#The Gallup Independent

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

Idaho Republican legislators have introduced a resolution on Tuesday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that established marriage equality nationwide. The measure, House Joint Memorial 1, claims the Supreme Court overstepped its authority by requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages. It also calls for a return to the so-called “natural definition” of marriage as between one man and one woman, a concept supporters insist is rooted in tradition. The non-binding resolution, spearheaded by the State Affairs Committee, asserts that states and not federal courts should decide marriage laws. While the resolution carries no legal weight, its introduction sends a clear signal about the state GOP’s priorities. “The Idaho Legislature insists on restoring the issue of marriage and enforcement of all laws pertaining to marriage back to the several states and the people,” the resolution reads.

The move comes even as a majority of Americans—including majorities of Democrats and independents and nearly half of Republicans—support marriage equality. A 2024 Gallup survey found that 69 percent of Americans favor the legality of same-sex marriages, a figure that has remained consistently high since the Obergefell ruling.

[...] Idaho’s resolution echoes a growing movement among conservative lawmakers to challenge LGBTQ+ rights at the state level. Across the country, Republican-led legislatures have introduced bills targeting everything from transgender health care to drag performances. The resolution also aligns with Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent remarks in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade, which in 2022 called for reconsidering cases like Obergefell as part of a broader critique of substantive due process—the legal principle underpinning marriage equality and other rights, such as access to contraception.

Idaho House Republicans file out-of-touch resolution HJM1 to urge the SCOTUS to repeal Obergefell v. Hodges.

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: Republican asks Supreme Court to condemn & overturn same-sex marriage

[democracyunderground]

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would radically change the makeup of the Supreme Court, amid ongoing concerns over court ethics and its increasingly conservative makeup.

The legislation would appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before stepping back from the bench and only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

“The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy that is exacerbated by radical decisions at odds with established legal precedent, ethical lapses of sitting justices, and politicization of the confirmation process,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said in a statement.

“This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases, which make up a bulk of the court’s work. All living justices would participate in a smaller subset of cases under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

Calls for Supreme Court reform grew louder this year after ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perks from conservative political donors. Further investigations have uncovered multiple significant and undisclosed gifts from politically connected friends over his time as a federal judge.

Justice Samuel Alito also took a luxury vacation paid for by an influential conservative donor while in the judiciary, another investigation found earlier this year.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill earlier this year along party lines that would require the Supreme Court to create and abide by a code of ethics. Unlike lower courts, Supreme Court judges are not beholden to an official ethics code.

“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people,” Whitehouse said in a statement.

“Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence.

“As Congress considers multiple options to restore the integrity of this scandal-plagued Court, our term limits bill should be front and center as a potential solution,” he added.

Attempts to reform the Supreme Court have been denounced by both Republicans in Congress and by some members of the court, namely Thomas and Alito.

Alito argued earlier this year that Congress does not have the authority to force any reform on the court without a constitutional amendment.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

But Whitehouse’s office argued in Wednesday’s statement that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate how the court handles appellate cases from lower courts. That’s why all justices would still weigh in on “original jurisdiction” cases, avoiding the constitutional hang-up.

Trust in the Supreme Court remains near all-time lows, according to national opinion polling. A Gallup poll last month found that just 41 percent of Americans approve of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, with 58 percent disapproving.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Half of Americans in a recent survey indicated they believe national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting.

The survey, released Wednesday by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, goes beyond others that have shown a low level of trust in the media to the startling point where many believe there is an intent to deceive.

Asked whether they agreed with the statement that national news organizations do not intend to mislead, 50% said they disagreed. Only 25% agreed, the study found.

Similarly, 52% disagreed with a statement that disseminators of national news “care about the best interests of their readers, viewers and listeners,” the study found. It said 23% of respondents believed the journalists were acting in the public’s best interests.

“That was pretty striking for us,” said Sarah Fioroni, a consultant for Gallup. The findings showed a depth of distrust and bad feeling that go beyond the foundations and processes of journalism, she said.

In one small consolation, in both cases Americans had more trust in local news.

Like with many other studies, Knight and Gallup found Democrats trust news more than Republicans. Over the past five years, the level of distrust has particularly spiked among independents. Overall, 55% of respondents said there was a great deal of political bias in coverage, compared to 45% in 2017.

The results are based on a Gallup study of 5,593 Americans aged 18 and older conducted between May 31 and July 21, 2022.

[technofeudalism]

Americans have a bit of collective amnesia when it comes to remembering their stance on the Iraq War when it first began in 2003. The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that 51 percent of Americans report they were opposed to the Iraq War back when it started in 2003; 39 percent say they supported the war, 6 percent report not having had an opinion, and 5 percent can't remember.

[ ... ]

Only 26 percent of Democrats say they recall supporting the 2003 Iraq War when it began (59% in 2003) and 65 percent say they had been opposed. However, 59 percent of Republicans report having supported the war while 33 percent say they had been opposed to it. A plurality (41%) of independents say they had opposed the war, 36 percent say they had supported it, and 23 percent either couldn't remember or didn't have an opinion.

