#scandal electoral

[crossbordercroniclesro]

Schimbare istorică pe 5 noiembrie? Kamala Harris, aproape de victorie! Trump lăsat în umbră, într-un scenariu șocant care poate transforma America!

Astăzi, 4 noiembrie, întreaga lume urmărește cu sufletul la gură ce va aduce ziua de mâine în Statele Unite. Cu o atmosferă tensionată și declarații explozive care pun sub semnul întrebării corectitudinea alegerilor, în seara de 5 noiembrie s-ar putea anunța ceva de necrezut: Kamala Harris, declarată câștigătoare, pe cale să devină prima femeie președinte al Americii! Dar la ce cost? Mulți…

[carolinanadeau]

the far-left is ALREADY doing the "she's a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign" bit and buddy that's not going to stick this time. like I can make up shit with no evidence, too. why isn't the blame ever on the plurality of Americans who are awful and/or brainwashed enough to vote for T***p? (not that there is yet a NEED for blame because nothing has HAPPENED yet and we're not being doomers!!!)

[quillsword]

Harris IS Losing

The three of you who have followed me for more than a week will probably already know that I believed Harris was in fact behind despite what the polling seemed to indicate. Tune in Friday for the long version of why polls are so bad, but today I’m basing my new assessment on a different piece of evidence. I am now convinced that Harris is trailing much worse than we have been lead to…

[tmarshconnors]

Labour Party Landslide Imminent..

As the political landscape continues to shift and evolve, there's a growing sense of déjà vu reminiscent of the historic 1997 General Election. Back then, the Labour Party, under the leadership of Tony Blair, achieved a monumental landslide victory, ending 18 years of Conservative rule. Fast forward to the present day, and many political pundits are speculating whether we're on the brink of witnessing a similar political upheaval.

The current state of affairs certainly seems to be favouring the Labour Party. Which I am wholeheartedly against but let’s face simple facts with widespread dissatisfaction over the Conservative government's handling of various issues ranging from the economy to english channel migrant crossings, there's a palpable sense of disillusionment among voters. I mean they don’t even act like “proper” conservatives. In all truth I can’t tell them apart anymore. Cause let’s face it we obviously are locked in a two party system for the foreseeable future.

As I have gotten older I won’t lie I have grown extremely cynical about politics and yes I do have some very strong views by some. I have always quoted the great classical Greek philosopher Plato “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” But here’s the sad blunt truth is my party the Conservative Party have been in power longer than any party since the war. We need to show that we are not stagnating, that we are capable of self-renewal sadly that isn’t happening at all. It’s making me question. “Why should I bother to vote anymore?”

Furthermore, the Conservative Party's internal divisions and scandals have further eroded confidence in their ability to govern effectively. From controversies surrounding leadership decisions to accusations of cronyism and corruption, the Tories are grappling with internal strife that threatens to undermine their electoral prospects. Against this backdrop, Labour appears as a beacon of stability and integrity, offering a viable alternative to the status quo. I feel no compunction at all they have well and truly brought all of this upon themselves.

Another crucial factor working in Labour's favour is the shifting demographics of the electorate. As younger, more diverse voters come of age, they bring with them a set of values and priorities that align closely with Labour's progressive platform. Issues such as climate change, social equality, and healthcare resonate strongly with this demographic, providing Labour with a natural advantage in winning their support. Younger voters most seem to be very naive about politics.

Of course, it's important to acknowledge that predicting election outcomes is always fraught with uncertainty. Political landscapes can change rapidly, and unforeseen events or developments could alter the trajectory of the race. Nevertheless, if current trends persist, it's not difficult to envision a scenario where Labour secures a landslide victory reminiscent of 1997. I mean I could be wrong and maybe just maybe the Conservatives will be reelected to power.

In conclusion, the parallels between the present moment and the historic 1997 General Election are striking. The writing is on the wall. With the Labour Party gaining momentum and the Conservative Party facing mounting challenges, the stage seems set for a seismic shift in British politics. While nothing is certain in politics, one thing is clear: the winds of change are blowing, and come election day, we may witness a decisive mandate for Labour that reshapes the course of the nation. As for myself when the time comes. I shall be voting for the Reform Party led by Richard Tice.

One more thing…

Never forget that exercising your right to vote are crucial steps toward making a difference. I firmly believe in that.

