#2028 primary

[critical-skeptic]

Does Democracy Have a Chance Or Is This America's Epilogue?

The fact that Democratic leaders are still clashing over who gets to run where, while the entire system teeters, should tell you everything you need to know: they’re too distracted to prioritize survival. We are watching a slow-motion collapse, and they’re backstage arguing about who deserves top billing in a dying show. The world isn’t just metaphorically burning; it’s openly smoldering on every front—authoritarian power grabs, oligarchic entrenchment, and populist fanatics are tearing down our civic infrastructure. Instead of shoring up defenses, Democrats obsess over which identity group to appease next, as though chanting different verses of “Kumbaya” at each other will somehow hold back the tide.

This is what passes for strategy: endless purity tests, virtue signals, and factional infighting. Ironically, the only consensus they seem to reach is on the need to prove how morally superior they are, as if righteousness alone can stop an actual coup. Meanwhile, those who prefer the world in ashes—authoritarians, demagogues, and billionaires whose wealth has quadrupled—are more than happy to watch the left’s self-immolation. Every progressive ritual that excludes potential allies or demonizes pragmatic solutions only strengthens those who thrive on chaos. Look hard at this pattern: the paralysis, the obsession with optics, the refusal to excise the extremists on the left’s own fringes. It’s a gift to the right’s war machine.

Let’s be blunt: this insistence on ideological purity is killing any real chance at countering the onslaught. The movement has become so terrified of offending its own fringe elements that it stifles legitimate criticism, lets crucial battles go unfought, and alienates both moderates and the millions trapped between two dysfunctional extremes. What’s the result? Resentment from centrists, disillusionment among would-be allies, and a public image of a party too busy with ego contests to mount an effective defense against the very real threat of authoritarian rule. Instead of building a broad, disciplined coalition, Democrats play theater, as if moral posturing alone can halt the steady erosion of democracy.

This isn’t a plea for centrism, nor a capitulation to the status quo. It’s a demand for backbone and disciplined action. Ideals mean nothing if we can’t secure the structural integrity of the system long enough to implement them. There is no point in preaching progressive values while extremists and oligarchs set about dismantling the very framework needed to enact those values. Without a stable foundation, justice is impossible; without a functional government, ideals remain slogans on placards, easily swept away when stronger forces kick down the door.

If the left wants to outmaneuver the extremism consuming our institutions, it must learn to prioritize. It must stop pretending that endless internal rituals of moral one-upmanship lead anywhere but ruin. Dumping the dead weight of performative purity and facing the hard truth—yes, that means telling some factions “no”—is the only way to stand firm. Embrace strategic pragmatism. Form alliances that, while imperfect, get the job done. Focus on immediate existential threats rather than fighting over who’s the purest progressive in the room.

The stakes could not be higher. Our institutions are under siege by forces that thrive on division, and every minute spent in self-indulgent squabbling grants them another inch. Morality without strategy is self-sabotage. If Democrats—and anyone who values an open, stable society—want to survive this era, they need to step off their soapboxes, kick out the elements that corrode cohesion, and line up behind a ruthless pragmatism that prioritizes lasting stability.

Stop performing and start governing. The time for elegant speeches and tribal ceremonies ended long ago. If the left can’t bring itself to mature beyond these theatrics, then it’s simply inviting the collapse that its enemies are counting on. The world needs action, not another round of self-righteous pageantry. It needs leaders who can confront threats head-on, who understand that protecting a future worth having requires getting their hands dirty now. It needs a movement ready to fight fires, not argue over who holds the hose.

[jewish-sideblog]

Young USAmericans will straight up say “Why do we have to pick between two super old dudes! I hate this” and then proceed to vote at half the rate that octogenarians do. Like idk bestie maybe if you had actually showed up to the polls to vote for a candidate you respected during the primaries this wouldn’t be an issue

[cherryblossomshadow]

Run a Left Wing Democratic Primary Candidate in 2028. No Matter What.

Stopping the party's rightward drift means having a real primary.

Hamilton Nolan Oct 06, 2024

Excerpts:

The scariest possible outcome of the 2024 presidential contest is a Trump victory. The second scariest outcome, however, is a scenario in which center-right, anti-Trump voters pour into the Democratic Party and elect Kamala Harris and then proceed to pull the Democratic Party to the right. This scenario is extremely plausible. Back to the Clinton era we go!

.

This is not theoretical. This process is unfolding right now.

Harris is not just accepting the support of these Republicans. She is leaning into it.

She did not just accept Dick Cheney’s vote; she did a rally with Liz Cheney and thanked Dick Cheney for “what he has done to serve our country.” … the FT reports that “Two finance executives close to Harris said they had been reassured by her that she could appoint new officials to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission who would take a less aggressive stance than current chairs Gary Gensler and Lina Khan,” which would be a catastrophic loss. And her economic plan, though still vague, is notably less oriented towards the perspective of strengthening labor, and more oriented towards consumer-centric policies that do not attack the dangers of concentrated economic power at its roots.

.

When Joe Biden was running in 2020, I expected him to exhibit this sort of centrist drift as president. In fact, he did the opposite, appointing Lina Khan at the FTC and Jennifer Abbruzzo at the NLRB and carrying out the most progressive and pro-worker economic agenda of any president in my lifetime. Why did lifelong moderate Joe Biden, the credit card industry’s favorite senator, end up doing so much good economic policy? One major reason is that after a tightly contested 2020 primary campaign that Bernie Sanders looked for a time like he might win, Biden made the choice to bring the left wing of the party into the fold, rather than slamming the door in their face.

He created a formal “Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force” that hammered out a set of policy recommendations for his term.

He gave progressives like Elizabeth Warren significant input into staffing decisions for parts of his administration.

After watching Democratic presidents freeze out the left for decades, I failed to anticipate Biden’s willingness to allow the left some real policy power. It was a political decision, and it doesn’t mean that Biden himself is a resounding progressive, but that doesn’t matter.

What matters is that the Biden presidency produced hugely important tangible victories for progressive economic values.