Americans’ memories of their own past beliefs about the 2003 Iraq War are tinged with their current feelings about what has taken place there since and what is taking place there now. In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, just 38% admit that they supported sending troops to Iraq in 2003. Less than a month before that U.S-led invasion, more than six in ten Americans* in a Gallup Poll indicated they favored sending in ground troops.

Republicans are among the most likely to remember accurately: today, two-thirds of Republicans say they supported sending troops to Iraq in 2003; in that Gallup Poll, 84% of Republicans were in favor. More than half of Democrats supported sending troops in 2003, but looking back today, two-thirds of Democrats remember themselves as anti-war, and only 19% admit they supported sending troops to Iraq.

[fandomtrumpshate]

2025 Supported Org: Bellingcat

Over the past two decades, the American public’s faith in mainstream news organizations has dropped precipitously – in a 2023 Gallup survey, more than half of respondents indicated that they believe news organizations actively mislead the public. The major organs of mainstream media have made many choices that have cost them the public’s trust, often relying on the “both sides” model of reporting at the expense of a full and truthful picture and treating politics as a horse race.

But these organizations are also under significant pressure as they struggle to adapt to the radical technological shifts in our media environment. These shifts have cut into traditional revenue streams, driving news organizations toward the sort of reporting that will generate revenue. They have also created both the possibility of and the need for new approaches to reporting, and many legacy news outlets have struggled to adapt.

Bellingcat is an independent investigative collective of researchers, investigators and citizen journalists that uses cutting-edge technology to engage in fact-checking and open-source intelligence investigation outside the apparatus of major journalistic publications. In addition to doing their own reporting, Bellingcat designs and shares verifiable methods of ethical digital investigation. By publishing walkthroughs to open source research methods and holding tailored training sessions on their use for journalists, human rights activists, and members of the public, they’re broadening the scope and application of open source research. Their research is regularly referenced by international media and has been cited by several courts and investigative missions.

Operating in a unique field where advanced technology, forensic research, journalism, transparency and accountability come together, Bellingcat believes in the need for collaboration and has partnered with news organisations across the globe. Likewise, Bellingcat’s Global Authentication Project (GAP) seeks to harness the power of the open source community by nurturing and encouraging a network of volunteer investigators. Their Justice & Accountability unit, meanwhile, seeks to demonstrate the viability of online open source information in judicial processes.

You can support Bellingcat as a creator in the 2025 FTH auction (or as a bidder, when the time comes to donate for the auctions you’ve won.)

[coochiequeens]

Apr 02, 2025

By Andrew Stanton Weekend Staff Writer

A female fencer was disqualified from competing in a match over the weekend after refusing to compete against a transgender athlete.

Newsweek reached out to both athletes for comment.

Why It Matters

Americans hold complex views on gender and sexual orientation issues. While many polls show that acceptance for LGBTQ+ rights has generally increased over the past 20 years, most Americans are less supportive of transgender girls and women participating in women's sports. A Gallup poll from May 2023 found that 69 percent of Americans believe transgender people should play on teams that match their sex assigned at birth.

The incident reflects the divide in the major culture war battle as sports leagues grapple with how to balance the inclusion of transgender athletes with fairness for all athletes involved.

Proponents of limiting transgender athletes' involvement say it is necessary to ensure the sport is safe for cisgender athletes, but critics say these efforts are intended to stigmatize a community already at risk of mental health concerns.

What to Know

A video showing fencer Stephanie Turner take a knee rather than compete against a transgender athlete named Redmond Sullivan has gone viral on social media, being viewed more than one million times on X (formerly Twitter). The video, posted by the Independent Council on Women's Sports, shows Turner being disqualified from the match over her refusal to compete against Sullivan.

USA Fencing confirmed in a statement to Newsweek that Turner had been disqualified over the incident. The statement says that her refusal to compete against Sullivan violates International Fencing Federation rules prohibiting fencers from refusing to compete against another fencer.

"USA Fencing's responsibility is to ensure that all athletes, regardless of their personal positions, compete under the same rules established by our international federation. According to the FIE (International Fencing Federation) Technical Rules, specifically Article t.113, a fencer is not permitted to refuse to fence another properly entered fencer for any reason," the statement reads.

It continues: "Under these rules, such a refusal results in disqualification and the corresponding sanctions. This policy exists to maintain fair competition standards and preserve the sport's integrity."

USA Fencing said that Turner was not disqualified "related to any personal statement," but that the decision was "merely the direct result of her decision to decline to fence an eligible opponent, which the FIE rules clearly prohibit."

"USA Fencing is obligated to follow the letter of those rules and ensure that participants respect the standards set at the international level. We remain committed to inclusivity within our sport while also upholding every requirement dictated by our governing body," the statement reads.

The organization unveiled a policy for transgender athletes in 2023.

For athletes who have transitioned from male to female, the policy reads, "Athletes being treated with testosterone suppression medication, for the purposes of USA Fencing-sanctioned competitions may continue to compete in men's events, but may only compete in women's events after completing one calendar year (12 months) of testosterone suppression treatment. Proof of compliant hormone therapy must be provided prior to competition."

Several sports organizations have implemented bans on transgender girls and women competing in female sports, but specific rules still vary based on different sporting groups.