[marvelsmostwanted]

Today in 🍂✨October surprises✨🍂

• Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and Secretary of Labor Julie Su quietly assisted in winning labor rights for dockworkers, ending a strike that could have had catastrophic economic consequences. (10-4-24)

• In Springfield, Ohio, where Haitian migrants have been blamed for the disappearance of local animals with Trump claiming “‘migrants are walking off’ with geese in the town” and “they’re eating the dogs” - a lie also promoted by JD Vance, Ohio’s own sitting Senator, with no evidence - it turns out that the missing geese were actually the victims of a 64-year-old white man who was hunting illegally. (10-3-24)

• A Trump-appointed federal judge blocked Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan again after another judge reinstated it earlier this week. (10-3-24)

• Republicans and crazy Facebook uncles everywhere have spent this week spreading disinformation about the FEMA response to Hurricane Helene, including AI photos of Trump standing in floodwater and wild claims that Biden is sending money to undocumented immigrants. In reality, the Biden-Harris administration has provided substantial emergency assistance and both Biden and Harris have visited the region. Meanwhile, it turns out that Trump was the one who redirected money from disaster relief to send to ICE during his presidency. Shocker. (10-4-24)

• Seriously, though, Trump is not who you want to call in an emergency. Before allowing disaster relief to reach victims of wildfires in California, then-president Trump forced aides to show him an electoral map to see if he had voters there. He evidently intended to withhold the aid if he found out it was going to mostly Democratic voters. This would be a career-ending scandal in any other political era but alas, we are living in this one. (10-3-24)

• Finally, far-right extremist and Oklahoma superintendent of schools Ryan Walters intends to put Bibles in public schools, which is already disturbing, but in a stunning display of corruption, the only ones that meet his specifications are the so-called “Trump Bibles” that include the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They go for $60 apiece and Trump gets fees from each one. (10-4-24)

No, wait, I’m going to say that one again:

In Oklahoma, taxpayers’ money will be used to put Trump Bibles in public schools. Their money will go directly to Trump. Not a joke!!! Not an exaggeration!!!

…Surely the voters who are still undecided are lying, right?? Right?!

30 days until Election Day.

Go to vote.org for a sample ballot, early voting dates, and more. Seriously, we have to win.

[poetryqueer]

I love Shonda Rhimes she truly said what if gay people were in my show and they were terrible in the straightest ways and engaged in mutual babytrapping

[qqueenofhades]

I understand how important it is to be able to criticize the President, and am not at all of the belief he should be beyond critique, but the critiquing of Biden makes me so nervous. (That's not to say I agree with every decision he's made - I absolutely do not). But I feel like people see things he's done wrong and decide they won't vote for him because of it. I'm not sure if enough people have the ability to see that he's done things wrong but also is our only hope of staving off literal fascism.

So many people talk about how sick they are of it constantly being a lesser of two evils situation, constantly having to vote for a candidate they hate because the other side is worse (I heard it in 2020, 2022, etc), and I guess I just- I don't really get it? We're here because they didn't do that in 2016. All of this could've been avoided had the result been different then. I just feel like people don't comprehend how different of a place we'd be in if Hillary won and engage in all this cognitive dissonance to make themselves feel better about being part of the reason she didn't.

Like.... this has been a long-running topic of discussion on my blog, not least because it is so inexplicable and maddening. It also shows how terribly shallow most people's understanding of the American political process is, and how toxic the "I can only vote for a candidate if every single personal belief/position of theirs matches mine" belief is, as well as how much damage it has done to American democracy even (and indeed, especially) by people who technically don't identify as right-wing. Yell at Republicans all you like (God knows I do, because they're the worst people on earth) but they vote. Every time. Every election. Every candidate. Whereas the Democratic electorate still holds out for Mister Perfect, and it very definitely is Mister Perfect. The amount of "evil HRC!!!" Republican-poisoned Kool-Aid that so-called progressives drank in 2016, and then afterward when they insisted they could have voted for someone like Elizabeth Warren and then didn't do that in 2020, is... baffing.

