2024 ELECTION THREAD

Industrial england was better than farmers england for the people, otherwise the farmers would have stayed in the fields don't you think? it's not like they were deported to forcibly work in factories.

Pretty insane to claim that workers were better off in the fields

And, there wasn't the money to give the benefits you think are "due" anyway.

My only claim is that it is not ideal to leave everything up to the free market (i.e. in fact an oligopoly of land owners/factory owners and nowadays walmart/amazon/whatever), but I am not nearly as keen to discuss the topic as you are

I have a fairly strong libertarian bent, and I agree with you that it's not ideal to leave everything up to the free market. There are a lot of things the government needs to do that the free market isn't going to; it's about who's doing what and having the right balance.

If you spend your entire waking life (other than eating) reading labour regulations (and related jurisprudence), and not a single new line is written in your lifetime, you won't be able to read them all.

But surely the objection to regulations destroying quality of life is "absolute unregulated free market is bad"

The industrial revolution and the end of feudalism meant there were less farming jobs, so people had to move to cities to find work in factories, regardless of what their preference was.

Just reflecting, Trump's campaign will probably go down as the greatest ever ran. Pure genius how he pivoted from previous campaigns and completely embraced long form podcasts and shunned legacy media.

this is possibly the biggest alt-right MAGA account (and an hardcore antisemite i might add), and he is angry with the picks, which i suppose should be a very good sign for everyone else

I wouldn't say he shunned legacy media. If anyone shunned legacy media it was kamala, but that was more about her campaign trying to hide her from voters vs choosing the types of media to cater too.

Someone ITT a few days ago asked if Kamala would have had a shot if biden would have got terminal cancer ~50 days before the election and she became the nominee and the answers is she would have been a big favorite. As it played out she was killing it early on in the polls and with the bettors until voters started to get to know her.

Some fair criticisms but we do have to keep in mind what he said at first… everyone is going to have their own interpretation. Look at victor, he was saying kamala sucked because she threw trans people under the bus.

I do agree it’s both too much and also not based on reality despite the far left trans activists insisting it’s settled science.

Its not that his campaign was great, it was good. he had some good stints like McDonalds as a **** you to harris' jab about working and whatnot , that was clever

but the republicans got a lot wiser after 2022 all these ****ing lunatic ban abortion candidates got destroyed so trump went out and jus emphasized he wand it to be a "states right" while its still dogshit, he made that clear and also after 2021 when even des were saying border was an issue he really heated up that rhetoric.

I think his staff di a great job at dissecting some talking points and learning from that dogshit **** show y reds of 2022

Recency bias imo. He did some good things but is it better than Regan, Clinton, Obama, FDR, Kennedy? We had some great campaigns in the last 100 years.

Probably more likely it'll be seen as a Harris failure.

I think it was pretty nice for the aristocracy. Especially the men

It's all showbiz. That's how you got a reality TV star as President.

No other country afaik is so obsessed with dissecting and comparing campaigns after the event.

What factory owners?

We have regular elections in this country which is not the norm in parliamentary systems to my understanding, so it gives more opportunity for a long campaign season.

No that's not the reason. Americans love slop served up by Hollywood and would be disappointed if election campaigns had any more depth.

If your opponent makes some asinine claim about having worked in McDonalds once, decades ago, what do you do? Put on a McDonalds uniform of course and get a campaign video out showing you frying some chips.

This

Nah, plenty of room for 2 term presidents who aren't insane or have dementia.

In parliamentary system when elections are irregular it's because they are even more frequent that rules would ask for, in Italy we basically live in a perennial electoral campaign.

Between political (parliamentary) elections at most every 5 years (often sooner), local elections (almost every year at least some regions out of 20 have a vote, and some major city ad well for mayor), and European elections (every 5 years, distinct cycle from parliament) + referenda (like propositions) when they happen, which don't usually overlap with the rest, we vote all the times , there is always a "barometer check" on governing parties and so on.

For example my region (rich and important) votes this weekend for governor because the previous governor got elected in the European parliament this summer

100% of presidents in the last 32 years who haven't shown obvious signs of mental decline have won a 2nd term. Every time a president has gone for a second term the opposing party has attempted to nominate someone they think is better.

I'm not so sure Romney was a valid attempt in 2012.

It was valid until he claimed 48% of the country were trash

It was a very good campaign. He was massively outspent and still crushed. That should be kind of a silver line for everyone. Being able to go on a podcast, act like a human and express your ideas is worth more than a massive amount of TV ads funded by special interests. If that's the new way, it's good for 99% of us.

Trump wasn't even that good at it, by most accounts. But was at least willing to do it. Vance is very good at it.

But this also correlates with another thing. Outside of old, UMC people who still watch meet the press, most view the system as broken. Corporate media and the Harris campaign are predicated on the system being great, because for them, it is.

My dad went to a mediocre college and when he graduated there was a big recruitment fair and he selected the good paying job he wanted. My mom taught and they bought a lovely house at 24.

That country is gone for most. Vance maybe FOS but he is providing an account of why this is happening and how it can be fixed by taking on powerful interests and making long term changes.

20k for your first home sounds nice, but it's just a campaign promise that probably wouldn't be fulfilled. It's not a fundamental change. It's not fixing the problem.

So these long form, deeper discussions and higher levels of info being online, match up with a political moment in which people dislike the status quo and want to hear about why things have become so bad and alternative options. 30 second ads or interviews with 1 minute, scripted responses are incapable of doing this.

I don't think many politicians on either side are well suited to this.