      • giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Well, what I saw was the culmination of a multi generation plan by wealthy and organized far right activists to accomplish this result or one similar to it. I'm not saying twitter alone accomplished that, I'm saying musk bought it in order to make it part of that project.
        • mbg721 2y ago
          No organized right-wing group tipped the scales in this election. Aside from the Democrats' weak presidential candidate and last-minute substitution, arrogant and clearly biased big media organizations annoyed people enough to turn out and vote against what they were selling.
        • tightbookkeeper 2y ago
          Maybe. I would argue that while he is fully on board the trump train now, he was not a few years ago. When you are harshly criticized for a few unorthodox views, it’s not surprising you embrace those treating you legitimately.
          • giraffe_lady 2y ago
            Like this? https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-Y...
• sleepydog 2y ago
  [flagged]
• phplovesong 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • olalonde 2y ago
    If your idea of Trump was formed from reading mainstream media, you likely have a very distorted idea of who he is. The amount of misinformation around him is next level.
  • spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Yet no-one will ever admit they regret voting for him. They’ll blame everyone else including themselves, but will never criticize their leader. The parallels with religion are frightening.
    • siffin 2y ago
      The parallels with fascism are frightening. We're 8 years down a path of followers being endeared with trumpet, hard to walk that back now and admit mistake. What you're talking about is already happening. Every fourth or fifth comment in this thread is already blaming the left for making the right what it is.
      • lillecarl 2y ago
        First past the post voting made USA polarized, time to modernise politics!
      • spiderfarmer 2y ago
        That’s why religious leaders came up with the concept of a devil. So they can always say someone else is responsible for when their god seems to fall short.
    • jeffhuys 2y ago
      You can't admit to something you don't feel.
      • 2y ago
• Kye 2y ago
  All I'll say right now is to not focus so much on the half that voted against your rights that you forget about the half that's behind you.
  • montagg 2y ago
    To be fair, it’s not half, and it’s shrinking. Best bet is to find a way to build up states that can defend those rights and concentrate people there. In response to the evisceration of the federal government, set up equivalent agencies in those states that can do those jobs. The rest of America should be abandoned.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • lymbo 2y ago
      Wouldn’t this just cause progressives to lose every subsequent presidential election, with those rights eventually being federally outlawed? 270 gets harder to reach the more concentrated a mindset is.
      • montagg 2y ago
        Yes. In my opinion, it's clearly been a wasted effort to try to convince the rest of the country those rights are important. They need to be defended where they can, and the states that defend them need to separate themselves more and more from their parent country. Secession is silly, at least today. If what you're saying comes to pass—and it could even without what I'm suggesting—then at that point secession is the only correct answer. Either way, it doesn't make sense to spend effort where it's not making a difference. EDIT: Another part of this idea that I struggle with, is that we shouldn't ask people who aren't accepted to stay in places where they aren't accepted. They deserve rights. They should go to places where they can get them, and we should get them out of the places that don't respect them. And doing that, which I think is the moral thing to do, leads to what you're describing.
        • 2y ago
• BadHumans 2y ago
  I genuinely hope every non-racist that voted for Trump gets exactly what they want because I genuinely believe they will rig future elections so that Dems don't get the chance to take office again.
• karles 2y ago
  [flagged]
• harimau777 2y ago
  What's the best way for someone from one of the groups that Republicans hate to move to a Western European or Nordic nation where they are less likely to be marginalized or threatened? I'm sure there will be plenty of time to analyze exactly what happened, but right now my only concern is getting out.
  • olalonde 2y ago
    The USA is probably one of the countries that is most tolerant of illegal immigration. I doubt there is a good alternative in Europe.
    • bbor 2y ago
      Yes but many European countries process asylum applications. For software engineers, you may be able to just migrate legally using a work visa anyway — even the notoriously picky New Zealand has a special program just for us, though it’s limited to Auckland de facto. Sending love and can relate, original commenter. I wouldn’t pick anywhere in Eastern Europe, that’s for sure. Get prepared for lots of “it’s just a little fascist rhetoric, he doesn’t really mean it when he says all trans people are pedophiles and he’s gonna deport legal immigrants who seem illegal” comments
      • Muromec 2y ago
        Don't do asylum, asylum is the worst thing ever to do in Europe now.
        • bbor 2y ago
          Why…? In all of Europe?
          • Muromec 2y ago
            Being asylum seeker is not cool at all, as you don't have agency. If you are asking for worker's visa, you will get it (or very unlikely not get it) and be done with it in a few weeks. Then you just live your life normally, have access to job market, pay taxes and all that. Maybe even have a nice tax deal. If you submit for protection, then government will consider your application in maybe 2 years, but no promise (subtext: we don't want you here anyways, you are not a priority). While it's not approved, your access to labor market is limited (because they take your jobs!). If you are a tech worker with a visa, you may learn the language or not, do it fast, slow and decide yourself. If you are a status holder, you have an obligation and a case worker. Generally speaking you have a case worker and government wants to know you are still in the country and how you are doing. Now since you can't have a job, you will also have a problem finding a normal free market rent in a place that suits your vibes, so you will be at the mercy of the government as well. Happening be happening in places where a lot of people with no access to labor market are concentrated and conditions will be, lets just say cheap. Once you are processed you may get social housing. There isn't a whole lot of it sitting free in the center of the capital 5 mins aways from the you dream tech job. Now as to all of Europe? Probably not all of it, but affluent tech worker probably wants to go to a nice part of it, where everyone also wants to be, including all the actual refugees from the previous three wars and people who joined them on the way and put the foot into the door and don't want to be kicked out. System can handle it in case of emergency, but then the flow has to subside and thing have to be back to normal. Well having constant inflow is a new normal, so what does political body do with it? Downscale and slow down to throttle it. On the off chance of picking the place that isn't nice for everybody's liking, the burueacracy may be specifically optimized to reject everyone and not speak languages. Bureacracy is also very local and doesn't always match political speeches of the supreme leader whenever you agree with them or not. Do the normal tech visa, it's fine.
• rolandog 2y ago
  But aren't we supposed to wait out the Red Mirage / Blue Shift [0] before calling a winner? (Linked to timestamp of where former political director of Fox News testifies about it being a known thing). [0]: https://youtu.be/5XEQ_7zZ-bw?t=93 https://youtu.be/5XEQ_7zZ-bw?t=93
  • AndyJames 2y ago
    I think that's it. What could happen overnight already happened.
    • rolandog 2y ago
      Indeed. By the way, for anyone that's interested on the topic, I just stumbled onto a nice Stand-up Maths video that goes more in-depth on the subject and cautions against "nice, simple, neat, easy narratives" [0]. [0]: https://youtu.be/KXQ1ieFRr0o https://youtu.be/KXQ1ieFRr0o
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• sitzpinkler 2y ago
  As an example of how pushing a message too hard can have the opposite effect: In "The Last of Us" (the series, I haven't played the game) the bad people are white (and are especially bad if they are also Christian), while the good people are generally some combination of black, homosexual, and "neurodivergent". Three of the four groups we meet are led by women. The two good ones are led by black women. The only group doing well is a communist commune. When I feel like I am being manipulated I not only discard the message, but actively rebel against it. Donald Trump disgusts me, but it feels to me like he at least authentically represents a viewpoint.
  • remram 2y ago
    Democrats made The Last Of Us and that losts them the election?
  • minimaxir 2y ago
    The racial composition of characters in The Last of Us series is the same as it was in the game, released in 2013 before identity politics was even on the zeitgeist.
    • Xortl 2y ago
      I say this as a straight non-religious white man who is disgusted by Trump and the fact that people support him. Making the main character and his brother hispanic is not "the same" as the game, especially when the remaining straight white non-hispanic men in the show are absolutely awful. Or take the US version of The Office, where the one Christian character is a running joke, an awful person with terrible takes not meant to be taken at all seriously. Can you imagine how it would've gone over if the one black or hispanic character on the show was just a running joke?
• tekkk 2y ago
  You just gotta laugh at this point. It wasn't even that close so people have spoken. What hopefully we all have learnt from this is that average American is mostly concerned with themselves and how their lives can get better. For others, boo-hoo. Especially with this economy. And I wish the politics would move towards less vitriol. It's just sad how both parties are so dug in with their opinions. I'm sure there could have been reasonable discussions with regards to eg economy and immigration where the concerns of the large portion of the population had been seriously addressed. Being practical isn't a fault, in fact one of the things I think Mr Trump got elected. We'll see does it translate to reality but he definitely has ideas.
  • Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    >he definitely has ideas. 'Concepts', he has 'concepts'. You'll hear about them in about two weeks time.
    • steve_adams_86 2y ago
      I worry that these concepts are actually already fleshed out, but having not said anything about them already, he had free rein to implement whatever he wants since no one voted on a campaign promise.
  • sanderjd 2y ago
    Politics is not going to move toward less vitriol until the primary source of that vitriol exits the stage... Unfortunately he was just elected to a new four year term.
    • tekkk 2y ago
      That's true... It's hard to make sense of it. But I suppose you can try to just skip that part, not get triggered by it, and just focus on practical issues and explanations why things are such. Inflation is high because of Covid aid et cetera. I though personally believe this was mostly just Covid & immigration fallout and not really tied to Trump per se. Could have been almost anybody with those talking points with a sprinkle of charisma and they would have won. Assassination attempt helped probably as well.
• wslh 2y ago
  I am at work on the mobile phone and quickly checking: does Trump made an incredible election (more than what was expected)?
• whoitwas 2y ago
  I predict Trump dies before 2028 and JD Vance is the last American president.
  • siffin 2y ago
    Noway JD has the charisma to pull that off, trump would have to carry out the coup and cement it before another could continue.
    • whoitwas 2y ago
      He doesn't need to do anything. Trump dies, he's prez. There are no more elections.
• gigatexal 2y ago
  And if the GOP wins the house god help us. Smh.
• xyst 2y ago
  [flagged]
• pknerd 2y ago
  Pakistanis in the majority and Muslims in general supported Trump because Biden's govt is alleged to have toppled Imran Khan's govt and supported genocide in Gaza. American Muslims have voted for Trump
  • siffin 2y ago
    Good for them, anyone can see that trump isn't just going to give the zionists everything they want and make it far worse. It's not like he's said as such or anything, and they could have known beforehand.
    • pknerd 2y ago
      No US President by design could go against Israel. His SIL is an Israeli American.
      • siffin 2y ago
        One thing for sure, is you're part of the zionist brigade (you're easy to spot from a mile away, showing up in every comment thread to blatently support zionism). Any US President, by design, can go against israel, because the US is a free nation not beholden to israel.
        • pknerd 2y ago
          > because the US is a free nation not beholden to israel. Google APIAC and how much donations they give to senators and check their recent statements in favor of genocide. Get out of the cave
          • siffin 2y ago
            I know about that, can you explain how that corruption actually makes the US not free to decide not to support Israel? I'll repeat. The US is free and not beholden to israel. They could decide tomorrow to stop support, they won't, but they are absolutely free to.
• pknerd 2y ago
  > Former President Trump is projected to win the presidency He has already won. 277 votes
• metta2uall 2y ago
  I think this short video explains a lot - basically the establishment Democrats look after their donors & don't do much for everyday people who are struggling economically - hence the appeal of Donald Trump who promises to shake things up & generates hope - for many voters this "trumps" his bad qualities [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGy-Ea7jMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGy-Ea7jMw
• Havoc 2y ago
  Well this is going to be a wild ride. Dreading it on one level but also looking forward to the entertainment of a watch a slow motion train wreck. If he actually follows through on promises like mass deportation and forcing Ukraine peace that could get intense.
  • trickstra 2y ago
    We will also blow through any chance of stopping climate change.
    • thehappypm 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • trickstra 2y ago
        Sure, so let's vote for the felon who openly wants to become a dictator, makes so much sense...
        • leesec 2y ago
          Can you knock off this garbage?
          • p_j_w 2y ago
            Is he wrong?
            • rvz 2y ago
              Yes, they are wrong and it is complete garbage. Otherwise, why didn't Trump already abolish the entire constitution and voting straight after the 2016 election just to make himself a dictator?
              • p_j_w 2y ago
• em1sar 2y ago
  [dead]
• api 2y ago
  It's extremely gross that I already see Democrats blaming the fact that Harris was a woman. They're going to play that card rather than admit that their message and agenda is falling flat. Trump should not be hard to beat. He has never been broadly popular. Democrats keep losing to him because they refuse to listen to anyone but their own echo chamber. They lost in 2016 and almost in 2020 and learned nothing. Speaking of... this has firmly convinced me that deplatforming is the wrong answer. All it has done is create echo chambers. All I see is Democrats scratching their heads and blaming and fuming because they can't possibly understand why they lost. That's because they hang out in places like this or /r/politics and they've all moved to coastal cities with left-leaning political environments. If Harris had won in a landslide you'd see the exact same thing on the other side because they, too, are in echo chambers. I did get one thing I was hoping for: a clear result. I was hoping whichever way it went it would be unambiguous to avoid a bunch of conspiracy theories and fighting. Edit: one more takeaway: the traditional media is dead. Toast. They had no idea what was happening and all their takes are basically empty hand waving. They're absolutely clueless and out of touch and no longer have any influence.
• bennettnate5 2y ago
  Shout out to dang for all the hard work at moderating he does--there's going to be a lot of flagged comments to slog through in the coming days if this thread is any indication
  • sanderjd 2y ago
    Maybe because of how good he is at moderation, I would say that this seems to be the least awful one of these threads that we've had during the Trump era.
    • ThrowawayR2 2y ago
      That's because the US west coast is just waking up and sitting down at their computers right about now. The next few hours will undoubtedly be, um, challenging for the moderators.
      • alex1138 2y ago
        Possibly but HN still runs on a fairly more niche (this is not an insult) reputation system, it's not Reddit which is known to absolutely everybody
  • xnorswap 2y ago
    Also shout out to HN for fixing whatever it was that caused threads as large as this to slow down the whole of HN to the point where loading any thread would take forever.
    • sctb 2y ago
      That's also dang.
      • MarcelOlsz 2y ago
        Give that man a raise.
  • 2y ago
• Animats 2y ago
  Foreign policy under Trump will generally be isolationist. - US out of NATO? Trump will at least threaten that. The larger European countries are currently weak militarily by historical standards. There does not seem to be enough will in Europe to spend at US levels, outside of the countries on the front line, such as Poland and Finland. - Ukraine war: Heavy US support for Ukraine probably stops. Whether Ukraine surrenders is up to Ukraine. Ukraine can fight on, but won't win much. Trump will meet with Putin and will give Putin much of what he asks for. - Israel's wars: US support continues. - China vs. Taiwan: Reduced support for Taiwan. China starts treating the area inside the nine lines as their own lake, and no US Navy craft go there. Pressure on Taiwan increases. China will attempt to get Taiwan to cave without actually invading. A blockade is possible. - Trade with China: heavy protectionism on the US side. Few other countries will go along. Overall, China's influence in the world will increase. - China's influence in South America will continue to increase. This isn't noticed much in the US, but it's big. South America now trades more with China than with the US. China controls about 40 ports in South America. The US had military bases around the world. China builds ports.
  • presentation 2y ago
    Can the EU muster political capital to fill the void that the US will leave in Ukraine? I am most worried about East Asia, really hoping Taiwan survives the next 4 years.
    • Cthulhu_ 2y ago
      They will have to when Russia knocks against their borders.
    • aprentic 2y ago
      Theoretically, yes. It's pretty unlikely. The US alone currently has more than 2x the military expenditure of the entire EU. The US also has a larger GDP than the entire EU. The US supplies the main bulk of Ukrainian military aid. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s... The EU would have to make some very serious budgeting changes if they wanted to fill that void. A bunch of EU politicians would need to make the case for deep budget cuts, tax increases, war bonds, or some combination of those.
• nazgulsenpai 2y ago
  Wouldn't it be amazing if we had a viable third party? I can dream, can't I?
  • dtquad 2y ago
    Number of parties don't determine ideological span. For example the 14 political parties in the Danish parliament all support Ukraine.
    • jacooper 2y ago
      That's one issue of many. You vote for the party which maches your ideas and opinions on many issues, not only one.
    • slothtrop 2y ago
      The other interesting thing about Denmark is that most parties are similar on immigration. Across the pond it's likened to a Social Democracy, but it's also a high-trust society with low crime rates.
      • skinkestek 2y ago
        That hasn't always been the case though, has it?
        • slothtrop 2y ago
          Which part? The country is over 80% ethnic Danish, so I imagine some aspect of that has been consistent a long time.
          • skinkestek 2y ago
            I mean, what is now the new Danish immigration policy was considered racist by every mainstream party until a fee years ago, wasn't it?
    • unethical_ban 2y ago
• ajot 2y ago
  I salute my brothers in Istanbul, the argentinean peso and turkish lira will fall, but they will have each other again.
• tomohawk 2y ago
  Harris couldn't even address her people last night. That pretty much sums up her ability to be a leader. We dodged a bullet.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • archagon 2y ago
    [flagged]
• stuckkeys 2y ago
  I had to double check if I was on reddit…these are some wild comments lol
• bastloing 2y ago
  [flagged]
• rootusrootus 2y ago
  Well, I guess that shows our collective feeling toward democracy. Is it too much to hope that USAv2 adopts a parliamentary form of government? Or is it necessary to step through an authoritarian phase first? For the sake of my kids I’m glad we live in a blue state, so we might be somewhat insulated from the immediate consequences. Even then, I’m glad I’m a gun toting liberal and have the means to defend myself against those who wish me and my family harm.
  • cookszn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • rootusrootus 2y ago
      With a straight face and having factual evidence of what Trump did to the Supreme Court, you’re accusing Biden of being authoritarian? Your man is about to pardon himself rather than be subject to the same justice system the rest of us are.
      • cookszn 2y ago
        Having bogus lawsuits, especially from politically motivated judges (nyc) ruins our trust in the judicial system. Forget Trump, just look at lawsuits against Elon.
    • NemoNobody 2y ago
      The world we were born into ended yesterday - you'll see how. The world is very likely going to war bc Trump isn't going to do anything to stop them. He said he'd leave NATO - the most powerful military alliance in the history of the world that we own. He is about to dismantle our empire. I think voting for Trump was in American. I might be arrested someday for this comment.
  • cynicalpeace 2y ago
    At least 30% of any blue state voted for Trump. If you actually believed 30% of the walking public wanted to do your family harm, you'd be in another country. You're just being dramatic because you think everyone who voted for Trump is stupid. Try taking a different tack. Maybe over 50% of the country is not stupid and don't wish you harm? Your family will be stronger if you try to understand your fellow man.
• dsabanin 2y ago
  Another country succumbed to a fascist moron, such a shame.
  • guywithahat 2y ago
    Trump doesn't promote a socialist economy and instead opts for free markets which mean, by definition, he cannot be fascist
    • burnte 2y ago
      Fascism is not socialism. One can have a fascist government and capitalist economy. Examples: Italy and Germany in the 1930s and 40s.
      • guywithahat 2y ago
        Italy and Germany both had socialist economies, which is why they took over major companies and promoted themselves as socialists. All sectors of the economy were not taken over yet (largely due to the war) but they were moving quickly towards having no major private industries
• bravetraveler 2y ago
  What a truly amazing series of events
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• grahamj 2y ago
  smh something is very wrong with the US
• a_thro_away 2y ago
  The game we have now is you win by the most voters, might as well be the most voters to sit on a scale and weigh more, wins. It is Mob rule. A significant portion of the electorate has no real idea of what is being asked, nor if its true, just that it sounds good. And we will never get good governance out of that.
• dathinab 2y ago
  The main question here is: Did they include into the prediction the fact that in many state mail in ballots have to be counted after normal ballots and that for a lot of reasons Democrats are way more likely to vote by mail. EDIT: Not that it matters anymore by know.
  • linsomniac 2y ago
    My impression is that that is not the case as it was 4 years ago. Many of the swing states seemed to be committed to having all the results in within a few hours of polls closing, with some small exceptions. I believe that was the case in NC and GA, and with PA being expected to be closer to 4 hours after polls close.
    • dathinab 2y ago
      It's definitely still a thing at least in some states. And takes up to 3 days as it's more work then processing the normal ballot votes (especially if the normal votes are done with voting machines). but is quite unlikely to change the outcome with how things look by now.