Frankly, I don't care if Hillary Clinton's personal positions on XYZ issue were the most Neoliberal Corporate Centrist Shill to Ever Shill (and Online Leftists' intellectual skills being what they are, I seriously doubt that they were using any of those words correctly and/or accurately). American policy is not made by "personal dictate of the ruler," or at least it shouldn't be, because we are not an absolute monarchy. We rely on the operation of a system with input from many people. As such, if Hillary had been elected, we would have 2-3 new liberal justices on SCOTUS and have secured civil and environmental rights for the next generation. Roe would be intact, and all the other terrible rulings that SCOTUS has recently handed down wouldn't have happened. We wouldn't have had January 6th, the attempt to stage a coup, all the tawdry scandals, our national security being at risk because of Trump stealing classified documents and probably selling them to Russia and/or Saudi Arabia, etc etc. If you think that's in any way an equivalent amount of evil to what would have happened if Hillary was elected, or if she was "still evil!!!," then I honestly don't know what to tell you. She could fucking murder puppies in her spare time if she had preserved SCOTUS for us, WHICH SHE WOULD HAVE, BECAUSE SHE WARNED US EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

(Hoo. Sorry. Still steamed. 2016 war flashbacks, again.)

In short, Hillary would have been a solid continuity Democrat and she would have signed whatever legislation a Democratic House and Senate passed, not to mention been hugely inspiring as the first female president. But because it's so important to the Online Leftists' moral sense of themselves that BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!, they can't possibly acknowledge that ever being a factor, and/or admit that they have any culpability in not voting for her in 2016. It's like when you read the British press about any of the UK's equally numerous problems, and they BEND OVER BACKWARD to avoid mentioning that Brexit might be a factor. They just can't mention it, because then that means they might have made the wrong choice in pulling for it as hard as they did, and blah blah Sovereignty.

Basically, if HRC had been elected president, everything would be so much less terrible and terrifying all the time, we would be talking about her successor in 2024 as someone else who could be the "first," we could explore handing the reins over to Kamala as a Black/Asian woman, we could promote Buttigieg as the first gay president, etc etc. But because 2016 was so catastrophically fucked up, we are in damage control mode for the immediate future and every election is just as pivotal. And yet, because people think that the only thing that matters is a presidential candidate's personal views, we're stuck having the same old arguments and desperately begging people over and over to please vote against fascism, since that somehow isn't self-evident enough on its own. Yikes on Bikes.

[finnglas]

So I can't remember if I voted in the 2016 election.

I voted in the primaries, I remember that. For Bernie actually. I didn't like Hillary; I fell for the decades of smear campaigns. The right wing has been shining a spotlight on any real, perceived, or straight up fabricated less than savory detail about her since she was a political advocate in college in Arkansas who insisted on wearing pants when pants were not "professional" for women. And I, old enough to know better, fell for it.

2015 and 2016 were two of the hardest personal years of my life. I had lost my job, my cats had been super sick, we'd spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to pinpoint a mysterious health problem my partner was having, my mom had to have surgery on a crushed vertebrae -- there was a lot. I was exhausted, I wasn't excited by the Democratic candidate, and the polls all said Hillary had it in the bag. I meant to vote. I thought about it. But to this day, I don't know if I actually did. I have a sneaking suspicion that I didn't, that I ran out of time because I kept putting it off. My memory has trauma shaped holes in it, though, and I don't know for sure.

I do remember the gut punch of the election results though. I remember the breath stealing feeling of panic. I remember writing electors and asking them not to certify. I remember donating to Jill fucking Stein who said she was going to sue over the scandal with the voting machines.

(She did not; she kept that money for herself like the grifter she is.)

Most of all I remember crying for the entire month of January, because I knew what a Trump presidency meant. I watched as multiple queer and trans friends contemplated - and in some cases, carried through - plans for suicide because they were so terrified for what would happen to them under that government. (Note: I understand the impulse, but please do not do their job for them if you can help it. They don't deserve that and neither do you.) The trauma of several online contacts not existing anymore because they took what they saw as an emergency exit.

And I don't remember if I voted. I am haunted by the suspicion that I and others like me simply were not excited about the candidate we had, and had other concerns that took precedence. We relied on everyone else showing up in our place. Friends, there is no one else to show up in your place. You are the only person who can cast your vote.

If I could go back to 2016 now, I would drag my ass off the couch and go stand in line for however long it took, because not voting means I was complicit. It means I did not stand in the way of the damage I saw coming. I did not take what action was available to me to prevent or reduce harm.

