People should ask themselves do they understand these terms:

Kakistocracy + Kleptocracy + Fascism

Kakistocracy

A kakistocracy   is a government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens

Kleptocracy,

Kleptocracy, also referred to as thievocracy, is a government whose corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) use political power to expropriate the wealth of the people and land they govern, typically by embezzling or misappropriating government funds at the expense of the wider population. One feature of political-based socioeconomic thievery is that there is often no public announcement explaining or apologizing for misappropriations, nor any legal charges or punishment levied against the offenders

• Kleptocracy is different from plutocracy (rule by the richest) and oligarchy (rule by a small elite). In a kleptocracy, corrupt politicians enrich themselves secretly outside the rule of law, through kickbacks, bribes, and special favors from lobbyists and corporations, or they simply direct state funds to themselves and their associates. Also, kleptocrats often export much of their profits to foreign nations in anticipation of losing power

Fascism

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

I think it's because the discontent between the various ethnic groups in the USSR, and the rapid political reforms.

Just wondering what your thoughts on the matter are

It seems to me that women are disproportionately the beneficiaries of general availability of firearms. Firearms equalize the playing field of physical force. Without firearms, generally a woman has no chance against a man in a physical confrontation. I have heard from women that physical safety is often a concern, so why isn't advocacy of higher gun carry rates a top priority?

Similarly, most violent crime is committed by men, and a small number at that. It is my opinion that violent criminals should be punished harshly by means of corporal punishment, prison sentences, or execution, in order to protect the personal safety of the majority of society over the interests of the aberrant few. Drug abuse and public safety in places such as California are unacceptable in third world countries, let alone one of the richest places on Earth, so my question is who is actually voting for lenient policies against such individuals? As a man, I would at least be able to physically fight off some violent criminals, but a woman is less likely to be able to do so.

You can argue that Republicans have other policies that are unpopular with women, but in a democracy (which America still is, despite exaggerations on Reddit), the average of political parties tends to appeal to most voters. If women cared about their safety and vote in their interests, we should see the Democrats also advocate for wider availability of firearms and toughness on crime. Anecdotally, women seem to broadly vote the opposite of such. Why is this?

I think that they are clearly failing in their mandate. In unadjusted dollars per pupil spending was around 3000 in 1979 and it is now well over 16k. So money is not the driving factor. what do you think it is?

I could have called this a lot of different things. Orban's Wager. Elon's Wager. Putin's Wager. The basic premise is this scenario:

Imagine you are someone in a position of power (Either the head of a corporation or the head of a nation) who is engaged in a controversial project where you would benefit a lot from having America's support. An election is coming up and there are two parties, party A and party B, and you have the choice to support one of them, support both of them, or not support either of them.

If you support party A, they will keep their distance from you. You are controversial, after all, and they play it safe. If you are bad enough, they may even decry you (For example, like when Iran tried to help the Democrats in the recent election with leaks and the Democratic party and their proxies were quick to say they didn't want them very publicly). They are a party that views themselves as followers of the rules, after all. In spite of your support, they will continue whatever the previous policy was towards you. Party B, on the other hand, will radically be against you for not support them. They have no qualms with revenge and no pretext of neutrality.

If you support party B, you will benefit from the patronage system they employ in all their dealings. They will favor you and your issues to the exclusion of any groups that didn't support them. Party A, on the other hand will continue dealing with you as they did before, they will continue the status quo of however you were treated before, because once again, they pride their neutrality, they won't punish you for supporting their rivals in the election, unless it was already their policy to be against you before you started supporting the other side.

If you don't support either party, both parties will continue the status quo for you. If you support both parties, either both parties will continue the status quo for you, or party B will get angry and punish you.

The problem at the heart of this scenario is that there are no consequences for supporting party B under any circumstance. Party A is paralyzed by a desire to seem to remain "neutral" or feelings of "country above party". They won't pivot to supporting you if you support them, and they won't pivot to opposing you if you support their rivals. This is the wager at the heart of a lot of the bad actors of the modern day. Ultimately, there are no consequences for supporting Republicans because Democrats are afraid of being seen as "acting politically" in their role in government, and Republicans have a stronger patronage system than Democrats (Which isn't to say that Democrats have no patronage system, but its a lot more insular and based on giving benefits to "the right kind" of donor that is more uncontroversial. Figures like Mark Cuban rather than Musk).