What People Are Saying

USA Fencing to Newsweek: "We understand that the conversation on equity and inclusion pertaining to transgender participation in sport is evolving. USA Fencing will always err on the side of inclusion, and we're committed to amending the policy as more relevant evidence-based research emerges, or as policy changes take effect in the wider Olympic & Paralympic movement."

Tennis Player Martina Navratilova on X: "This is what happens when female athletes protest! Anyone here still thinks this is fair??? I am fuming... and shame on @USAFencing, shame on you for doing this. How dare you throw women under the gender bulls*** bus!!!"

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement about bans on transgender women competing in women's sports: "We all want sports to be fair, students to be safe, and young people to have the opportunity to participate alongside their peers. But an attempted blanket ban deprives kids of those things."

What Happens Next

The debate over transgender athletes' inclusion in sports will likely continue over the coming months.

This tracks his records when he was competing against men and women.

[erik-even-wordier]

DEMOCRATS CAN’T WIN BY PLAYING REPUBLICAN DRESS-UP

Posted by Rachel Hurley to Facebook on March 5, 2025.

DEMOCRATS CAN’T WIN BY PLAYING REPUBLICAN DRESS-UP

Last night, Donald Trump lumbered onto the House floor and unleashed a 100-minute marathon of bombast – his first address to Congress since reclaiming the White House, clocking in as the longest presidential speech to lawmakers in modern history, per The American Presidency Project.

For an hour and forty minutes, he crowed “America is back,” peddled a laundry list of whoppers, and gaslit the nation with a smirk. He claimed small-business optimism spiked 41 points – a cherry-picked distortion of one NFIB survey metric – while glossing over tanking consumer confidence and an S&P 500 that’s coughed up all its post-election gains (CNN fact-check, 2025).

He bragged about slashing “hundreds of billions” in fraud, a figure even his own team can’t back up, and touted a nonexistent “Green New Scam” he supposedly killed – conveniently ignoring that Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, the real target, remains intact. Classic Trump: reality’s just a suggestion. He propped up grieving widows and freed detainees as human set pieces – Stephanie Diller, Marc Fogel’s 95-year-old mom – parading their pain for applause while dodging the chaos his tariffs and Ukraine aid freeze have already sparked.

Democrats’ genius counterpunch?

Trotting out Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA agent from the Bush era, to scold Trump with Reagan nostalgia and pitch a “responsible” centrism that reeks of GOP Lite. If that’s their plan – countering a lie-soaked spectacle by hugging the middle – they’re toast.

Here’s why: Democrats can’t beat Republicans by turning into their awkward twin. It’s like showing up to a bar fight with a Nerf bat – nobody’s scared, and you’re just embarrassing yourself. The obsession with “moving to the center” assumes politics is a tug-of-war over a tiny sliver of undecided moderates. Spoiler Alert: it’s not.

The real prize is the millions of Americans who’ve ghosted the voting booth entirely, and they’re not sitting around waiting for a watered-down GOP knockoff to save the day. If Democrats want to win, they need to stop playing dress-up and start lighting a fire under the disillusioned masses. History and data back this up – centrist pandering flops, while bold vision scores.

The Invisible Army You’re Ignoring

Let’s talk numbers, because the math doesn’t lie. In 2020, 159 million people voted – great, right? Except 80 million eligible adults didn’t. That’s not a rounding error – that’s a whole untapped electorate twiddling their thumbs while both parties bicker over the same tired playbook. Pew Research pegs consistent nonvoters at 35-40% of the pool every cycle.

Who are they?

Not the mythical “swing voter” clutching their pearls over tax rates. They’re the fed-up, the checked-out – people who see red and blue as two flavors of the same corporate mush. Gallup’s 2023 breakdown shows 43% of Americans identifying as independents, dwarfing the 27% loyal to each party. Democrats think they’ll win by chasing the center? Good luck – they’re sprinting past a goldmine to beg for scraps.

Centrism’s Hall of Shame

History’s littered with proof that hugging the middle is a ticket to Loserville. Exhibit A: John Kerry, 2004. The guy ran a campaign so bland it could’ve doubled as elevator music – safe, centrist, “electable.” Like a Coldplay album that somehow manages to be both everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, Kerry’s platform dissolved into nothingness the moment you tried to examine it. He dodged big ideas like healthcare reform or inequality, betting moderates would save him. They didn’t.

Bush, despite Iraq and a tanking approval rating, took 50.7% to Kerry’s 48.3%. Turnout? Nearly half the country yawned and stayed home. Fast forward to 2020 – Biden’s “normalcy” shtick edged out Trump 51.3% to 46.8%, but it was no landslide, and 80 million still skipped the party. Centrism might limp across the finish line, but it doesn’t ignite a spark.

Now flip the script. Obama in 2008 didn’t whisper sweet nothings to the center – he roared “Hope and Change” and meant it. Turnout hit 61.6%, young voters surged, and he smoked McCain 52.9% to 45.7%. FDR didn’t tiptoe around Hoover’s turf – he dropped the New Deal like a mic and redefined the game. Winners don’t mimic; they mobilize.