I will never do that again. And honestly? You shouldn't either. There is no scenario in which handing over our basic safety without even the bare minimum of resistance is the moral high ground. It is just regret waiting to happen.

I know what I'm talking about on this one, ok?

Thanks for listening.

[marxistlesbianist]

It seems to me that the propensity of socialist orgs in the US to sink into covering up sexual abuse scandals emerges from the method of volunteerism that is basically universal in political organizing here. At a queer community center I used to be involved in, there was a long-standing member who had to stop going to events because their abusive ex-boyfriend ingratiated himself in the organization. My friend who is still on their board tells me that the people involved would mostly like the man gone, but begrudgingly put up with him because he is one of the most consistent volunteers, contributing far beyond what the survivor was themselves physically capable of. This is, of course, liberal nonsense, of the specific type that arises when the goal of hosting a pride event in the suburbs each year takes precedent over community empowerment. In short, it is opportunism. And whilst I haven’t personally witnessed an ML group mishandle a sexual abuse scandal, from the accounts I have read/heard, I suspect the mechanism is similar.

What I see “leftists”—including many self-proclaimed communists—in the US fail to grasp is that it is necessary for a revolutionary organization to always be building within the masses the social base for its action. A revolution cannot be made by a mere handful of dedicated individuals, and any organization running entirely off of the work of such few volunteers is treading on dangerously unstable grounds. Of course, dedicated individuals are still going to be important for an organization, but more important is a connection to the masses which allows such individuals to be found. In crude terms: everyone must be replaceable. This is for many reasons, not the least of which is that you have to be able to recall from power anyone who commits sexual abuse.

Ultimately this means that the actions of an organization shouldn’t go far beyond what the masses are themselves currently capable of accomplishing. Disruptive protests and union efforts are methods of struggle which are readily accessible to the masses, whilst education campaigns and community survival programs simultaneously increase the fighting capacity of the masses and also to deepen the party’s ties to the people. Even when the movement reaches the point of full revolutionary war, this can only be accomplished if the masses are at the point of being able to support a people’s army. Small guerrilla cells in communities with low class consciousness are perhaps able to frustrate/disrupt the capitalist state, but not overthrow it. When Newton and Seale founded the Black Panther Party, the tactic of armed patrols was decided upon as a means of demonstrating to the community how they could use the weapons they already possessed.

When an organization commits ultra-leftist errors, it risks isolating itself from the people not just ideologically but materially. The org leaps beyond where the people can/will follow, and, divorced from the motive force of history, inevitably stumbles and falls. The way to avoid this, of course, is for an organization to take proper stock of its present manpower, and to set actionable goals with an eye toward expanding their social base—the predominant method in US orgs, conversely, seems to be a sort of opportunistic ultra-leftism, where the active capacity of the masses is overstepped in service of symbolic/electoral goals which on their own do nothing to advance the political power of the working class.

Which . . . fuck. Typing that last sentence out really fills me with frustration and despair. What gives me the slightest bit of hope is reading about how these tendencies have manifested in the history of every attempted communist revolution, with the successful ones demonstrating not how to avoid such errors entirely, but how to overcome them!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Maybe you’ve been asking yourself:

1. “How could Donald Trump have won 51 percent of the popular vote?”

2. “How hard is it to immigrate to New Zealand?”

3. “What the actual fuck?”

Fair questions. Let’s try a thought experiment. Could Tuesday’s election results have been any worse?

Well, what if, instead of 51 percent, the Republican nominee had won 59 percent? Or 61 percent? And what if he had won 49 states?

Those aren’t hypotheticals. Those were the results of the 1972 and 1984 landslides that reelected Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

With thumping victories like those, what could possibly go wrong for the winners?

If history’s any guide, some nasty surprises await Donald Trump.

In 1972, the Democratic presidential nominee, George McGovern, won just 37.5 percent of the vote, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia for a total of 17 Electoral College votes. He didn’t even win his home state, South Dakota.

In 1984, Democrat Walter Mondale did carry his native Minnesota, but that was as good as it got for him. In the Electoral College, he fared even worse than McGovern, with a whopping 13 votes.

In the aftermath of these thrashings, the Democratic Party lay in smoldering ruins, and Republicans looked like indestructible conquerors.

Now, some might argue that those GOP victories, though statistically more resounding than Trump’s, weren’t nearly as alarming, because he’s a criminal and wannabe autocrat.