• pmarreck 2y ago
  Reddit is finding out that if you block everyone not inside your echo chamber, but are still in the smaller echo chamber, every election will shock you It unfortunately sits on the shoulders of progressives seeking change to convince the conservatives not seeking it to do so. By choosing not to do this asymmetric work, this is the consequence
  • warner25 2y ago
    I'm not a Reddit user (or any social media user unless you count this) but one of my big takeaways from this election is how out-of-touch I am, apparently, with the majority of Americans; I've been shocked for months (years?) that Trump was even still a contender. I guess I've just been living in heavily blue places, and working alongside highly educated people, since 2016. I thought that everybody could see Trump and Trumpism for what they really are, but I guess not, and I'm left wondering: "Who are these 70M+ people?"
    • idunnoman1222 2y ago
      “Highly educated” - told on yourself pretty quick
    • pmarreck 2y ago
      Highly educated ≠ intelligent. You can be quite highly educated and still sit inside an ideological bubble and have no clue that anything is wrong... until it is. "Heavily blue" is definitely an ideological bubble, because, as it turns out, and this may shock you (!!!), no political party has a monopoly on truths. There are bad things about Kamala and good things about Trump that you would literally never encounter if you only read "blue media". If you only read blue media, you will also consume a lot of BS (good things that are untrue about Kamala and bad things that are untrue about Trump). Same is true about red media, except with the poles reversed. And echo chambers just reinforce all this BS. Intelligent people question the sacred cows, and the most intelligent question the most sacred cows. James Damore was intelligent, wrote an intelligent paper, and instead of engaging with him and his ideas, he got eviscerated. And that was at Google, a supposedly "highly educated" place. If you just can't say certain things, you are in an oppressive society, or sub-society, end of story. I got eviscerated on Facebook 2 days ago merely for saying "so I investigated this claim that Trump is fascist, found the attributes of fascism, tried to rate him along those attributes, and he got a C (where F is Fascist)" (for comparison, Kamala got a B somehow, Putin an F, H__ler an F of course). Were there actual counterarguments to it? Nope. Someone asked for evidence, and I cited 3 links with a total of 20+ experts in them who on average said "no, not fascist enough to be labeled it". Then they attacked me for using ChatGPT to help put it all together (genetic fallacy). They kept attacking me and not my analysis. One was a fairly smart individual, but in this case he did not use it. Since they were mainly attacking ChatGPT at that point, I asked ChatGPT to eviscerate every one of their arguments, defending us both and speaking as itself, which it did, with aplomb, and was amazing.
• cynicalpeace 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • tyleo 2y ago
    Agreed. Most people want what’s best for everyone and vote that way from their POV. We all have pieces of the truth. The best way to see the whole truth is bringing those pieces together.
    • cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Exactly, and this is true open mindedness that the left used to espouse. "Walk a mile in my shoes" Now we love to invent reasons to never do that. "Open mindedness goes too far when it loves fascism" is one example of totally missing the point.
  • steve_adams_86 2y ago
    I’m from Canada so I’m missing a lot of information and understanding of what it’s like for people who voted for Trump. Can you explain how you think a vote for Trump was in your best interest? I’m genuinely curious and interested in this perspective.
    • cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Thanks for the genuine interest :) 1. Don't want war with Russia. Trump's presidency was relatively low-war. He's also expressed a great desire to end the Ukraine conflict. If the Donbas and Crimea is the price of avoiding Nuclear war, I'm on board. The moment that switched me to deciding on Trump was when Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala. 2. Protecting kids. I don't think kids can consent to medical gender transition. It amounts to state sanctioned child abuse. I have kids. Once you're 18 go ahead do what you want. 3. Illegal immigration. I lived in South America for 4 years. My wife is Colombian, we just moved back to the States. Legally. It was a long and arduous process to come in legally. That should be made easier (something Musk at least has espoused) and coming in illegally should be made harder. I know quite a few illegal immigrants and they are being abused by the urban elite to build their summer homes. They're not living a better life and they're stuck here. 4. Federal bureaucracy. The federal bureaucracy has become a parasite on our progress. Just look at what's happening with SpaceX. This ties in with the immigration thing. The problems we have with immigration are actually that the lazy and corrupt bureaucracy takes years to process something that should take 2 hours. (and does! even in "third world" countries like Colombia) 5. Trust. Everyone who hates Trump likes to talk about how much he makes stuff up. But he's authentic. Meaning he rarely reads from a script. He talks off the cuff. He's not controlled. I'm tired of having politicians that basically hate half the country and think we're dumb because we don't like to listen to their corpo-bureaucrat speeches
• ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  To the people that are very upset about this, I'd like to offer some silver linings. A blowout in either direction was necessary here. A clear result is better for everyone. The press can go back to being adversarial to power (Although straight faced bullshit like the Cheney firing squad thing will probably only be more common, so thats a double edged sword). The dems will likely stop anointing people. We never have to sit through a Trump election campaign again. The first woman president will likely be a much stronger candidate. Kamala could have potentially really ruined it for women going forward.
  • rocky_raccoon 2y ago
    > The dems will likely stop anointing people. I thought that after 2016...
  • km144 2y ago
    1. The margin of victory does not matter—If Trump won, the Democratic establishment would have largely accepted the results and if Harris won, the GOP would have fully rejected the results. Everyone knew this was true. There is a fundamental asymmetry in respect for democracy between the parties. 2. Harris actually did just ruin it for women going forward. The Democratic party has now put forward two women against Trump that arguably both failed in spectacular fashion. It's not really clear to me why they did this, but they did it, and I don't know why we'd see a woman secure a major party's nomination for president in the next couple decades as a result.
    • ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      1. Maybe. I am happy to not be testing this hypothesis. 2. I think the problem is inserting women that the voters aren't asking for. They could try asking who to run instead of telling people who to vote for, and they just might get a woman into the office. There are women out there that have their own real following that could probably get there with the machine behind them, but the machine doesn't want any of them. Depending on how things go, Tulsi could be the next best chance, if people stop making up shit about her being a Russian asset. But shes on the red team, so the dems will tear her down if she tries.
• iammjm 2y ago
  I can't decide if it's more like a 1930s Europe or the Fall of Rome -type situation
  • thinkingtoilet 2y ago
    Why not both? We are absolutely an empire in decline. And we just elected someone who spoke about the "enemy from within" and made numerous threats of turning the military on the American people.
  • tgv 2y ago
    Time will tell, but the 30s also ended in the fall of Europe. It's only one economic crisis to the fall of the American empire.
  • bitsandboots 2y ago
    I'm going Fall of Rome because of the potential for the end of Pax Americana
  • krageon 2y ago
    It's not been a hugely impactful country in the way that the roman empire was, so at the very least it's not the latter. I know people like to say "pax americana" was a thing, but let's be real - even when the US was actually doing well it wasn't a force for peace and development.
• seydor 2y ago
  I wish the people who are frustrated would actually come to europe for once. We do need a dose of american optimism and dynamism , but alas you never come guys. What s wrong
  • cglace 2y ago
    It is expensive to leave. . .
  • gwbas1c 2y ago
    The US needs a dose of Europe's civility and modern approach to democracy. Are student exchanges still a thing? Maybe we need more of that.
  • drawkward 2y ago
    Don't speak the local language, not sure where I'd find employment. My Italian passport is ready!
    • vintagedave 2y ago
      Estonia. Tech country, advanced, lots of startups, in the capital and in tech companies most people speak English, easily understandable tax system, stable political climate, and a good standard of living including public healthcare. I live there, happy to discuss if there's interest!
      • benabbott 2y ago
        Seems like you are not native but moved there. What made you choose Estonia over anywhere else in the world?
        • vintagedave 2y ago
          Originally, chance. Over a decade ago I was traveling country to country a year at a time, and had never lived somewhere so far north. I booked a ticket and landed with a suitcase knowing nothing about it (no exaggeration, I had no idea.) Once there I realised it's an amazing place. Lovely people. Peaceful and quiet. Good rule of law and stability combined with kindness (you can trust the police here.) High tech. Beautiful nature. Very clean air. Lots of forest. Big enough to have a big city; small-town living if you want. It's very business-friendly and I started a company here. Then, married an Estonian, so I guess I'm staying here now :)
• oncethishappens 2y ago
  [flagged]
• Daishiman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • thechao 2y ago
    He has good days and bad days. My dad's 82, and he's doing a lot better than DJT.
  • dcow 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • Daishiman 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • sickofparadox 2y ago
        Surely insulting people by calling them "low information voters" (read as: stupid idiot) will win this time despite failing in 2016 and 2024. Also, people were at the very least offered vasectomies at the DNC rally[1], so maybe you should check your information levels, they seem to need a top-off. [1]https://www.npr.org/2024/08/20/nx-s1-5081386/planned-parenthood-mobile-clinic-abortion-vasectomies-dnc https://www.npr.org/2024/08/20/nx-s1-5081386/planned-parenth...
        • Daishiman 2y ago
          You're picking one point in the headline that by itself sounds totally outrageous because in the mind of the low-information voter you read the headline and think to yourself a sketchy booth that says "free vasectomies!!!1" and somebody grabbing you in the middle of a convention saying "Kid, want a free vasectomy?". In the context of a health check in reproductive health RV that offers a ton of things, _including_ vasectomies in the context of an informed discussion with a health expert, it is not only totally reasonable, but it should be extended to a host of other services that can provided in a mobile clinic the same that mobile vaccination sites were provided during COVID.
• d--b 2y ago
  On a side note: thank you HN team for fixing the large-number-of-comments issue.
• BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  [flagged]
• ozgrakkurt 2y ago
  As a foreigner, it seems like both sides are super extremely marginalised. Both sides believe everything will be done and there will be a big change if the other side wins. Reality is really not that radical, people are being lit up by propoganda. Saying this as a Turkish person, this has been happening in our country almost since I was born and it destroyed politics, normalisation and being calm is much better than sensationalising everything. Imho biggest issues are related to economics, like housing, like dark money in elections. Meaningless topics are sensationalised to marginalise people and unfortunately it works every time. Politics shouldn’t be right vs left, it should be rich vs middle class vs poor, as economics is the single most impactful aspect on most people’s lives. But politicians want to rile everyone up and put them against each other.
  • Liquix 2y ago
    In the US, it seems the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests were the last time it was really the people vs. the incumbents. Ever since then all there's been are carefully manufactured conflicts with two sides to choose from, which divide the common class and cause them to argue amongst each other.
    • slibhb 2y ago
      There's no reason at all to say Occupy was "real" whereas current conflicts are "manufactured."
    • boxed 2y ago
      I think you have a too rosy image of the ineffective and confused Occupy Wall Street protests.
      • brodouevencode 2y ago
        A lot of whom were paid to be there.
        • gcr 2y ago
          Where did you hear this?
• whall6 2y ago
  “Ask HN: So who did you vote for?”
  • christophilus 2y ago
    It would be interesting to see an anonymous poll of HN to find out how many silent Trump voters there are here.
    • swat535 2y ago
      Judging by the comments here, it will be majority democrat.
      • christophilus 2y ago
        > silent Trump voters If it's anonymous, we might be surprised. I know a number of HNers personally in my life, and they'd never admit to voting for Trump here or to anyone in their day jobs.
        • ur-whale 2y ago
          > If it's anonymous, we might be surprised. Fully agree. Admitting you supported Trump on HN is suicide. But then more than half of the country voted for him, so I guess ... do the math, even if HN's participants are biased blue.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
• sincerecook 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • thrance 2y ago
    Which party is banning books again?
    • Molitor5901 2y ago
      That's a disingenuous argument. I remember when the Anarchist Cookbook was banned from my public library. It has nothing to do with "banning books," it is banning wholly inappropriate content for children. Do we want manuals on the library bookshelf laying out how someone could possibly build a bomb? NO. So the book is banned on that, its content, not just a broad claim of book banning. There's a big difference between banning books and deciding that some books, some content, is just not appropriate for kids.
      • thrance 2y ago
        Go take a look at this list[1] and come back make the same claim. Are all these bans to protect the children? Or is it simply that these books go against the politcal views of these so-called "free speech absolutists"? If you're willing to get out of your bubble, type "maga book burning" in google and hit enter. [1] https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/more-than-350-books-banned-in-florida-schools-since-last-july-16817328 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/more-than-350-books-banne...
      • greenie_beans 2y ago
        i'm curious to hear why you think “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas should be banned from libraries? https://mississippitoday.org/2023/03/16/angie-thomas-mississippi-book-ban/ https://mississippitoday.org/2023/03/16/angie-thomas-mississ...
  • giraffe_lady 2y ago
    What's an example of a socially conservative policy you're looking forward to the implementation of? I'm not usually sure what people mean by that specifically, I definitely can't tell here.
• HeavyStorm 2y ago
  My condolences to all north americans.
  • knicholes 2y ago
    Over half who voted chose him.
    • kurante 2y ago
      There is more to North America than the United States.
      • jonny_eh 2y ago
        And he got 71M votes, not even half of the US population.
    • ant6n 2y ago
      Condolences are still possible
• voisin 2y ago
  “It’s the economy, stupid” has never been truer. People will trade their rights for more basic needs being fulfilled and most people simply aren’t happy with the one sided economy that has prevailed since the late 80s. Interest rates were too low for too long beginning circa 2000, and the massive flood of QE led to an explosion in house prices, car prices, and food. This is what the world gets for poor monetary and fiscal management for more than two decades.
  • tlogan 2y ago
    Exactly. The Harris team made a key mistake by responding with, ‘No, you’re wrong. The economy is doing great—just look at the stats.’ They needed a concrete plan to address people’s concerns directly, but that was missing. Personally, my issue with the Democrats is how they mishandled the electric vehicle charging network initiative. [0] [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/congress-ev-chargers-billions-00129996 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/congress-ev-charger...
  • lesuorac 2y ago
    > the massive flood of QE led to an explosion in house prices, car prices, and food. That's not really the case though. We had a similar QE in '08 with pretty much no effect on CPI [1] or Housing [2]. As well as the increase in pricing has occurred _when the money printing stopped_ and not _while the money was printing_ [3]. The current inflation isn't caused by money printing. It's caused by pricing power by conglomerates. We've allowed energy companies to join together and they've agreed with OPEC to cut production to lead to price increases. We've allowed rental companies to join together and raise prices. We've allowed meat companies to join together and raise prices. The lack of anti-trust enforcement along with a trigger (Covid) is what caused inflations, companies realized they had a talking point (supply chain problems) that they could pin price increase on regardless of if it was true. [1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDCPIM158SFRBCLE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDCPIM158SFRBCLE [2]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIEHOUSE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIEHOUSE [3]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MBCURRCIR#0 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MBCURRCIR#0
    • 2y ago
• tlogan 2y ago
  It’s all about the economy (remember, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’). We keep hearing statistics showing that the economy is doing well, but I have yet to meet anyone who feels like they’re actually better off. I’m not saying that the stats are wrong, but when it comes to politics, you can’t address economic anxiety by just pointing to statistics and saying, ‘Look, the numbers say everything is fine.’
  • tootie 2y ago
    Polling clearly indicates that the percentage of Americans who feel financially secure has been steady for years while the percentage who think the economy is in poor shape is increasing rapidly. It is 99% perception. People who are better off just won't say it when they think everyone else is struggling. The bull market in stocks and rising home values indicates anyone who owns any assets is doing very very well.
    • brink 2y ago
      Posts on HN about tech workers struggling to find jobs and mass layoffs reaches the front page every week. Half my tech friends are laid off right now. That was not the case four years ago. Everyone I knew had a job, everyone had money.
      • tootie 2y ago
        That's perception. In reality layoffs happen all the time even in a growing labor market. I saw tech layoffs in my network up to maybe a year ago and almost everyone is employed again. We had a correction after what was the most overheated job market ever.
      • Uncouple4063 2y ago
        > half my friends Yes, this is > 99% perception
      • ThrowawayR2 2y ago
        Uncertainty about how erratic US domestic and foreign policy is going to become as a result of the election is probably going to drop spending on US products globally, including software and high tech. If HNers were unhappy about tech layoffs now, well, IMO the public just voted for someone likely to cause even more of them.
• yndoendo 2y ago
  Lewd charisma wins over kind intelligence.
  • antonyt 2y ago
    If you can point to any video from the last several months where he comes across as charismatic, I'd be genuinely interested to see it. Maybe I've lost touch with what charisma is.
    • 56w4574 2y ago
      He was fairly down to earth on the Joe Rogan and Andrew Schulz podcasts. I'm not saying everything he said was true but the tone of the conversations was fairly different from how he conducts himself at other moments.
      • dartharva 2y ago
        He seems to have realized lately that it's a better idea to take his "unhinged" persona mask off in one-on-one interactions like in podcasts or personal interviews. He wasn't like this before, a lot of his interviews used to be disastrous.
      • dmonitor 2y ago
        Joe Rogan's #1 talent is making crackpots seem reasonable and chill. It's what makes his show interesting.
  • NotYourLawyer 2y ago
    Kind intelligence? Harris can barely string a sentence together. We had two horrible choices.
    • consteval 2y ago
      I mean, this just isn't true. She's extremely educated and well-spoken. Generally I think the attacks on her intelligence come from her being a black woman - I have doubts anyone would question her high qualifications if she was a white man. EDIT: If you're going to downvote me I expect at least some explanation of how she is uneducated, unqualified, or not articulate. I have yet to see any, from anyone, which unfortunately leaves me no choice but to make unfavorable assumptions. If your opinion is not fueled by racism or sexism, that should be extraordinarily easy to prove, and you should be motivated to do so.
• drdrek 2y ago
  LOL democrats really did a number on themselves here! The majority of the country was telling them "We are having change anxiety after Obama and we are having distrust in institutions after Covid". So what did they do? Cling to the same power structures with a dead man walking, doubled down on gender politics, devolved internally into morality based foreign policy shout match and the cherry on top put an uncharismatic non white woman as the candidate. At every step of the way they very eloquently and academically explained why they have the right solutions while completely ignoring the emotional state of the nation. All they had to do was bring a calming white man that is not in cognitive decline that would reassure the nation that everything was going to be alright. That the America they know and love is here to stay. You may don't like that this was reality, that your progressive views are more "right" than that, but it is. So now enjoy being factually, morally, academically correct with trump as the president with control on the congress. What a joke.
  • slothtrop 2y ago
    > The majority of the country was telling them "We are having change anxiety after Obama Biden came after Trump. > All they had to do was bring a calming white man that is not in cognitive decline that would reassure the nation that everything was going to be alright What motivated people is inflation and border crossings.
    • drdrek 2y ago
      > Biden came after Trump. Exactly, Yeah! He was the white man not in mental decline that said that everything is going to be alright. > What motivated people is inflation and border crossings. Yes, these are some of the issues that needed to be addressed instead of gender politics and foreign policy. What is the disagreement?
      • Capricorn2481 2y ago
        The disagreement is that Fox News focused on gender politics, but it was largely absent from both Biden and Kamala's campaign. I guess congrats to Fox, because focusing on it all day every day worked. The average joe thinks that's all the Democrats care about. It's extremely transparent when someone says "gender politics" what media they're consuming.
• bandyaboot 2y ago
  Can everyone acknowledge that this would have been flagged out of existence within minutes if it had been a story about the opposite result? edit: acknowledging that I was wrong about this.
  • tyleo 2y ago
    I don’t think that’s true. I feel like we get an allowance of one of these posts per election if you go back in HN history.
    • bandyaboot 2y ago
      Ok, fair enough. I was going from the assumption that political posts generally are removed from hn. But, clearly there's just some nuance that I didn't recognize.
      • tyleo 2y ago
        I appreciate you acknowledging this. Something not done enough. Thanks a ton!
  • drdrek 2y ago
    There were posts left up on many divisive issues with a "Be kind" message on them. I think what you are thinking of is a "election stolen, storm the capitol" posts :)
  • Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    "Can everyone acknowledge" is such a weird phrase, just like "can we all agree". No, we can't, this isn't how things work, everyone has a right to their own opinion etc. And it wouldn't have been flagged out of existence, see this post from 4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25015967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25015967
    • bandyaboot 2y ago
      Ok, I'll acknowledge that I'm incorrect about this.
• hiergiltdiestfu 2y ago
  absolutely bonkers, this is the shittiest timeline
• stevev 2y ago
  The left and the Democrats has become so far left and radical that their party didn’t resonate with everyday Americans for the past several years.
  • GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
    Have they? They've been consistently trying to chase moderates for years. Harris had Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney backing her. I'd say their attempt to capture these people has largely failed.
    • GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
      very funny to watch this post go from +3 to -1 as the Americans woke up
  • greenie_beans 2y ago
    this is so wrong. the dems have shifted rightward. they would've won if they were further left.