The Center’s a Myth Anyway

People need to realize the “center” Democrats keep chasing doesn’t even exist – it’s a buzzword for consultants who charge by the hour. Ask yourself: what’s centrist in a country where 67% of people (including 41% of Republicans, per Pew 2020) want a $15 minimum wage, and 70% back Medicare for All? The public’s not begging for milquetoast – they’re screaming for solutions. Meanwhile, nonvoters aren’t impressed by GOP Lite. A 2021 American National Election Studies survey found 62% of them think “neither party represents me.” Shocker: aping Republicans won’t woo them – it’ll just make the “both sides suck” crowd nod harder.

The Playbook That Actually Works

So what does work? Giving people a reason to care. Those 80 million nonvoters – many young, diverse, and progressive-leaning, per Pew – aren’t holding out for tax-cut debates. They’re drowning in rent hikes, climate dread, and healthcare bills, waiting for someone to throw a lifeline. Democrats could be that lifeline. Lean into bold ideas: wage hikes, universal healthcare, green jobs. The 2022 midterms hinted at this – Gen Z turnout doubled to 27% (Tufts CIRCLE data). Compare that to the party’s suburban flops after ditching student debt relief to court “moderates.” The lesson? Nonvoters don’t want compromise – they want a fight worth joining.

Stop Cosplaying and Start Winning

Democrats, quit trying to out-Republican the Republicans – it’s a fool’s errand. GOP voters won’t ditch their tribe for a poser, and nonvoters won’t care unless you give them something real. Be the party that says, “if the whole system needs to be torn down and rebuilt, we’re the ones who can accomplish it. We see you, we hear you, and we’re ready to shake this mess up.” That’s not just how you win an election – that’s how you build a wave. Anything less, and they’re just wasting your time and mine.

[vintagelasvegas]

Last Frontier / New Frontier / Frontier Hotel & Casino

Hotel Last Frontier opened October 30, 1942, the second resort on Hwy 91 south of Las Vegas and first to adopt an all-encompassing theme, the Old West. (Postcard, '43.)

'41: Rupert "R.E." Griffith purchases Guy McAfee’s 91 Club and begins building the resort with architect & partner William Moore. Griffith is the builder-owner of El Rancho, Gallup, NM, and with his brothers the owner of hundreds of theaters in the south & midwest.

'42: Oct. 30, opening of Last Frontier Hotel. Wm. Moore is executive manager of the resort. Ballard E. Barron is a partner and manages the casino until retirement in the 50s.

'43: May 22, Little Church of the West wedding chapel opens.

'43: Griffith dies, age 50. Moore continues operations.

'44: Aug., The Delta Rhythm Boys in Hotel Last Frontier's Ramona Room, possibly the first African-American entertainers headlining a Strip resort. In Nov., Liberace's Last Vegas debut in the Ramona Room.

'47: Last Frontier Sportsdrome race track, and Texaco Fire-Chief service station both opened

'48: Last Frontier Village theme park begins opening. Official opening two years later along with Silver Slipper. R. Stadelman, W. Zick, architects.

'50: Silver Slipper opens 9/6/50. (Silver Slipper was independent of Frontier from the years '56-'68.)

'51: Moore sells or leases the resort to Kozloff, Katleman, and others, exact arrangement is unclear. Other owners changed in the late 50s.

'53: Mary Kaye Trio performs on a new stage at Last Frontier's Gay 90s Bar. The unusual engagement outside the showroom proves a success that lasts 20 weeks and launches the "Lounge Act" phenomenon at every Strip hotel. (Cossette; RJ 10/23/53)

'55: “New Frontier” modernist casino and showroom, opens 4/4/55 between the hotel and Last Frontier Village. The resort is rebranded New Frontier. Little Church of the West is relocated to the south side of the resort.

'55: Sep., Maurice H. Friedman (GM), Irving Leff (VP), T. Warner Richardson (Casino Manager) and partners take over Frontier operations. (RJ 9/1/55)

'57: 9-month closure of casino

'58: Signage for “Last Frontier” over the hotel wing facing the Strip, lasting through demolition in '66.

'59: Warren 'Doc' Bayley becomes primary owner of the resort. Several other ownership changes through '66.

'60: Sportsdrome closed. Last Frontier Village closure is unclear, circa '60-'64.

'65: Judy Bayley assumes control of 'Doc' Bayley holdings after his death on 12/26/64. Frontier is closed by the first week of Jan. for previously announced renovation program. Unclear of the casino and showroom are closed at the same time. Frontier remains closed until Jul. '67.

'66: Banker's Life buys the Frontier and leases to Vegas Frontier Inc. (Friedman, Richardson, and partners) in Feb. Last Frontier Hotel demolished in May. Construction of all-new hotel begins in Sep. Texaco Fire-Chief demolished in Nov.

'67: Frontier opens 7/30/67. Sign by Bill Clarke, AdArt. Unrelated to Frontier operations, FBI surveillance of mobster Johnny Roselli reveals a gin rummy cheating scam at Friar's Club, Beverly Hills, operated by Frontier owners Friedman and Richardson. The two, along with Roselli, are later indicted, convicted, and sentenced. It was later discovered that Friedman, Richardson & co's Frontier operation was financed with Detroit mob money from a groud led by Anthony Zerilli.