But Trump’s heinousness shouldn’t make us nostalgic for Nixon and Reagan. They were also criminals—albeit unindicted ones. And they were up to all manner of autocratic shit—until they got caught.

The Watergate scandal was only one small part of the sprawling criminal enterprise that Nixon directed from the Oval Office in order to subvert democracy. For his part, Reagan’s contribution to the annals of presidential crime, Iran-Contra, broke myriad laws and violated Constitutional norms.

The hubris engendered by both men’s landslides propelled them to reckless behavior in their second terms—behavior that came back to haunt them. Nixon was forced to resign the presidency; Reagan was lucky to escape impeachment.After the Watergate scandal forced Richard Nixon from office, this bumper sticker helped Massachusetts voters brag that they handed him his only Electoral College loss in 1972.

Of course, Trump would be justified in believing that no matter how reckless he becomes, he’ll never pay a price. He’s already been impeached—twice—only to be acquitted by his Republican toadies in the Senate. And now that the right-wing supermajority of the Supreme Court has adorned him with an immunity idol, he’ll likely feel free to commit crimes that Nixon and Reagan could only dream of. Who’ll stop him from using his vast power to persecute his voluminous list of enemies?

Well, the enemy most likely to thwart Trump in his second term might be one who isn’t on his list: himself. The seeds of Trump’s downfall may reside in two promises he made to win this election: the mass deportation of immigrants and the elimination of inflation.

Trump’s concept of a plan to deport 20 million immigrants is as destined for success as were two of his other brainchildren, Trump University and Trump Steaks. The US doesn’t have anything approaching the law-enforcement capacity to realize this xenophobic fever dream.

And as for Trump’s war on inflation, the skyrocketing prices caused by his proposed tariffs will make Americans nostalgic for pandemic-era price-gouging on Charmin.

It's possible that Trump’s 24/7 disinformation machine, led by Batman villains Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, will prevent his MAGA followers from ever discovering that 20 million immigrants didn’t go anywhere. And it’s possible that if inflation spikes, he’ll find a scapegoat for that. (Nancy Pelosi? Dr. Fauci? Taylor Swift?)

And, yes, it’s possible that Trump will somehow accomplish his goal of becoming America’s Kim Jong Un, and our democracy will go belly-up like the Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City.

But I wouldn’t bet on it. I tend to agree with the British politician Enoch Powell (1912-1998), who observed that all political careers end in failure. I doubt that Trump, with his signature blend of inattention, impulsiveness, and incompetence, will avoid that fate.

And when the ketchup hits the fan, the MAGA movement may suddenly appear far more fragmented and fractious than it does this week. You can already see the cracks. Two towering ignoramuses like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert should be BFFs, but they despise each other—the only policy of theirs I agree with.

If things really go south, expect MAGA Republicans to devour each other as hungrily as the worm who feasted on RFK Jr.’s brain—and that, my friends, will be worth binge-watching. I’m stocking up on popcorn now before Trumpflation makes it unaffordable.

One parting thought. Post-election, the mainstream media’s hyperbolic reassessment of Trump—apparently, he’s now a political genius in a league with Talleyrand and Metternich—has been nauseating. It’s also insanely short-sighted. Again, a look at the not-so-distant past is instructive.

In 1984, after Reagan romped to victory with 59 percent of the popular vote and 525 electoral votes, Reaganism was universally declared an unstoppable juggernaut. But only two years later, in the 1986 midterms, Democrats proved the pundits wrong: they regained control of both the House and Senate for the first time since 1980. Those majorities enabled them to slam the brakes on Ronnie’s right-wing agenda, block the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork, and investigate Iran-Contra.

The lesson of the 1986 midterms is clear: the game’s far from over and there’s everything to play for. If we want to stem the tide of autocracy and kleptocracy, restore women’s rights and protect the most vulnerable, we don’t have the luxury of despair. The work starts now.