  • deergomoo 2y ago
    The Democrats are firmly centre-right when compared against most of the rest of the western world. They wouldn’t know far-left if it slapped them in the face.
• drdrek 2y ago
  Can the doomers relax? He is mentally unstable and egomaniac, but do you really think the US is this fregile? Have you met CEOs and politicians? most of them are egomaniacs and some are mentally unstable. If the system could not handle them in power the country would have crumbled long ago... Will it be better or worse? who knows. but definitely not OMFG ruined everything gone. Have a day off and calm down.
  • lifeinthevoid 2y ago
    I think you underestimate the guy. Or do you believe that a president that orchestrated a riot on the Capitol is just a minor issue? The guy has learned a lot from his first presidency, he has had 4 years to think about what went wrong and now we're about to experience it.
    • exodust 2y ago
      Isn't "learning a lot from past experiences and past mistakes" a virtue? Something we encourage children to do? You're framing it like a bad thing. As an outsider to American politics, the stark loyalty to political branding is remarkable. It amazes me that "make America great again" is considered by some to be a toxic slogan. There's nothing stopping the Dems using the exact same phrase, but with their different approach behind it. Everyone wants America "great", it's how you get there where differences emerge. What hope does the "united" states have when they can't even unite behind a fundamental objective of making the country great? Maybe it's Hollywood's fault. Years of Good vs Evil stories has us viewing the world in Red Vs Blue. Is the fight necessary for existence? Do you think there's even one person in America who likes both Harris & Trump, and wishes them both well? Or are those people considered unworthy of respect?
  • Krasnol 2y ago
    Obviously, the US is VERY fragile. Their egos are fragile, they're afraid of women, LGBT, people who don't look like the default Caucasian stock and so on. This is why they elect idiots who don't educate them and instead play their fears because he shares so many of them.
• sourcepluck 2y ago
  From far away, it looks obvious. When he ran the first time, the tactic was "oh easy, we'll say we're not as egregious as that guy". They even sabotaged Bernie to this effect (see Podesta emails), even though he was polling much better than Clinton. This failed miserably, probably in essence because the Democrats were underestimating the power of clicks to drive reality, which Trump understood, at least intuitively. This was a historical moment where the Democrats could have reorganised things and refocused on their traditional base, namely, the working class. It seemed obvious they should, I personally really thought they would have to. No no, it turned out. We were treated to years and years of full on circus shenanigans. They doubled down, blamed others - the Russians, Wikileaks, whoever really. Anything but blame themselves and admit that they were offering nothing which was substantively different enough from the Republicans, in the eyes of the voters. And here we are again. Will they be able to gut the decrepit power structures keeping the zombie Democrat party afloat this time, injecting new life? Or will they find a new scapegoat, treating us to more utterly pointless pontificating through a series of never-ending media cycles. In summary, it seems they think pandering to identity tropes will be enough to distinguish them in the eyes of the voters, but that is simply playing on Trump's territory where he decides the rules. He does it better than them. It's one of the quite few things you could say he's "good" at.
• natch 2y ago
  This was a self-inflicted wound. * Weak, deceptive, evasive candidate * Entitled attitude in the party * Unknown people running the party. Still. * Full embrace of cray cray ideologies, rejection of meritocracy * Disengagement and withdrawal from free discussion forums * Using X to talk only about sports. Looking at you, Gruber * Constant ineffective, ignorant, and ill-informed trolling of their perceived opponents while unwittingly creating new ones * Disingenuously labeling the other side as "garbage" (said by Biden, and he is President, not a jerk racist comedian) * Assuming and never questioning the assumption, that people voting for a bad candidate love that candidate. * Taking the low road * Hiding Biden's incompetence, then, when caught, letting him stick around * Accepting the notion that one can negotiate a peace deal with Hamas * All the other things people are pretending were the only problems: the economy, immigration, etc. which genuinely also were problems. There are a lot of things the Democratic party had going for it. They really snatched defeat from the jaws of victory: * The Republican candidate is one of the worst people you could possibly imagine for the job. * He is (I believe) a rapist, for god's sake * He's nearly as demented as Biden * He lies even more than Kamala * Anti-woman is an understatement Democrats have to ask themselves, who is running our party, and for what ends? I don't think they know. I don't even recognize what they are now. It's not the economy, stupid. It's the trolling, the disengagement, and the entitlement. They are off-putting.
• brodouevencode 2y ago
  There is quite a bit of pessimism here.
  • 93po 2y ago
    i blame the media for "trump is literally hitler" for the past ten years
    • BadHumans 2y ago
      You act like the guy didn't himself say he wanted to use the military on people who disagreed with him or that he just needed people to vote one more time and after that they would rig it so you didn't need to vote again. Comments like this make me wonder if people are actually paying attention.
      • brodouevencode 2y ago
        The rhetoric has only amplified in negative ways since he came on the scene in 2015. I don't know who kicked it off, and don't think it matters. Both sides are equally guilty for the hatred they've spewed.
        • BadHumans 2y ago
          Both sides are not equally guilty and the "both sides are the same" rhetoric is tired and old.
          • brodouevencode 2y ago
            > Both sides are not equally guilty Yes they most certainly are.
            • BadHumans 2y ago
              You're going to have to point me to when the Democratic nominee said we should kill political rivals. Since both sides are equal. Because I can point to when the Republican nominee said it[0]. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-cheney-war-hawk-battle/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/politics/donald-trump-liz-che...
• lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  Even people who don't like Trump voted for the man. That's how bad Democrats have become, that even Trump could win. Selecting Chauncey Gardener as their candidate, especially after a term spent under an man who was in no condition to be president (watch old footage of Biden for comparison) was the coup de grace. Of course, in a general sense, the GOP is the Democratic party on a time delay. There are deep problems that partisan politics cannot fix, but perhaps it is time to begin taking third parties seriously and break away from the two-headed uniparty monopoly. Ranked-choice voting is one way to help this happen, but of course, the uniparty won't hear it.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• whatever1 2y ago
  I try to understand why Trump lost the 2020 election and won the 2024. My reading is that people vote with a punishment mindset. Aka the only way to punish Trump for his horrible term was to vote for Biden. And the only way to punish Biden for his bad financially term was to vote for Trump.
  • ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    Whoever is in charge gets the heat for any problems. He happened to be at the wheel, when COVID hit, and that did all kinds of damage. His handling of it was clumsy. Biden was at the wheel when we had high inflation (because we fixed the COVID slump with free money). I think the dems did a shitty job with our borders, and that hit him. Check back in 2026, to see what people think.
  • crusty 2y ago
    Our political system is dominated by a group of voters who are basically Sideshow Bobs wandering around yards strewn with rakes. https://giphy.com/gifs/season-5-the-simpsons-5x2-3o6Mbtdd7dhvbvugg0 https://giphy.com/gifs/season-5-the-simpsons-5x2-3o6Mbtdd7dh...
• cultureswitch 2y ago
  It's getting sort of ridiculous how much each party is stuck in an electoral strategy where they have to pretend to be on one side of an issue which is objectively against the interests of the people they pretend to be representing. Dems have to appear to be pro-immigration for reasons (honestly I don't know why this is like this, historically). They are genuinely less xenophobic than the Reps, so they respect the rights of recent immigrants much better. But when it comes to preventing more poor workers coming in, they are just as tough as the Reps. And I believe that's because ultimately they are slightly less captured by capital and therefore more amenable to balance the economy in favor of workers. Reps on the other hand have to appear xenophobic once again for reasons that aren't super clear to me, but when it comes to actually preventing immigration, they always manage to torpedo their own proposals. And arguably that's because if they passed effective anti-immigration laws, that would negatively affect the interests of capital, the very obvious reason they're in politics for (and Trump is certainly no different). Maybe now we can resolve this apparent paradox and simply accept that the Democrats are first and foremost the party of the educated, metropolitan and utterly disinterested in matters of material conditions. Whereas the Republicans are the party of people who are bitter towards the first group. Which leads to the conclusion that exceptionally few people in the US are voting according to their own economic interests.
  • inemesitaffia 2y ago
    Thanks for actually getting this
  • markus_zhang 2y ago
    From an outsider's view (and many of my friends hold the same view), the two parties are not that different. They are different in some minor issues that grab eyeballs so that to create drama, but for the big ones (foreign policy, economics), they are not that different. I mean look at those bi-partisan issues, they are all big ones.
    • bee_rider 2y ago
      I think this is sort of the result of looking at any country’s politics as an outsider. For Americans, most of us are in between the parties and so they point in different directions for us. Also, because the specific policies impact our lives, we are more interested in the details (where the parties actually do look pretty different) than some aggregation or big picture view. In terms of some big issues being bi-partisan… I mean, it would be sort of weird if the broad strokes weren’t somewhat bipartisan, right? Like if we actually switched between having a capitalist and a communist economy every four years… that would not be a feasible way to run a country, haha. But I mean we’re going to see some pretty big differences: support for our allies in NATO will look different (I don’t think we’re pulling out or anything but the relationships will change). The parties seem to have different visions of how we should try to get semiconductor manufacturing back over here (an industry that basically… determines what a lot the overall economy will look like). Abortion access will probably be determined by states (which will be a life-altering change of circumstance for some folks). These are big differences.
• pcunite 2y ago
  He never lost. Where are the missing 20M+ voters this time around?
  • kwere 2y ago
    Covid
  • Xortl 2y ago
    ...missing? They're waiting for their votes to be tallied.
• laniakean 2y ago
  2016 : Hilary Clinton - People felt that she was chosen because it was her turn 2020 : Kamala Harris - A candidate who never ever even did well in the primaries. I hope DNC learn from this and let people choose a candidate next time.
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    The real problem was Biden not dropping out early enough so that they could have a fair selection process. But tbh I’m not sure how much it mattered. With the high inflation levels it was always an uphill battle for the incumbent.
    • theGnuMe 2y ago
      Inflation caused by Trump (Covid) and greedy corps. Stocks at all time highs baby.
    • CWuestefeld 2y ago
      Underlying that problem were the Administration thinking they could fool us all into believing that Biden's faculties were unaffected. This was a two-edged sword because it also demonstrated that maybe it doesn't matter so much who is president, at least as domestic affairs go, because the administrative state runs so much on autopilot.
      • throw_that_away 2y ago
        That's the thing about the left, they think the "machine" could just run things. You actually have to have someone that fires people. Think about it, Even Kim Cheatle had to resign! Biden did not ask for ANYONE to do a good job. No one was in control of that admin, it was a complete mess. If there is an atmosphere of governance/leadership that no matter how shitty a job you do, but you get to keep your job, then no one will care about anything at the top.
        • tartoran 2y ago
• squarefoot 2y ago
  Hopefully there is still time to give Edward Snowden a well deserved pardon, before he becomes a bargaining chip to be extradited in exchange for something (less sanctions, etc) in a US-Russia, or better, Trump-Putin deal.
• Taikonerd 2y ago
  Don't move to Canada; move to a swing state.
  • BadHumans 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • CWuestefeld 2y ago
      the person just elected promised to rig every election Quote, please? I believe you're referring to what Trump said about in the future, New Yorkers won't have to vote. That's not saying they won't be allowed to vote. It's saying that the folks who think they need to vote to defend their way of life won't feel that way anymore. Of course, whether those folks are right, or whether Trump really would do anything about it, are different questions. But in any case, it's nothing like the widely-reported statement that Trump will (somehow, through undescribed FUD) put an end to elections.
      • BadHumans 2y ago
        https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vote-four-years/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vote-four-years/
        • CWuestefeld 2y ago
          Thanks. So it was the statement I referred to, and as you'll see in my explanation above, this is nothing at all like saying that people won't be able to vote. Saying "you won't need to vote because things will be fixed" is absolutely nothing like saying "you won't be allowed to vote anymore".
          • BadHumans 2y ago
            No one is saying you won't be allowed to vote. Russia has elections and people vote. The election is just "fixed" so the votes don't matter. I also have no reason to give this a charitable interpretation but hey, I hope you're right. You aren't but I hope you are.
• inemesitaffia 2y ago
  I was told Charli XCX, Chappell Roan, and Ethel Cain would deliver this for the Dems months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41020940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41020940 and that Musk's actions wouldn't matter. More recently Joe Rogan
  • arwhatever 2y ago
    For some reason I can't help but read this in the voice of Milton, from Office Space.
    • inemesitaffia 2y ago
      I'm very African unfortunately
    • xdavidliu 2y ago
      It's because Milton said "I was told..."
  • bsnnkv 2y ago
    > Chappell Roan She actually received a great deal of backlash from "vote blue no matter who" liberals for her criticisms of Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party.
  • potsandpans 2y ago
    > If you have no idea who Charli XCX, Chappell Roan, or Ethel Cain are, you're going to miss what's going to happen this year. That's the most chronically online thing I've read in a while.
    • dmonitor 2y ago
      Chappell Roan famously did not endorse Harris, so maybe the poster had a point haha
  • culi 2y ago
    Chappell Roan and Ethel Cain didn't endorse Harris due to Palestine
• drawkward 2y ago
  It's the economy, stupid: -Inflation is not prices; it is the rate of change in prices. Low inflation doesn't imply low prices. -Aggregate statistics don't necessarily explain individual outcomes. The Dems failed on this count massively, and have, for maybe the last 40 years, which is about the amount of time it took for my state to go from national bellwether (As goes Ohio, so goes the nation) to a reliably red state. This cost one of the most pro-union Senators (Sherrod Brown) his job.
  • kristopolous 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • drawkward 2y ago
      I got a raise this year, yet my purchasing power is less than it was two years ago. The stock market just surged post-election. Please explain to me how I am better off. Please explain to me how "third way" Democrats stood for union values from the Clinton-Obama eras.
      • kristopolous 2y ago
        The claim is groups like the Heritage foundation, Manhattan Institute, Cato, Hoover Institution, Heartland, American Enterprise and other think tanks are actually propaganda manufacturing companies who lie to people as a profession. It's a specific claim
      • mrguyorama 2y ago
        Biden objectively kept inflation lower in the US than most of the developed world. What did you want instead? Actual policy proposals, not vague feelings. The ultimate crime of democrats is continuing to provide explicit proposals in a post-reality world. The Republicans realized you can just make shit up on the fly, change your mind literally every day, and the masses will latch on to whatever they want to believe and assure everyone else that their own personal interpretation of whatever vague promise they got is actually the right answer. But only if you have the magic (R) next to your name.
• slipperybeluga 2y ago
  [dead]
• dcchambers 2y ago
  The Democrats need to figure out how to recapture the favor of young men. The Joe Rogans/Logan Pauls/Elon Musks/Tiktok/Podcast bros are doing serious damage to that demographic. Almost a +30 swing to the right in the 18-29 M category from 2020.
  • downrightmike 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • cheapsteak 2y ago
      Telling people to stop being losers is a not winning strategy; might feel good, wouldn't do good.
      • downrightmike 2y ago
        Someone has to tell them.
    • idunnoman1222 2y ago
      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha keep doing what you’re doing. It’s working.
  • anthomtb 2y ago
    Since promoting a secure economic future is clearly not in the Democratic party game plan, maybe trick the Republicans into starting a war and then campaign on stopping it? I am not sure what could hit at the self-interest of the 18-29M demographic other than the Selective Service.
  • lubujackson 2y ago
    Seems really simple to me: don't discuss literally everything BUT the concerns of poor white folks? Trump is full of shit but at least he lies TO the majority population. The Dems either ignore, talk down to or dismiss the majority of their constituents. When you make literally every talking point about marginalized groups or the Ukraine or whatever you have no chance of convincing someone to switch to your side because you underline that their concerns are not a priority or even on your radar. If you spend a quarter of your time discussing transgender athletes or unisex bathrooms 99% of people don't have a personal stake in that. In other words, the Dems aren't doing the fundamental job of politicking, which is to engage with their constituents on the topics that matter to them directly.
• raintrees 2y ago
  One of the original predictions that might be entertaining(?) to see would be the US having its first President "run" the country from prison... And the follow-up situation to witness, how different would that look, in the end? For those who think rather than just react, I guess it would not be as entertaining...?
  • takinola 2y ago
    No chance he gets a prison sentence for the NY case. He will get a suspended sentence or some other slap on the wrist. The Federal cases are dead. There is no chance they can continue while he is in office and they will be killed by the time he leaves.
    • anigbrowl 2y ago
      Trying to overturn the 2020 election turned out to be a great move because the Dem institutionalists were too sclerotic to prosecute the case aggressively and wasted massive amounts of time and resources on going after proles while letting the architects of the plot get off more or less scot-free.
    • pitaj 2y ago
      It will be overturned on appeal
  • ljsprague 2y ago
    Is our current president even "running" the country?
• satisfice 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • imperialdrive 2y ago
    There are beautiful peaceful and kind neighborhoods in every state. I hope you are in one of them. Take a nice walk and have some tea or coffee at a local cafe. It's the local atmosphere and government that matter most.
  • shkkmo 2y ago
    > The garbage states have selected the garbage president. Language and attitudes like this are a big part of how we got here.
    • satisfice 2y ago
      No, it isn't. Being able and willing to tell the truth has never been the problem. The man just elected is a derelict. A twice impeached, incompetent, convicted criminal. A tool of Russian propaganda. This is fact. The people who elected him knew this or should have known it. Anyone can be randomly abusive-- Trump does this all the time. Literally every day. It's documented. It's fact. That's not what I am doing. My contempt is warranted.
      • sebastianz 2y ago
        > Being able and willing to tell the truth has never been the problem. It is indeed a problem if you want to win an election.
        • satisfice 2y ago
          You could as easily say "behaving peacefully" is a problem, or refusing to cheat. I don't want to win an election. I'm not running for anything. I'm emoting about something any decent person should also be emoting over.
      • shkkmo 2y ago
• borg16 2y ago
  one thing i definitely worry is about using public lands for oil, mineral extraction purposes. while America has a bounty of public land acreage wise, 4 years and a complete control of the government is a lot of time to do some lasting damage to the ecosystem by opening up these areas for privatization.
  • xnx 2y ago
    Agree. There are a lot of mistakes that can be undone, but ecological damage can take decades to restore its former beauty, and extinct species don't come back (some recent headlines notwithstanding).
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    The recent media attention on possible lithium fields in and around Arkansas was an interesting one to me. It seems like one that I could see the DNC latching onto for battery capacity despite the fact that it would still likely meaning he same kind of impact in federal land as mining oil, coal, etc.
    • fraserharris 2y ago
      Lithium deposits are common -- Nevada has significant ones too. The question is if the lithium is concentrated enough to make extracting it financially viable.
      • _heimdall 2y ago
        That wasn't really my point though. The discovered deposits, well expected deposits since its based on modelling data, could easily lead to a massive mining operation to extract it. That will do damage very similar to the exact kind of fossil fuel extraction that is a main argument against fossil fuels and for alternative energy sources.
        • Sabinus 2y ago
          [flagged]
• niuzeta 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dehrmann 2y ago
    Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
  • keybored 2y ago
    The man was given the choice of what to eat: manchineel bark or feces. The man made a choice. “Ah”, said the offerer of two choices: then that is what you deserve.
    • aredox 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • medo-bear 2y ago
        As opposed to what the mass media has been doing and will continue to do ?
        • jonathanstrange 2y ago
          Ah, the self-proclaimed mass media critics! Everyone else is somehow badly influenced by the nasty mass media but they see right through it with their superior intellect. They don't need correspondents and professionals to actually go where something is happening, they know the truth intuitively, perhaps even a priori.
          • keybored 2y ago
            One role of the media is to set the Overton Window. And to more generally set the confines for reasonable opinion. Have you been living under a rock?
          • RpmReviver 2y ago
• m3kw9 2y ago
  The numbers shows the dems screwed this one up in the worst way possible from top to bottom.
• amai 2y ago
  Demxit (Democracy exit)
  • bskdany 2y ago
    Ah of course! The famous democracy exit that got most electoral and popular vote.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • amai 2y ago
      Hitler also got the most electoral and popular vote: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_el... A democracy can be ended by popular vote. A dictatorship on the other side cannot be ended by popular vote.
• totaldude87 2y ago
  For many this ended up with "Have i felt better over the past 4 years" . Imagine coming out of covid, without a recession, only to be hit with inflation (both parties to blame) and sky high interest rates coupled with all other stuff like illegal border crossing to lack of majority support from Women to Harris to Harris being a silent VP for 4 full years and thrown to lime light.
