faceh
6hr ago
I won't call it a 'prediction' yet... but I expect:
-
Lots of focus on revenge, punishment, and settling political scores. I don't think these folks have gotten over what happened on January 6, 2021, much less what has happened since then.
-
Attempts to HYPERCHARGE the social changes they had been trying to implement. Trump has undone almost 16 years of 'progress' thus far, they will try to gain all that back at once, to get back 'on track.'
-
Desperation to re-establish funding for their various NGOs and pet projects.
-
Some attempts to shore up their actual control of the states they've picked up.
I don't think they're competent or efficient enough to do all this and chew gum at the same time, so unless a lot of things line up in their favor they're going to be tripping over their own feet for most of those two years.
faceh
6hr ago
I don't think there's any logical or sustainable legal argument in support of that stance, but again since when have the progressives let that stop them from doing the policies they'd wanted to all along?
Its crazy that I "don't pay that much attention" to politics (compared to some people on twitter) and yet these little details stick in my memory.
When people say Trump is doing something 'unprecedented' I feel like 9/10 times it something that either Biden or Obama did or tried to do first.
This is why I'm finding it impossible to panic in the wake of the election.
"Voters demonstrated they have a strong preference for X policy" followed very shortly by "Dem politicians declare they will try to do the opposite of X policy."
Congenital inability to learn the lesson or take the actual temperature of the electorate. I was calling this out back before Trump won election the FIRST time. "If you ignore the shouted complaints of the voters to zero in on issues that impact 1-2% of the population, it doesn't matter how popular you THINK you are."
The Dems don't have the outright power to shove everything down people's throats now (except in Cali)... and for the near future SCOTUS is unfavorable to them so going the lawfare route is risky. I do expect them to try to re-open the immigration floodgates.
I don't see how they stay 'mask on' for the next two years.
faceh
10hr ago
Republicans in 1860 won a plurality in the House and tied the Democratic Party in the Senate. (The House was split between six parties, meaningfully three.) The Republicans didn't have a majority that could have steamrolled slavery. The South was incensed by the prospect of any national power used to restrict slavery at all.
And yet in almost every other Western Country the end of Slavery was not accompanied with large scale bloodshed. Other methods were implemented to get it done.
INCLUDING just straight up paying the slaveowners compensation. Feels like this was an option that SHOULD have been on the Table in the U.S. at the time, since it had already been done in other places.
But that requires a unified government where having the debate and reaching a compromise solution was possible, rather than one side just imposing their preference over objection.
Again, I don't think the war would have been avoided with the existence of the filibuster, mostly just pointing out that 'blowups' still DID occur even with comparatively lower voting standards, b/c the fear of getting steamrolled by the legislative power of the majority is a valid and major concern.
Hence, I like processes that make it necessary to cooperate towards outcomes rather than everyone lining up on ideological lines and the side with just a few more men getting what they want.
faceh
11hr ago
Do you see the issue? A lot of modern governance issues have similar things that they need to be at national versus local level.
I see the issue, but as a Floridian I don't consider this a problem.
Okay, that's a joke (but not, we are the beneficiary of so many states with unwise tax regimes its insane).
I think this is a feature not a bug. If you have a policy that gets lots of startups to found in your state but then the actual founders peace out b/c of your tax regime...
YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THAT THE HIGH CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS NOT A FAVORABLE POLICY.
You should look into one of the vast array of other policy options you have for getting those startups and founders to live in Cali. When you receive such a valuable signal, you should actually use the information rather than concluding "well, we need a broader, more powerful regime to FORCE these greedy founders to pay us what we're owed."
Now you've just encouraged those founders to LEAVE THE COUNTRY ENTIRELY. The problem is not solved!
Hypothetical End result: you conclude that a one-world government with taxing power in every corner of the globe is necessary.
Or just do what Florida does, that is a solid heuristic.
A) Voter memories are short. I have actually overestimated how well they can process and recall events older than, say, a month. Won't make that mistake again.
B) Because of this, very little of the crashing out we're going to see over the next few weeks matters. At all. It just can't, nobody can carry those emotions forward long enough.
My pared down theory of the election is that throughout October and into November, huge swaths of median voters saw Gas prices at $4+ dollars (worse for Diesel) and thought "well fuck this." And then on the day, they voted for the "fuck you, current ruling party" option by default.
There were two minor portents that I underindexed on at the time: I was at my barber and discussing, among other things, gas prices. I said I'd found a place that had the Premium stuff for $5.00. One guy waiting SNAPPED to attention and said "where TF are you finding gas for $5?" Like it was CLEARLY an important matter on his mind, that he felt the pain deeply and regularly when he went to fill up his work truck.