Andy Borowitz

[jadagul]

Matt Yglesias has a point he likes to make about progressive attitudes towards political platforms. Basically all the progressive activists realize that Republican candidates benefit electorally from moderating (or appearing to moderate); but they seem to resist claims that Democrats would benefit similarly. E.g. from today's post about Kamala Harris:

9. To win, Harris needs to find ways to moderate her image, and critically, she is going to have to be allowed to do that by her supporters. 10. Donald Trump is in many ways a bad politicians and a bad candidate. His numbers are terrible, his manner is off-putting, and his record is plagued with scandal. But his “be allowed to do that” score is off the charts. If it’s convenient for him to start saying nicer things about electric cars in exchange for Elon Musk’s money, he does that. If it’s convenient for him to pretend the Republican Party isn’t deeply committed to banning abortion, he does that. 11. Every progressive I know recognizes that these Trumpian stabs at moderation are good for Trump, and that it’s good for the left to try to expose them as lies. The progressives who recognize that need to see the symmetry here.

I think he's right about this, but I understand why a lot of progressives aren't convinced by this. Yglesias describes Trump's abortion position as "moderating", but you could also describe it as moving to the left.

I think a lot of progressive activists really believe that leftist progressivism is genuinely popular in the US. (It's not! But they believe it.) So they believe that Republicans would benefit electorally from shifting to the left, and that Democrats would benefit electorally from shifting to the left. This is why you get all those things about "Democrats would win if they'd just take a firm stance in favor of liberating Palestine and launching a single-payer health care system" or whatever the topics du jour are.

Like, this is badly wrong. It does not accurately describe the American political landscape. But it's an internally coherent model that (1) explains why Republicans benefit from moderating but (2) wouldn't expect Democrats to benefit from moderating.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Bolsonaro Planned, Acted in, and Oversaw Coup Plot, Says Federal Police

Final report on the coup scheme investigation declassified by Justice Alexandre de Moraes

Former President Jair Bolsonaro led the coup plot at the end of 2022, and the democratic rupture was not carried out due to "circumstances beyond his control," according to the Federal Police's final report on the attempted coup.

"The evidence obtained during the investigation unequivocally demonstrates that the then-President of the Republic, JAIR MESSIAS BOLSONARO, planned, acted, and directly and effectively controlled the execution of acts carried out by the criminal organization aimed at implementing a coup d'état and abolishing the Democratic Rule of Law—an outcome thwarted by circumstances beyond his control," the report states.

Bolsonaro, declared ineligible by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) until 2030 for attacks and lies about the electoral system, has been indicted this year by the Federal Police in three investigations: the jewelry scandal, the falsification of COVID-19 vaccination certificates, and now, the coup attempt.

Continue reading.

[simply-ivanka]

Trump’s Comeback and What’s to Come

By Karl Rove

Wall Street Journal

It seemed impossible a year ago, but the success of America is again in his hands.

And so it ended, almost abruptly.

Many pundits—me included—expected days of uncertainty, vote counting and legal wrangling. But before sunrise Wednesday, it was over. Donald Trump engineered the most astonishing political comeback in American history.

The former and future president appears to have swept all seven battleground states. He also is well ahead of Kamala Harris in the national popular vote, 51% to 47.5% as of Wednesday afternoon. If he carries every state he now leads, he will have a more substantial Electoral College victory: 312 votes to her 226. That’s a clear mandate.

President-elect Trump achieved his victory by assembling a new coalition. He added to the GOP’s traditional base working-class noncollege voters of all races; young voters, especially young men; the biggest share of the Hispanic vote since at least 2004; and the largest black percentage for Republicans in decades. He expanded his majorities in rural counties and small towns while building his numbers in cities and suburbs. His percentage of the vote ballooned in blue states like New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

Mr. Trump created this coalition by opposing Biden-Harris policies on the economy, inflation, the border and wokeness while promising to restore America’s greatness. He was aided by the sense that the economy was better and more prosperous when he was in office. And with two-thirds of Americans believing our country was on the wrong course, he became the change candidate.

When his re-election journey began in 2022, it seemed impossible to all but him, his family and true believers that he would win. The lawsuits, indictments and later the conviction would have doomed any other candidacy.

But he persevered, and his supporters grew in numbers. He knew what appealed to people in a way others—including me—didn’t see. A friend explained it to me on Monday as we walked a New York street. Pointing to nearby construction workers, he said the former president cares about people like them and they feel that. Millions of Americans who don’t believe politicians care about them, their challenges and their aspirations see Mr. Trump as their champion.

