The 2024 US presidential election.

[thenorthern]

The economy was the no.1 issue for voters and the Democrats didn't make it the core of their campaign (combined with not doing more on the price side of it, as the jobs and growth side was positive for them). I'd say that's the biggest failure (i.e. not focusing on voter's no.1 issue, regardless of what it is), the second being the debacle over changing candidates.

The media certainly played a part in it. Back in 2020 I remember an outlet (think it was the Guardian) published a positive story about Biden. A political commentator stated at the time "please don't turn 4 years of negative coverage into 4 years of flattery". While flattery is an exaggeration the media has been rather nice to the Biden administration which meant that he wasn't facing scrutiny on issues that were of concern for voters.

Take Biden's cognitive decline for instance. When he failed badly in the June debate many commentators then started raising concerns about Biden's cognitive ability. To many others though that wasn't really a shock and the shock was that commentators were only just noticing his decline. I remember when Biden finished a speech about Putin with "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power." which sounds like he is calling for regime change in Russia. At the time commentators were dismissing Biden's reckless remarks pointing out that in the senate it's common to say controversial things to get noticed and that Biden used to be a senator. Bear in mind Biden at the time hadn't been in the senate for 13 years. There were other incidents like referring to Zelenskyy as Putin, shaking someone's hand that wasn't there and finishing a speech about gun control in 2023 with "god save the queen man". All of these were dismissed as not an issue.

 

[brad465]

The media certainly played a part in it. Back in 2020 I remember an outlet (think it was the Guardian) published a positive story about Biden. A political commentator stated at the time "please don't turn 4 years of negative coverage into 4 years of flattery". While flattery is an exaggeration the media has been rather nice to the Biden administration which meant that he wasn't facing scrutiny on issues that were of concern for voters.

Take Biden's cognitive decline for instance. When he failed badly in the June debate many commentators then started raising concerns about Biden's cognitive ability. To many others though that wasn't really a shock and the shock was that commentators were only just noticing his decline. I remember when Biden finished a speech about Putin with "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power." which sounds like he is calling for regime change in Russia. At the time commentators were dismissing Biden's reckless remarks pointing out that in the senate it's common to say controversial things to get noticed and that Biden used to be a senator. Bear in mind Biden at the time hadn't been in the senate for 13 years. There were other incidents like referring to Zelenskyy as Putin, shaking someone's hand that wasn't there and finishing a speech about gun control in 2023 with "god save the queen man". All of these were dismissed as not an issue.

There is definitely a media problem in the world when it comes to holding power to account. Many outlets care more about spectacle than substance, and client journalism is rife. The US is arguably even worse than the UK for this, where corporate interests are stronger.

 

[nlogax]

There is definitely a media problem in the world when it comes to holding power to account. Many outlets care more about spectacle than substance, and client journalism is rife. The US is arguably even worse than the UK for this, where corporate interests are stronger.

It's not just a media problem. For media to be effective you need people willing to consume it, to listen, to read. We need to be accepting of most people not really caring that much.

 

[Harpo]

It's not just a media problem. For media to be effective you need people willing to consume it, to listen, to read. We need to be accepting of most people not really caring that much.

The post office scandal highlighted that here. In the media for decades but it took a television play to raise awareness. And make politicians give a xxxx.

Our own media exploits that by running biased and inflammatory headlines that are dubious representations of the facts, safe in the knowledge that many will nod along but few will question.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Take Biden's cognitive decline for instance. When he failed badly in the June debate many commentators then started raising concerns about Biden's cognitive ability. To many others though that wasn't really a shock and the shock was that commentators were only just noticing his decline.

Trump has been sane-washed for years though. The media were all over Biden's supposed mental decline but Trump's fairly obvious mental incapacity has just been dismissed as Donny being Donny.

It's not just a media problem. For media to be effective you need people willing to consume it, to listen, to read. We need to be accepting of most people not really caring that much.

The media could make politics engaging and interesting. They manage to make stories about whichever single-use plastic off TOWIE is sleeping with whichever single-use plastic off Love Island engaging and interesting.

Of course it suits the media owners' interests to avoid doing that, so they don't. They leave it so that people read the misleading headline and move on to the next bit of clickbait.