There is no reason to think that this is the new normal. Political parties are coalitions that are always shifting. It is extremely possible that a Kamala Harris administration would see the pendulum swing back towards neoliberalism, as a result of more right wingers seeping into the Democratic Party, and as a result of Harris greedily seeking out the support of disaffected parts of the traditional Republican base. Rather than just wringing my hands about this possibility, let me suggest a useful response:

If Harris wins the presidency, the left wing of the party needs to start planning now for a primary campaign against her in 2028.

What was the biggest factor pulling Biden to the left? Bernie Sanders’ strong primary showing.

What is allowing Harris to drift right with ease? The fact that the only counterpoint to her in the public mind is Trump.

Strong primary campaigns serve to demonstrate the power of various parts of a party’s coalition. They create political risk for the other candidates and force them to try to adapt to win the support of those other candidates’ voters. Think about RFK Jr., for fuck’s sake: a true unhinged lunatic, a man who should be listened to for nothing but comedy value, and yet one who has managed to make his priorities a part of Trump’s platform just by being the only real challenger floating around at the moment.

.

Primaries are the proper and designated place for this sort of contest of intra-party factions to play out.

(I advocated a leftist primary challenge of Biden centered on Gaza in particular for this very reason.)

.

Bernie Sanders never won the presidential nomination, but the fact that he garnered so much support in two consecutive campaigns did a great deal to force the party left, and laid the groundwork for the successes of the progressive agenda during Biden’s term. Now, as all of the Democratic candidate’s positions get compared to Trump’s fascism rather than to Bernie’s progressivism, we can see that the backsliding to the center is set to begin anew. This year, I hope, we will beat Trump. As soon as we do, start thinking about who to run in 2028. No need for the left to cower in the corner for four years. This is how democracy works.

.

One handy fact to note is that organized labor could fold its 2028 general strike right into a 2028 Shawn Fain For President campaign. Dare to dream, my friends.

[electronalytics]

Electronic Timers Market Emerging Trends and Forecast by 2017-2032

The global electronic timers market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 5.8% during the forecast period, 2018-2028.

The competitive analysis of the Electronic Timers Market offers a comprehensive examination of key market players. It encompasses detailed company profiles, insights into revenue distribution, innovations within their product portfolios, regional market presence, strategic development plans, pricing strategies, identified target markets, and immediate future initiatives of industry leaders. This section serves as a valuable resource for readers to understand the driving forces behind competition and what strategies can set them apart in capturing new target markets.

Market projections and forecasts are underpinned by extensive primary research, further validated through precise secondary research specific to the Electronic Timers Market. Our research analysts have dedicated substantial time and effort to curate essential industry insights from key industry participants, including Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), top-tier suppliers, distributors, and relevant government entities.

Benefits of a Market Research Report:

Informed Decision-Making: Market research reports provide critical data and insights that enable businesses to make informed decisions. This can include decisions related to product development, market entry, expansion, and investment.

Competitive Advantage: By staying up-to-date with market trends and competitor strategies, companies can gain a competitive advantage. Market research helps identify gaps and opportunities in the market.

Risk Mitigation: Understanding market dynamics and potential challenges allows companies to proactively address risks and uncertainties, reducing the likelihood of costly setbacks.

Targeted Marketing: Market research helps in identifying and understanding the target audience, enabling companies to tailor their marketing efforts for maximum effectiveness and customer engagement.

Product Development and Improvement: Research reports provide insights into consumer preferences and needs, aiding in the development and improvement of products or services that meet market demands.

Key Trends in Market Research Reports:

Digital Transformation: Market research is increasingly leveraging digital technologies, including AI and big data analytics, to gather, process, and analyze data more efficiently.

Globalization: With the globalization of markets, companies are relying on market research to assess opportunities in international markets and navigate cross-border complexities.

Sustainability and ESG: There's a growing focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, and market research is often used to understand and align with sustainability trends and consumer preferences.

Data Privacy and Security: As data privacy regulations evolve, market research reports are adapting to address concerns related to data collection, handling, and protection.

Predictive Analytics: The use of predictive analytics in market research is on the rise, allowing businesses to anticipate market shifts and consumer behavior more accurately. This trend is particularly prominent in forecasting future market conditions.

Receive the FREE Sample Report of Electronic Timers Market Research Insights https://stringentdatalytics.com/sample-request/electronic-timers-market/3309/

Market Segmentations:

Global Electronic Timers Market: By Company • Honeywell • Legrand • OMRON • Leviton • Intermatic • Schneider Electric • Panasonic • Theben Group • Kubler Group • Eaton • Hager • Enerlites • Crouzet • Autonics Corporation • Ascon Tecnologic • Marsh Bellofram • Trumeter • SELEC Controls Pvt. Ltd. • Tempatron • Sisel Engineering Inc. • ANLY Electronics Co.,Ltd • Kübler Group • Dwyer Instruments • Pujing • Any Electronics Co.,Ltd

(This is a tentative list, the report on delivery will have additional companies profiled with potential/new entrants within the major shareholder market: Please subscribe to the latest sample report to know more)

Global Electronic Timers Market: By Type • Analogue Timers • Digital Timers Global Electronic Timers Market: By Application • Industrial Device • Lighting System • Others

Regional Analysis of Global Electronic Timers Market

All the regional segmentation has been studied based on recent and future trends, and the market is forecasted throughout the prediction period. The countries covered in the regional analysis of the Global Electronic Timers market report are U.S., Canada, and Mexico in North America, Germany, France, U.K., Russia, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, and Rest of Europe in Europe, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, China, Japan, India, South Korea, Rest of Asia-Pacific (APAC) in the Asia-Pacific (APAC), Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, South Africa, Egypt, Israel, Rest of Middle East and Africa (MEA) as a part of Middle East and Africa (MEA), and Argentina, Brazil, and Rest of South America as part of South America.

Click to Purchase Electronic Timers Market Research Report @ https://stringentdatalytics.com/purchase/electronic-timers-market/3309/

Here are some key highlights you might find in a market research report:

Executive Summary: A brief summary of the report, including its purpose, methodology, key findings, and recommendations.

Market Overview: An introduction to the market, its size, and its growth potential.

Market Size and Growth: Information about the current market size and anticipated growth trends, including historical data and forecasts.