Mr. Trump also benefited from the mental and physical incapacity of the sitting president seeking a second term. It’s a scandal that Joe Biden and his inner circle thought it was in the country’s best interest that he run when he had declined so precipitously. They hid the fact that age had robbed Mr. Biden of what America needed in the Oval Office.

Challenges await Mr. Trump. The international scene is chaotic and dangerous, from Ukraine to Taiwan to the Middle East. He will have a Republican Senate but there’s still a slim chance of a Democratic House. It will likely take days to settle the final contests in California that may determine which party has the lower chamber’s majority.

America remains deeply polarized, and some of Mr. Trump’s proposed policies—such as the expensive sales taxes that his tariff ideas constitute—could prove unpopular. This could boomerang on him in the 2026 midterms. And second terms are rarely easy.

Early Wednesday morning Mr. Trump promised: “Every citizen, I will fight for you, for your family and your future.” He pledged “with every breath in my body, I will not rest until we have delivered the strong, safe and prosperous America that our children deserve.”

If the new president focuses his prodigious energies on this, he can achieve good things in the next two years. But if he makes a priority of settling scores with opponents—which he promised to do during the campaign—he’ll waste his limited time and precious political capital.

But Mr. Trump will do it his way. In Trump 2.0, there will likely be more people urging him to hit the accelerator on whatever policy idea, good or bad, occurs to him than in his first term and fewer counseling him to pump the brakes.

Some of his ardent supporters play this down. They remind us of journalist Salena Zito’s admonition to take Mr. Trump seriously but not literally. She may have a point, but it should be a greater comfort to nervous Americans that the guardrails of our system of government remain strong and effective.

This is the moment when both victors and the defeated traditionally set aside the election’s acrimony and, even if briefly, give the incoming president a chance to start fresh. Mr. Trump is the only president America will have come January. We should all wish him godspeed and pray for wisdom in his efforts. Our nation’s success is once again tied to him.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Smith at The Guardian:

Losing an election for the highest office is a crushing blow that no candidate forgets. But when the American electorate delivers its verdict next week, the personal stakes for Donald Trump will be uniquely high. His fate will hover between the presidency and the threat of prison.

If he claims victory, Trump will be the first convicted criminal to win the White House and gain access to the nuclear codes. If he falls short, the 78-year-old faces more humiliating courtroom trials and potentially even time behind bars. It would be the end of a charmed life in which he has somehow always managed to outrun the law and duck accountability. For Trump, Tuesday is judgment day. “He branded himself as the guy who gets away with it,” said Gwenda Blair, a Trump biographer, adding that, should he lose, “he is facing a lot of moments of reckoning. He could go to jail. He could end up considerably less wealthy than he is. No matter what happens, and no matter whether he wins or loses, there will be a reckoning over his health. Death, ill health, dementia – those are things even he can’t escape.” The property developer and reality TV star has spent his career pushing ethical and legal boundaries to the limit, facing countless investigations, court battles and hefty fines. Worthy of a novel, his has been a life of scandal on a gargantuan scale.

In the 1970s Trump and his father were sued by the justice department for racial discrimination after refusing to rent apartments to Black people in predominantly white buildings. His property and casino businesses, including the Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza, filed for bankruptcy several times in the 1990s and early 2000s. Trump University, a business offering property training courses, faced multiple lawsuits for fraud, misleading marketing and false claims about the quality of its programmes. In 2016 Trump settled for $25m without admitting wrongdoing.

The Donald J Trump Foundation, a charitable organisation, was investigated and sued for allegedly using charitable funds for personal and business expenses. Trump eventually agreed to dissolve the foundation with remaining funds going to charity. Trump and his company were ordered to pay more than $350m in a New York civil fraud trial for artificially inflating his net worth to secure favourable loan terms. He is also known to have paid little to no federal income taxes in specific years which, although technically legal, was seen by some as bordering on unethical.