Second, an estranged friend of mine who had been vehemently anti-liberal for a long time, and had been quiet on social media for months leading up to the election, reposted an anti-GOP Nick Fuentes clip which basically castigated their over deference to Israel rather than focusing on domestic issues. I'd talked to this person about Israel before, but I'd never gotten the sense they were THAT sensitive to the issue.
Both of these were, in hindsight, just signs of 'average' people getting very, very annoyed with the fact that they were paying more at the pump (and elsewhere) whilst the current ruling party twiddled thumbs and demanded support.
Biden had the same issue. He recklessly depleted the Strategic Petroleum reserve to try and stem this problem. It might have helped but didn't really work.
Looking at its recent level/movements, Trump tried approximately the same thing.
Does this analysis also account for the GOP having a Trifecta for two years and doing incredibly little legislating, including the exceedingly popular SAVE Act?
Did it predict that most of the ballot measures that the GOP put forth, like tax caps, bans on transgender athletes competing in women's sports, and Voter ID laws would pass by large margins?
And does it explain why Texas took such a heavy loss whilst Florida held on? What's the identifiable difference there?
For bonus points, did anyone predict Independents Overperforming in Tennessee Governor race?
I dunno. There sure seems to be an element of punishing a nonproductive party wasting the advantages that were handed to it 2 years ago here, rather than it being entirely about Trump himself.
faceh
1d ago
My current opinion is we have too many safeguards on passing legislation which has ended up making the Presidency and SC stronger than they should be.
I don't think the safeguards are the real reason legislation isn't getting passed.
I think that's the hyperpolarization, and the incentives of the sitting politicians to try to hold office indefinitely.
Ultimately this THEN sounds like we should be devolving many of the current powers held by FedGov to the states, where there's usually less gridlock and the governing bodies are more representative of their populations.
MY current opinion is that we should lean harder into the Federalist system which means giving states more leeway within their bounds and letting the Federal Government control the relatively few issues of actual national importance.
faceh
1d ago
Which, of course, some people do want!
I think there's a lot of safeguards built in, and the biggest, most underappreciated one is simply the separation of Federal Authority and State Authority. And I'm also of the opinion that this safeguard got removed without good reason. The 10th amendment is actually fairly clear that the 'powers' of Government are reserved for the States unless specifically granted in the Constitution. But somehow that Amendment passes unremarked upon since many other powers have been read into the existing language, even though 10a arguably imposes the opposite requirement.
Under this system, if Congress 'can't do enough' because they're too stymied, people have the option to go ask their state government to do the thing instead! Its not like we INHERENTLY need to make everything a national congressional debate!
I just like to err way further in favor of safeguards, since I prefer consensus, cooperation, and compromise (and the right to walk away!) over handing power to any particular subgroup to dictate terms for the whole.
And yet they're reproducing less b/c among other things it pushes those marriage dates back. I'd suggest most of these women were ALREADY likely to get married, but if they didn't attend college... they'd get married sooner.
Marriage rates collapsed everywhere, the fact remains that college educated women are FAR more selective about mates, period. It think the thesis "going to college makes women more likely to get married" falls flat.
faceh
1d ago
A Senate majority preserves the rights of minor states too, just somewhat less so than an addition 60 vote threshold.
And that's what I'm implying. Once we've accepted that part of the system's purpose is to protect the minority's influence, then an additional safeguard is in keeping with that!
The filibuster is not an integral feature of democracy, republican norms, constitutional government, etc.
I'm not sure how you're defining 'integral feature.' I think we might agree that "each legislative body gets to set their own internal rules on how they function" is an integral feature, and so if they choose to add or remove the filibuster, as long as they follow the rulemaking process, its just a formal agreement on how they will conduct the proceedings.
I just don't think "the majority should govern" is a required objective to design around.
It is an obstacle to enacting even extremely basic legislation without supermajority consent, which is extremely impractical.
If you can't get supermajority consent for 'extremely basic legislation' that seems like a problem caused by something OTHER than the filibuster itself. I would NOT claim that unanimous consent is possible or even preferable, but if there's enough controversy that 1/3 of the people involved reject the legislation, what's wrong with encouraging collaboration and compromise to get over that threshold?
To be explicit, I simply do not get why "50% + 1" is anything other than an arbitrary standard for passing rules that govern a whole. I mean, sure, its an intuitively pleasing one, but does it correlate with better outcomes than, say 53%? 55%?