The question is whether, if Trump's second presidency turns out to be a disaster, that will cause a copycat collapse of the populist-right elsewhere, and, if so, how quickly?

The hard right and far right have no shortage of scapegoats to blame when it all goes wrong. Liz Truss still blames the "woke blob" for her spectactular failure. Of course she's a laughing stock thanks to the Daily Star but others of a similar ilk are absolutely not a laughing stock and will be able to credibly (if untruthfully) argue they were sabotaged.

If Trump's second presidency is a disaster then the people to blame will be "the elite" deliberately sabotaging Trump. And you can expect that the response to that will be increasingly violent rhetoric. As we saw at the Capitol in 2021, that's when the real scary stuff happens.

 

[87electric]

Our own media exploits that by running biased and inflammatory headlines that are dubious representations of the facts, safe in the knowledge that many will nod along but few will question.

Inflammatory headlines and bias for click bait because it generates income. I’d go as far to say words can be weaponised to coerce opinion. Fear sells. The pen is mightier than the sword and all that.
Decent journalism has been on the decline for years and it is no wonder that legacy media is dying, people have more opportunities to source info from elsewhere.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Decent journalism has been on the decline for years and it is no wonder that legacy media is dying, people have more opportunities to source info from elsewhere.

Journalism is dying because people won't pay for it. Decent journalism still exists where people are prepared to pay for it- Private Eye is doing as well as it ever was- but the internet has made it increasingly difficult to monetise decent journalism.

You only have to look at local newspaper websites run by Reach or Newsquest to see that much. Reach's websites are basically unusable because of all the adverts. Yet they only manage to make money from it because they've closed all their local newsrooms and essentially now just run a centralised clickbait factory.

As for "sourcing info from elsewhere", that is rather the problem these days.

 

[thenorthern]

One thing I did notice is that from the left wing in Europe there was a lot less enthusiasm for Kamala Harris this time compared to what there was for Joe Biden in 2020. I think that is partially because many left wing voices got a bit carried away with their support for Joe Biden in 2020 thinking he was left wing when in reality he is very centrist and on the right of the Democrats. Biden's stance on the Palestine conflict didn't help as in many ways he is more pro-Israel than Donald Trump is.

 

[trainswitheddy]

Biden's stance on the Palestine conflict didn't help as in many ways he is more pro-Israel than Donald Trump is.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

 

[brad465]

One thing I did notice is that from the left wing in Europe there was a lot less enthusiasm for Kamala Harris this time compared to what there was for Joe Biden in 2020. I think that is partially because many left wing voices got a bit carried away with their support for Joe Biden in 2020 thinking he was left wing when in reality he is very centrist and on the right of the Democrats. Biden's stance on the Palestine conflict didn't help as in many ways he is more pro-Israel than Donald Trump is.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

Biden is on record saying that the US would have to invent an Israel if there wasn't one to protect US interests in the region (first in 1986 as a Senator, but he's repeated it more recently):

As to whether Trump is more or less pro-Israel than Biden, it's hard to tell. Trump was the President who moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, an act that was widely condemned internationally, so has form for supporting them. We'll have to see how he approaches the matter on his return, but I'd say the two of them are not that far apart in their level of support for Israel, at the very in favour end of the spectrum.

 

[thenorthern]

Would you mind elaborating on this?

The 2017-21 Trump administration was ultra pro Israel with things such as recognising a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and recognising the occupied Golan Heights as part of Israel. When Biden came in there was some expectation from some that Biden would have a change of policy on Israel. After all the Obama administration was seen as less pro-Israel than most administrations.

Prior to the October the 7th attacks Biden didn't change much of Trump's policy on Israel keeping with the Embassy and retaining the policy of the Golan Heights.

After October the 7th however Biden has been a very enthusiastic supporter of Israel. Earlier this year it was mentioned in several publications that he is the first sitting president to call himself a zionist. He has been supplying Israel with a large amount of arms and giving them a lot of diplomatic support. He has also constantly rejected the claims of a genocide happening in Gaza. Whether Biden is right or wrong on Israel is another matter.