'67: Nov., Howard Hughes buys the Frontier lease and property.

'68: Hughes leases Silver Slipper, bringing the casino and Frontier under the same operations for the first time since '56. Hughes buys Silver Slipper later in the early 70s.

'80: Frontier sign painted brown.

'82: Jun. 24, Grand opening of a western-themed casino expansion, including Wild Horse Slot Saloon and Wild Horse Lounge; new signs and exterior design, with longhorn motif on the front entrance and marquee sign by Sign Systems Inc. (RJ 6/24/82)

'88: Sold to Unbelievable Inc (Margaret Elardi & family). Silver Slipper closed in Nov., demolished.

'89: Atrium Tower addition

'90: Frontier sign painted in reds

'91: Sep., 21, Culinary Workers Union strike begins, lasting until 2/1/98.

'98: Frontier is sold to Phil Ruffin. Elardi group retains 16.17 acres of the property.

'00: Frontier sign painted in greens

'07: Sold to El-Ad Group. Closed 7/16/2007. Tower imploded 11/13/2007. El-Ad Group's plans to develop Las Vegas Plaza were changed with the onset of the Great Recession.

'08: Dec., sign removed.

The original pool was in front of the hotel. The empty lot across the road is the future Desert Inn, and Wynn resort. Teich postcards with serial numbers 3B, 4B, 6B, indicating dates of '43, '44, and '46.

1940s - Black & white postcards by Frasher Fotos.

1940s ('43 or later) showing the Little Church of the West. L. F. Manis Photograph Collection (PH-00100), UNLV Special Collections & Archives.

Timeline Sources include: Moore Carries Through Idea of R.E. Griffith, Founder. Review-Journal, 9/3/50; Doby Doc, Pt. 3. Howard Hickson’s Histories, gbcnv.edu; Alan Jarlson. On the Town. Review-Journal, 10/23/53; Last Frontier Village is Las Vegas Showplace. Review-Journal, 2/28/55 p12; New Frontier Hotel Will Reopen. Review-Journal, 2/17/66 p3; In Final Stages of Demolition. Review-Journal, 5/3/66 p7; Break Ground for New Hotel. Review-Journal, 9/26/66; Frontier Hotel expansion celebrated. Review-Journal, 6/24/82 p9C; Pierre Cossette. Another Day In Showbiz, p43. ECW Press, 2003; A. Finnegan. Crews remove New Frontier marquee before Encore opening. Las Vegas Sun, 12/12/2008.

[darkmaga-returns]

Believe it or not, Americans want a fair election. One side is using never-before-seen tactics to secure the vote, such as installing a new nominee without securing a single nomination in the primaries and permitting illegal aliens to vote. A recent poll shows that both Republicans and Democrats want a fair election that includes requiring voter ID.

The latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming 84% of all Americans believe photo identification should be required to vote. Then, 83% of all Americans believe first-time voters must provide proof of citizenship. Americans want to determine the outcome of their own election, but the government continues to ignore the will of the people.

Democrats were less likely to demand proof of citizenship, but still, the majority (66%) believe it should be required. The majority of the left (67%) also believe photo identification cannot be overlooked. Republicans naturally see that illegal migrants will vote against their party. Why would anyone vote against the party that has provided them a taxpayer-subsidized life in a new nation where they are not required to assimilate nor are they held to the same legal code as citizens. Of no surprise, 98% of Republicans are demanding proof of citizenship, and 96% want to see a photo ID. About 84% of Independents support both measures.

[mariacallous]

In a cozy café in Amsterdam, with plush sofas and warm lighting, a group of people sit around talking, laughing, and playing board games. But something noticeable is missing. There is not a single phone in sight. It's one of a regular series of community events held by the burgeoning Offline Club, where members pay around $8.00 to leave their phone in a lock box at the door and spend the next few hours unplugged. Demand is growing rapidly. What started as a local initiative is quickly turning into a global movement with regular events hosted in cafés, churches, and town halls selling out fast across the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

2025 marks the turning point when people will try to spend less time on screens and to reclaim meaningful in-person connections.

Yondr, founded in the US, partners with comedy clubs, arenas, clubs, and schools to organize phone-free events. Jack White, Bob Dylan, Garth Brooks, John Mayer, Madonna, and Adele have all implemented cell phone bans at their concerts so they could stop looking out at a sea of blinking smartphones, and to help the audience to connect by disconnecting.

Meetup, the global platform that enables over 60 million people to use the internet to get off the internet and meet up in the real world, had a 19 percent rise in registrations in 2023. The latest Meetup Measurement Report showed that the number one reason people use the platform is to find meaningful connections in person, a 50 percent rise over previous years. “Friends” is the most popular search term for events, and “Book Club” is back in the top 10.

We are reaching toward things that knit us back into the social fabric of local life. According to new research in the UK from the National Lottery Community Fund, half of UK adults intend to participate in local volunteering activities, both formally and informally in 2024. Over 70 percent say it's important to them to feel part of their local community.