  • tines 2y ago
    > Have i felt better over the past 4 years I agree with you that for a lot of people this is what it came down to, which is so sad. Short-term thinking will lead us to destruction. Instead of asking whether things have improved over the last four years, think about what you want the country and the world to look like in ten, fifty, or a hundred years. And what other countries looked like ten, fifty, a hundred, a thousand years ago. Think about the rises and falls of other nations. Think about the fact that it's getting measurably hotter every year, and that one party doesn't even acknowledge that fact. Everything is more expensive, and yes, that sucks. But we've handed over the kingdom's keys to an authoritarian idiot who will dismantle the systems that took hundreds of years to establish. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it sure burned fast. > Harris being a silent VP for 4 full years and thrown to lime light. Funny that people constantly talk about how they're not voting for Trump, they're voting for the policies of the party etc. but then they can't apply the same rationale to the other side.
    • eric-hu 2y ago
      > Funny that people constantly talk about how they're not voting for Trump, they're voting for the policies of the party etc. but then they can't apply the same rationale to the other side. Different people, different sides. I guess the Republican Party did something very well here compared to Democrats, though I don’t know what or how.
    • frmersdog 2y ago
      >think about what you want the country and the world to look like in ten, fifty, or a hundred years. This is the candidate's job. She didn't center a coherent vision of the improved future only she could get the country to. Pick one thing that Trump wouldn't or couldn't run on, that wasn't just "getting back thing we lost (under our watch)." Green New Deal. Medicare For All. Defund the police. Build houses for everyone. Monorail. Anything for people to hang a hope on. But any big idea would piss off donor-investors who would be hurt by any change to the status quo. So she offered nothing.
• tkz1312 2y ago
  The economy is broken. Facism rises. History repeats itself.
  • winter_blue 2y ago
    And it was just high inflation (albeit still lower than the inflation in other countries). Not the depression Weimar Germany had experienced in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
• rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  This my outsider perspective, I am not into US politics at all but I have spent a couple hours catching up today and my takeaway is simple (and probably wrong): the Democrat's messaging wasn't clear enough in my opinion and Kamala Harris was a weak candidate. I listened to some of her interviews and I had a really hard time understanding what her campaign was about besides not being Trump. She also failed to put some distance between her and Biden which means that in my mind and probably in the mind of a lot of voters, she was seen merely as a carbon copy of him but as a woman. Also the fact that KH was parachuted on the ticket without a primary vote because it was too late for that meant that she just wasn't ready. She put up a good fight but it wasn't enough to beat Trump who by that stage had been on the campaign trail for more than a year and spent time crafting responses, rebuttals and finding ways to attack his opponents. I think Biden shares some of the blame here but she must have known this was a suicide mission. All in all I don't think I missed anything by not paying attention to this whole circus.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    Biden should take on a lot of the blame by immediately deciding he wasn't going to run this year. Then we could have had a robust primary, hopefully ending with a more appealing candidate than Harris. Not a slam dunk, but better chances.
• ilaksh 2y ago
  Well.. the last time he won, many people were literally expecting a nuclear holocaust. I remember a season of American Horror Story where the main part of the premise was that Trump became president. We survived the first time? I want to believe that somehow having Musk involved will help? I think there are a few people who feel encouraged by that based on how effective some of his companies are, and others think he will just call in a political favor for his own profit. There seem to be two alternate realities. Either we are on the brink of a horrific fascist cyberpunk dystopia, or we have dealt a massive blow to the war-profiteering drug-profiteering establishment. I don't think either is the real world, but the extreme divergence in predictions is confusing. I dislike this guy quite a lot but I also don't think the Democrats are trustworthy or honest.
  • shkkmo 2y ago
    There's two alternate fantasies and they are both increasingly detached from reality. In reality, the war and drug profitiers will be fine and the facist cyberpunk dystopia is still approaching at roughly the same speed.
  • chicagobuss 2y ago
    last time the checks and balances were more prepared to handle (block) him. this time, they're primed to enable and embolden their plans (see project 2025). I don't expect these four years to be anything like the last time. I legitimately won't be surprised if this is the last somewhat-normal presidential election in the united states
• qzw 2y ago
  I think a lot of people forgot that before Covid hit, Trump was headed for a fairly routine reelection. Many people thought he was doing a solid job, especially on the economy. All American elections still come down to the James Carville truism, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Despite what the official metrics or stock market says, we’ve been in a “vibesession” due to inflation and elevated interest rates. Anecdotally, I'm still seeing stores run low/out of things far more frequently than pre pandemic times, which just adds to the feeling that all is not right with the world. America is actually in better economic shape than most other countries, but people are not feeling happy or optimistic, and the incumbent party is going to pay for it.
  • qeternity 2y ago
    > elevated interest rates Interest rates are either average, or below average, provided your lookback period is longer than the last 15 years of zirp.
    • sneed_chucker 2y ago
      You are technically right, but anyone 35 and younger is currently experiencing the highest interest rates of their adult lives. Whether higher rates are good or bad is irrelevant considering the economic churn that occurs when a system that's built up around one set of assumptions (cheap money and low return on fixed income) has to rebuild itself around a new reality.
    • qzw 2y ago
      15 years is a long time and reshaped the entire economy around basically free credit, so any change to that was going to be painful. And one of the real disconnects between economists and regular people is around the term inflation. Ordinary consumers actually care about affordability, not inflation. Raising interest rates to tame inflation does not improve affordability. In fact its goal is to further decrease affordability to reduce demand, which should then cause inflation to moderate. That works fine for economists and policymakers, but for ordinary people that’s more of a bite off your nose off to spite your face kind of solution.
    • 2y ago
• morelandjs 2y ago
  It’s good to periodically reexamine your own positions against that of the majority and be open to realignment and different ideas, but remember that the collective opinion of society over the long term may look back unfavorably on the collective opinion of society over a period of time in the past. It’s OK to hold minority opinions, and it’s OK to disagree with the majority of Americans who voted for Trump.
• hakube 2y ago
  Good luck to our American friends.
• drumhead 2y ago
  My greatest fear is for America. He undermined it's institutions last time and there's no telling how much he'll weaken it now. I suspect the DoJ will be first to get gutted and then education, health, science. NATO, WTO, UN. I'm sure he'll embed gerrymandering to ensure republican victories. At the end of this we'll have a radically different America, domestically and Globally.
  • adventured 2y ago
    The US was supposed to be destroyed by Trump 2016-2020. That didn't happen at all. The US is now stronger, more powerful, richer. The corporate tax cuts have worked out extraordinarily well, like Ireland on steroids. Meanwhile the rest of the world has fallen behind the US. China is weaker and sliding (in part thanks to the expansive authoritarianism). Russia is a joke and has been for decades (now a regional power that struggles against Ukraine). Europe broadly is weaker and no longer competitive at almost anything. US GDP per capita is essentially now double that of Britain or France.
    • ryanisnan 2y ago
      This is the only thing that has me clinging to hope, is that last time it didn't turn out terribly. I have a sense of foreboding about what the supreme court will look like at the end of his term, and the consequences we'll have to live with for decades as a result. And a potential WW3, which seems more plausible on a daily basis. A large scale conflict feels almost unavoidable; I would prefer a cool, calm, collected individual at the helm when it hits.
      • cloverich 2y ago
        There is enough protections built into the system, and enough maturity of the system (the "deep state"), that outside of something like war on our shores, no single president can destroy it in one term. But each time its degraded it becomes more susceptible. We just (popularly) elected an election denier. That means future presidents can run this play and get away with it. The most likely scenario now IMO is we get a more cunning strongman who successfully overturns the democratic outcome when not in their favor. We don't have to speculate, as we've see this play out in several other countries. Of course this line of thinking was never a viable political strategy for running against Trump, because its far too abstract for the average voter. The reality is we are still benefiting from the leadership of some of our more visionary founders and leaders since; but without being reenforced in some way it won't hold up forever. Most people in the US are still under the guise of America being special, and hand waving those scenarios away thinking the worst can't happen here. Which makes it much easier to then vote for Trump, especially if you don't think the climate crisis is real or prescient.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• bogota 2y ago
  Its funny. Even after this happens the comments continue to keep the echo chamber going instead of wanting to understand how this happened. Until the DNC has an honest conversation with itself this will just keep happening.
  • qwerpy 2y ago
    Social media upvoting/downvoting that results in comments being hidden is the reason for this. Even a small imbalance in one direction or the other effectively silences one side. Perfectly legitimate, well-reasoned comments will get angrily downvoted into invisibility. Echo chambers get created and enforced. This is particularly bad on Reddit (low karma can get you banned from a sub) but even on HN I'll give anecdotes that go against the "party line" and I'll get downvoted. Problem is, this is the best way to increase engagement because it gives the most people the most compelling content. So this will never change.
    • bogota 2y ago
      I agree but i think HN does a somewhat Ok job with the upvoting system. Well at least compared to reddit which is in a full blown meltdown because their bubble popped.
    • binary_slinger 2y ago
      Some ideas I'd like to see implemented (in no particular order): 1. Eliminate anonymity by requiring real names and profile pictures attached to usernames. This humanizes users and encourages accountability, as attaching a real name can act as a natural filter for behavior. 2. Introduce a cost for downvoting to make it a more thoughtful action. This could involve a quota based on account age and karma, or my favorite option—having each downvote cost a bit of karma or an upvote on one of your own posts. 3. Discourage bot accounts by requiring a hard-to-obtain token, like a verified phone number, which is straightforward to implement and would reduce low-effort accounts. 4. Higher barrier to entry to join an online community. This doesn't parallel how communities work IRL. You need social credit to join a community.
  • anon291 2y ago
• csours 2y ago
  I sometimes imagine what Science Officer Spock would really say to humans to help them understand themselves. Just saying "highly illogical" is not very helpful. (The following is all my imagination, any resemblance to reality is coincidental) So, I think he would talk about how the mind is not a machine designed for rationality. The mind is a holographic projection, a story told by a collection of organs in your head, fed by sensations from your body. I think he would talk about the dilemma of aspiration. If you aspire to rationality, and you feel that rationality is the best system of thought, then you will be driven to believe that you are highly rational. Unfortunately, in many things, you cannot differentiate between logical consistency and post-hoc rationalization. Humans know this; so we have things like peer review. Unfortunately you also cannot trust another person to rationally evaluate your beliefs - humans have a strong history of in-group/out-group dynamics. It is beneficial to signal agreement and trustworthiness; it is harmful and painful to signal disagreement with the in-group. And so rational thought requires rational communication with people you disagree with - and people in the out-group, because your in-group may have centered on a wrong, harmful or otherwise useless belief. Rational communication requires an overlap in perspective. Not the same point of view, but at least a minimal consensus in perception of reality and goals. For instance, most people believe that it is good to invest in young people in some way, though they may disagree about what that means. Unfortunately, in-group/out-group dynamics can make this very difficult in times of active conflict, as humans have a very strong sense of morality, and sending moral signals to your in-group is more important that rational communication. ---- No one had a plan that got humans to this point in our story. No one has a plan for humans in an age of worldwide social media. We have to build it together. I don't like country music, but I can see the appeal. Things are simpler in the country - you have to believe in real things like trucks and cows, not theoretical things like software and commodity futures contracts. It's nice to deal with things that are simple and real.
• skeuomorphism 2y ago
  About 20 million votes less than the 2020 election, with about 15 million less for the democrats, and a measely 4 million less for the republicans. Thought that was interesting.
  • zawaideh 2y ago
    It's not like people warned that supporting a genocide would cost Harris the presidency...
    • tasty_freeze 2y ago
      Yes, and now those people are stuck with Trump who is far worse on that score.
      • aa_is_op 2y ago
        Yeah. They have no idea Trump is the biggest pro-Israel anti-Muslim fan out there. He'll literally give Israel anything they want, and those people will gasp and act surprised.
        • trinsic2 2y ago
          We run our nation on oil. Our nation is built on good a relationship with Israel. Nothing about that will change until our priorities as a country change, dem or repb.
      • zawaideh 2y ago
        the devil vs the devil wrapped in a rainbow flag is still the devil...
        • bbor 2y ago
          The devil doesn't exist, and real life is complicated. Have fun telling the living Palestinians "whelp, a lot of you already died, so we're gonna let the rest of you die/be deported to a country you've never been to."
• richardw 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • cryptonector 2y ago
    Noted.
  • yadaeno 2y ago
    The democrats have done many things that are undemocratic. * tried to remove trump from the ballot on Colorado * triple digit amount of filings from the justice department against a political opponent * refuse to remove rfk junior from the ballot
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • BHSPitMonkey 2y ago
      Is becoming a "political opponent" supposed to be a legal shield against prosecution? Are laws simply unenforceable against politicians who break them to pursue power or abuse their offices?
  • dang 2y ago
    No nationalistic flamewar on HN, please, regardless of nation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • richardw 2y ago
      Sorry dang. Emotions.
  • quitspamming 2y ago
    > When democracy and the rule of law are considered less important than (insert all the dem ills here), it’s not dems. It’s the voters. Democracy and rule of law like... covering up the mental decline of a sitting president, foreign leaders lying to the American public saying Joe Biden is fine, only for him to finally expose himself so badly live on TV they jettison the man off the 2024 ticket while leaving him in office? Then imposing a candidate by fiat? January 6th was absolutely a constitutional crisis, but it lasted less than a day. The cover-up of Biden's mental state was a multi-year constitutional crisis that still has not been fully acknowledged. When there are two competing harms you fall back to things like who is going to put more money in my pocket. This is 100% the dem's fault.
• zanfr 2y ago
  I think its time for the EU to distance itself from the US trainwreck
  • braincat31415 2y ago
    Who's a trainwreck? Volkswagen is closing plants. Siemens chief admitting recently that investments in Germany are a waste because of the high energy prices. EU can continue buying the overpriced US LNG, or "distance itself" and crawl back to the Russians begging for cheap gas that was driving the German economy. Europe is cooked.
  • konschubert 2y ago
    The EU is about to crash itself.
  • idunnoman1222 2y ago
    We literally never think about you
• latino_voter_24 2y ago
  Born in Argentina. Legal immigrant. US citizen for over 30 years. Voter. Given the proclivities here on HN I fully expect this message will not be well received. I urge left-leaning visitors to read it, stop and think before the natural emotional reaction. What you lack is real exposure and knowledge of Latin American history and politics. Everything we see the Democratic party push for and do in the US has already happened in Latin America dozens of times over the last century. Pick a policy and you will find a country in LATAM that has done it, if not many. The result? Utter destruction. LATAM is a time machine for the US. You can rewind history and see how every single policy being pushed by the left will end. And the results are not pretty. My own native country, Argentina, was absolutely destroyed by this ideology. It went from one of the top economies in the world to something like 150 spots down the list. Poverty, destruction, massive unemployment, crime, intense lawfare, political prosecution, etc. You will find this in Argentina's history and that of most nations in LATAM. And the link to leftist/socialist rule is indisputable. As things hit rock bottom LATAM has been waking up. El Salvador is one example of this. And Argentina is now on it's way with Milei. Sadly the uninformed masses have to hit rock bottom before they understand that the people they have been supporting them only care about political power and not about their lives. Eventually reality vs. fantasy hits you hard enough that you cannot react like robot and keep supporting the same criminals that got you to the point of pain, misery and despair you find yourself pondering about. It's like being 30 meters down scuba-diving and your air tank suddenly going empty. There are realities you cannot ignore. And that's how Milei finally got elected. The problem with the American Left is that you are all utterly ignorant of the history of so many nations where everything your party and politicians do and proposed has been tried and failed. The fact that a Bernie Sanders or AOC are not summarily laughed off the stage says volumes about the ignorance of the people who vote for them. I am happy that Trump won. Not because he is the most ideal candidate. We can talk about how flawed the US process is that we usually end-up with two choices everyone hates. That's a different discussion. Whether you know it or not, what the Trump win represents is the US dodging the destructive forces of putrid leftist ideology that has destroyed so many nations. No, he is not Hitler or a fascist. Stop it. You have never lived under such regimes. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. As a teenager in Argentina I was held at gunpoint (as in multiple machine guns, with one pushing against my back) by military police in Argentina. What crime did my friends and I commit? We went to the movies, then to have some pizza at a restaurant and were walking home late at night. That's it. They slapped us around and took our money. Again, don't use terms like "fascist" like you know what the fuck you are talking about, you have no idea. Any immigrant who has actually lived under these ideologies thinks you are ignorant and stupid. My first-level filter when thinking about supporting a politician is: Would I hire this person to run a cookie baking operation? Simplistic, yes, however, it quickly gets to the core of the issue: Most politicians are just that, politicians, and know nothing whatsoever about making even a microscopic economy run. They know nothing about the consequences of their actions and have no exposure to them at all. A simple example of this was Obama and Obamacare. He passed a horrible law that caused incredible damage. He promised --dozens of times-- that your existing plans and doctors would not change. My family's health insurance evaporated. We were forced into the ACA. Our cost when from $7,800 per year to $28,800 per year. Yes, you read that correctly. Our deductible also went from $3,000 per year to over $9,000 per year. And yet, none of the politicians who supported this abomination have to live with the realities of effectively destroying a family's economy as well as generational wealth. For our family that represents being robbed to the tune of $210K every ten years. When one considers investing this on an ETF, we are talking about millions of millions of dollars over, say, 30 years. Destruction at this scale should be criminal. The other problem with the ACA is that it pushed tens of millions of people into programs that, by law, require that their medical expenditures after 55 years of age be recovered. That recovery can include a lien on whatever assets they might have. Once again, destroying generational wealth. And yet, Obama, a person who nobody in their right mind would hire to run a cookie baking operation, is living large, has suffered no consequences for his incompetence and deceit and is a multimillionaire many time over. Another example of this is the utter destruction that the artificial raising of the minimum wage has caused. Financially-challenged and ideologically-brainwashed voters supported this. The result was that people lost their jobs, had their hours cut and everything they buy and consume is so unaffordable that their higher minimum wage has less buying power than their status quo ante. What's worse, it is causing irreparable damage to businesses and further losses to outsourcing in multiple industries, including manufacturing. Bravo. Ignorance is sad to behold. On to Harris. Incompetent as can be. The worst candidate Democrats have seen for decades. Once again, as a first filer, nobody in their right mind would hire this person to run a cookie baking operation. Race and gender have nothing to do with this. She is utterly incompetent and does not know what she is doing. Her ideology is putrid and would have damaged the US beyond recognition. The US would not survive another four years of this, much less four years going farther into the putrid left. You think you are suffering now? Inflation is too high? Once again, you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. The population of the US is up in arms about 20% inflation. Meh! Try 250% inflation! The US would descend into civil war. Yet, that's precisely what happened in Argentina (along with many years well above 20%. Here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/316750/inflation-rate-in-argentina/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/316750/inflation-rate-in... Again, the policies and politicians you support are DESTROYING this nation. You don't know it because you are like the proverbial frog slowly being boiled and you are utterly ignorant about the world outside the US and their various histories. If we remained on our current path, the US would probably find itself in an unrecoverable position in another four years, certainly in eight. If you actually took the time to study, learn and think about this, you should come out with two conclusions: Trump voters saved your ass and gave the US the best probably for a turn-around (even as late as this is). Second, you should realign your flawed thinking, support the change and perhaps even thank your Trump-voting friends for saving this nation from an almost certain disastrous path. Well, like I said, I firmly suspect the HN crowd will not receive this message very well, hence the throw-away account. If I am able to make just a few people truly rethink their fake reality, mission accomplished. I do not want to see the US turn into Argentina, Venezuela, El Salvador and the dozens of other nations destroyed by leftist ideologies in many forms. That requires a voting population who is educated about how this has affected the world. We don't want the far right either. That is now where we are today. At all. If you care about your life and that of your family, kids, etc., you need to educate yourself, leave ideological indoctrination behind and understand reality. We were 30 meters down and air was about to stop flowing. We now have a chance to surface and live. If you got this far, thanks. I hope you are the type who is willing to reflect and understand.
• exabrial 2y ago
  My analysis is the Democrat party leadership should have conducted a true primary election. She was "gifted" the nomination, vs being selected in the primary. I think the populace responded in turn: This wasn't their candidate. Compare this to the Obama vs Clinton selection, which I actually believe the populace would have supported either. btw: I'm not sure I'd compare this to the 2020 primaries as 2020 was a special year, and I don't think really any of the candidates really resonated with the voters, Biden just "wasn't Trump".