Let's not forget at the same time there have been massive protests across the world in support of Palestine which Biden has largely ignored. This has meant many of those on the left of US politics have been less enthusiastic about supporting Biden. While it wasn't a major factor it still cost him votes. Jill Stein the Green Party nominee did very well in areas with high Muslim population in the same way the Green Party and independents did well in areas with high a Muslim population at the British elections earlier this year.

In the United Kingdom as well there was less enthusiastic support for Kamala this time as there was for Biden in 2020 from those on the left such as Jeremy Corbyn, the Green Party and most notably Sinn Fein.

Biden is on record saying that the US would have to invent an Israel if there wasn't one to protect US interests in the region:

As to whether Trump is more or less pro-Israel than Biden, it's hard to tell. Trump was the President who moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, an act that was widely condemned internationally, so has form for supporting them. We'll have to see how he approaches the matter on his return, but I'd say the two of them are not that far apart in their level of support for Israel, at the very in favour end of the spectrum.

Moving the US embassy is an interesting one as it's always had very strong bipartisan support. When Trump did move the embassy I know senate democrat leader Chuck Schumer was a massive supporter of Trump's actions.

 

[Shrop]

We need to start spending on our armed forces now not in 2030.

The insurance policy behind the western liberal alliance is NATO and the ultimate insurer of the armed forces of the USA.

I suspect with Trump in charge they will not be willing to pay out. Without them NATO does not work.

If(perhaps when) Putin invades one of the Baltic states what happens? Today article 5 applies. After the 20th of January?

We need to be armed well enough to protect ourselves let alone our friends!

I'm wondering what do you mean by "armed"? If you're thinking of soldiers, tanks, fighter aircraft, warships etc, in a serious conflict between really powerful countries we could already be well past this.

Not so many weeks ago Israel unleashed one of the most scary weapons used to date, ie by detonating hundreds of pagers and walkie talkies that were in people's pockets. By way of example of a logical progression from this, I would venture to suggest that with the amount of technology that the Chinese have developed with mobile phones in recent years, they are likely to have a considerably greater potential than Israel in using personal devices as a means of waging war. It might not be something so basic as a physical explosion either, mobile phones could be primed with all manner of harm which could have gone completely undetected to date, but which could be triggered when needed.

Now think of Trump's great fan Musk, and the huge technology empire he runs. Ask yourselves just how much you really know about the computer systems that exist in his vast fleet of cars which are already being driven around the world? And take it further, do you know how many satellites he has flying around the planet already, and how much information and control they have? The power in technology is already well beyond anything that has ever existed previously, and if push comes to shove, ie in a really serious conflict between powerful countries, then guns, tanks, aircraft etc. are likely to be nothing more than just for show, the real weapons will be in technology.

 

[Cloud Strife]

ones to watch in this instance will include Hungary (2026),

Hungary is the big one, as if Fidesz falls, then it leaves only Slovakia as being somewhat openly pro-Russia. Slovakia, unlike Hungary, doesn't have a large minority outside her borders, so their influence is rather limited.

Having said that, what's going on in Hungary now is likely to only get worse.

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately, defence strategy is build strategy, and currently we're stuck with the results of the post-cold-war peace dividend, combined with the cuts of the Cameron-era austerity, and lots of spending to fight very different counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

6 out of 12 Type 45 destroyers, a long capability gap in terms of fixed-wing naval aviation (and even then, availability gaps due to only two units), dwindling numbers of Tanks and Aircraft. Our ability to present a credible deterrent force has been diminished, and whilst maintaining a military is expensive, funding a war is much more pricey.

 

[DarloRich]

Not so many weeks ago Israel unleashed one of the most scary weapons used to date, ie by detonating hundreds of pagers and walkie talkies that were in people's pockets. By way of example of a logical progression from this, I would venture to suggest that with the amount of technology that the Chinese have developed with mobile phones in recent years, they are likely to have a considerably greater potential than Israel in using personal devices as a means of waging war. It might not be something so basic as a physical explosion either, mobile phones could be primed with all manner of harm which could have gone completely undetected to date, but which could be triggered when needed.

that is a all great stuff and an superb example of reverse asymmetric warfare - but it is hard to defend your home or enter into enemy territory with an explosive pager...............

The power in technology is already well beyond anything that has ever existed previously, and if push comes to shove, ie in a really serious conflict between powerful countries, then guns, tanks, aircraft etc. are likely to be nothing more than just for show, the real weapons will be in technology.