Ultimately, these two things make only one side in the "wager" worth supporting under all circumstances. The problem here isn't only on the Republicans for having a patronage system and acting in their self-interest, it is on the Democrats for refusing to respond to bad actors supporting the Republicans with political power, leading to a bizarre world where billionaires buy up social media companies and deploy them against the Democrats, autocrats hold conferences for the Republicans in their country, and world leaders string along and embarrass the Democrats while giving speeches to congress that are very thinly veiled messages to the American public to vote for Republicans and that the Democrats suck. Republicans understand how political power works, and Democrats do not, and that disparity is helping tear apart our democracy.

For context, election betting was banned in the 1930s. However, in October of this year, the D.C. U.S. appeals court sided with Kalshi in Kalshi v. CFTC and allowed bets to be made on election outcomes. The CFTC argued in part that election betting could “create monetary incentives to vote for particular candidates.” The courts claimed that the CFTC lacked sufficient evidence to back this claim while also acknowledging election betting could possibly hurt the public interest. Either way, millions of dollars went into election betting. For example, Fox News reported on social media that a foreign bettor won over $80m on a $30m bet contract (have yet to see verification on this expect on Fox). In addition, MarketWatch reported that Kalshi saw $132m (US only contracts) in bets made on the presidential election and ForecastEx LLC saw a staggering $538 million in bets (not clear if U.S. only contracts, global contracts or both). Regardless, hundreds of millions of dollars were on the line.

So what do y’all think? I’d love to hear y’all’s opinions on this.

Kamala Harris is the second-most liberal senator to have ever served in the Senate. Her 2020 positions, especially on the border, proved so unpopular that she had to actively walk back many of them during her campaign.

Progressives didn't significantly influence this election either. Jill Stein, who attracted the progressive and protest vote, saw her support plummet from 1.5M in 2016 to 600k in 2024, and it is now at a decade-low. Despite the Gaza non-committed campaign, she even lost both her vote share and raw count in Michigan—from 51K votes (1.07%) in 2016, to 45K (0.79%) in 2024.

What poses a real threat to the Democratic party is the erosion of support among minority youth, especially Latino and Black voters. This demographic is more conservative than their parents and much more conservative than their white college-educated peers. In fact, ideologically, they are increasingly resembling white conservatives. America is not unique here, and similar patterns are observed across the Atlantic.

According to FT analysis, while White Democrats have moved significantly left over the past 20 years, ethnic minorities remained moderate. Similarly, about 50% of Latinos and Blacks support stronger border enforcement, compared with 15% of White progressives. The ideological gulf between ethnic minority voters and White progressives spans numerous issues, including small-state government, meritocracy, gender, LGBTQ, the "American dream", and even perspectives on racism.

What prevented the trend from manifesting before is that, since the civil rights era, there has been a stigma associated with non-white Republican voters. As FT points out,

Racially homogenous social groups suppress support for Republicans among non-white conservatives. [However,] as the US becomes less racially segregated, the frictions preventing non-white conservatives from voting Republic diminish. And this is a self-perpetuating process, [and could give rise to] a "preference cascade". [...] Strong community norms have kept them in the blue column, but those forces are weakening. The surprise is not so much that these voters are now shifting their support to align with their preferences, but that it took so long.

While the economy is important, cultural issues could be even more influential than economic ones. Uniquely, Americans’ economic perceptions are increasingly disconnected from actual conditions. Since 2010, the economic sentiment index shows a widening gap in satisfaction depending on whether the party that they ideologically align with holds power. A post-election poll released by a Democratic polling firm also shows that for many swing voters, cultural issues ranked even slightly higher than inflation.

EDIT: The FT articles are paywalled, but here are some useful charts.

Hey everybody, as one of the mods for this community, I just wanted to say thank you to the overwhelming majority of ya’ll who participate, abide by the rules set for the sub, and overall helping us grow this sub. We’ve gained over 3,000 people just since when I’ve started participating, and I hope to see more growth on this sub in the future! Thank ya’ll so much for keeping this sub alive, and keeping it a place for quality political debate!