Market Segmentation: Details about how the market is divided into segments based on factors like product type, application, region, and more.

Competitive Landscape: Analysis of key players in the market, their market share, strategies, and competitive positioning.

Market Trends: Identification of current and emerging trends that are shaping the market, including technological advancements and shifts in consumer behavior.

Market Drivers: Factors that are fueling market growth, such as changing consumer preferences, regulatory changes, or technological innovation.

Market Challenges: Obstacles or issues that the market faces, such as regulatory hurdles, economic downturns, or supply chain disruptions.

Opportunities: Areas of growth and potential that can be harnessed by businesses and investors.

Consumer Behavior: Insights into consumer preferences, buying patterns, and the factors influencing purchasing decisions.

Regional Analysis: Information about the market's performance in different geographical regions, including factors specific to those regions.

Industry Best Practices: Recommendations and insights into best practices for businesses operating in the market.

Customization of the Report:

This report can be customized to meet the client’s requirements. Please connect with our sales team (sales@stringentdatalytics.com ), who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs. You can also get in touch with our executives on +1 346 666 6655 to share your research requirements.

Enquiry Before Buying https://stringentdatalytics.com/inquiry/electronic-timers-market/3309/

About Stringent Datalytics

Stringent Datalytics offers both custom and syndicated market research reports. Custom market research reports are tailored to a specific client's needs and requirements. These reports provide unique insights into a particular industry or market segment and can help businesses make informed decisions about their strategies and operations.

Syndicated market research reports, on the other hand, are pre-existing reports that are available for purchase by multiple clients. These reports are often produced on a regular basis, such as annually or quarterly, and cover a broad range of industries and market segments. Syndicated reports provide clients with insights into industry trends, market sizes, and competitive landscapes. By offering both custom and syndicated reports, Stringent Datalytics can provide clients with a range of market research solutions that can be customized to their specific needs.

Reach US

Stringent Datalytics

sales@stringentdatalytics.com

+1 346 666 6655

Social Channels:

Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube  

[nodynasty4us]

More from the October 6, 2024 essay by Hamilton Nolan:

It is extremely possible that a Kamala Harris administration would see the pendulum swing back towards neoliberalism, as a result of more right wingers seeping into the Democratic Party, and as a result of Harris greedily seeking out the support of disaffected parts of the traditional Republican base. Rather than just wringing my hands about this possibility, let me suggest a useful response: If Harris wins the presidency, the left wing of the party needs to start planning now for a primary campaign against her in 2028. What was the biggest factor pulling Biden to the left? Bernie Sanders’ strong primary showing. What is allowing Harris to drift right with ease? The fact that the only counterpoint to her in the public mind is Trump. Strong primary campaigns serve to demonstrate the power of various parts of a party’s coalition. They create political risk for the other candidates and force them to try to adapt to win the support of those other candidates’ voters.

Any time you threaten to primary your own party’s sitting president you will inevitably hear a zillion angry accusations that you are helping the other side, that you are weakening your own party. Fuck that. Primaries are the proper and designated place for this sort of contest of intra-party factions to play out.

If the left is pissed with the direction of the Democratic Party and all the leftists say “fuck it” and don’t vote at all, that hurts the Democratic Party. If the left is pissed with the direction of the Democratic Party and the leftists launch a third party that sucks votes from the Democratic candidate, that hurts the Democratic Party. But if the left is pissed with the direction of the Democratic Party and therefore run their own candidate in the Democratic primary, that helps the Democratic Party. Electorally, it helps by keeping leftists engaged in and voting with the party. Politically, it helps by pulling the median policy position of the eventual primary winner to the left. Morally, it helps by giving voters at least one uncompromised candidate to vote for—a candidate who is, the voters will see, not located in the Republican Party. Bernie Sanders never won the presidential nomination, but the fact that he garnered so much support in two consecutive campaigns did a great deal to force the party left, and laid the groundwork for the successes of the progressive agenda during Biden’s term. Now, as all of the Democratic candidate’s positions get compared to Trump’s fascism rather than to Bernie’s progressivism, we can see that the backsliding to the center is set to begin anew. This year, I hope, we will beat Trump. As soon as we do, start thinking about who to run in 2028. No need for the left to cower in the corner for four years. This is how democracy works.

[hesperocyon-lesbian]

Prediction for the 2028 Democratic primary: Pete Buttigieg is going to get divorced and run as proudly ex-gay

[thebreakfastgenie]

Democrats, consistently and quite admirably, want to not just win, but win as The Adult In The Room. This worked when Republicans were at least pretending to play the same game, but in the Trump age they're resigned to the fact that the president is just there to be a mascot for their pet Cabinet secretaries, judges, etc to ride on. Even if the Dems could stoop down to this level, should they? If they could be guaranteed the White House in 2028 by running a celeb with zero experience or interest in governing (like a Twitch streamer or an MCU star or hell, Billy Joel), would you say that's worth it?

This is a harder question than I thought it would be.

I will say first that I don't think running a celebrity would work (although someday I will find the Billy Joel 2016 campaign logo I drew) for Democrats and I'm not persuaded running a non-Trump celebrity would work for Republicans. But in a hypothetical where it would guarantee a win..... a liberal puppet who would appoint qualified people to run departments and sign legislation passed by qualified Dem legislators and listen to advisors.... it's hard to say no to that outright. I think we should though. I think that's a temptation we should resist. Because at the end of the day your celebrity with a good heart but no interest in governing or idea how to do it has the nuclear codes. The presidency is a job and I want someone who can do it well. The skillset that makes someone good at governing isn't exactly the same skillset that makes them good at campaigning, which is a recurring problem (Hillary Clinton would have been excellent at governing, for example). Democrats want to win as the adult in the room because they believe our leaders should be adults. I still believe that. Governing competently is important. One of the reasons I supported Biden over some other candidates I aligned with slightly more ideologically in the 2020 primary is I had tremendous faith in his ability to govern (I was right to! unfortunately most of the country didn't notice. they rarely do when things are going well).

However, I think Dems should start playing a little dirtier. If we get a Dem House majority now or in 2026 they should obstruct the hell out of everything. They should go mask off and say our priority is not allowed Trump to do anything, like Repubclians said about Obama. If they get an opportunity to do some shit like hold a SCOTUS seat open for months they should do it. But I don't think they should run a celebrity. I think we can stop trying so hard to be the adults in the room without completely acting like children.