  • max51 2y ago
    The issue isn't how she got the nomination but how bad of a candidate she is. People did not like her before she was VP. She was considered a joke candidate was performed extremely poorly in the 2020 primaries. The main reason a primary would have been better is because Harris would have lost and been replaced with a better candidate.
    • SirensOfTitan 2y ago
      Yes, for sure, but the way Biden’s mental fitness was poor-pooed as misinformation for years and then Harris was installed at the last minute really undermines the “we’re the party of democracy” narrative.
      • max51 2y ago
        If his VP was 2nd or 3rd place in the 2020 primaries, it wouldn't be a big deal compared to Harris because the candidate would be someone that a significant portion of the Dems actually support and want as a president.
    • istjohn 2y ago
      Biden picked a VP who wouldn't be able to mount a challenge against him for a second term, and now we're paying for it.
      • amadeuspagel 2y ago
• throwaway55479 2y ago
  This is already the most commented post on HN. An intense thread for intense times...
  • paradite 2y ago
    Not sure why this is double the comments from the first time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201
    • anthomtb 2y ago
      Tech employment had hockey stick growth from 2016-2021 and I suspect the number of HN users followed that curve. My guess is that the ratio of comments/users is the same or perhaps even slightly lower than 2016.
• linuxhansl 2y ago
  “Every [democratic] country has the government it deserves.” ― Joseph de Maistre
  • amai 2y ago
    "It is considered democratic, for example, that state offices are filled by lot, and oligarchic that they are filled by election" — Aristotle, Politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
• paxys 2y ago
  This will sadly be the end of FCC/FTC and all the antitrust efforts that were graining steam over the last few years.
  • nsokolsky 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • dang 2y ago
      Please make your substantive points thoughtfully, and omit name-calling, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • nsokolsky 2y ago
        Hello, I apologize! I've edited the comment now to be much better, thank you for your feedback.
    • PeakKS 2y ago
      The FTC would be well within their duties to obliterate every single tech company in existence
    • compootr 2y ago
      > Lina Khan's policies were very harmful for the tech sector As they should! It's quite literally the whole reason they exist. Email unsubscribe links have worked well, and click-to-cancel hopefully can too! The only opponents of these policies are massive companies who rely on predatorial dark patterns. Everyone with a brain should support these "wasteful policies" because they benefit consumers. I absolutely LOVE having one link to instantly stop being emailed from mailing lists, and I can't be happier for click-to-cancel and related legislation. "oh no, big tech company XYZ will make 0.0001% less money this year!!!" is the energy you're giving
• ptek 2y ago
  New Zealander here. I hope that now with Trump in office that USA will go back to the moon in 2025-2028 :). Hope more high income manufacturing jobs are created for the working class and they build a bigger middle class.
• _zagj 2y ago
  [flagged]
• anon291 2y ago
  Can we talk about how the voter turnout for the GOP and Dems both follow linear patterns in the last few races, except for Dem turnout in 2020? How do we explain the statistical anomaly, other than the obvious?
  • cooper_ganglia 2y ago
    Yeah, I never believed any of the "stolen election" diatribe, but after last night, I'm actually starting to change my mind on that. I now think it's actually very possible.
    • anon291 2y ago
      Notice also the lack of sudden 100% Trump vote drops and the lack of sudden shifts. Instead the election went off like literally every other election in our lifetime where most states are called on election night, and those that aren't are pariahs and we're all left wondering what the hell are they doing? No 'pipe leaks'. No videos of counters covering up windows. No sudden last minute rule changes. It was... unremarkable and normal. I think this is going to go down like the Kennedy - Nixon election where the allegations of fraud seemed made up at the time, but a few decades later, after we've calmed down about the candidates, we will uncover the truth. Whether it was enough to shift the 2020 election ... who knows, but the truth has the habit of coming out eventually. I mean 20 million people sat at home? Really? That's an insane amount.
      • cryptonector 2y ago
        You mean 100% Biden/Harris drops.
        • anon291 2y ago
          Yes, in 2020 there were 100% Harris/Biden drops, but I am saying that this election, I don't know of any 100% Trump drops in counties with thousands of votes. That's why there's no contesting here.
• cooper_ganglia 2y ago
  The only choice that made any sense at all. America is about to experience it's absolute Golden Age. 2026 will be the USA's 250th anniversary, we'll put men on the moon for the first time in 50+ years, and we'll land a rocket on Mars. The Supreme Court is secured for decades, immigration reform will now be swift and bipartisan, and we're moving manufacturing back to the US, including 4nm chip manufacturing with TSMC, avoiding escalation with China on that front. We are truly living in the best possible timeline, I'm literally so pumped and excited for the future of our country and world, and I'm ready to start building for the future!!!
  • nick3443 2y ago
    CHIPS act was a democrat program
    • rpmisms 2y ago
      Credit to them, it was a good move.
    • andrewla 2y ago
      Yeah, it was really impressive how a law, passed in 2022, managed to travel back in time to 2019 and convince TSMC to start applying to build a plant. It then travelled back in time to 2020 to get Arizona to approve construction. Really an impressive bit of legistlation.
      • nick3443 2y ago
        Thanks for the illuminating context
    • cooper_ganglia 2y ago
      Yes, and that's great, credit to anyone who supports American industry! I'm looking forward to how much more manufacturing across different industries that this admin brings back to the States, too!
      • 2y ago
• ssernikk 2y ago
  > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. From: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• shaburn 2y ago
  You should now assume your sources are compromised if you did not expect this
• simple10 2y ago
  For my friends here who are not Americans, here's my take on how the election played out. Please bare in mind I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. The analysis comes from commentators on both sides of the political spectrum. Since Trump won, the analysis focuses on the Harris campaign mistakes. I'll leave critiques on Trump for other commenters, as there are many. - Harris skipped the traditional primary which reinforced to many independent voters that she was appointed by the ruling class of the Democratic party; US voters are extremely tired of feeling like the political "elites" have more control than the actual voters - Democrats gaslit the American people for too long, claiming President Biden was not in mental decline; this created a lot of open questions about the inner workings of the Democratic party that were never addressed head on by Harris's campaign; to many independent voters, this left them feeling like Harris might be more of a political puppet than a qualified leader - Harris's campaign ran primarily on restoring Roe v Wade (abortion rights) which is a false promise; it was clear she would not have the necessary Senate majority to codify a new law; many liberal and independent voters were annoyed at this attempt at emotional manipulation; this was a critical campaign mistake - When Harris was trailing in the polls, she went on the attack against Trump with ads and chopped up sound bites instead clearly stating her plan for the country in longer form interviews; this left independent voters with a lot of open questions about her policies and plan Ultimately, Trump won the popular and electoral votes on more of a referendum against the Democrats political playbook. Most Americans are tired of being talked down to and gaslit. And yes, Trump does this as well, but he won the perception battle. The main takeaways on what needs to change in American politics to restore some sanity in future elections: 1. We need an overhaul in traditional media (or new media) to restore trust in sources of facts; all American traditional media is incredibly biased at the moment, leaving our politics up to the whims and misinformation of social media 2. We need a 3 party system; this is a long shot, but it's the only reasonable way to enforce accountability for the Democrats and Republicans since traditional press is failing to provide a balance of power; for the last 20+ years, elections have mostly been against the other candidate instead of for policy plans or candidates
• AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  My take (not that anyone will even see it, in a sea of 5000 comments): Democrats were the party of the little guy - the minority, the immigrant, the working class. That worked pretty well for them. Democrats were in support of civil rights. That was the right thing to do, even though there was plenty of opposition. It cost them the south for at least a generation. They knew it would, and they did it anyway. Good for them. Then they saw abortion as the next "civil rights" issue. They keep framing it that way: "a woman's right over her own body". The problem is, the people who oppose abortion rights don't hear anything in that but an attempt to hide the issue. A fetus is not the woman's body - it's a genetically distinct individual, and anybody who's taken junior high biology knows it. The issue isn't about the woman's right over her body, it's about the woman's right over the fetus. And all the "a woman's right over her body" talk, to opponents, looks like an attempt to sweep that under the rug and ignore it. "But they want to control our bodies!" No, most of them don't. They want you to not kill the fetuses. It has the same result, but a different motivation. The Democrats have always been in favor of immigrants. They became the party in favor of illegal immigrants. But immigration hurts the working class, which the Democrats also claim to represent. Lately the Democrats have become focused on gay rights and trans rights. Look, trans people shouldn't be beaten up and killed for being trans. No question. But here's the problem: There are a large number of working-class people who at best don't care about trans people, and at worst are actively hostile. There are a large number who oppose abortion on moral grounds, holding the life of the fetus as a higher priority than the woman's body. Now, if you're the Democratic Party, what do you do? What the Democrats did is decide that such working-class people were moral lepers, and demand that they convert or face cultural extinction. This has been going on for a couple of decades. "Clinging to guns and religion". "Deplorables". "Garbage". The Democratic Party really despises such people, and it keeps coming out. Well, it turns out that despising the people who are a big chunk of your voting base, and demanding that they convert, doesn't make them feel like you're their party. Talking down to them doesn't make them vote for you. It just makes them feel that you've abandoned them. And you have. And it makes them angry. And here's Trump, harvesting their anger. The Democratic Party has always had difficulty with holding the different elements of their coalition together. What they've done lately is assume they could ignore one of their largest ones, that it would always support them no matter how much they despised it and insulted it. If your reaction is to deplore how horrible the majority of voters are, you're still not listening. If you want to win elections, you'd better start listening. There are people out there, people that you claim to represent their interests, and you're despising them instead of listening.
• billiam 2y ago
  In our current panopitcon, lies work. Turns out if an entertaining man lies again and again into a mechanism (the Internet) that endlessly amplifies and repeats those lies for free (paid for by all of us with our attention), you can win.
  • modeless 2y ago
    If you can't see by now that there were a lot of lies on both sides (as has always been true since the dawn of politics), you need to reevaluate your information diet.
    • TomK32 2y ago
      Have I missed the news where Kamala Harris was convicted on a few dozen federal charges or ordered to pay 80+ million to someone she sexually abused? There's lies and then there are lies that can get you into prison.
      • modeless 2y ago
        They were lying to you that a senile man was fit to lead for the next four years. That alone would have been far more consequential for the country than any lie related to sexual deviancy (of which the Democratic party has certainly had its fair share over the years).
    • toastercat 2y ago
      Was the 2020 election stolen?
  • nxm 2y ago
    The failure of realize how mainstream media lied and covered for Kamala and the Democratic party in mind blowing here. Just one tiny example, "Joe Biden is in top shape" a month before he pushed out.
    • Loughla 2y ago
      Honestly if the Dems put as much effort into finding a candidate people like as they did into making sure the establishment candidate had as much positive press as possible, they might actually accomplish something.
• stonethrowaway 2y ago
  They misunderestimated him.
• keeptrying 2y ago
  The DNC really needs to address Trump voters. They have to figure out their needs there and satisfy them. Its crucial.
• aryan14 2y ago
  Adding comments favored or tailored to one political party or another should not be allowed on HN. Clicked on this thread for insightful discussion/debate, I’m just reading people talk about how trump was not a good candidate, and how kamala campaigned incorrectly and so on so forth
  • consteval 2y ago
    Talking about the faults/triumphs of some campaigns or candidates does not favor a party, IMO. I supported one party, but even I can notice and address the problems in that campaign.
  • tailspin2019 2y ago
    I don’t have an opinion on your first sentence but happy to try and engage in the second one… As a Brit looking in from the outside, it’s hard for me to understand how choices have been made in this election, but if I were to attempt a charitable take, did Trump win because he tunes in to some sort of low level anger/resentment/frustration felt by a chunk of the population? Whereas the Democrats, more polished perhaps as they are, have failed to make that connection sufficiently? And that connection - or whatever it is that the population picks up on from Trump, outweighs the “obvious flaws” that his detractors may point towards? Ie they don’t vote for him because of his hyperbole and “questionable” behaviour, they vote for him in spite of that - for other reasons. I can see the Democrats didn’t help matters by pushing Biden to run when he clearly shouldn’t have, though perhaps it was the lesser of two evils at the time (from their point of view) given his proven record of being able to actually beat Trump. Happy to be corrected if this is a bad or naive analysis!!
    • specialist 2y ago
      You experienced Brexit. You know how this happens. Maybe 10% of voters have opinions on policy, platforms, parties. The remainder vote based on identity and some vibes. Their ability to link politicians with their actual policies is worse than a coin toss. Democracy for Realists [2016] https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691178240 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsi... Us political hobbyists second guessing campaign strategies and decisions is mostly pointless. Because final results more or less match the generic ballot. True, in close contests, there's some roshambo over individual states (cuz electoral college). Which is how Trump won 2016. What happened with Harris v Trump? GOP party (self) identification is up (3% since 2020). Harris didn't pull Biden numbers. Pretty simple. The real (campaign) questions, IMHO are: Determine if Dem turnout (GOTV) in 2020 was the anomaly and 2024 is the actual norm. Understand Latinos flipping from Dem to GOP. Can a Democrat be the first (elected) female POTUS? Now that Democrats are the minority party for the foreseeable future, what's the plan?
• EcommerceFlow 2y ago
  FYI, the map looks horrendous for democrats after the 2030 census. Estimates give Texas +4, Florida +3, and various other southern states +1 for a total of +12 on solid red states.
  • zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Maybe they will stop pursuing anti growth policies? Nah that’s crazy
    • thephyber 2y ago
      Who is ”they”? The origin of local power to stymie development is from the post WW2 years when freeways were mandated, but local communities they bisected were inevitably the politically weak ones. Now, the NIMBYs include those same VCs [1] that publicly posted that America should build at scale again… just not in their town. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andreessens-opposition-housing-project-nimby/671061/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...
      • Redoubts 2y ago
        Municipal government exists at the pleasure of the state, and the State governments can just take back land use powers at any time. "They" here is the state Dem party, and they have an easy choice to make.
        • paulryanrogers 2y ago
          What are the anti growth policies of the Democratic party?
          • thephyber 2y ago
            I don’t know about the party part (many of these date back when Republicans ruled the state), but - development zoning (restrict development to low density residential), - slowing development with required surveys (eg. CEQA) - permit friction - rejection of mass transport in growing population regions - mobs at city planning meetings, - Open Space preserves (private contracts to maintain nature in area where high demand
• Exuma 2y ago
  Better luck next time Jack!
• ridgitdigit 2y ago
  Hacker News is a liberal echo chamber not a Tech news site
  • talldayo 2y ago
    Welcome, you seem new here
• mrbonner 2y ago
  Or vote for a cow: https://www.discoverdairy.com/vote/ https://www.discoverdairy.com/vote/ Where everyone can be happy regardless of the result.
  • giarc 2y ago
    My daughters adopted cow is Milkyway. Milkyway 2028
• steveBK123 2y ago
  Probably in the end fundamentals beat candidate quality. Rightly or wrongly, economic sentiment indicators are all in the dumpster and historically incumbent party loses in that scenario. We've had the best covid recovery, lowest inflation and lowest unemployment in the developed world but that doesn't matter to the average voter. Biden probably would have done worse (look at approval rating & imagine another debate). Open primary might have helped, or not, total gamble. Probably less than 25% of this is attributable to Harris or her campaign. If there was a dem mistake it was in picking her as VP in 2020 to lock up a demographic they already would win. From there it made her the presumed successor to an elderly president who was assumed to not really run for a second term.
• goshx 2y ago
  Kudos to Elon Musk and his $44B megaphone, I guess. Money, lies, and misinformation work, folks. You can clearly see that Kamala won due to all the illegals voting for Democrats. Oh wait.
• medo-bear 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • luuurker 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • medo-bear 2y ago
      Sure I hate Russian imperialism. But ambitions of Russian imperialism dont scare me as they are confined to areas of their own borders. Those of US do
      • luuurker 2y ago
        Russia broke their own agreements (eg: 1994 Budapest Memorandum), invaded and is waging war on Ukraine, and you are here blaming the US for the loss of Ukrainian lives. You say that you hate Russian imperialism, but then start making excuses for their actions and deflecting blame on to others. If you really had an issue with imperialism, you'd be attacking Russia at least as hard as you attack the US. I don't think you have a problem with imperialism, just with imperialism done by a side you hate. Russia can do whatever they want, even invade another country, and for you that is acceptable or not as bad. Everyone has their bias, but you're too far gone... It's a bit sad to be honest. Ps: I recommend checking where Syria, Mali, Niger, etc, are on the map. Hint: Not near the Russian border.
        • medo-bear 2y ago
          I could ask you the same thing about your feeling about US imperilism. Unlike probably you, I personally felt the effects of US imperilism and its destruction, so yes maybe I do have a bias. Still, Russian imperialism is infantile compared to that of the US. Tell Russia to look at the map where its borders are? Are you kidding? How many US citizens live in the countries they invaded? And no I do not support Russian imperialism, but nor do I support any government that does someone elses bidding, esspecially when they force their own people to go to war for someone elses interests. Ukraine really is a NATO proxy, and that is what Russia invaded. And do not pretend that Ukraine is united against Russia. The very simple fact is that a significant portion of Ukranians supported and supports Russia. It is good you mentioned Syria. Russia intervened to save Syria against from same fate that happened to Libya - ie US financed overthrow by Islamic terrorist groups and criminal elements. Both Syria and Libya were at that time strategic Russian allies. I think it is very likely that the US was so pissed off that Russia dared to get in its way in Syria that they intervened in Ukraine.
• marviel 2y ago
  Ranked choice voting.
  • MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
    Approval voting!
    • marviel 2y ago
      seems insufficient: https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/ranked_choice_voting_vs_approval_voting/ https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/ranked_choi... Recommend we rally behind the higher information variant.
• say_it_as_it_is 2y ago
  Please, don't shoot the messenger. I'm going to share a tweet with you that is not my own tweet but one that more than 200k people have upvoted. If you want to see a list of topics that motivated Trump re-election: https://twitter.com/wildbarestepf/status/1854026810331365823 https://twitter.com/wildbarestepf/status/1854026810331365823
  • metabagel 2y ago
    Those are a certainly list of ideas which right wingers have about the left. There's probably not much we can do about people who believe that stuff. They need to have a punching bag. My main issue with right wingers is the derision, mockery, and anger which they direct at their political opponents. People talk about division in the country. I think that's by design. Right wingers have been doing this since the days when Paul Harvey was on the radio, and then later on Rush Limbaugh.
  • bagels 2y ago
    It's an interesting list. Definitely something for everyone on there.
  • mindslight 2y ago
    So mostly a bunch of topics the sheer majority of people are also concerned about, yet framed as if anybody who doesn't fall in line behind the double-talking autocrat is personally responsible for them? Sounds about right - the same old story of one arm of the media convincing its associated tribe that all the corporate authoritarian policies they're suffering from are the personal desires of the other tribe to deliberately harm them, and that more authoritarianism of the correct flavor is the fix. I was responsible enough to put aside my hate for the system and vote conservatively, rather than indulging in lashing out at my fellow citizens. It's a true shame for western civilization that more people were not.
• hintymad 2y ago
  I'm a single issue voter: 1A, and I voted for Trump. You left label so many things you disagree with as misinformation and hate speech and racism, to the point that the Robert Reich wrote on The Guardian to call for the arrest of Elon Musk and I quote: "Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X.". Yet, you left never define what misinformation is and specify who the arbiter is. Tim Walz had the audacity to say that “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy". You left aren't angry at Elon Musk because he censored the left, but because he allowed people who disagreed with you to speak. The list can go on. You guys attacked Trump supporters so hard that so many people were not willing to acknowledge that they supported Trump, especially in a blue city. That's just wrong. On the other hand, the left media created hoax after hoax that are thoroughly debunked by the left-leaning fact checkers like Snopes. Obama still used the Fine People[1] hoax on national TV last week. The DA in NY charged Trump for "In July 2020, the Trump Organization received an appraisal with a value of $84.5 million, but on the 2020 Statement the Trump Organization valued Trump Park Avenue at $135.8 million."[2] But isn't that what practically every home seller does? We estimate how much our properties are worth, and the band sends out an appraiser? To me, that's just blatant law fare. For all I know, only evil states like Soviet Union and China (before 1978, at least) used morality, misinformation, and identity politics to control their people. Such states deserve a big middle finger up their you know what. [1]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/ [2]https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_release_properties_addendum_-_final.pdf https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tto_release_properties...
  • metabagel 2y ago
    Misinformation is false information, such as when Elon Musk reposted a doctored video of Kamala Harris. You are a one issue voter. Your one issue is the right to post deepfakes. Enjoy the circus over the next 4 years. It's what you wanted.