To be even more explicit, I think the system as it exists was designed so that 'simple majority' rule would be relegated to the House of Reps, and that it was to be tempered by the Senate having an equal say in the process.
I've read the Federalist Papers, so I think the logic of "we need a legislative body that is less beholden to mob rule and is geared towards protecting 'underrepresented' interests when necessary" flows into "this body should have higher voting standards so they have to achieve more of a consensus" quite nicely.
Hence why Senators get 6 year terms, why they were originally appointed by their own state legislatures (should we go back to that?), and of course the "2 per state" limit.
Me, I personally would be fine with there being two separate voting standards: 2/3 majority to pass new legislation, and a simple majority to repeal anything that's been in place for, say 2 years or more. After all, if a 'simple majority' thinks a law is bad/should be removed after its been in effect for a while, surely that's all we should need?
It actually encourages a dramatic blowup some day, because eventually the weight of our sins will pile up until a supermajority is given.
Again this really seems like a problem that results from hyperpolarization rather than the filibuster itself.
As I understand it, the Civil War happened at a time when there was no Filibuster, or at least it wasn't used as such. I don't think it would have prevented the war, mind, but it might have given slaveholding states a little reassurance that they wouldn't get steamrolled if they stayed in the Union.
I don't believe supporting a system like that, which works fine basically everywhere, requires me to logically continue to direct democracy.
What is your specific objection to direct democracy, then? That it doesn't work?
faceh
1d ago
Sounds like a specific definition of "the majority" that is based on something other than the actual ideological makeup of the voting public, yes?
Surely in a constitutional Democracy the rules in said constitution would define who is governing and how they do so.
If "the majority should govern" is some kind of high priority, and the minority should have no tools to interfere with that governance, I don't see why you'd support representative democracy at all. I'm missing something in your chain of logic.
My chain of logic doesn't even include 'majority should govern' as a factor, other than to acknowledge that letting the minority have dictatorial power over the majority is not good.
The Founding Fathers did not intend that the Senate require a supermajority to pass business.
Why does the Senate exist in the first place, why was congress designed as a bicameral house?
That the filibuster has stuck around using the vaneer of tradition is because it's a perfect excuse for never doing anything.
In many cases doing nothing is the actual best response. That its now the excuse for inaction may be true, but I'd suggest that's a problem of incentives to do nothing, they can always find another excuse.
faceh
1d ago
I'm old enough to remember how badly it backfired on them nuking the filibuster for Judicial appointments... which directly led to several SCOTUS appointments they couldn't stop.
So of course I expect they learned nothing.
faceh
1d ago
A majority should govern
Sounds like we should just get rid of congress and make everything a national referendum. Any system that uses 'representatives' is by definition allowing a 'minority' to 'govern.' The President can just be the guy who is in charge of running the elections counting the votes, and he can be swapped out at any time.
In other words, bite the bullet on your logic or accept that the system is designed with a different objective in mind.
faceh
2d ago
I know they lost at least one district that was rejiggered to add a seat for them.
The 'worst' that happened here was the GOP losing their supermajority... which doesn't bother me, ultimately.
faceh
2d ago
Republican presidents end up with worse economic performance because they always start pointless foreign wars, causing both global supply shocks and a rundown of the treasury to pay for military expenditures.
Well yeah. Which is why I've argued for a long time that its a better test to measure Republican Governors and the performance of states where the Dems control vs. where the GOP Controls.
It gets pretty stark when you do that. "Real Republican Governance" has been tried in various states where the executive doesn't have the power to go on military adventures.
Too bleak by half.
I'm experiencing some dissonance because things in Florida went approximately how I expected: reversion towards the mean but overall the GOP held on to power across the board. And frankly they 'deserved' it, the state has run amazingly well and they've passed meaningful, decent legislation. I was quite accurate in my expectations and felt pretty gratified as the result came in (quickly, as usual).
Yet both Texas and NH in particular caught me off guard. I knew Talarico had a shot, so was braced for that. Didn't even realize that Abbott was at risk, much less for a blowout.
And NH did the inverse, the Republican Governor held on but the state congress swung in dramatic fashion. Not sure what exactly happened on the ground there to motivate that in particular.
And on top of that, results for most of the ballot measures, the tax caps, the bans on trans athletes, the ID requirements to vote... sure read like an endorsement of GOP policy platforms. With the gaping exception of datacenters, which didn't so well.