[reasonsforhope]

"This year the world will make something like 70bn of these solar cells, the vast majority of them in China, and sandwich them between sheets of glass to make what the industry calls modules but most other people call panels: 60 to 72 cells at a time, typically, for most of the modules which end up on residential roofs, more for those destined for commercial plant. Those panels will provide power to family homes, to local electricity collectives, to specific industrial installations and to large electric grids; they will sit unnoticed on roofs, charmingly outside rural schools, controversially across pristine deserts, prosaically on the balconies of blocks of flats and in almost every other setting imaginable.

Once in place they will sit there for decades, making no noise, emitting no fumes, using no resources, costing almost nothing and generating power. It is the least obtrusive revolution imaginable. But it is a revolution nonetheless.

Over the course of 2023 the world’s solar cells, their panels currently covering less than 10,000 square kilometres, produced about 1,600 terawatt-hours of energy (a terawatt, or 1tw, is a trillion watts). That represented about 6% of the electricity generated world wide, and just over 1% of the world’s primary-energy use. That last figure sounds fairly marginal, though rather less so when you consider that the fossil fuels which provide most of the world’s primary energy are much less efficient. More than half the primary energy in coal and oil ends up as waste heat, rather than electricity or forward motion.

What makes solar energy revolutionary is the rate of growth which brought it to this just-beyond-the-marginal state. Michael Liebreich, a veteran analyst of clean-energy technology and economics, puts it this way:

In 2004, it took the world a whole year to install a gigawatt of solar-power capacity... In 2010, it took a month In 2016, a week. In 2023 there were single days which saw a gigawatt of installation worldwide. Over the course of 2024 analysts at BloombergNEF, a data outfit, expect to see 520-655gw of capacity installed: that’s up to two 2004s a day...

And it shows no signs of stopping, or even slowing down. Buying and installing solar panels is currently the largest single category of investment in electricity generation, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an intergovernmental think-tank: it expects $500bn this year, not far short of the sum being put into upstream oil and gas. Installed capacity is doubling every three years. According to the International Solar Energy Society:

Solar power is on track to generate more electricity than all the world’s nuclear power plants in 2026 Than its wind turbines in 2027 Tthan its dams in 2028 Its gas-fired power plants in 2030 And its coal-fired ones in 2032.

In an IEA scenario which provides net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by the middle of the century, solar energy becomes humankind’s largest source of primary energy—not just electricity—by the 2040s...

Expecting exponentials to carry on is rarely a basis for sober forecasting. At some point either demand or supply faces an unavoidable constraint; a graph which was going up exponentially starts to take on the form of an elongated S. And there is a wide variety of plausible stories about possible constraints...

All real issues. But the past 20 years of solar growth have seen naive extrapolations trounce forecasting soberly informed by such concerns again and again. In 2009, when installed solar capacity worldwide was 23gw, the energy experts at the IEA predicted that in the 20 years to 2030 it would increase to 244gw. It hit that milestone in 2016, when only six of the 20 years had passed. According to Nat Bullard, an energy analyst, over most of the 2010s actual solar installations typically beat the IEA’s five-year forecasts by 235% (see chart). The people who have come closest to predicting what has actually happened have been environmentalists poo-pooed for zealotry and economic illiteracy, such as those at Greenpeace who, also in 2009, predicted 921gw of solar capacity by 2030. Yet even that was an underestimate. The world’s solar capacity hit 1,419gw last year.

-via The Economist, June 20, 2024

--

Note: That graph. Is fucking ridiculous(ly hopeful).

For perspective: the graph shows that in 2023, there were about 350 GW of solar installed. The 5-year prediction from 2023 said that we'd end up around 450 GW by 2030.

We hit over 600 GW in the first half of 2024 alone.

This is what's called an exponential curve. It's a curve that keeps going up at a rate that gets higher and higher with each year.

This, I firmly believe, is a huge part of what is going to let us save the world.

[afloweroutofstone]

Broke: AOC runs for president in 2028

Woke: Jamie Raskin takes over the House Judiciary committee -> AOC fills his leadership role on the House Oversight committee during Trump’s second term -> AOC uses the popularity to successfully primary/forcibly retire Chuck Schumer in 2028 and take over his Senate seat

[argumate]

if Trump wins 2024 then the Republican party can start planning for the post-Trump future but if he loses they're faced with the grim prospect of having to primary his shambling corpse in 2028

[noonesgaylikegatson]

Here's the thing: Republicans are the party of the rich, but policies that help the rich fuck everyone else up, so they are inherently unpopular. Republicans hitch their wagons to white supremacists and religious fanatics who will gladly vote for them in hopes of bringing their own agenda. Rich people believe that their money is able to keep them unaffected by their social policies that harm mostly minorities.

Present day: Religious Fanatics and White Supremacists have gone too far. Their plans are so corrosive that they will actually affect the rich; Not to mention, there are a lot of nouveau rich who are also these fanatics.

So now, these rich people, "never-trumpers" want to join the democratic party and make it into a party for them. They are anti-progressive because they don't want to pay more taxes and they don't want more regulations. They want a milquetoast white democrat leader, and not one like Joe Biden who has embraced progressive policies and is now further left than 2008.

They don't want Kamala or Pete Buttigieg or Corey Booker or that skater boi from texas. They were to the left of Biden when they ran in the 2019 primary. They want someone to the right of Biden. A more corporate friendly democrat.

And keep in mind, these republicans have always been racist. And have always been white supremacist for them. This departure from the republican party is not a moral one. It's because the oppression that these Trump Republicans want isn't profitable.

These republicans were fine with rounding up Black people on bullshit charges and sending them to prison to do make them money on prison labor. (Biden ended the use of private prisons on a Federal Level fyi). They're not fine with rounding up 20 million undocumented people and putting them in internment camps and deporting them, that would cost so much money that would be better spent giving to them via tax cuts. (I bet you they'll get on board when someone touts the idea of using the undocumented people for unpaid labor)

They're okay with banning abortions or just limiting. They're not okay with stripping all of woman's freedoms (because many of them are women and like to spend the money they have) because women going back into the homes, means the spending power of the economy shrinks.