  • trekkie1024 2y ago
    Trump said he wanted to make polls that were "bad for him" illegal, and to take broadcast licenses away from networks that criticized him. DeSantis tried to take an abortion ad off air in Florida since he disagreed with it. Evidently, the Republicans don't care much about 1A so I'm not sure what you voted for. As for hoaxes, conservative media has been highly effective at this (to the point where Joe Biden had to repudiate the FEMA hoax after the hurricane).
• zer8k 2y ago
  I see Kamala's issues as follows: 1. She's one of the least liked candidates in history. The Democrats haven't run a real "change" candidate that could cross the aisles since Obama. Hillary was already widely disliked and sank herself with the "deplorables" comment. Kamala did exactly the same with "Nazis, Fascists, Dictators, White Supremacists, etc". It's all I heard and it came to a point I started feeling attacked exclusively for my race. It was difficult at this point to listen to what little policy she actually had: most of it sounded exactly like the last 4 years. To put the cherry on top she also couldn't even poll well among her own constituents until Biden bowed out and she was decreed the pick by the DNC. 2. The top polling issues were immigration and the economy. Neither issue Kamala really addressed outside of some feel-good statements like free money for homes and somehow passing a price cap on groceries. She made no statement no immigration and even went so far as to say she wouldn't change anything from the last 4 years. Trump on the other hand did very well laser targeting these issues and pulled moderates and even democrats as a "lesser of two evils". 3. The constant bleeting on about felonies, "rapist", etc made it seem to most average Americans that the court cases were simply lawfare designed to punish Americans for not voting for Hillary. Trump in this case was just a sacrificial goat. 4. The weaponization of the FBI against parents protesting school board meetings, the seemingly intense focus on so-called "right wing violence" even after living through the George Floyd riots, etc was distasteful to a lot pro-police Americans. 5. The media is decidedly left-to-far-left leaning. What this means is the majority of major news outlets, Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, Music, Movies, etc all preach "the message". This oversaturation of the progressive message, paired with many moderate Americans thinking progressivism has gone too far, likely contributed to it. Further, it likely contributed to lower Democrat turnout as they were already claiming victory in August. 6. You can't salvage a campaign by having movie and music stars endorse you when the average consumption of this media is at historical lows. You can't salvage a campaign by bringing Obama out as The Closer. 7. And finally for me, the strong "pro-women" policies are distasteful for me. Not because I hate women, but because there's decades of data showing our school system, government, and policies are failing young boys. I cannot in good conscious vote for a candidate who will not do anything to help men's issues at this point. I can't vote for a candidate who wants to enshrine gender-specific constitutional changes. Particularly, evening the playing field for boys in school, removing affirmative action, and instituting an equal "male abortion" rule that will help tip the family courts back to even. If we want equality we should strive for true equality. I want true equality.
• DevKoala 2y ago
  Amazing victory. I am waiting for the final tally to understand how the Dems lost 15M votes from one election to the other.
  • dangoor 2y ago
    The only thing I've been able to see so far is that Harris has 67M votes with 81.2% reporting. Assuming the remaining precincts have the same population size and roughly same D/R split, Harris would end up somewhere around Biden's total once the count is complete.
    • TomK32 2y ago
      Might be mistaken, but isn't it usually the bigger, urban and slightly more Democratic-leaning precincts that take a longer time to report?
      • deathanatos 2y ago
        Yes, it is. We saw this in 2020 where states came from behind and ended up being for Biden. I feel like that late-counting of Democratic votes was very partly was spurred the ensuing election conspiracies. Election votes are not counted uniformly at random.
    • DevKoala 2y ago
      It looks like Kamala is going to fall more than 5M short of Biden’s 81M. With a bigger voting population and record in person turnout.
  • webninja 2y ago
    People are suggesting mail in-ballot fraud in the past election enabled by Covid.
    • amai 2y ago
      Or there was ballot stuffing (https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_stuffing https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_stuffing). If the counts are very different between mail voting and in-person voting, it could also be that the mail voting was actually correct, but the in-person voting was manipulated. One shouldn't be so naive an think, that this can only happen in Russia.
• zhengiszen 2y ago
  Lesson from election: too much wars and enabling genocide can cost you the presidency
• j_timberlake 2y ago
  I'm gonna be honest, this is much closer to the future that humanity deserves than the AI utopia many of you were dreaming of. Look at the entirety of human history and all the evil things people have done, and look at your own consumption of factory-farmed meat/dairy/eggs. Look at how few people donate kidneys (less than 0.1% in USA, and even lower in countries like Japan). And of course people would rather spend their 1st-world disposable income on enshitified creature-comforts than donate it; about $3500 is enough to save a kid's life from malaria, or go on a family vacation to Disney World. People will say "I'd be a better person if only I were rich!", but predictably, the number of rich people willing to do those things is almost a rounding error.
  • anon291 2y ago
    Children aren't dying of malaria due to lack of funds. They're dying due to terrible governments in those places. Unless you're advocating for regime change and colonization, no amount of money is going to fix that. The data are unequivocal that liberal democracy, civil rights, and economic freedom lift people out of poverty, but this message is toxic in many parts of the world, and thus many countries live in unnecessary poverty, dependent upon donations from rich countries that follow the straightforwards, simple advice to be well off.
    • j_timberlake 2y ago
      You can donate $3.5k to a relevant charity and save a kid's life. Debating how much better things would be with better governments doesn't change that.
      • anon291 2y ago
        There's a moral calculus where you have to determine if the money is really going there and if any of the money is instead supporting a despotic regime. I don't disagree. I do donate to missions where I know the individuals personally.
  • dsign 2y ago
    >> I'm gonna be honest, this is much closer to the future that humanity deserves than the AI utopia many of you were dreaming of. My diverse opinion: "this is much closer to the future that humanity deserves, the AI and surveillance dystopia we have been so intent on getting."
• ricardo81 2y ago
  Just an observation from a limey. The Western (and Christian) world has changed massively over 2 generations from a predominantly white Western world to a mixed culture one, which takes a bit of acclimatising to. The politics around gender (and however many there's supposed to be) makes people lose their frame of reference also IMO. For some, the world is changing too quick, or their neighbourhood is changing too quick. Older generations who've witnessed the change perhaps see it most, as perhaps younger white men who have had the blowback of historical racism, misogyny and generally assumed to be the most privileged, though many (the majority) are not. I hear that the Trump campaign focused on them who generally do not vote. I hope the USA moves on and accepts the result. In the end people vote with their desires, sometimes illogical but ultimately their desires are their motivations. The USA is also a good age now, as I was reminded by a Canadian taxi driver while living in Canada, regardless of what foreigners nebs think about US politics, better a world with the USA in it than without (though I'm probably biased as a Westerner). Perhaps to an extent it's hard to keep an identity, like national pride or what a country stands for when things move so quickly. Personally I thought Harris was a shoo in, but the people have spoken. Insert caveat about big tech algos persuading people.
• penguin_booze 2y ago
  I'm not American. I feel sad, not because Ds lost or Rs one. A nation, which happens to wield so much power in the world, has chosen to elect as its president, a deranged, indecent, man, with dictatorial tendencies, who cares for nothing about democratic--or any--institutions, who never believed in peaceful transfer of power, who called for an insurrection. I'd have thought that alone would have been a reason enough to say, "not that guy, no way". But here we are.
  • starluz 2y ago
    [dead]
  • aydyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • andyp-kw 2y ago
    I'm not American and not taking sides. Have you listened to the latest the latest Joe Rogan episode with Musk. The Harris camp seems to be guilty of many of the things they accused Trump of. Echo chambers happen on both sides and are a real issue.
    • darknavi 2y ago
      I haven't. Any good examples that you can remember?
    • evdubs 2y ago
      Harris and Biden did not incite an insurrection. Harris and Biden did not get impeached for withholding funds from Ukraine as Trump was impeached for doing. Harris and Biden are not convicted felons. "The Harris camp seems to be guilty of many of the things they accused Trump of," is nonsense.
    • TomK32 2y ago
      "Seems to be guilty" is a very different thing than a Fortunate Son who is an adulterer who was found guilty on 34 charges relating to the hush money, his two defense suits against Carroll are under appeal and who knows what sort of things happened when he hang out with his buddy Epstein. Jack Smith is still fighting to get the insurrection case going. America voted a criminal into office.
• fabifabulous 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • jdthedisciple 2y ago
    [flagged]
• htk 2y ago
  Democracy keeps giving both sides a chance, meanwhile both sides always complain about the end of democracy when the other side wins. Another curious thing on both parties, when they lose they always ask "why did the other side win?" instead of trying to understand why their candidate lost. And the pendulum keeps swinging.
• eqvinox 2y ago
  It happens that an IETF meeting is currently going on. Mic comment at the plenary just a few minutes ago: "I believe we will need to reopen discussion on the IETF 127 venue." IETF 127 is (probably soon: was) scheduled to occur November 14th-20th, 2026, in San Francisco. (Previous US-scheduled IETF meetings during the Trump presidency were moved to Canada, particularly due to Chinese attendees' inability to get Visas.)
• boodleboodle 2y ago
  All i can say is.. f** ajit pai
• hidelooktropic 2y ago
  Why doesn't this violate HN's rules about politics?
  • scotty79 2y ago
    Impact?
  • TomK32 2y ago
    a ban on newly created anon and throwaways would slow these threads down. Also, too many Elon fanbois.
  • dang 2y ago
    See these links—they contain lots of explanation about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
    • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      Totally off-topic but I'm noticing that these comments load reasonably quickly without any paging. I remember some popular topics in the past had problems loading even after the number of comments per page was limited. Don't know who deserves it but wanted to offer kudos for the optimization work!
      • dredmorbius 2y ago
        There's been a recent-ish (past 2-3 months?) site update which bypasses that problem, though I cannot find dang's comment announcing that.
      • dang 2y ago
        thanks! more info at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41679215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41679215
• dang 2y ago
  All: please make sure you're up on the site guidelines before commenting: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. That means editing out snark, swipes, and flamebait. Or you can simply follow this metarule, which is also in there: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." This thread could be worse (ok, it could be a lot worse) but I'm still noticing people breaking the rules. Please follow them instead—it will be a better experience for all of us, including yourself.
• fires10 2y ago
  I don't think it's the economy or anything else. All this seems like rationalizing to me not an understanding of what happened. Trump was able to motivate more people to vote than Harris was. I have yet to meet anyone who truly rationally made a choice that they had not already made to begin with other than after the fact rationalization. It is all about perception and what the other person believes. Reality and facts do not matter as much as we would like them to. There is no interest in anyone want to actually change their views. What argument or evidence would actually cause you to change your view? It would take extraordinary evidence for me to change my vote. I suspect that is the same for most voters, it's more of an issue of who can motivate better.
• y-c-o-m-b 2y ago
  Things that most people care about: - Will I still have a job in 6 months? If I lose my job, can I get by? - Can I continue to afford groceries, rent, utilities at the current pace of inflation? - If I have a major health problem, will I be ok? During an election, you can either harness the fear voters have around these issues and turn them into hateful energy against the other side (Trump tactic) or you can calm people's nerves by acknowledging the problems and providing a path to deal with them (Obama tactic). Obama was able to confidently appeal to voters on these issues and he brought them to the fore-front throughout his campaign. Obama was charismatic as well, so when he talked about these issues, you got the sense that he could competently provide that protection. He was reassuring. I voted for Kamala, but I didn't want to. She possessed none of those positive qualities. She didn't instill confidence. Her voice and demeanor made her sound annoyed. Her fake smile made me cringe. I wanted an authentic candidate that could make me feel safe. She was not it. Lastly, those primary issues were shrouded by gender politics. I would like transgender people to feel safe and have access to resources they need. I would like women to have access to abortion when it's necessary. These are not things to run a campaign off of though. EVERYONE feels the pain of a bad economy; that should've been the primary focus all along and we needed a STRONG candidate to really drive a strategy for addressing it. I just don't think Kamala was able to make any headway in that respect and I think that's why she ultimately lost. Donald Trump had 74 million votes in 2020. As of right now, he's nearly at 72 million. To me that says he hasn't necessarily gained new followers. That's a good sign. It seems the Dems have lost millions however. That's a very bad sign. It's pretty clear then that Kamala did not represent what voters really cared about during this election cycle.
• czhu12 2y ago
  incumbents all around the world have performed terribly post COVID. UK, Canada, Japan, France, Italy, have all had landslide or shocking election results. Unsure what the general mood is that can lead to Keir Starmer dropping 30 points in approval months after winning in a landslide, but the mood of general discontent may be relevant in the United States as well. It seems whatever the status quo / incumbent advantage that used to exist, is now working against candidates. Even if the democrats ran a better candidate in a better campaign, it may not have been enough to overcome these headwinds. Although, I'm not sure I totally believe that myself since she lost by a pretty narrow margin in swing states. Obviously not to excuse the dems, just something to consider
  • nightowl_games 2y ago
    > Canada Trudeau has been PM since 2015 and the last election was in 2021. Sure, it looks like he's gonna lose the next one, but Canada hasn't had a oppositional landslide election.
    • max51 2y ago
      The next election looks so bad for him that there is a chance the Bloc Quebecois could be the official opposition. That party has no candidate outside of quebec.
      • sbdhzjd 2y ago
        Wouldn't be the first time though. I'd old timers remember Bouchard. Granted, the last time the Bloc was Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the incumbent party collapsed, never recovered, and was swallowed by its rival.
    • hellgas00 2y ago
      There were a couple byelections within the last few months in historically stronghold ridings for the Liberal party that have not flipped in decades. One in Toronto which went to the Conservatives and one in Montreal which went to the Bloc Québécois. It's almost a certainty that the Liberals will not form a government next election, and polling suggests that they are trending below the seat count needed to be the official opposition.
• aliasxneo 2y ago
  Reading through the post is quite depressing. As a lifelong independent, I've never felt more vilified by the Democratic Party than at any other time. Constantly being talked down to, insulted as a white supremacist, nazi, etc. It's this "elitist" and "we know better than you" attitude that really, really puts a sour taste in my mouth. Yet, reading through these comments, it seems alive and well even after an astounding rebuke. Why? I despise our two-party system, but I'm actually quite happy to see one particular party rebuked this time around for this abhorrent behavior that should have no place in civil discourse. It's sad that HN can't rise above it. And for clarity, yes, both sides participate in this charade of incivilities, but I am simply expressing my own opinion as an independent in 2024 that it overwhelmingly came from one side towards _me_ in this election cycle.
  • ricardo81 2y ago
    I hear you (actually not from my perpective, just other people I know). It may sound really superficial but it sounds like a platonist vs aristotelian argument. The former being people who believe abstract theories are the greater good (conventional theory) vs real world experiences. The problem with the former is that if you're afforded to believe it if you're not in survival mode. IMO in all actuality the best course of action is somewhere in the middle.
  • eilefsen 2y ago
    i think this is the insidious thing about polarization: people in the middle get caught in the crossfire of harsh rhetoric. and it is hard to blame people for this, an eye for an eye is so easy and tempting. I've had right wingers criticize me with patronizing "anti-commie" rhetoric, but the worst has been shaming (yes actual shaming and exclusion) from my peers because i (mostly) agree with them in a contrarian way that they dont like or attempt to understand. i don't really interact with many right wingers day to day, so this difference might just be a result of that bias. I'm curious if this kind of thing happens to right wingers as well, or if there is less such "friendly-fire" on the right. P.S I'm European.
    • aliasxneo 2y ago
• istjohn 2y ago
  Hope and change. That's the message Obama won consecutive terms with. The Republicans have always thrived on fear and insecurity--and hate, which is just ripe fear. To quote Yoda, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate." The red scare, the Southern Strategy, urban crime, WMDs, terrorism, immigrants, China--since the 1950s, Republicans have monkey-barred from fear to fear. It's a natural fit for conservativism. What is conservatism if not the fear of change? And when you're afraid, you want a strongman to lead you, someone who takes pride in our military and law enforcement. Someone who shows no fear, who has swagger. It's also a perfect fit for someone like Trump who would as soon lie as breathe. When you're conjuring terrors, truth is just dead weight. Kamala didn't run on hope and change. She ran on fear, too. She tried to beat Trump at his own game with none of the advantages of his shameless distain for the truth or a Republican Party and media ecosystem at home with fearmongering. She aped his disdain for immigrants and opposition to China, but of course her main bugaboo was Trump himself. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with our nation's current circumstances, she offered only stasis, while Trump offered revolution. Non-college graduates know they're getting fucked. Trump says immigrants and China is to blame. Kamala has nothing to say. She could point to the billionaires, the tax dodging corporations, the thriving defense contractors, the predatory medical insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the monopolies bleeding consumers dry in every corner of the economy. She could paint a vision of affordable healthcare for all, an end to medical bankruptcy, an end to college debt, a thriving green energy blue collar economy, free early childhood education, a guaranteed jobs program, a universal basic income. She could acknowledge the people who feel left behind and say, "I hear you. This is what I'm going to do for you." Instead, her cries of fear just assured those folks that Trump really was going to fuck shit up fighting for them, that the people who sold them down the river are shaking in their boots. Of course, Trump isn't actually going to make their lives better, but he promised he would, and that's more than Kamala could be bothered to do.
  • inglor_cz 2y ago
    Doom. Doomscrolling, doomposting ... weren't those words born in the social media world? Negativity attracts attention. Negativity makes money on the Internet. Ironically, here on Hacker News, there is probably a sizeable cohort of programmers and managers who opened this Pandora's Box for the entire mankind. I don't blame them; they didn't know how the brave new world would turn out. But this is just one of the many consequences. People perceive the world as worse than it actually is. Because all they see on their smartphones are bad news and anxious takes.
• deepfriedchokes 2y ago
  Anger is a helluva drug.
• jimnotgym 2y ago
  It always amazes me that a country that cares so much about being the 'best', cares so little about what people think of them. Voting in this guy, and his policies reduces the legitimacy of the US. If Trump withdraws from Nato, then members may not pay so much to US for weapons any more. Protection money only works while you get Protection. Maybe the Visa and Mastercard tribute taxes we all pay back to the US will be less welcome. Maybe, in the new protectionist world, tax dodging US tech companies will be less welcome too.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• metabagel 2y ago
  A lot of people have a broken bullshit detector. They think they can tell when someone is lying, but they rely on the other person having a guilty conscience. Trump doesn't have a guilty conscience. If a person were to read the newspaper, they would figure out that Trump is a pathological liar, but most don't read a newspaper, and even among those that do, a lot of people read for confirmation rather than for understanding. A lot of people get their information from Fox News, right wing radio, or right wing leaning podcasts. These information sources direct your focus to things which will make you angry about the things they want you to be angry about, and ignorant of things which maybe you should care about. The most important things which we can all do is to take back control of our own focus and maintain our sense of curiosity and a dash of healthy skepticism. Ask why someone is trying to get you to focus on this or that. Ask why they never mention these other issues which may be equally or more important. Question your own biases and assumptions from time to time.
  • foxglacier 2y ago
    OK. Why are you trying to get me to focus on Trump being a liar and never mentioning his abnormally pacifist record which is more important?
    • talldayo 2y ago
      > and never mentioning his abnormally pacifist record which is more important? If Trump's brand of pacifism means negotiating with Russian terrorism, then it's not peace but the cuckolding of a nation and millions of people that lived through a period in time when the Soviets were actually a superpower. Peace when Russia is down and begging for violence would be an imbecile's decision. Are we supposed to sincerely acquiesce to the demands of a humiliated nation that turned a "special military operation" into a blood feud with hundreds of thousands of casualties?
      • foxglacier 2y ago
        Pacifism can lead to losing wars or territory, yes. You can't have your cake and eat it too buy saying it's not true pacifism unless you fight baddies or that a war based on vengeance for humiliation is what a real pacifist would want.
• tonymet 2y ago
  Just the day before the election a family member asked how anyone could possibly vote for Trump. I started going into the history of the primaries, and the fraud with Bernie in 2016 & 2020. How it's not red vs blue, it's really insiders vs outsiders. Within 30 seconds I was shouted down and shamed. I then asked: "I can name 10 good things about Biden / Harris, can you do the same for Trump?" They couldn't say 1 positive reason that the ~ 75million voters are supporting Trump. It's a good self-test of your bubble. Could you make a sound argument in favor of the opponent? If not, then you haven't spent enough time trying to understand the context.
• CapeTheory 2y ago
  With the greatest of compassion and respect: America - get a fucking hold of yourselves, would you please?