The growing demand for real-world interactions is emerging from a confluence of societal challenges, namely the increasing awareness of the adverse effects of spending way too much time on screens, and the loneliness epidemic. Recent research by Gallup showed that 80 percent of young people under the age of 18 report feeling lonely, with 22 percent saying they have no real friends. Zero. Twelve percent of adults admitted to having no close friends in 2021, compared to just 3 percent 30 years ago. In these stats is a collective cry of loneliness. People don't just want followers anymore; they want real friendships.

But 2025 could mark the turning point of this deep friendship recession. It is the year when a rising number of people swap screen time for real-world interactions.

Today, there is a deep sense of loss or longing, across generations, for a time before constant connectivity, apps, and algorithms. That sentiment is called anemoia, the nostalgia for a time or a place one has never known.

Take the recent rise in popularity of vinyl records, Polaroid cameras, board games, and even mixtapes. According to the Recording Industry Association of American, 43.2 million EPs/LPs were sold last year, up from less than a million in 2006. From classic card games to board sets such as Monopoly and Cluedo, the compound annual growth for the board gaming market is over 9 percent. The Polaroid market is expected to double over the next seven years from $2.93 billion in 2024 to over $5.72 billion in 2031. Or the surprising resurgence of independent booksellers enjoying their sixth consecutive year of growth—a revival meeting the demand for real recommendations from real people. As of 2023, there are 2,185 independent bookstores in the United States and 1,072 in the UK.

There is a clear pining for a pre-dating-app era, with younger generations moving away from the endless swiping and “ghosting.” According to the 2023 Statista survey, millennials make up 61 percent of dating app users, whereas Gen-Z comes in at only 26 percent. Dating apps like Bumble have introduced local IRL events, including tennis tournaments, cooking or spin classes, and cocktail nights, marketed on the promise to “meet up, chat, and make moves in person.”

2025 is when people start to reclaim the communal experiences and deeper connections that have been lost in our lives. It marks a critical societal turning point where people prioritize real-world connections over the deluge we face on our digital devices. To reconnect by disconnecting.

[rhiandoesfandom]

Whenever folks like to make a broad generalization of "America why did you choose this???"

I show them this chart from Gallup that tracks the amount of party members in the United States.

Right now, in 2024, there are only 28% of Republicans. And only 28% of Democrats.

But, 43% are Independents. Independents (like myself) often skew left.

However, when they hate both two options and the Dems don't champion anything or make any promises for the working class, it can turn independents to the right.

Independents are often folks (like myself) who would prefer a third or fourth choice.

(which is why I really recommend fighting for Ranked Choice voting)

So then, you take these two parties that only have 28% each.

Well, in the grand scheme of things, only 63.9% of the whole US population voted this time around.

That is more people than we ever have voting in elections. Besides 2020 where it was a little more.

So of that 63.9% you have only 28% that are staunch Republican and Democrat. And then you have 43% who are independent who can go either way.

AND within all of those percentages, people will just not vote.

So really, even though 77 million votes for Donald Trump seems like a lot, (and I'm not gonna do actual math here), it's really only less than a quarter of the whole population that voted for him.

And unfortunately, our elections aren't decided by the popular vote even. They're decided by electors who vote for their state based on what the people of that state voted for.

So Abolishing the Electoral college should be our main goal. That's what handed him the presidency. (Combined with extreme partisan politics and apathy for voting)

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

What does that mean for progressives and these states in Congress and in presidential elections? A doom loop:

The Brennan Center projects that California will lose four seats and New York two in the 2030 census. Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin would lose one seat each. Except for Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which are swing states, all of those states have consistently backed Democrats for president and sent Democratic majorities to the House. No GOP strongholds are projected to lose seats.

Overall, the Brennan Center estimates a loss of 12 seats from blue states to red states. The conservative American Redistricting Project estimates it at 11 seats. Either way, the shift in 2030 -- assuming it comes to pass -- will mean a rightward shift in a near-evenly split of the House. It also portends a subtle rightward shift in the Senate, as a flood of disaffected conservatives flows out of California and New York to states they find more politically palatable. And of course, the Electoral College will begin to tilt significantly to the GOP if Democrats can't rid themselves of the radical-progressive elite clique that currently controls their party.  So all of this is true enough, but it still doesn't tell the whole story. The problem for progressives isn't just that their conservative residents are migrating. As Gallup's latest party affiliation data shows, Americans are also migrating to the GOP overall: "Americans’ political party preferences remained closely divided in 2024, with the Republican Party having a slight edge for the third consecutive year. Overall, 46% of Americans identified as Republicans or independents who leaned toward the Republican Party, compared with 45% who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. Prior to 2022, Republicans only had a slight edge once before, in 1991." Without leaners, a plurality of voters identify as independents, still at a record-high 43%. However, when Gallup adds in the leaners, Republicans have gotten the edge for the last three years. That makes the COVID pandemic look like an inflection point, and perhaps that is what finally broke the spell, as the destination states all have the same thing in common -- either no lockdowns or very brief restrictions. Americans have a pretty good sense of freedom and dangers to it, and are flocking toward liberty and away from the bureaucrats and progressive incompetents that want to eliminate it. And that may well accelerate as progressives clamp down even harder on whoever is unfortunately unable to escape. U-Haul had better invest some big money in their outbound California infrastructure, in other words. 