Will the Musk data centres stand up to a bunker busting bomb or missile? Will his power facilities?

OBVISOULY those weapons rely on technology but part of the military processes should be to, as far as possible, reduce reliance on third party systems and technology.

 

[Shrop]

that is a all great stuff and an superb example of reverse asymmetric warfare - but it is hard to defend your home or enter into enemy territory with an explosive pager...............


Will the Musk data centres stand up to a bunker busting bomb or missile? Will his power facilities?

OBVISOULY those weapons rely on technology but part of the military processes should be to, as far as possible, reduce reliance on third party systems and technology.

Yes, my comments were (deliberately) fairly simplistic. I don't disagree with your responses, future warfare will undoubtedly combine both conventional weapons and more advanced technology, and then there will probably be all sorts of propaganda coming into play too. If you take Stormy Daniels as an example, her accounts of bad behaviour by Trump have apparently been mysteriously removed from social media, which brings into question just how much more could social media be used to cause people to change their opinions about things. Then, once people have had their minds made up in a different manner to how they started out, that could lead them into arming themselves with more conventional weapons to fight for whatever causes that social media has led them to believe is correct. It could become increasingly all about playing games!

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, my comments were (deliberately) fairly simplistic. I don't disagree with your responses, future warfare will undoubtedly combine both conventional weapons and more advanced technology, and then there will probably be all sorts of propaganda coming into play too. If you take Stormy Daniels as an example, her accounts of bad behaviour by Trump have apparently been mysteriously removed from social media, which brings into question just how much more could social media be used to cause people to change their opinions about things. Then, once people have had their minds made up in a different manner to how they started out, that could lead them into arming themselves with more conventional weapons to fight for whatever causes that social media has led them to believe is correct. It could become increasingly all about playing games!

Agreed - it is not different to previous conflicts really. We just have different channels and systems to disseminate information of all types! near to me during the second world war were several clandestine radio stations beaming allied material into occupied territory. I am sure we would do the same now just with a different mechanism.

 

[brad465]

Hungary is the big one, as if Fidesz falls, then it leaves only Slovakia as being somewhat openly pro-Russia. Slovakia, unlike Hungary, doesn't have a large minority outside her borders, so their influence is rather limited.

Having said that, what's going on in Hungary now is likely to only get worse.

At least Hungary's Presidency of the EU Council finishes at the end of this year, before Trump is in office, then Poland take over, who will almost certainly have Ukraine at the top of their agenda.

 

[Gostav]

We need to start spending on our armed forces now not in 2030.

The insurance policy behind the western liberal alliance is NATO and the ultimate insurer of the armed forces of the USA.

I suspect with Trump in charge they will not be willing to pay out. Without them NATO does not work.

If(perhaps when) Putin invades one of the Baltic states what happens? Today article 5 applies. After the 20th of January?

We need to be armed well enough to protect ourselves let alone our friends!

This is the problem of almost all leaders of democratic countries - unwilling to tell the truth or constantly evading.

Restoring the armed forces before the Cold War requires a lot of investment - steel mills provide armour, chemical plants provide gunpowder raw materials - this means that a large number of heavy industries need to return - which is not good news for environmental protection. A significant increase in the proportion of national defence in GDP means that people's welfare will decline significantly.

It seems that no Western politician dares to respond to these things directly, just like Japanese politicians - almost everyone is talking about increasing military funding to help Taiwan, but once asked whether the welfare of Japanese citizens will decline, everyone is avoiding it.

In this regard, it seems that right-wing politicians are more realistic.

 

[AlterEgo]

At least Hungary's Presidency of the EU Council finishes at the end of this year, before Trump is in office, then Poland take over, who will almost certainly have Ukraine at the top of their agenda.

All too little too late. America is the guarantor of Ukraine whether we like it or not.

 

[brad465]

Anyone else see the irony in appointing two individuals to run an efficiency-finding department:

What is the department of government efficiency?