  • lysace 2y ago
    Hijacking this to express my admiration towards the people developing and running HN: 7k comments in a single page. You did it. Normal HTML+CSS+some JS scales insane well.
• simonebrunozzi 2y ago
  I think that Harris was a very poor choice of a candidate. I have no way to know this, but I like to imagine that a better Dem candidate would have led to a different president.
  • starik36 2y ago
    Who else could they have possibly picked on such a short notice? I think, it made sense at the time - now, of course, we can all Monday morning quarterback.
    • zerreh50 2y ago
      The short notice was a self inflicted problem. Biden's issues did not start in July 2024
      • starik36 2y ago
        For sure. I am asking who could they have picked after Biden's performance at the debates? E.g. after the damage was done. Kamala was probably the most prominent of all democrats at the time. The alternative would have been some no name senator or Hillary.
    • cyclecount 2y ago
      They could have turned to the second place contestants from their sham primary election which was held this Spring and largely ignored by the media.
    • saghm 2y ago
      Back in the spring, I had a long conversation with my father (a lifelong Democrat whose only vote in a presidential contest that wasn't for the Democrat candidate was for John Anderson in 1980) about Biden's chances against Trump. He insisted that Biden made the right choice to run because nobody else seemed like they would have a good chance against him, but I argued that this was because Biden choosing to run again essentially made it impossible for anyone else to make a serious attempt at it, and that the best thing would have been for him to announce within the first couple years of his term that he wouldn't be running for reelection, which would have given other candidates a chance to make a case. I still think that I was right about this; anyone competent enough to be a worthy candidate in the general election would know that they'd have no chance at winning the nomination against Biden running as an incumbent, even if they'd have a better chance at winning the general election. Anyone reasonable who was concerned with Trump winning had no incentive to enter a contest they couldn't win and risk being perceived (perhaps correctly) as a spoiler who hurt Biden's chances, so the smartest thing for them to do both for themselves and the country would be to hide their ambitions until next time and hope for the best. I know that I've probably been wrong ten times for every time that I've been right about something like this, but that didn't make it any easier to watch the last six or seven months. You're correct that there was nothing else anyone could have done to avoid the train wreck by the time Biden withdrew because the only way to avert it would have been to change speeds way back before we got to the sharp curve. The worst part is that I don't even think that Harris would have necessarily been a bad candidate if she had been given a proper chance from the start; there are articles as far back as early 2022 mentioning that her public appeal was hurt by the Biden administration tying her to issues like immigration and election reform. At minimum, ignoring the harm to her future electability showed extremely poor foresight, and it's not hard to imagine that it went beyond negligence to the point of outright sabotage of someone viewed as a potential threat.
• chrishare 2y ago
  Even if you support his economic approach, for example, wouldn't his criminal behaviour, or his racist and transphobic views disqualify him? One does not wash away the other.
  • pm90 2y ago
    The American people have clearly spoken that those are not in fact disqualifying.
    • jimmydoe 2y ago
      why would any one care? a world leader will have blood on his hands, one way or another
      • fourside 2y ago
        Because there’s varying degrees of corruption. If you had to choose between living under American leadership vs North Korean, wouldn’t you have a preference or are they the same because neither is perfect?
      • igetspam 2y ago
        But should they start with sexual assault on their hands?
  • mp05 2y ago
    My two life-long democrat friends that voted for Trump just got tired of this shit , right here. They just don't believe it anymore. Even Andrew Cuomo admitted that Trump was subject to lawfare in New York. But go on, don't ask questions or think critically.
    • saulpw 2y ago
      I've listened to what he said, firsthand and frequently. He's deliberately divisive and uses racist and violent rhetoric whenever possible (even in the last week of the election). 8 years ago I was open to attacks against him being fearmongering and then I lived through 4 years of his presidency. Not everything people say about him is true, but the vast majority is. It is difficult to justify "got tired of this shit" as though it's not true, when a large number of his own former cabinet members AND his own former vice president refused to endorse him, saying that he is unfit for office. I mean, come on.
• dave333 2y ago
  1) It's very hard for a woman to be elected president. 2) The electorate demographic without college degrees is more likely to make an emotional decision that is more easily manipulated with Trump-style bombast. Not in a battleground state, I didn't see any advertising, but the Dems should have pounded Trump as a criminal sex offending lying hypocrit draft dodger loser felon bankrupt self-obsessed asshole (note this is not snark it's literally how they should have gone at him).
  • idunnoman1222 2y ago
    They literally did if you just call everyone you don’t like a Nazi over and over again eventually they stop listening to you
    • dave333 2y ago
      Nazi didn't resonate, besides he isn't literally a Nazi. All the other faults I mentioned though are literally true. Need to find the thing that makes him look weak to the demographic you are targeting and hammer on it.
  • aksss 2y ago
    Aguably, using only bad female candidates makes electing a female candidate difficult.
    • dave333 2y ago
      Arguably, Hillary 2016 was the best candidate by far. Nobody thought Trump was better until he won. If you say she had baggage, it was nothing to Trump's baggage, but there's a huge double standard based on gender.
      • aksss 2y ago
        Evidently, wine-track lawyers retailing a bad product aren’t desirable leaders for the nation. If the key doesn’t fit, it might not be the lock’s fault.
• pygar 2y ago
  Trump is a fuck-you vote from the economic losers of globalisation. They know he won't do anything for them, but they also know the other side won't either. All the pearl clutching about trumps characteristics from inner-city relativists fell on deaf ears because it rang hollow. A women of the luxury belief professional class from an academic family and an uninspiring bureaucratic life story was never going to be able to talk to these people and she didn't really try too either. The specific policies don't really matter to people when they are exhausted and angry. Revenge does.
• mise_en_place 2y ago
  It's been an incredible campaign this time around. I'm a bit of a black sheep as a voter, I voted for Obama twice, I voted Hillary in 2016, Trump in 2020, Trump for the primary, and now again Trump in 2024. Having a multi-ethnic coalition behind him really sealed the deal for him IMO, as well as a coherent platform of deregulation, immigration reform, and putting American workers and businesses first. Wish I'd bet more in the election markets and crypto, but hindsight is always 20/20 as they say.
  • talldayo 2y ago
    > as well as a coherent platform of deregulation, immigration reform, and putting American workers and businesses first. Deregulation and immigration reform is inherently at-odds with putting American workers first. Apple didn't send their manufacturing jobs to China because of too many regulations and immigrants in America - they did it for the opposite reason. It happened with automotive manufacturing, it happened with silicon fabrication, and it's going to continue for every consumer good America cannot export competitively.
• fracus 2y ago
  This is going to be the "snake ate my face" situation real fast. Republicans push class divide so to keep their voter base uneducated and poor. Seems like they've reached the critical mass necessary. I don't understand any other way they vote someone in who has demonstrated time and again he'll work against their own interests. I understand short sighted single issue greed for the mighty dollar but it is a nonsensical vote for anyone else.
  • ricardo81 2y ago
    I'd disagree, after all a democracy is one vote per person. And it surely looks like they've voted against what you thought was the better choice. In that sense, you have to have some pretence about why you disagree. You mentioned it was something along the lines of people thinking about a 'mighty dollar', but that seems conflationary. Saying it's a nonsensical vote in a two party race is a bit off.
    • mcperr3 2y ago
      I suppose a democracy could elect a leader that promises to destroy it (hypothetically). The voters have no obligation to protect it.
      • ricardo81 2y ago
        Yes. In Scotland where we have devolution from the UK government, there is a party that wants to dissolve the parliament that campaigns to be elected to that parliament. Just democracy.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • cyberax 2y ago
    Because trans people. And immigrants pouring through the border. And abortion. In other words: culture wars.
    • 2y ago
• skc 2y ago
  More than anything I'm very curious to see what sort of people will be emboldened by this victory. I've just seen pictures of Trump, Elon Musk and Dana White celebrating together (and being celebrated) The signal being sent is that this is what masculinity and winning looks like.
• JasonBorne 2y ago
  And the rise of anti intelllectualism in the USA continues to rise.
  • sbdhzjd 2y ago
    Meh, I have a PhD in engineering from a top five school and I was in between Dr Stein and Trump. Some people really loath Biden (me), the Democrats and/or Harris.
    • amarka 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • nuforia 2y ago
      [dead]
    • flakespancakes 2y ago
      Maybe a PhD isn't sufficient evidence of intellectualism, then.
      • over_bridge 2y ago
        PhD should never be considered a sign of intelligence. Anyone can get one if they pay enough and don't have any better prospects
        • sbdhzjd 2y ago
          They paid me (poorly). As to better prospects, meh. I graduated with an engineering degree in the naughts.
        • aguaviva 2y ago
          Anyone can get one if they pay enough and don't have any better prospects. Not true at all (in terms of STEM degrees from legitimate schools).
      • 2y ago
• NickC25 2y ago
  Again the DEM party took another opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They should have nominated Mark Kelly. The GOP ran on "this bitch hates America". You can't run on that against a 4 star rear admiral who also went into space.
  • anon84873628 2y ago
    I'm curious. Let's say Biden hadn't completely bombed the debate but continued to muddle along as he had been, and the DNC didn't try to force him out. Would he have won?
    • techfeathers 2y ago
      I don't think so, he wouldn't have overcome that event, and I think this was equally a referendum on Biden.
    • Lord-Jobo 2y ago
      Absolutely not. It's clear with how people ranked issues on exit polls, Absolutely nobody would have won for the Democrats. The economic sentiment was too powerfully negative
    • raincom 2y ago
      DNC tricked Biden for that earlier debate in order to force out Biden. Prominent Democrats and many media people knew Biden's cognitive decline by then.
  • jkubicek 2y ago
    > You can't run on that against a 4 star rear admiral who also went into space. If I've learned anything since 2016 it's that you absolutely can convince ½ of Americans that a 4 star rear admiral who also went into space hates America.
    • unethical_ban 2y ago
      I hear you on the power of conservative hatred. But it would have been a lot harder with a white man. The only thing they had on Biden was age and seeming creepy with kids. Look how hard Fox has to struggle when they debate Pete Buttegeig or Sanders. Confident, well spoken, white male policy wonks with plans for the working class are Fox News worst nightmare.
• epolanski 2y ago
  Interesting unrelated fact, but at 6745 comments this page lags a lot on my phone, even typing this is difficult.
  • meowster 2y ago
    Not on my phone. (Pixel 8 Pro, Firefox)
• jdlyga 2y ago
  Another perplexing decision. It reminds me of when Bush won his second term. In retrospect, nobody today thinks that was a good move. But you'd be surprised how many people vote for Trump because they want to save money on taxes and think republican policies will help the economy.
• AdeptusAquinas 2y ago
  Not sure if its clear here to US participants, but the world views this outcome much like we did in 2016: it makes the US into an absolute laughing stock. I don't fully understand: he was voted out in 2020 due to the massive failures of his term and him personally, and now four years later when he has become even more deranged, they voted him back in? What the hell? Positive outcomes I see is that much like with the US's unequivocal support of Israel, this devastates the US's reputation and foreign influence. Trump wants to abandon Europe and Ukraine, which might grant Europe the independence and the urgency to step up and support Ukraine itself, unfettered by dysfunctional politics back in the US. A third pole on the world power stage would improve things, the US isolated back home in its infighting and staying out of the rest of the worlds business. IF the EU steps up.
  • AdeptusAquinas 2y ago
    Should mention I feel bad for the Gazans. The democrats had already abandoned them (Genocide Joe etc) but they're screwed now - just like the Kurds which Trump betrayed and left for ISIS and Turkey last time.
  • Mahn 2y ago
    European here, I do not think that electing Trump makes the US a laughing stock; there were legitimate reasons to disagree with the Biden administration, and, given that Kamala was essentially a continuation of Biden's policies, there was no other real alternative.
    • anon7000 2y ago
      Added to the legitimate reasons to disagree with Trump’s first term too? It’s not like we’re jumping to something new here; we’ve done it before
    • AdeptusAquinas 2y ago
      It was very much a decision between drinking curdled milk and drinking bleach.
  • typeofhuman 2y ago
• snihalani 2y ago
  Do we need to allow parties to put up multiple candidates and implement ranked choice voting? would that help us with outcomes like these?
  • typeofhuman 2y ago
    Your position is "the position of the majority is wrong." No we don't need to change the system on the basis that it leads to outcomes you want.
    • IMTDb 2y ago
      > No we don't need to change the system on the basis that it leads to outcomes you want. I definitely agree with that view. But maybe we could/should change the system on the basis that "the majority does not agree that the system is working". While measuring that is hard since you would always tend to find that the system is working if it favours the candidate you like; there still is a significant number of people both left and right leaning that agree that the bi partisan winner-takes all voting system is fundamentally broken. If only for the fact that a president can ben elected by winning less voices than his opponent, thereby showing that some votes are worth more than others.
    • defrost 2y ago
      The system that your "we" (US voters) has is flawed (as all voting systems are) in a greater way than variations of ranked voting are. It's doomed via repeated iterations to fall prey to variations of Hotelling's law - the evolving of two parties seeking to 'capture' the First Past the Post votes of greatest majority while also directly representing the least (non representive two party politics). This wasn't as the US founders intended, many expressed an extreme distaste for party politics and envisioned a congress with factions in proportion to the views of the greater population that bargained and dealed within themselves to find comprimises acceptable to most via robust debate. Instead the US has landed in a wasteland of little to no choice for the public at large. It's a poor system after 400 years of growth, stagnation wasn't seen by the founders as the way of the future, rather expressly as the hallmark of doom and eventual depotism (to Benjiman Franklin at least who was quite explicit on this).
• onecommentman 2y ago
  To provide a little perspective on what seems to be an fruitless exercise in Democratic Party political apologetics, let’s remind ourselves that the smart, dumb, rich, poor, wise, foolish, old, young, native born, foreign born, male, female American people have spoken in a generally free and fair election. As they did when they elected Biden in 2020, Trump in 2016, Obama in 2012…. Whether you agree with the results or not, that process is a beautiful thing. Think of the billions on this planet who aren’t afforded that luxury. There is a phrase that took root in the American legal subculture a while back: “come to Jesus meeting”. It refers to a meeting where a lawyer explains to their client the realities of their situation with the expectation that presentation of the cold facts and current climate will “recalibrate their expectations” and move them on a new path…normally to settlement and no further wasting of the Court’s time. The Democratic Party would do well to consider having such public meetings with elder statesmen types from both sides of the aisle. The US is best served when both political parties are strong and healthy. Paradoxically, it’s harder for the Republicans to do that now, since they are winning. Normally requires a hard slap in the face…as has occurred for Democrats.
• lend000 2y ago
  An open mind is one of the most valuable qualities a person can have. For some reason, most people are unable to fake being open minded when discussing politics so it's a good litmus test. So consider the following perspective. We've endured Trump once, with mediocre results. The world didn't end, and meanwhile he did not accomplish much of what he promised while putting on a clown show. But this time, I'm optimistic about the potential for our country for the first time. Not because of Trump, but because of some of his likely cabinet appointments. Elon Musk in particular. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, our government is headed for a debt crisis. Things will get slowly worse (inequality will increase while the government devalues the dollar to service its debt), but eventually, the crisis will come to a head and the government will be unable to service its debts without a massive devaluation ala Argentina, Weimar Republic, etc. We got a small taste of this after the pandemic response. There is no conceivable way that an ordinary politician from either party could dismantle or even slow the growth of the immense bureaucratic rot bleeding our country dry. Nor can Donald Trump, as evidenced by his failure to "drain the swamp" last time. But one of the few people who could is likely to get a major government efficiency appointment. That's what I'm optimistic about. Not Trump, but the fact that he is now surrounded with competent people with good ideas. Prior to him being elected, a true national debt reckoning was inevitable at some point in my lifetime. Now, there is some non-negligible chance of pushing it past my lifetime or reversing it altogether.
  • foobarian 2y ago
    There is the usual caveat that government debt does not work like personal debt, having a central bank and all. But then on top of that, I would add that even government debt does not work like government debt when the government is the United States government. Having the world reserve currency means they own the world, and devaluation means they siphon resources away globally. This is bad if you are not American or it hurts some sense of fairness you might have, but objectively it's probably good for the US.
• bryanmgreen 2y ago
  Step 1: Blame people who don't look like you Step 2: Become dictator/king Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit --- History repeats itself.
• VoodooJuJu 2y ago
  Bernie Sanders just put it perfectly: >It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. >While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. >And they’re right. Anyone here who is still confused about this election result need only unplug their fingers from their ears and open their eyes.
• name_nick_sex_m 2y ago
  I think it more likely this election was rigged in favor of trump
• veidelis 2y ago
  Is the war with Iran more or less likely with Trump in office?
• snow_mac 2y ago
  I get really tired of this narrative that people are pushing that trump voters are somehow ignorant, stupid or simply don't care. We're not ignorant, we care a lot and we're not being duped. We're really tired of the high gas prices, the moral hypocrisy of the left, the domestic law fare going on attacking political rivals and most of all, we want to afford our groceries and experience a better economy. Telling us, that the entire base that voted for Trump is either heartless, naive or stupid just isn't going to cut it in reality. People that voted for Trump believe that the President is the diplomatic representative to the world for the American people. He literally got shot and stood up pumping his fist in the air. Joe Biden can barely walk down the stairs without tripping. Kamala had a "phone" call with an undecided voter just yesterday and when she showed the screen it was the camera app. Our choice this election was either the badass who after being shot wanted to show the crowd he was alive or two bumbling idiots. He's not my first choice, but he's a lot better then the Democratic Party offered as alternatives. We want an American who will fight for business and fight for America to win. We want lower gas prices, which will then make it cheaper to transport goods across the nation and help lower prices in the grocery store. Trump is not the best person, but he was the better option out of the two party system.
  • ChumpGPT 2y ago
    >We want an American who will fight for business and fight for America to win. We want lower gas prices, which will then make it cheaper to transport goods across the nation and help lower prices in the grocery store. Do you think the President has anything to do with all that? The USA pumped more oil during the Biden administration than at any time in history. How is a President going to fight for business? Seriously, your comments come across like you have no idea what the President can or can't do. Do you understand where the power lies in the USA? It lies with Congress and massive corporations, the President is just theater for the masses.
  • TrackerFF 2y ago
    This has to be satire. But you don't even blink when Trump hammers on about the trade war he's going to start with everyone? Musk even had to re-iterate his point, and make sure that you'll embrace for "hardship" in the near future, should they get elected. I mean, good luck with those gas and grocery prices. You're gonna need all the luck you can get.
• throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]
• sweeter 2y ago
  who would of guessed that swinging to the Right and courting Republican voters while holding no real tangible policy positions that address the pain that people are feeling wouldn't pay off?? (except for literally everybody who follows politics) I could write an essay on each massive mistake they made after that first week after the swap, but if I had to simmer it down into a sentence, it would be: people wanted change, Kamala Harris made it extremely clear that she does not represent that change. She cozied up to Biden and tried to be a centrist-right candidate, and literally nobody wants that... and the worst part is that they will never learn a lesson from this.
• SilentM68 2y ago
  The economy, cost of living, no meaningful or high-paying jobs, the crackdown on Cryptocurrency, the way mainstream media and other mediums treat the right lead to Trump's second Term, in my opinion.
• adamredwoods 2y ago
  I strongly feel Harris lost because she did not connect with white voting women in the swing states. The exit poll numbers show this. She had about the same percentage voting women as Biden, but lost votes with white men. So to make up for that gap, it had to be white women. She did great with non-white overall. I think it's easy to say "Harri needed more votes" but to go about this strategically, there needs to be on-target messaging.