Less Women and Men of color going to college means less student loan payments. Not to mention, the policies that Trump will enact with Project 2025, would just wreck the economy. Government workers would lose their jobs. Facilities and infrastructure would crumble. The middle class would all but disappear, the gap between the poor and rich would grow, to the point where there is just no more money to extract from anyone in the lower classes. The money would have to come from them.

If trump gets in office by 2028 there will be so many evictions, its impossible to keep up. The rich would have to bribe police officers (made legal by the supreme court btw) to get people evicted. Not all rich people are rich equally. Those who can afford to bribe will be new upper class, those who can't will be suckers.

FDIC will be gone. So imagine you're one of those rich suckers, and the bank you have your money goes belly up cause the new upper class used it to fund their next yacht?

You can't be a tech mogul in a country with poor infrastructure. All that AI requires massive amount of electricity. How can you have any developments if your company shuts off the power every few weeks and there is no policy in place to keep it going, to fix it. Look at texas? Every hurricane gets rid of the power for weeks. Imagine when Project 2025 gets in and there really is no regulation at all.

What is the point of all this? Biden is the correct choice. He is the incumbent, he won the primary, and the election is less than four months away. This talk about replacing him is a bunch of rich assholes trying to take over the democratic party and making it into the new republican party. The literal worst night mare: socially liberal, financially conservative. They are antagonist towards the democrat's base: Black voters, because black voting population support centralized government, regulations, higher taxes, and a robust social safety network (because its literally the best way to govern)

Focus on getting people to vote for Biden or just not vote for Trump.

[gsirvitor]

This man is spiraling, fast.

He's rushed through the phases of Leftist rationale in like one paragraph.

First he claims the Dems didn't make Joe step down, then he says that if they did, it's their right and it's a good thing, then he says that they don't have to hold primaries, like what?

The first step to losing an election is not holding a primary and just installing a candidate, as proven by Kamala.

Then he acts like Republicans hate Trump, oblivious to the fact only RINOs despise Trump, while the populist, nationalist base supports him.

The Republican Primaries this time around were a courtesy for the next election cycle, to get people introduced for when Trump could no longer run in 2028, not to replace Trump as the candidate.

Also, way to go mentioning Pence, that's a man Republicans hate and RINOs love.

Want to see something worse than the election cope?

Man is defending the Federal government slaughtering children, burning them alive, every member of the FBI and ATF involved deserves worse than death.

It isn't about David Koresh or the Branch Davidians being the "good guys," it's about government overreach and the senseless slaughter of innocents.

You defending the Waco massacre is another reason I deny you're a Liberal, you're a boot throating leftist, Mitch, and I despise you.

[tribulation-of-somnolence]

Now that this year's election is over, I'll go ahead and predict who will be running in the 2028 election. Starting with the GOP:

Vance or Don Jr as the frontrunner. Trump carbon copy.

RFK.

Someone like DeSantis or Cruz. Not quite Trump, but heavily Trump-aligned.

An actual Never-Trumper. Someone like Liz Cheney or Kinzinger.

At least one candidate whom nobody on earth knew existed prior to their announcement in 2027.

Jeb!

Elon Musk (token African-American)

Now for the Dems:

Kamala tries to make a comeback. Does about as well as she did last time she ran in a primary.

Bernie, again. Same story, again.

Michelle Obama.

Pete Buttigieg.

Some congressman from some flyover state who has been in office since the 70s yet nobody recognizes him from Adam, not even his own constituents.

Taylor Swift.

[transmascpetewentz]

democratic platform in 2028 if they want to win:

$20 federal minimum wage

stronger protections for unions

abolishing prison slavery by making the minimum wage for prison labor start at $15

medicare for all

federal cannabis legalization and regulation

decriminalize possession of psychedelics and promote regulated research into their benefits in treating mental health conditions

federally funded harm reduction programs and official recognition of the drug problem as a public health epidemic

remove gender from all personal government documents

trans healthcare legalized federally for all

abortion legalized federally

more government funding to medical and climate research

government funded national public transit program connecting the 30 biggest cities to each other

national fracking ban

national coal regulations to encourage the development of nuclear power as our primary source of energy

updated safety standards across industries

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

I would be very interested to learn more about how the elections change the balance of power in the civil service. I am in UK so a run down end to end of US election would be handy if you care to share and not send me to google.

Lame I know, but I watched the Good Wife and was interested to glean from that a little about US politics and donors etc.

So a handful of anons have asked for more info about elections. Since it's a pretty timely event...since, you know...I decided it gets to jump the queue.

This is going to be a verrrrrry long ask so consider yourselves warned. I'll put a cut in.

First some really elementary background about the US government and elections.

The US has 3 branches of government: the judicial branch (interprets the law), the legislative branch (makes the law), and the executive branch (enforces the law). This is both at the federal level and at the state level. 

The legislative branch serves in terms of 2 years (in the House) or 6 years (in the Senate). There are no term limits. The executive branch serves in terms of 3 years. The President is term-limited and can serve no more than 2 4-year terms, except when a President takes office under the 25th Amendment. If a president assumes office under the 25th amendment, then they can serve up to 10 years: two years of their predecessor’s remaining term plus their own full two four-year terms (2+4+4). The judicial branch is a lifetime appointment.

Every 2 years is a major federal election. The easiest way to keep it straight is to use the Olympics. If it’s a Summer Olympics year (2020, 2024, 2028, etc.), then it’s a presidential election - we’re voting on the President, all members in the House of Representatives, and a third of the Senate. If it’s a Winter Olympics year (2022, 2026, 2030, etc.), it’s a midterm election - we’re voting for all members of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate, and it’s usually seen as a referendum on the President. If the country likes what the President is doing, they’ll usually vote for the President’s party to take power in Congress. If the country doesn’t like what the President is doing, they’ll vote for the opposite party to take power in Congress.