The billionaire will partner with biotech investor Vivek Ramaswamy to "dismantle" bureaucracy, Trump says.

www.bbc.co.uk

US President-elect Donald Trump has picked Elon Musk for a role in government cost-cutting, as part of his drive to "dismantle" bureaucracy when he returns to the White House next year.
Tech billionaire Musk, who has called for huge spending cuts, has been picked alongside biotech investor Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a new "Department of Government Efficiency" (Doge). The acronym is a nod to Musk's favourite cryptocurrency, Dogecoin.
Trump said the pair would act in an advisory capacity, and that the Doge would not be an official government department.
On the same day, Trump named another political newcomer - Fox News host and military veteran Pete Hegseth - as his pick for defence secretary.
Musk threw millions behind Donald Trump's successful re-election bid, and was hotly tipped for a role in the administration that has so far rewarded loyalists. Trump himself outlined a plan for Musk in government cost-cutting on the campaign trail.
Ramaswamy ran as a Republican candidate for president earlier this year against Trump, before dropping out and endorsing him.
Since triumphing in last week's vote, Trump has been assembling his top team - with another of his one-time Republican rivals, Marco Rubio, reportedly in the frame to be his new secretary of state.
Trump looks likely to enjoy significant support for his legislative agenda in Congress. Republicans won the Senate and are closing in on control of the House.

 

[Meole]

Efficiency could see cuts to Amtrak funding as in his previous administration.

 

[Cowley]

Efficiency could see cuts to Amtrak funding as in his previous administration.

We’ve already got a thread on that in the international section:

Donald Trump and rail

With more than three months before the USA Presidential (and House of Reps/Senate) elections, the outcome is not certain despite many assuming it'll be a cakewalk for Donald Trmp. The Democratic Party may have a candidate other than gaffe-prone Biden who may peg back Trump's opinion poll lead...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[nw1]

Anyone else see the irony in appointing two individuals to run an efficiency-finding department:

What is the department of government efficiency?

The billionaire will partner with biotech investor Vivek Ramaswamy to "dismantle" bureaucracy, Trump says.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Man of the people" appoints world's richest person to be part of his government.

You couldn't make it up: yet naive fools in vast swathes of the USA seem to think that Donald and Elon care about them and will help them.

 

[JKF]

"Man of the people" appoints world's richest person to be part of his government.

You couldn't make it up: yet naive fools in vast swathes of the USA seem to think that Donald and Elon care about them and will help them.

They’re supposedly going to reduce government spending by two trillion dollars.

and I bet you can’t guess who will get the corresponding cut in taxation.

 

[JamesT]

They’re supposedly going to reduce government spending by two trillion dollars.

and I bet you can’t guess who will get the corresponding cut in taxation.

$2tn barely covers the current budget deficit

 

[nw1]

They’re supposedly going to reduce government spending by two trillion dollars.

and I bet you can’t guess who will get the corresponding cut in taxation.

Indeed. Who will suffer from the first? The less-well-off that Trump pretends to care about. The Rust Belt has economic problems, yet the voters of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin voted in a man who will doubtless drain yet more money from their region and give it to his rich friends in big business in the form of tax cuts. Talk about naivety.

 

[brad465]

Anyone who has been following Trump picking his top team will see what an absolute popcorn-fest it's been so far. It's included Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, who's been under an Ethics' investigation, and Robert Kennedy Jnr as Health Secretary, who has had a fair few controversial views on health matters, particularly vaccines:

House speaker 'strongly' advises against releasing ethics report on Gaetz

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson says releasing the ethics committee report on the Florida lawmaker would set "a terrible precedent".

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump nominates RFK Jr for health secretary
​

Donald Trump has nominated RFK Jr to lead the Department of Heath and Human Services in his second White House administration, he said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

The vaccine-sceptic had run as an independent in the 2024 presidential campaign before backing Trump.

 

[JonathanH]

Anyone who has been following Trump picking his top team will see what an absolute popcorn-fest it's been so far. It's included Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, who's been under an Ethics' investigation, and Robert Kennedy Jnr as Health Secretary, who has had a fair few controversial views on health matters, particularly vaccines:

Almost a dark comedy where the person in charge looks for the most inappropriate person for each position.

 

[wilbers]

Wonder if there is any truth to the theory just floated on Newsnight that these 2 nominations aren't actually who he wants in those posts, and is a loyalty test to see who [out of Republicans] will and won't vote for them in congress.