• rachofsunshine 2y ago
  There's a lot of micro-level pieces to the result (which, to be clear, is very very bad - this is an attempt at explanation, not justification). But I think the macro-level piece is simply this: Institutional trust has collapsed, and the public is desperate. Yes, "it's the economy, stupid" - but economic perceptions are reflective of that desperation, and of how far voters will go to express it. ----- There are a million individual failures that add up: - An economic and judicial system that protects the rich at the expense of the poor, to the point that no one of any political persuasion is the slightest bit surprise when rich guys get off scot-free. - The normalization of snake oil, MLMs, conspiracy theories, etc., which enhance the perception of institutional failure even when institutions are functioning (e.g., antivaxxers). This includes deliberate misinformation from a very effective right-wing propaganda apparatus, beginning with Fox and continued through the present day; I think this apparatus is a very important factor but it's one Democrats have no control over. - The almost naked contempt for the lack of well-being (particularly economic well-being) among the public from many laissez-faire politicians of the Clinton-Bush era. - The post-9/11 apparatus that led to the Iraq War, which obliterated trust in neocons/hawks as an institution (paving the way for an alternative wing on the right, whereas the left has had no comparable failure [possibly until now] to clean house on the left). - The 2008 financial crisis, which intensified perceptions that we were getting screwed and generated the Tea Party and Occupy. The Tea Party became MAGA, while Occupy has no similar vent on the left (thanks largely to the fairly transparent sidelining of Bernie Sanders, the heir-apparent of that movement). - Outsourcing, particularly of manufacturing. Beneficial overall, perhaps, but looks like an institutional failure from the perspective of workers whose towns evaporated. That's part of why the Trump movement started with those towns and expanded outward: they were the nexus of a discontent that has continued to grow among the electorate. - The relentless enshittification of nearly everything we do, use, or consume. As I was waiting for results to come in, I was watching a YouTuber play video games, and he was talking about how every fast food place sucks now relative to how they used to be. Not election-related at all! It's just so pervasive in the zeitgeist that it's a normal discussion topic. And everyone can name stuff that's gotten worse in their daily lives because someone's trying to milk it for extra cash. - The increasing alienation of workers from their work, and especially from doing work they feel has any moral value. I wrote more about this a while back at [1] - A pervasive sense of societal decay, brought on by...well, everyone's got a different theory, but everyone can feel it. Almost no one actually feels better about life right now than they did ten or even twenty years ago, with the possible exception of queer rights (and as a queer person, I can tell you I certainly don't feel like things are going well, and I wouldn't have felt that they were even if Harris had won). I think there is substance to that (see [2]), and because it's vague and nebulous, it's incredibly easy to assign to whatever cause you want. - A lack of belief that success even can be done without being corrupt. (see [3]) A lot of Trump supporters are fully aware that he's nakedly corrupt and lies all the time, they just think everyone is and that he's at least lying and corrupt "on their side". ----- When the public is in this state, it has a legitimate grievance. The social contract between the working class and the elite is, roughly, "make sure my life is OK and I won't burn the place down". Well, the elite failed to hold up its end of the bargain, and failed to listen to many cries for help (among other things, during 2008), until people got desperate. So they decided to burn the place down. People often wonder how Sanders-Trump voters existed given the apparent policy conflict between the two. Well, I was almost such a voter in 2016 (I would not be now! I'm ashamed to have ever considered him), and I can tell you where I was: it's not (just) about policy, it's about disruption. If you feel like things are going badly for you, and no one will listen or offer you help (and might actively sneer at you when you ask for it), you start asking yourself if you have anything to lose by going nuclear. And this isn't just a logical judgement, either. To be ignored and suppressed is humiliating. It makes you feel impotent - choice of word very intentional - and that seems to hit male voters rather harder than female ones. There's a reason Bannon found a lot of Trump's initial younger base of support in gaming communities: it's not much different than someone raging in a League of Legends match because someone else is feeding and that's making you lose. Your pride is being damaged because someone else (in your perception) screwed up. You're a great player, it's all their fault, so your pride is unbesmirched. Voters do care about democracy, contrary to this result. A lot said they cared about it, and a lot of people who voted for Trump said they were concerned about Jan 6. But people won't care about someone else unless they feel like they're taken care of for themselves, and principle comes after basic everyday needs for most people. And that goes double when you're being asked to defend institutions that (you feel) have completely betrayed you. The same goes for, say, social justice. It's not that voters don't care in a vacuum, it's that it's at a higher tier of their hierarchy. Yes, hardcore racists, sexists, etc do exist, and are a problem, but what makes Trump powerful is that he co-opts populist rage into bigotry. When he talks about DEI, it's not "boo black person in power" (keep in mind, much of Trump's base enthusiastically voted for Obama), it's "that person took a job that you should have had because Democrats care more about diversity than they do about you". That works for the people who are explicitly racist, but it also works for the people who feel like they've been robbed and are looking for someone to blame. And the latter can become the former, especially because it sets them up for being called racist when they feel they aren't (somewhat correctly, in my view, but not in theirs). ----- Was the inflation of the last few years bad? Yeah. But it was also everywhere, and it wasn't that bad in the US relative to the rest of the world. An electorate that was interested in listening to any sort of explanation would have probably been persuadable on that point. But the electorate has had their problems explained away one too many times. Was there a problem at the border? Yeah. But it was clearly not a problem of our own making, and not as simple as "put up a wall". And an electorate interested in expert opinions and complex solutions might have believed that. But when you feel like you're being screwed in a thousand ephemeral ways, it's easy to point a finger and say "Biden gave all your money to immigrants". Despite the fact that I'm probably leaving the country to avoid what I expect to be attacks on people like me, I don't think voters are actually all that much more conservative. The administration will be, and their power will be almost wholly unchecked, but voters weren't. Abortion measures passed last night in some really red states. So did minimum wage hikes. Dobbs has been wildly unpopular. Harris outperformed Biden by wide margins among the wealthy, presumably because of Jan 6. But she got blown out among the working class by an even wider margin - a working class that cannot own a home, or afford healthcare, or expect a good stable career, and who might be automated away entirely at any minute. Trump isn't the answer to that (he is more or less a walking institutional failure himself, one that is causing a cascading collapse of other institutions), but Democrats have, so far, largely failed to acknowledge the problem at all. And so they could not present a compelling alternative. I'm not sure Democrats can actually solve this problem. Institutional failures are being driven by a lot of non-political forces, and if you care about policy, some degree of institutionalism is inevitable. And worse, addressing systemic issues runs fundamentally against American individualist values. But I think that's the nature of the problem they're dealing with, and one they better figure out quick. ----- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41977655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41977655 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41872998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41872998 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41581119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41581119
• tunapizza 2y ago
  I find it ironic that the word capitalism appears only 13 times in this thread, which has 7112 comments at the time of posting. This isn’t surprising, though, given how unpopular the topic of class warfare is in the USA. Regardless of who you vote for, many would argue that a lot of the USA’s (and most countries nowadays, really) socioeconomic issues stem from unregulated capitalism, which -- quite simply -- prioritizes profit over people.
• briantakita 2y ago
  Robert Kennedy detailed how CO2 pipelines have ruptured causing people to die & become sick. And how eminent domain was used to profit companies rather than social welfare. Even though Robert Kennedy seems to believe that CO2 is the climate control knob, many Americans don't. They see Carbon Capture as a scam that enriches Billionaires at the health + wealth expense of everyone else. This is one example where ideology becomes a mechanism of coercion to transfer wealth from the large majority to a very small group of people.
• James_K 2y ago
  I think Americans should evaluate their personal responsibly for this shameful event. You had eight years to do something about this man.
• chasd00 2y ago
  Lot of comments about the economy and inflation but I don’t think that explains all of it. Trump grew votes in demographics across the board including traditional Democrat strongholds. Something else was working for him that didn’t work for Harris.
• shirro 2y ago
  US politics isn't easy to understand as an outsider. It looks like Harris was was an ok candidate for the core democrat voter and a terrible candidate to win a populist election in what is essentially a deeply divided and mostly conservative country. She didn't address the swing voters greatest concerns which was their decline in real wealth due to inflation and fear of change. I am sure money and influence had a lot to do with it as well but still a colossal misreading of public sentiment and an inability to reach out to a broader audience.
  • wustangdan 2y ago
    Just FYI based on your comment you might not be aware but just on ads D's outspent the R's 4.5 billion to 3.5 billion (https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-spending-election-day https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-sp...). In general D's always outspend and out raise R's.
    • returningfory2 2y ago
      (Not the GP) I've been aware of this for a while but thank you for sharing a reference! It's sort of fascinating how so many Democrats think that money-in-politics rigs the system against them even though Democrats benefit more from it.
      • paulryanrogers 2y ago
        Money may influence certain blocks of voters more than others, and the parties may spend it differently. That still doesn't mean it's an unalloyed good that we pour so much money into it when it could be used on more productive efforts.
      • hackernewds 2y ago
        it's prisoners dilemma. if another party is outspending you, what do you do?
      • awb 2y ago
        I don’t think many in either party are worried about small donations. But the concern from Dems is usually the unlimited donations as one billionaire could match the financial influence of millions of non-billionaires. Kamala raised 2:1 from campaign contributions (limits: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2023-2024-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2023-2024-campaign...), while the inverse was true for Trump. Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/ https://www.opensecrets.org/ In politics what’s pretty consistent is it’s almost always a debate about what’s to my advantage or not, masquerading as a principled argument.
• StarterPro 2y ago
  Partisanship aside, he is not a smart man. He's a convict and a known racist. He most likely has dementia, and we will be under a President Vance before 2026. But he still won. I'm disappointed but not surprised.
• martin82 2y ago
  I'm a German living in Singapore. This labdslide Trump/Republican victory feels like the first glimmer of hope ever since mankind has been sliding down one slippery slope after the other since 9/11. Trump has assembled a truly kickass team. If Musk and Kennedy actually get to be able to pull off what they have planned, the entire world will become a significantly better place. - The US will hold Bitcoin - other countries will follow, we will be one step closer to having a new global reserve currency that cannot be abused as an economic weapon by the big bully in the room. The potential for global peace is finally in reach. - Seed oils will be banned or at least villified - Childhood vaccines will be banned or at least made optional - The entire demonic trans movement will be cancelled, confused children will no longer be mutilated - Academics will be able to speak their minds again, actual science can be conducted again - Americans will eat and export the best beef on the planet, and it will be shown to be hugely beneficial for human health and for the environment - The entire climate hysteria hoax will collapse - our children will no longer have to live in baseless fear of the future. This is just from the top of my head. If the deep state doesn't finally succeed in another assassination attempt, the US is going to rise again as an indisputable super power.
  • isiot 2y ago
    > - The US will hold Bitcoin - other countries will follow, we will be one step closer to having a new global reserve currency that cannot be abused as an economic weapon by the big bully in the room. The potential for global peace is finally in reach. That is a hilariously stupid take. Bitcoin is useless as a currency, it can't handle the transaction volume, it costs too much per transaction, and the environmental damage from the amount of power it uses is immense. This is just braindead cryptobro pie-in-the-sky dreaming. > - Childhood vaccines will be banned or at least made optional Also a braindead take. Childhood vaccines prevent kids from being made seriously ill, disabled and even dying from a host of nasty infectious diseases. Antivaxxers really are clueless.
• scrps 2y ago
  If the GOP sweeps both chambers and form a supermajority they will be in the position where they are expected to deliver what their constituents were promised without any opposition. Hell of a tight-rope given the scale of their promises and how rabidly sure the GOP base is on their ability to deliver.
  • returningfory2 2y ago
    The GOP won't have a supermajority, as the word is usually understood (i.e., having more than two thirds of the seats in the Senate). They'll have barely more than half the seats in both houses. So they can pass some things using the reconciliation process, but can't pass general legislation without Democrat support or abolishing the filibuster.
    • scrps 2y ago
      The average voter isn't going to make that distinction, they are just going to equate it to "in power, didn't deliver".
    • AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      You remember when Democrats were pushing to abolish the filibuster, because it kept them from being able to push through what they wanted to do? Yeah, right now is why that was a bad idea.
• spl757 2y ago
  Since the Citizens United decision the USA is a defacto oligarchy. Politicians are no longer beholden to the whims of the people, only the donors. The Supreme Court decreed that money is speech, therefore the more money you have, the more speech you have, and the more speech you have, the louder your voice. Herein lies the proof, and the lesson.
  • softwaredoug 2y ago
    Kamala Harris far outspent and outraised Trump this election. https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-spending-election-day https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-sp...
    • spl757 2y ago
      Yes, and she lost. Perhaps this will help provide perspective. Compare. https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/kamala-harris/demographics?id=N00036915 https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/kamala-ha... https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-trump/demographics?id=N00023864 https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-tr...
      • gruez 2y ago
        What am I supposed to be looking at? Don't make your reader come up with your argument for you. Say what you want to say rather than presenting a bunch of figures and hoping that they're telepathic.
        • spl757 2y ago
          I didn't write a book, I made a comment. I also don't believe in telepathy, but I do believe in critical thinking.
          • yownie 2y ago
            what a stupid response.
• EricDeb 2y ago
  Dems need stronger narratives and their candidates to hammer this stuff. I'll use Bernie as an example, which even if you dont agree if everything he says, the guy hammers his point home and will do it in any venue.
• ellis0n 2y ago
  When Trump was president last time, my project was just beginning. Now that many years have passed and I have gained experience, I can say that this is a second chance for him.
• maga_2020 2y ago
  No, it is not a single thing that drove US citizen to give Trump unprecedented mandate to fix the country. It is: 1. the selective outrage judicial system that corrupted the trust in the process , the judges and the prosecutors. Not only towards Trump, but towards his close allies and supporters 2. It it the Covid response that forced people to get vaccinated to get a job (talk about bodily autonomy) 3. It is complete disregards for immigration law, importing into US workforce, families and criminals illegally. Causing hardship to US citizens 4. It is the visible immoral US stance on using Ukrainian lives in an unwinnable territorial war, so that US could 'weaken' Russia, while also enriching the military-industrial complex 5. Yes, it is the economy (inflation, lack of stable income, where people have to work multiple jobs to pay rent and to buy food). 6. It is a complete disregard for a family unit, parental accountability and control for mental health of young kinds. Adoption of transgender surgeries for the kids, having public schools push racial self-hate, demoralizing kids identities. 7. It is support for on campus violence against american Jews. 8. It is remarkable encouragement for transgender to compete, and even violently attack (or hurt in competition) females. 9. It emboldening the South American gangs in crossing borders, child trafficking, extortion. 10. it is distrust in 2020 election process, and the judicial refusal to actually review the cases brought in front of them. Different 'categories' of voters were deeply disturbed by different points in the above. But the collectively -- it is clear that the problem why Dems lost is exactly in their anti-constitutional, immoral policies and constant lies by the propaganda machine and their 'experts' (that Trump is guilty of something, Russian interference, mRNA is safe ... etc) Trump received a mandate not just to address one of the above points, but to address all of them and forever through strengthening the word of the Constitution via detective, preventative and corrective controls.
• sarahwoodssarah 2y ago
  [dead]
• sanp 2y ago
  All this handwringing about inflation, economy etc. I think it is lot simpler: Most people are already set on who they will vote for. Perhaps Trump supporters more so than Democrats. So, it all boils down to turnout: 1. Kamala wasn't the candidate to bring out Democrats (no primary, not a popular choice even among Democrats, selected by the DNC) 2. Trump can bring out his voters. The added advantage was a female opponent. A number of his supporter (male and female) have a pretty strong misogynistic streak. They will turn out to vote against a female opponent just because of that. I suspect a male Democratic candidate (even Biden) would have done much better (entirely driven by lower turnout of Trump supporters as they would not have been so committed against a male opponent) This is further supported by the results of 2018 /2022 mid-terms. Trump was not on the ballot. So, Republican turnout (especially the kind that is in the cult) was impacted and Democrats had a good showing. We will see the same in 2026 (even more so as the economy will tank over the next 2 years and Democrats will come out in force). I predict a clean sweep by Democrats in 2026 perhaps even 60 Senate seats (yes, the economy will be that bad) and then the impeachment will start.
• biaass22223353 2y ago
  [dead]
• biaass22223353 2y ago
  [dead]
• coldtea 2y ago
  Who would have thought sneering at half the voters, taking voter groups for granted just because of their demographics, running the country with a senile out-of-touch leader (while denying this self-evident truth), replacing him at the last minute with totally bland careerist politician, basing their campaign on vibes of "joy", crying wolf, insulting the voters on the other side you instead needed to attract, and being tone-deaf on people's complains on everyday issues, while championing marginal concerns, could ever backfire!
  • 0dayz 2y ago
    Okay, how do you attract the side that thinks you're a subhuman and deserve to be jailed at best or at worst killed?
    • coldtea 2y ago
      The best start is by not considering them in such tremendously bullshit exagerated partisan terms as "the side that thinks you're a subhuman and deserve to be jailed at best or at worst killed"... People (and pundits) wrote such BS for 2016-2020, as they were witnessing the second coming of Hitler. In the end it was just another term. Meanwhile, the people who wrote similar things about Bush (which was a much more dystopian and bigger impact period, when citizens rights were being overturned though schemes like the Patriot Act, torture/waterboarding and such were cynically advocated and excused, and wars targeting millions and profiting few were kickstarted), now party with the Cheneys and approvingly check out photos of Bush and Obama hanging out...
      • 0dayz 2y ago
        In other word: the victim is to be blamed while the perputator is innocent and just had to do it. We could show you literal proof of Maga people asking "when do we get to use the guns"[1] and you will find some bizarre excuse. [1] https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/10/27/when-do-we-get-use-guns-tpusa-owns-and-others-too/8570812002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/...
• machiaweliczny 2y ago
  I see little analysis of Elon’s role in this election. Does anyone know if the accusation of him takin Russian money for Twitter were real?
• ethcat 2y ago
  "Republican voters relying on friends and family more than traditional news media for their election news." https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/11/06/trump-voters-news-divide-research/ https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/11/06/trump-voters-news-d...
  • jalapenos 2y ago
    This is actually an excellent technique. Your friends act as filters of the noise and negativity, and only the important bits reach you.
    • plewd 2y ago
      I'm not quite sure what you mean, that friends/family are a good source because they filter out noise? I would assume it's the worst type of source, people that are biased and don't provide a basis for their views, and might not always be understanding if you ask doubtful questions.
      • jalapenos 2y ago
        For instance, if there's a hurricane coming I might get a message about it. I won't get one about the other 100 click bait trash pumping out of the news machine.
    • result2vino 2y ago
      This is…what? It isn’t “actually an excellent” anything. My family only relays the most absurd rage-bait news to me. I’d rather go without it.
      • jalapenos 2y ago
        Lol guess depends on your circle then
    • paulryanrogers 2y ago
      This perspective keep me locked into the Republican party for decades. It took a long time for me to seriously consider perspectives outside the bubble.
• hypeatei 2y ago
  This is a massive indicitment of our country. We get what we deserve. Voting based on perception, not facts, especially given Trump's overall character and abhorrent track record, is going plunge us further into far right extremism. Enjoy.
• silexia 2y ago
  This is the best news for entrepreneurship in eons. Clearing regulations and barriers to entry will result in a much smoother, faster, and easier entrepreneurship process.
• MrSkelter 2y ago
  Trump didn’t win. Harris lost. Trump is about 2M votes behind his losing mark in 2020. Meanwhile Harris is 11M behind Biden last time round. Everyone voted as anticipated in the main and Musk’s antics did nothing to boost Trump. Trump‘s campaign was a disaster, pulling him back and losing him votes. No one can be proud of returning fewer votes than before. Nothing he did worked. White suburban men and the Latino population didn’t show up for Harris. Outside that even groups that didn’t vote for her in large numbers, or voted in part for Trump, otherwise performed as expected. Polls are not good at identifying voters who traditionally vote one way and then decide not to show up. The apathetic voters were falsely recorded as being votes for Harris. Many theories are out there to explain the apathy. Certainly there’s an element or sexism and racism. Many people don’t want to vote for a brown woman. Trump and his surrogates attacked Harris directly as a minority woman by implying she was only good for sex and had slept her way to power. The Latino population in the US skews catholic and that constituency skews them conservative. On top of that they often live in states with high immigration from South and Central America and are more hawkish on that issue than most. Many do not identify with the countries their parents or grandparents came from and consider themselves “good” immigrants who are angry at the “bad” immigrants they are often lumped in with. People talking about any move to the right by Trump are wrong. If anything the country is less Trumpest than it was 4 years ago. He has no mandate. America still seems unwilling to elect a woman to the highest office. People who think Obama election means race is no longer an issue are also wrong. Politically Obama was Michael Jordan. His performance and ability cannot be considered the new normal. He may remain an outlier in the same way Thatcher, the UKs only elected female PM, is.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• luna844 2y ago
  [flagged]
• Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
• ksec 2y ago
  I thought it is interesting to note the vibe shift on HN between first election, his 2nd try and now. ( Although not specific to election but how the political shift of HN has changed from 2008 to now ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12909752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12909752 The 2nd obvious observation is that HN now manage to fit 9435!!!! comments ( and counting ) in a single page. I downloaded it and it was ~18MB or 2.7MB zipped. And Arc is now Clarc and works on multiple core. I guess this thread is a huge battle ground for further optimisation. I also wonder if this is the most comment HN thread.
• obar1x 2y ago
  the hill is far to be a unbiased... deport this post