Serious challengers or candidates expecting a competitive primary season will start around 2 years before the election though they may not declare their intent to run at that time. An incumbent seeking reelection typically starts their campaign 1 year before the election because it’s not a competitive primary since the incumbent is the leader of the party so the party machine backs him (as we saw this year with Biden; he announced he was seeking reelection so all the serious challengers backed off and the Democrats got into the mess they did with the debate and nomination).

So that said, here’s how elections work. This is a really broad and high overview. It outlines the process to run for president and it's pretty similar to what members of Congress and state governors have to do (minus national conventions and the Electoral College).

1 - Form an Exploratory Committee (1-2 years before the actual election)

The candidate forms an exploratory committee. It’s usually made up of their closest advisors who do research about the issues, contact potential donors, and conduct internal polling about what kind of support or approval the candidate might have and what concerns the populace might have about the candidate. This is usually 1-2 years before the election.There is usually no financing or actual exchanges of money happening in this phase. 

2 - Set up the money (1-2 years before the election; usually after the Exploratory Committee convenes)

The exploratory committee sets up a PAC and starts accepting donations/financing the candidate. This is critical: you can’t run for president without having the financials set up and someone who’s setting up a financial system, whether it be a PAC or some other kind of tool, is usually going to run. Political reporters pay a lot of attention to this phase and have sometimes scooped an actual campaign announcement by watching the money.

3 - Declare your candidacy

Candidate makes a formal announcement/declaration of running for election and kicks off their campaign. This almost always is a big media press conference. It usually comes with a paperwork filing of some kind.

4 - Primary Campaigning (2 years - 6ish months before Election Day)

The candidate begins campaigning. It’s important to note that they’re not actually running for president just yet; they’re running for their party’s nomination to run for president in the election.The nominations are chosen based on primary elections and caucuses. All states have different filing deadlines to be eligible for primaries and caucuses.

One year before the election, official primary season starts. It kicks off with televised debates in the autumn/early winter. In primary season, candidates are running against other candidates from their own parties. The Republican/conservative party will have their own primary system and debates, which are separate from the Democrat/liberal party primary system and debates. The goal for primary season is to get the most delegates from all the states to win the party's nomination. (To win the Republican party’s nomination for president in 2024, a candidate needed ~1,200 delegates. To win the Democratic party’s nomination, a candidate needed just under 2,000 delegates.) Delegates are awarded based on the results of the state’s primary or caucus.

Actual primary season (aka when everyone votes on who the party's candidate should be) is January - June of the election year. There is an order to when the states have their primaries. By law, Iowa and New Hampshire go first but that seems to be changing (but that’s also why everyone who runs for president will spend a crazy amount of time and money in Iowa because traditionally in a competitive primary, whoever wins Iowa will often be the party’s nomination). Super Tuesday is another big day to pay attention to - it’s usually the first Tuesday of March when a big number of states will hold their primaries. Super Tuesday is usually do-or-die time for campaigns; if the candidate isn’t doing well and doesn’t have a high delegate count, they’ll drop out after Super Tuesday and endorse one of the front runners (which usually means that candidate’s supporters will likely shift to vote for the endorsed candidate, which is also when we see the campaigns start negotiating for platform issues or convention appearances or even VP slots).

The “drop out and endorse” scheme happens all throughout primary season and it’s how the party to gets to a frontrunner - that’s also why the states at the beginning of the primary season have more power and influence over who the nominee will be, hence the push to diversify the order of the state primaries.

Primaries are usually partisan. Some states require you to be a registered member of the party in order to vote in the primary. Other states require you to choose a party ballot in order to vote - my state, Virginia, holds the presidential primaries on the same day and when you check in to get your ballot, you have to declare whether you want a republican ballot or a democratic ballot.

There's a separate process for third-party candidates (like for the Green Party), but I'm not as familiar with that process. I do know that some states only allow third-party candidates to be on the Election Day ballot only and there's a petition/paperwork requirement they have to meet to be eligible for the ballot, but that's the extent of my knowledge there.

5 - Pick your running mate

Announcement of the Vice President running mate. At the same time the candidates are running for primary delegates, they’re also deciding on who their running mate will be. The VP pick announcement will happen anytime between when the candidate becomes the frontrunner/meets the minimum delegate requirement and the convention. The VP pick must be announced before the convention because the convention has to formally nominate the official slate for a vote in order for the ticket to become the party’s nominee. (The VP running mate is chosen at the president’s discretion based on advice by party leadership and advisors. The public or convention delegates do not vote or have a say in who the VP running mate is; it used to be that the second-place finisher in the electoral college became the VP but that was changed after the Election of 1800 and if that sounds familiar…congratulations, you might have a slight Hamilton obsession.)

6 - National Party Nominating Conventions

Each party has their own convention. These take place in July and August (the parties alternate which convention is held first). They are week-long events where the party comes together to learn the candidate’s platform, hear their take on the issues, listen to their plans and policy proposals, and often is the first time that most people will hear from the VP running mate. The conventions are also where the state delegates will submit their formal nominations for president. This is done as part of the convention’s formal daily business. An informal version of this process – called roll call – happens during the convention’s evening schedule for the television broadcast. It’s a chance for all the states to show their support for the candidate. The candidate with the most delegates (or who has surpassed the minimum delegate requirement) gets the nomination and on the last day of the convention during the primetime/evening TV broadcast, they will officially and formally accept the nomination to be the party’s presidential candidate and the campaign for the presidential election officially kicks off.

7 - Official President Campaign (3 months before Election Day to Election Day)

Presidential Campaign Season. Officially, it runs from the formal acceptance speech by the candidate at the second convention through Election Day (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that’s set in law). Unofficially, it runs from the emergence of the first solid front-runner (or the challenger apparent if the incumbent is running for reelection) through Election Day - hence why it’s important to be the first party to have a solid frontrunner that everyone else coalesces around; the sooner you have your act together, the sooner you can start campaigning against the other party and the longer it takes your party to get their act together, the easier the opposition can portray you as divided and unprepared to govern. Voting will start during this time, usually in September by absentee voting (mail-in voting) or early voting but the rules for early voting vary from state to state. Also during this time, the federal government will start preparations for a presidential transition and planning for the inauguration.