And this is all self-inflicted. Watch for the unhinged hysteria surrounding the Electoral College to kick into high gear over the next 5 years.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Markos Moulitsas (kos) at Daily Kos:

Last week, a friend called me with concerns about the presidential race, something that repeats often during a typical week. We all have legitimate reasons to be terrified of a second Donald Trump presidency. In response, I sketched out the reasons why I think President Joe Biden currently has a narrow but real advantage. Now, I’m sharing it with you all. 

1) TRUMP IS TIED IN POLLING, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE AREN’T PAYING ATTENTION

It’s an old political adage that voters do not start paying attention to campaign season until after Labor Day. A Gallup poll fielded this past April found that 71% of Americans have given “quite a lot” of thought to the race, which means that a third haven’t. And the numbers were most pronounced among independents, with just 61% giving it a lot of attention. This is noteworthy because, for one, a significant number of potential voters haven’t seen Trump’s latest erratic, grievance-addled performances. Also, a Siena College poll for The New York Times found that 17% of voters blamed Biden for the loss of federal abortion rights. As more people begin to tune in, those misconceptions will be corrected.  And yet, despite those challenges, the polling is still essentially tied. In fact, take a look at the numbers in some of the polling, and the share of undecided voters is ludicrously high. An Ipsos poll for Reuters has it at 41 to 39 in Trump’s favor. YouGov is at 42 to 40 for Trump. A Civiqs poll for Daily Kos puts it even, at 45 to 45. And Morning Consult shows 44 to 43 for Biden. Given that Trump has never hit 47% in his two elections and that there’s no evidence he’s expanded his base of support, the biggest challenge is getting reluctant Biden voters to show up. That will happen when the race begins in earnest. 

[...]

3) AS PEOPLE LEARN THAT TRUMP’S RESPONSIBLE FOR DOBBS, IT’LL BLEED SUPPORT

Already mentioned above, but worth underscoring. Abortion and democracy were the two issues that propelled Democrats to an atypical, ahistorical victory in the 2022 midterm elections, despite Biden’s enduring unpopularity. Abortion was so powerful and dominant an issue that it overcame voter frustrations about inflation at a time when inflation was significantly worse than current rates.  Nothing in the two years since has lessened the impact of losing federal abortion rights. To the contrary, more people have learned that abortion is, indeed, health care thanks to stories like this one in People magazine, which is read by tens of millions of people. This is no longer a niche issue in the political press. It’s gone mainstream, which explains why the pro-abortion-rights side has won every ballot initiative—even in deep-red states, like Kansas and Kentucky—since Roe v. Wade was overturned.   And instead of laying low, Republicans are gunning hard to restrict or eliminate in vitro fertilization and birth control, and GOP lawmakers are helpless to stand in the way. Rather than defang the issue, Republicans are digging deeper. 

4) TRUMP’S CONVICTION WILL TAKE ITS TOLL OVER TIME. POLLING WAS BRUTAL FOR HIM ON THAT

I wrote up the numbers here. In short, Trump can’t afford to bleed any of his support in a tied race. What does his conviction do? Bleed support.  And three weeks after I wrote that story, polling is still showing how Trump’s convictions are causing lasting damage to his campaign. A recent Ipsos poll for Politico found that 9% of Republicans and 32% of independents are “less likely to support Trump” because of his conviction. Additionally, 23% of independents said the conviction was “very important” to their vote, and another 7% said it was “somewhat important.”  Remember, Trump needs to expand his support. Right now, this is costing him. 

5) DEMS ARE OVERPERFORMING IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS, WHICH ARE ACTUAL ELECTIONS—NOT POLLS

POLLS POLLS POLLS DID YOU SEE THE LATEST POLL? I’m on record saying that pre-Labor Day polls are interesting but not determinative. But you know what is better than polls? Actual election results. Last year, Daily Kos’ own Daniel Donner did the research and found that “special elections have indeed proven to be useful in analyzing the election environment. There is still a good long-term correlation between the results of special elections and November elections.”  And what do this cycle’s special elections tell us? The same thing they were telling us in 2022 when they presaged that year’s unlikely Democratic victories: Democrats are outperforming Biden’s 2020 benchmark numbers.  Some corners of the political punditry are heavily invested in discrediting this theory, mostly by arguing that a presidential electorate doesn’t look like a special election electorate. But it does demonstrate which party is more energized, activated, and likely to turn out—all critically important factors in any general election. Of course, as far as the media is concerned, Democrats always lose. Are Republicans more energized? That’s bad for Democrats. Are Democrats more energized? Bad for Democrats.  But I’ll be consistent, and Donner’s data backs it up: The more energized party has the better chance to win. This isn’t rocket science. It’s (data-supported) common sense. 

6) TRUMP UNDERPERFORMED HIS POLLING NUMBERS IN PRIMARIES

I love this Daily Kos headline: “Polls still love Trump more than voters do.” And it’s true. During the early part of the Republican primary campaign, Trump consistently underperformed his poll numbers. In February, The New York Times’ Nate Cohn has some theories on why that’s the case. My guess? It’s something we’ll see further down the line: People who support Trump are less scared of the alternative than those who are terrified of him.  But if nothing else, the notion that polls are missing some kind of hidden Trump vote isn’t borne out by the facts. 

