Today is the day!
Poll aggregator: https://338canada.com/
Live results: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2025/results/
Today is the day!
Poll aggregator: https://338canada.com/
Live results: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2025/results/
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not how politics work. It’s never over. The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.
It has been over in Europe for a long time, for the right. True, there's AfD in Germany (shut out of "polite society" but still alive) and LePen (here the establishment succeeded to do the same they failed to do to Trump) but there's no movements comparable to MAGA (or even Tea Party) and no powers comparable to Republicans on the right in Europe. I don't see why America must be any different and why, if the circumstances allow, Republicans couldn't be turned into AfD-like permanent opposition, useful for scaring the voters into compliance but powerless otherwise. Of course, there still be politicians competing, just like there are politicians competing in San Francisco or Chicago, but that would be like watching which Politburo member is elected into the Central Committee - whoever it is, it's still a Politburo member. There's no real alternative.
More options
Context Copy link
I hate this attitude to politics (as I have written elsewhere on the web many times). It treats it like modern professional sports, where you pick your "team," and all that you care about is how often your team "wins." It treats "[insert party here] wins elections" as a terminal goal, rather than an instrumental goal.
I do not care that the Republican party would "maintaining equal winning chances" if it has to move leftward to do so. Because what I care about is where we are (and which way we are moving) on the political spectrum. I care about "my party winning" as an instrumental goal, as a means to that end.
"The entire political spectrum moving left" is a long-term loss for the right, regardless of whether or not some body called the "Republican party" wins or loses elections.
It was not a value judgment. Those who keep predicting this upcoming 'permanent democratic party domination' are simply wrong, because of the mechanism I described. I did not say it was not a loss for the right. I understand a lot of you people are
chronically depressedpessimistic, but let's keep that black-tinted perspective in focus at least.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
England has not had significant influence over American politics since, depending on one's accounting, either 1776 or 1812. Likewise, the Romanov dynasty ceased all significant contribution to Russian politics in 1918. The Japanese ended native Japanese Christianity in the 1600s, and it stayed ended for about three centuries. The 101st airborne marched into the south and ended segregation at bayonet-point, and at least that form of it did in fact stay ended right down to the present day.
Sometimes the show does not, in fact, go on. If you've noted that all of these examples involved mass-bloodshed, and most of them involved the sort of mass bloodshed we can't really even attempt to put a smiley-face on, well, that'd be why I'm generally a pessimist.
Eh, we did end up developing the Special Relationship. There’s no country on earth with a better track record of influencing American opinion.
My mid-1800s history is a bit rustier, but I understand slave economics were rather entangled with the British market, since textile industrialization was in full swing. The Confederates were certainly hoping for more direct support from their trade partners.
Sure, but if you graph political influence over time, I'm pretty sure by far the biggest change on the graph is 1776, and everything else is inconsequential. And notably, that's the one you can mostly put a smiley-face on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link