8 - Election Day: the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November

Election Day is the last day to vote and when most people will vote. Polls close 7-8pm in each time zone (and it also varies by state) but that’s a little bit of a misnomer. What’s actually happening is the queue to vote closes. As long as you are in line before the queue closes at 7-8pm, you will be allowed to vote (hence why on Election Day, everyone on social media will be yelling into the void “if you are in line, stay in line” and apparently that’s now a meme). If you are voting by mail-in ballot, then as long as your ballot is postmarked no later than Election Day, it will also be counted, even if it’s not delivered for a couple of days. All the American media on Election Day will be about the election, results, and exit polling. They’ll start calling official results when the polls begin closing and election offices start reporting/posting votes. Election results are called when a majority of the precincts are reporting a majority of their tabulated votes and the science behind how they calculate that is actually pretty proprietary to the different television networks/decision desks. 

So when we vote in a presidential election, we’re not actually voting for the president. We’re voting for delegates (aka electors) who will vote for the president. The delegates form the Electoral College and each state is apportioned electors based on their Congressional representation (number of Senate members + number of House members = number of electors; also the total size of Congress). A candidate needs the majority of electors to win the election; there are 535 total electoral votes, so the majority is 270 and how a campaign gets to 270 electoral votes is called Electoral College Math, which is very much a real science and discipline of study in US politics. A candidate can win the popular vote (where everyone’s vote is counted 1:1) but lose the electoral vote - we saw this in 2000 and 2016 - which makes the Electoral College very controversial nowadays.

So let’s talk about Election Day results and votes for a quick minute. Up until the polls close, all results are unofficial and all the results are based on exit polls (pollsters and reporters who stand outside the polling stations and ask people “who’d you vote for” as they leave). And since 2020 (when the pandemic led to many states making early voting more accessible), exit poll data is actually skewed to Republicans/conservatives because more republicans vote in-person on Election Day. More Democrats/liberals vote early or by mail-in ballot and by many states’ laws, early voting and mail-in ballots cannot be tabulated or calculated until after polls close. So the results that are reported during exit polls and immediately after polls close will skew to the right. Then when early votes are calculated and absentee ballots are added, the results can sometimes change dramatically (and that was a huge reason why the 2020 election was so contested; because what pre-election polls and exit polls were saying were completely different than what the actual results were showing).

Excluding the 2020 election, Americans usually wake up on Wednesday morning knowing who the next president is and what kind of Congress they will have even though the official results and official tallies may still be ongoing. (In many states, if the difference between candidates is within a certain percentage, it triggers an automatic recount and if the difference doesn’t yield an automatic recount, then the parties will send all their lawyers in to file lawsuits and make arguments for a recount - this is all perfectly normal.)

There’s more to Election Day than this, but this is Election Day in a very broad overview.

9 - Ascertainment (the first 5 days after Election Day)

This really only affects the federal government and doesn’t have much bearing on the overall election. It’s different this year due to changes in the law for presidential transition as a result of the 2020 election but in a nutshell, ascertainment is when the General Services Administration is evaluating election results against a set of Congressional benchmarks to determine who is eligible to receive transition support and services. The main change is that no longer can only one person receive transition support; all candidates who meet those Congressional benchmarks are eligible to receive transition support and in that case, ascertainment will last until there is one victor - either when the electoral college vote is certified or someone concedes. From Ascertainment until Inauguration Day, the federal government is in a phase called “presidential transition” and a lot of different things are happening here (political appointees are resigning and being replaced by career employees in an acting capacity; there’s a senior executive (SES) hiring freeze in place since the assumption is that new political appointees will want to have input on the hiring process; and there’s a rulemaking freeze, in which all agencies suspend their processes to make, implement, propose new regulations and rules) and when these resignations/freezes begin varies from election to election.

10 - Electoral College Part 1 (mid-December after Election Day)

State’s electors meet in their capitals to formally vote for the president.

11 - New Congress term starts (January 3 following the election)

It's always on January 3, required by law. The first day of the new session of Congress in which all members of the House and the ⅓ of the Senate that was elected on Election Day. Everyone is sworn in by the Vice President.

12 - Electoral College Part 2 (January 6 following the election)

Always on January 6, required by law. A joint session of Congress (where the House and the Senate meet) is held to certify the results of the Electoral College. This is the final step to “winning” the presidential election. The Vice President presides over the joint session. They count the electoral ballots state by state in alphabetical order and the Congresspeople may contest the electoral vote. If there’s a contest, the joint session will end, both bodies will adjourn to their own chambers and discuss the issues raised. They vote whether to accept the state’s electoral ballots. If the vote is in favor of the electoral ballot, they go back to joint session and the state’s electoral ballot is presented again for certification.

13 - Inauguration Day (January 20 following the election)

The new president and vice president is sworn in and take office. If January 20 falls on Sunday, the official observation (the big formal ceremony at the Capitol and the parade and the balls) is postponed to Monday, January 21 but the president and the vice president will usually have a small swearing-in on January 20 for the official changeover. If there’s a screw up in the oath (like what happened with Obama in - I believe it was - 2013), then the oath will be taken again privately immediately after the official ceremonies conclude just to be sure. The president is able to start governing immediately from 12.01pm on January 20th and he (or she, as the case may soon be) usually does that by issuing executive orders that begin laying out their policy plan and vision. Most of the first executive orders will roll back certain policies from the previous administrations that don’t align with their policy plan and these usually only affect the federal government. Another impact to the federal government is that most new presidents will also institute a hiring freeze on the general civil service beginning mid-January (which is separate from the partial-SES hiring freeze. This isn’t nefarious; it’s usually meant to give the new administration a chance to put their political appointees in place so they can advise and have input on future hiring decisions at the agency. Beginning 12.01pm on January 20, the outgoing president and vice president transition into post-presidency support.

14 - March following the election: Presidential transition ends. This is also an internal milestone for the new administration - they like to have their Cabinet members in office by this date.

15 - July following the election: Immediate post-presidency support to the outgoing president and vice president ends. The former president will enter what is unofficially called “The Presidents Club,” which is all former presidents. By virtue of being a former president, they are eligible to receive some federal budget to stand up their own office and a library in the National Archives for their official records; they get this support for life. Former vice presidents do not get federal support after this July date. (A quirk this year: if Trump wins reelection, he will move from post-president support to presidential transition after the ascertainment.)