And ON TOP OF THAT, In Tennessee, the Independent Candidates for Governor racked up over 10% of the vote between them! THAT is a wacky result UNLESS voters are just really annoyed with the status quo to the point they want a third way, and will take it when offered. In the majority of races, such a third way was not on offer.
Voters seemed pretty schizophrenic in what they were actually asking for this time around. Moreso than usual?
The most parsimonious explanation really does seem to be: gas prices.
That seems to sum up why voters were punishing the GOP pretty much everywhere, whilst still backing the 'competent' ones that delivered during their terms and supporting ballot measures that presumably reflect their true preferences and priorities. I've actually downgraded my assessment of the rationality/literacy of the median voter as a result of this, sadly. It wasn't exactly high before.
What that means is they'll probably swing hard back the other way when nothing really improves with the new boss. I don't see any reason to think that the Democrats will somehow fix their own structural issues in two years, or that voters will become less fickle.
But I did just realize that this probably means an influx of even MORE people and money into Florida if the Dems start doing their normal playbook. Wheeeeee.
faceh
5d ago
Yes, and I abjectly refuse to set mine above 30 miles. Despite all their nudges to do so.
25 is honestly the most I'd want.
This is precisely the nature of my complaint. I am TELLING the App what my actual preference is, it is failing to give me options that meet that criteria, but somehow, SOMEHOW it keeps telling me "oh you could match with THIS person who happens to be 100 miles away, why not give that a shot?"
No no no no. Let me actually search the options inside a reasonable geographical area and if there are LITERALLY NONE (implausible) then I'll expand from there.
(OKCupid used to let you do this)
It is somewhat obvious that the current setup is way to keep people on the app by dangling options that are attractive along all but ONE dimension (in my case, geography) and thus you think "man, missed it by THAT much, maybe the next one will be an ideal fit!"
Women's claimed issue is easily solved by having a male chaperone, funny enough. Just get a boyfriend/husband to protect you bro, what's stopping you?
And said rapist can't jump out of the shadows 3 years later after you think you're actually safe. The danger is limited to when you're actually out and about.
Its a very different category of risk.
How, precisely, can a man mitigate the risk of any given woman he slept with accusing him of rape at a later date?
It’s just paranoia + skill issue.
Is it just possible that the rewards on offer aren't really enticing given the 'skill' required to get them?
You're asking them to be extremely skilled at navigating a hostile environment. But if the reward isn't worthwhile, why would a 'desireable' man do so? What's the motivation/incentive? If its 'sex' then... he can just pay for it. Much more manageable risk profile, less skill required.
If its "companionship" he can get that from dudes, or a dog.
If its "romance, marriage, children" women are not providing those as much as in the past, objectively.
What's left?
faceh
7d ago
What would you tell the female voters who accuse you of misogyny for favoring the ability of abusive men to kick women out of the house?
Anyway, I admit to laying a bit of a trap because its been red states passing laws aimed at protecting female rights, Which do try to draw a very direct black and white gender distinction.
Because of trans issues, you see.
Kansas passed something called, LITERALLY, "The Women's Bill of Rights" OVER THE GOVERNOR'S VETO.
Mississipi's was called the“Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly Act”
Alabama called theirs The “What Is a Woman?” Act.
Its kind of funny that news stories tend to specify these laws as protecting 'women' even though, admittedly, they are textually reciprocal. For some reason the legislators title them explicitly around the female interests that are invoked.
So yeah. Its pretty obvious to me that any time you can couch a policy change as "protecting the girls" you can get a huge amount of normie support for it.
Yeah except there's readily available news stories, RIGHT NOW, about 'more desireable men' getting blasted with rape accusations YEARS after the act despite evidence on the ground showing it appeared fully consensual at the time.
So you are in fact showing that these men are not 'savvy' they just get what they want right up until one of their past conquests gets uppity enough to pull the trigger she had available all along.
You can't "navigate complex and adversarial social dynamics" when the actual dynamics can be unilaterally changed by one party a long time after the fact.
That dog won't hunt, even 'desirable' men can rationally opt out of that.
That's my point. The Dems will go all-in on political goals that are orthogonal to those things the electorate wants and cares about. They will thus not be able to make the median voters feel represented effectively.
I don't think there will be much substantive policy made, and as you indicate many things will get worse from an affordability point of view (modulo AI doing some cool stuff). And thus in two years, there will be an even more frustrated electorate that may be heavily regretting their last decision.
The one thing they might actually get around to doing is blatant handouts of one form or another as a means of 'easing' economic struggles.
More options
Context Copy link