Markos Moulitsas (kos) underlines the 11 reasons why Joe Biden is going to win come November.

Some of those include: Trump’s role in getting Roe overturned, 34 (and counting) felony convictions, underperformance in much of the GOP primaries even after Nikki Haley dropped out, and is currently tied, slightly trailing, or slightly leading in polling with the race not yet in full swing.

[beardedmrbean]

Americans' confidence in the economy has improved considerably since before the 2024 election, according to a new survey.

Gallup recorded a 9-point improvement in Americans' confidence in the economy in its first poll since the Republican election sweep, with President-elect Donald Trump winning back the White House and the GOP securing control of both chambers of Congress.

The poll, conducted between November 6 and 20, found Americans now rank their confidence in the economy at -17, up from -26 in October. The survey was conducted among a sample of 1,001 adults living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The economy was the top issue for voters in November's election, with polling consistently finding that voters were pessimistic about its state. A survey conducted on behalf of Newsweek in October found that more than half of Americans believed the economy was heading in the wrong direction.

According to Gallup, about 36 percent of Americans now believe the economy is improving, up from 32 percent in October. Fifty-five percent think it's getting worse, down from 62 percent in October.

Gallup found that 26 percent now rate the economy as excellent or good, up just 1 percent from October. Thirty-two percent say it's fair, up 3 points since October, while 40 percent say it's poor—down 6 points since October.

The higher confidence in the economy is being driven by Republicans, according to Gallup. Their confidence in the economy has gone up 29 points since October, from -72 to -43. Independents' confidence in the economy went up nine points to -25, but Democrats' confidence 10 points since October to +27.

Gallup noted that it measured similar party shifts when President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

"Republicans' views about national conditions are likely to become increasingly positive in the coming months, while Democrats' opinions will likely sour," Gallup wrote. "Once Trump and the Republican Congress are installed in their offices in early 2025, Republicans' assessments of the economy, state of the nation and federal leaders are expected to surpass those of Democrats."

Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Northeastern University, said the shifts are likely reflecting the outcome of the election than any meaningful change in the economy.

"These shifts are likely fueled mainly by renewed optimism among Trump supporters in the aftermath of his victory," Panagopoulos told Newsweek.

"They likely reflect views about the election outcome more so than any meaningful economic assessments. The economy doesn't change that quickly, and there have been no major changes in key economic indicators to justify big changes in perceptions of the economy. These opinion shifts reveal just how deeply economic views are intertwined with political preferences and attitudes."

[tomorrowusa]

Democratss haven't been this enthusiastic since February of 2008.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely driving the surge in enthusiasm nationally. In March, 55% of Democrats and Democratic leaners said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting; now, 78% are. Republicans and Republican leaners, who held a slight edge in enthusiasm in March, now trail Democrats by a significant margin, with their current 64% enthusiasm score up slightly from 59% in the spring. [ ... ] Democrats’ current level of enthusiasm is one percentage point shy of the group’s high in Gallup’s trend since 2000. That was the 79% measured in February 2008, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were engaged in a spirited battle for the party’s presidential nomination. Enthusiasm subsided later that year, but by the end of the campaign, consistently more than seven in 10 said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting. Democratic enthusiasm was also elevated during the 2004 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

Republican enthusiasm has increased too, but much less than that of Democrats.

Enthusiasm is bound to spike when you have somebody to be enthusiastic about. With Republicans, they are just pushing a stale rerun which was bad the first time it was aired.

Enthusiasm is nice, but it's votes which win elections. Ask people you know if they're registered to vote. If they aren't, guide them through the process. Remind them that if they have moved since the last election that they need to register at their new address.

[warsofasoiaf]

How much do you think a Kamala presidency would differ from Biden's, if any? Would there be a difference with the foreign policy (Israel)?

From a foreign policy perspective, while I do think Harris would be rhetorically harsher on Israel, ultimately I don't see a large change in US foreign policy toward Israel. Public polling in the US favors Israel over Palestine by a significant degree, according to Gallup and Pew at least. Her likely electoral strategy will be to pivot toward centrists, independents, and swing voters (she's going to probably pick Josh Shapiro for her running mate if she believes she needs to secure PA's electoral votes, or Mark Kelly if she thinks she has them already), so I don't predict a substantive change for something that would be so unpopular.

She has said that top foreign policy officials are not likely to return, so no Blinken, Austen, or Jake Sullivan, and she's likely to tap Gordon as her NSA. Whether this means ending the Jake Sullivan school of thought - the absolute fear of Russian escalation that allows Russia to largely commit acts against the West with the tepidest of finger wags is unknown. Russia tried to target US personnel in France according to Le Monde and no one has done much of anything. She's likely to be at least a mild hawk on China and Russia, but that means little.

In the coming days, you'd probably expect her to release policy papers and vision statements to get a grasp of her 2024 policy ideas, which would include foreign policy.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King