Whew. So, next.How does the federal government/civil service change with a new presidential administration?

In the Executive Branch:

Well, there will be hiring freezes. Meaning agencies won’t be allowed to backfill vacant positions or hire new employees. This stops government-wide. If you’re in the middle of being hired or transferring agencies when a hiring freeze is announced, you’re stuck. We can’t do anything or resume any hiring processes until the freeze lifted and we never know how long the freeze is going to last.

Civil servants do leave the government or transfer agencies based on the incoming administration. If a republican wins the White House, liberal or left-leaning people will leave because the policies aren’t aligned with their values and they don’t want to enforce conservative policies, and vice versa if a democrat wins the White House.

Now the departments and agencies will also change. Usually when a Republican is in the White House, the national security budget will increase so the national security sector will be seen as a stable and safe (in terms of budget cuts and finances) place to work so there will be a shift in civil servants transferring to the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, the Intelligence agencies, and law enforcement agencies like FBI and DEA. When a Democrat is in the White House, portions of the welfare sector will be seen as stable and safe, so civil servants will shift to places like State, Education, HHS, Interior. These shifts and transfers are small when compared to the overall numbers of the federal government, but there’s enough happening that it’s noticeable.

And a new issue specific to MAGA Republicans - there’s a big interest to move federal agencies and agency headquarters out of the DC region to other parts of the country, and that’s obviously an enormous issue for a lot of people. Should something like that come up in a future administration, there will be an exodus of civil servants in that agency - either they’re transferring to other agencies to stay in their local area or they’re leaving government altogether.

In the Judicial Branch:

The type of judge the President nominates will change - the President will typically nominate judges whose values align closer to theirs. Sometimes the effect is immediate, in other instances it can take a really long time to see change.

The biggest influence the President has on the judicial branch is with the Supreme Court. There are only 9 justices and they serve lifetime appointments. The chance to put a justice on the SCOTUS is one of the most powerful things a president can do because that individual can potentially be sitting on the bench for 20, 30 years. I don't want to go any further here because it'll get political, but to see the longlasting impact of justices to SCOTUS, just look up Roe v. Wade.

In the Legislative Branch:

If the President’s party has the majority in both the House and the Senate, then they have a much better chance to do a lot of signature policies and make new laws because there’s less risk of opposition. 

If Congress is split - if the majority of one or both houses in Congress are opposite the President’s party (eg if it’s a Democratic White House and the Democrats also hold majority in the Senate but the Republicans hold majority in the House - which is the current status now), then it’s a divided government and usually Congress isn’t as productive otherwise. Three things usually happen when there’s a divided government:

The risk of a government shutdown due to lapse in appropriation is higher because the parties have different budget and spending priorities.

The president will govern more by Executive Order, since he doesn’t need Congress’s consent. Executive Orders largely impact mostly just the executive branch and usually involve agencies creating new rules and regulations rather than by law.

Congress will have more oversight and investigative priorities than legislative priorities.

And lastly: What other TV shows can I watch instead of reading about all this?

Glad you asked!

The West Wing - on HBO Max, good for overall foundation of how government and the Executive Office of the President works.

Veep - on HBO Max. Also good for the Executive Office of the President.

The Diplomat - Netflix. Good foundation for how the Department of State function. (I've heard Madam Secretary, on CBS, is also good for this but I've never watched it so I can't vouch.)

Homeland (Showtime) and Zero Dark Thirty - good foundation for the intelligence agencies

The Newsroom - HBO Max. Specifically Season 2 and specifically episodes 8 and 9. Good for a foundation for how the media covers a presidential election and reports on results.

Actual people working in the White House have said that The West Wing and Veep are pretty accurate for what it's like.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

Joe Biden needs to very seriously consider the plain fact that the Republican nominee for president just successfully argued to the Supreme Court that the sitting president is legally allowed to assassinate his political opponents. That is not a hypothetical, that was his attorney's exact argument, and SCOTUS agreed. What do you think Joe Biden is going to do now that he has been granted absolute immunity from all forms of prosecution for any and all official acts as president? My guess is NOTHING whatsoever. Okay, but do you think his opponent, the man who just successfully argued for that power will do nothing with it?!? Do the fucking calculus, Joe!

History will remember that the left wing coalition which regularly gets more vites than the rightwing coalition has done absolutely nothing to prevent the right from seizing power. The Democrats were unable to find concensus within their own ranks that this power grab was substantial enough to do anything about. There is not and very likely will never be unanimous agreement among the congressional membership that the Republicans have gone too far and need to be reigned in. I can name two senators right now who would vote against confirming any justices if Joe Biden were to use his absolute immunity from prosecution to remove some sitting members from the bench, maybe even more than two, and no less than a dozen members in the House who would vote with Republicans to impeach him.

There is no dissent within the Republican party. You don't get to be a Republican if you stand against the party's platform. Every single rep who voted to impeach Trump has been removed. Every single senator who voted to convict has been removed. Mitt Fucking Romney, the Mormon semator from the Mormom capital of the country was so ashamed of going against his party that he didn't even TRY to run for re-election to a seat he won 62-31 in 2018 because he thought for sure that his own constituents would punish him for his "betrayal" and replace him in the primary. Republicans have total control over their membership, and Demcorats do not, plain and simple.

Democrats act as though they are simply placeholder politicians, powerless caretakers who are supposed to keep their heads down and do nothing while in power only to bitch and moan about how evil the other side is when they're out of power. They see Republicans as the rightful rulers, as evidenced by the fact that both parties respond to losing an election by shifting to the right.

The President of the United States has been given absolute, unchecked authority, and the fact that only one party is willing to use it is damning. What are the Democrats even doing? It's not a matter of IF Republicans take back power but WHEN, and it is looking increasingly more likely to be this November rather than 2028 or 2032. There is a ticking clock before the Republicans go nuclear, and the Democrats aren't gonna do shit about it for fear of alienating voters, when that has never been a concern for the Republicans.

If your opponent successfully argues that he is allowed to kill you, and your response is "well, let's hope he doesn't do that," you have failed your country.