[...] He became the first president to be impeached twice, first for withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate his political opponents, then for instigating a coup on 6 January 2021 following his defeat. He also became the subject of not one but four criminal cases, any one of which would have been enough to scuttle the chances of any other White House hopeful. In May Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush-money payment to the adult film performer Stormy Daniels, making him the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes. Sentencing is scheduled for 26 November (the judge delayed it from 18 September after the Republican nominee asked that it wait until after the election). What was billed as the trial of the century has already begun to fade from public consciousness and played a relatively modest role in the election campaign. Jonathan Alter, a presidential biographer who was in court for every day of the trial, recalled: “I’ve covered some big stories over the years but there was nothing like the drama of watching the jury foreperson say, ‘Guilty, guilty, guilty’ 34 times and Donald Trump looking like he was punched in the gut.” Alter, who describes the experience in his new book, American Reckoning, reflects on how Trump has been able to act with impunity for so long. “It’s a combination of luck, galvanised defiance and the credulousness of a large chunk of the American people,” he said. “Demagoguery works. Playing on people’s fears works. It doesn’t work all the time but we can look throughout human history to political figures and how demagoguery and scapegoating ‘the other’ works.”

Alter, who covered the trial for Washington Monthly magazine, added: “We’ve had plenty of demagogues, scoundrels and conmen in politics below the level of president. Trump has been lucky to escape accountability but the United States has been lucky that we haven’t had something like this before. The founders were very worried about it. They felt we would face something like this for sure.” The US’s system of checks and balances has been racing to keep up. Trump was charged by the special counsel Jack Smith with conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss to Joe Biden in the run-up to the January 6 riot at the US Capitol. The former president and 18 others were also charged by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, with taking part in a scheme to overturn his narrow loss in Georgia. Trump was charged again by Smith with illegally retaining classified documents that included nuclear secrets, taken with him from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office in January 2021, and then obstructing government demands to give them back.

With a such a caseload, it was widely assumed that Trump would spend this election shuttling between rallies one day and trials the next. But the courtroom campaign never really happened since, true to past form, he found ways to throw sand in the gears of the legal system and put off his moment of reckoning.

Or he simply got lucky. In Georgia, it emerged that Willis had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor Nathan Wade, prompting demands that she be removed. Smith’s federal election case was thrown off track for months by a supreme court ruling that presidents have immunity for official actions taken in office. The classified documents case was thrown out by Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, although Smith is appealing and the charges could be reinstated. Such delays have made it easier to forget just how much of an outlier Trump is. Past presidential brushes with the law consisted of Ulysses S Grant being fined for speeding his horse-drawn carriage in Washington and Harry Truman receiving a ticket for driving his car too slowly on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1953. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached over the Watergate scandal and was subsequently pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford. Meanwhile the standard for presidential aspirants has been high. Joe Biden’s first run for the White House fell apart amid allegations that he had plagiarised a speech by Britain’s Labour leader Neil Kinnock. During the 2000 campaign, a last-minute revelation that Republican candidate George W Bush had a drunk driving conviction that he concealed for 24 years generated huge headlines and was seen as a possible gamechanger. Hillary Clinton still blames her 2016 defeat on an FBI investigation into her email server that produced no charges.

For Donald Trump, his run for the “Presidency” is all about avoiding any possible jail time for his indictments and felonies. If he loses, then Trump could be facing more trials and potentially jail time and/or massive fines.

Send Trump to prison, not the White House!

#TrumpForPrison #HarrisWalz2024

[elbiotipo]

Also, this has already happened, several times. The US supreme court awarded the presidency to George Bush in 2000 (and we all know what happened after), even though Al Gore had a lead on the popular vote, small lead but lead nonetheless, the (unelected) court said the whole state of Florida would go to Bush and that's that. Worth noting, like always, that the electoral college awards entire states to a single candidate, so even if those states had people voting for others (as it happens everywhere) they are completely unrepresented.

Same, and worse, happened in 2016, Hillary had 48% to Trump's 46%. In ANY other democractic election, a 2% lead is a clear win. But because of the electoral college, Trump won nonetheless, and there was also a bunch of bullshit where some representatives of the electoral college didn't even vote for the candidates they were supposed to vote for. Again, in any other democracy around the world, this would have been a scandalous rigging.

Even in 2020 I remember that people were still thinking Trump could win, even as Biden led a 4% lead in the popular vote, just because of some electoral college shit. If you dive in US history you can find many other such cases.

This isn't even news to anyone who follows US, or indeed, world politics, but I still point it out because even for the standards of liberal democracies, the US is incredibly undemocratic and anachronistic. Not to mention the institutionalization of two parties (a two-party state, we could say) and the suppression of third parties, there are very, very few countries that claim to be a multi-party democracy and only have two parties. From an outsider persepective from a flawed but relatively working democracy, watching US elections is something bizarre.