https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/content/what-state-do...
This despite the fact that we're all old, white, and economically privileged enough that we're for all practical purposes immune to the awful policies that are being put in place.
The sad thing is, the idea that moving away is a constructive political act comes straight from Atlas Shrugged. It's right wing logic. Express your consumer preference, and through the magic of the invisible hand, that becomes political power. Making yourself happy is the only form of political engagement you need.
I really hope this clear loss without the excuse of the electoral college leads to a total reformation into a sane party. I just wish that had happened to republicans first.
The democrats, by european standards, are about as centrist as it gets.
Describing any policy of the dems as "far-left" is just nonsense. It's used as an insult rather than to further actual political discourse.
- Decriminalization of theft (now overturned via prop 36 in California) - Wealth redistribution via wealth taxes, unrealized gains taxes etc (Kamala policy proposal) - Support for anarchist movements (support for Jihadist elements, 2020 riots etc)
This is a really interesting analysis that differs greatly from how I'm seeing it - in particular your characterization of the democrats as "far left." What policies of theirs would you describe as "far left?" Specifically ones that don't have to do with identity politics, since you categorized that as something else.
In my opinion, leftists in the USA are effectively disenfranchised and there's votes on the table for a leftist voting bloc. The democrats this election turned hard right (immigration, law enforcement, Israel weapon sales, etc), which is a strategy that has never really worked for them but remains their favorite thing to continually try. If someone didn't want immigration, why would they vote for the candidate that's light on immigration when they could vote for the guy promising to deport (somehow) millions?
I saw another interesting chart that showed that something like 4% of registered republicans voted for Biden and 3% for Kamala. Capturing right wing votes seems to be a fools errand for the Democrats that they simply won't give up. Meanwhile there's a whole entire political spectrum unrepresented in the USA - and it's not like there's no historical precedence for demonstrable popularity of leftist candidates, one of the most popular and consistently reelected senators is an out and out socialist.
Student debt cancellation
> The democrats this election turned hard right (immigration
After 3.5 years of scolding everyone for being racist for being against uncontrolled immigration, they tried to pass a weak compromise bill that acknowledges the problem, while continuing to advocate allowing a "first come first serve" border policy to the tune of thousands of people a week. That failed, then after years of saying their hands were tied, suddenly decide that they actually can do something, a few months before the election.
> If someone didn't want immigration, why would they vote for the candidate that's light on immigration when they could vote for the guy promising to deport (somehow) millions?
It's clearly not a binary issue. That's exactly why Democrats need to reform themselves into a party of sanity, instead of e.g. this: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-reopens-asylum-a.... The idea that a local domestic violence issue becomes a case for asylum is insane on so many levels.
> law enforcement
Again, too little too late, and after too much scolding about racism.
> Israel weapon sales
I won't comment on Israel "weapon sales" specifically, that is missing the big picture. I'll just give a few perspectives on how I reached the conclusion I posted about democrats.
Biden's diplomacy in the middle east has been just totally pathetic. Every week for months we got the headline "Cease fire coming tomorrow - Biden". Biden's desperation makes it crystal clear to both sides that he has zero leverage and can be ignored. And why is he so desperate? Because he has to entertain the demands of the far left of the democratic voter base.
More generally, this is an issue where Democrats have allowed their weird obsession with colonialism to cloud their judgement. At the end of the day, the middle east is almost exclusively theocratic dictatorships that have ethnically cleansed their populations of jews over the last 50-100 years, or failed states controlled by Iranian proxy militaries. And then there's Israel, a secular democracy (for now) with a 20% Arab population, including Arab elected officials.
It's very distressing seeing college students in Iran protesting at very real risk to their lives and freedoms against the very same forces that college students in the US are protesting (effectively, wittingly or not) in support of.
I remember watching the raw unfiltered video from Oct 7 and thinking this was the clearest casus belli for a total war for a regime change and occupation since WWII. Hell, even WWI and WWII still did not have such a clear singular provocation. Yet, democrats find themselves muddled and confused about the issue. Not at first, but democrats proved themselves beholden to their fringe lunatics on this issue.
...and Israel didn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cast_Thy_Bread
Supporting relatively better theocratic democracy is how the United States ended up justifying weapon sales to Iran and Pakistan. Are we holding Israel to the standards of America, or to the standards of their reprehensible peers? Are we looking at this from a flawed relativist standpoint, or are we willing to identify flaws before they spiral out of hand?
This feels like something we should clear up before the Gaza death toll surpasses Bangladesh. Alternatively, America can also admit that we never cared in the first place and announce that we're open for business to any sufficiently rich nationalists. Israel represents the point at which America can either bring down the hammer or double down hoping this time is different than the other nationalist theocracies that imported US weapons under the premise of fighting terrorism.
This is a red herring, and ultimately thinking it had any real effect on the race (beyond being used as fodder for mocking them) is a dangerous distraction.
Despite the fact that the president doesn’t have that many short term economic levers that aren’t destructive/wasteful, the fact that most USians have worse economic circumstances now than they did four years ago is probably the main driver.
The big irony of this is that a lot of it is probably the lingering echoes of the massive economic damage from the pandemic, most of which was not only not mitigated, but massively accelerated by Trump’s policies during the main sequence of same.
You keep telling yourself that but those disastrous Covid policies did nothing to stop Covid. Instead it fucked kids, old people, businesses and communities all around the country. It was a massive abuse of government power.
A large part of this election is a result of those idiotic mitigations.
Do we know that yet? Last I checked, there were still millions of votes not counted. (California alone still has enough to change it, if they all went one way.) They just aren’t in areas that would swing the overall electoral vote, so the people doing the math can call the race overall.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com
It is an interesting idea.
One (of many) arguments against it: We were promised the costs of the indirection-layer of sober statesmen would provide a feature, protecting against a patently unqualified demagogue. The feature broke spectacularly.
That said, if I had a magic-genie wish between (A) popular vote for President and (B) replacing all our plurality-voting schemes with one of the many better systems, I would choose the latter.
I'm more committed to democracy than politics.
Who, exactly, are you targeting with this message? You realize you are in the minority, right?