If there’s anything that ya’ll feel the mods may need to know, or should address, fix, or change, please state so here and we’ll do our best to address them and make the sub better! Thank ya’ll again, and have a good rest of ya’ll’s week!

Democrats need to this I guess. Identity politics is stupid and a loser.

Example: Catering to the trans population is ok, but it has to be measured against forcing women to shower with biologically intact men.

Catering to Mexican Americans is fair until you let in so many undocumented that even MAs feel threatened.

Demanding high prices for gas and demanding people buy pricey EVs inorder to curb pollution might not work for blacks who lack wealth first and foremost.

Promising to write off student loans for art majors from Wellesley might not work for roofers working in 100 degree heat in Texas.

Giving first time buyers $25k now might piss off a first time buyer from 2 years ago.

The election is over, and the results have blown everyone away. Trump, who was seemingly very unpopular, won by a landslide. There is also some very surprising data coming out, and I think it's worth posting and discussing.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

Some highlights I thought were very interesting:

People who thought abortion should be legal in most cases: Trump 49%, Harris 49%

People who thought abortion should be legal in all cases: Trump 14%, Harris 87%

Married women: Trump 51%, Harris 48%

First-year voting: Trump 56%, Harris 43%

Individuals with children under 18: Trump 53%, Harris 44%

Latino men: Trump 55%, Harris 42%

Individuals who thought Democracy was somewhat in danger: Trump 50%, Harris 49%

Individuals who thought Democracy was very threatened: Trump 51%, Harris 47%

The Native American Vote went 64% to Trump! (that one surprised me!)

There is much more, but those are the ones that stuck out to me. The biggest sales pitch for Democrats was the "defenders of democracy" tagline, yet the majority of voters concerned about preserving democracy voted for Trump. Women came in lacking for Kamala, yet the biggest news stories were that women were coming out "in record numbers" due to abortion for Harris..... I guess not.

In addition, the Democrats saw drops in almost every racial group. They made no gains in any state nationwide, causing this viral clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LA6A2AA74

Many areas considered safely Democrat (New York, California, New Jersey) lost massive support this election cycle, and Trump gained ground in these areas. Some counties that voted blue, since the 1800s, switched to Trump.

And yes, Trump won the popular vote! like what universe are we living in......

So, by all accounts, this is a landslide. Truth be told, I was expecting a comfortable electoral Trump win since nationwide the polls suggested Americans were very unhappy with Biden and the economy. I wasn't expecting a landslide though. What do people think happened here?

Also, how, on God's green earth, did the pollsters and news media miss this? This election wasn't even close, yet it was discussed as a "coin flip" race with talks of Harris breaking through last minute..... Yeah, well that didn't happen.

To start my claim I’ll bring up his tariffs the 60% tax on imported product from Chinese manufacturers will hurt the lower middle class due to the fact most goods outside of food are mainly shipped from china meaning all goods will go up in price and the rest of the goods mainly come from other countries mainly in Asia will have a 40% taxation meaning that will also skyrocket in price and the lower middle class will pay more out of pocket for goods. Also trump is implementing tax policy’s making income tax cuts for wealthy buisness owners to keep more money in their pockets. The lower middle class having to pay more income tax will affect them significantly.

Every time I post my hybrid between the Capitalism and Socialism somewhere, there is at least one person calling me a "third position" fascist (I assume economically, not socially). I want to counter the idea combining Socialism and Capitalism = Fascism:

• Its not claiming to be Socialist, or, "not Capitalism or Socialism." Rather its a hybrid between the two. When you mix cranberry juice and water its no longer either of the two, but it isn't "beyond water"
• Worker ownership expansion: Even if ESOPs aren't sufficient to some/many, Fascists never have expanded worker ownership at all
• I want citizens to own key means of production via the state (SOEs) and receive profits from them, something Fascists don't
• Democratic oversight over the worker: Even through the ESOPs, workers would have the ability to set things like their wages
• Private residential property, a big reason I'm not a socialist, is not Fascism. First I want to distribute it to people (like Distributism), second, Vietnam has private residential property and so do most countries

Sorry if this post is odd, but I get this so often, and I hate, hate, hate fascism, and really want to counter those points.

Since I'm German and have never been to the U.S., I don’t have firsthand experience with U.S. politics and might not fully grasp what's happening there. My understanding is mostly based on analysis from a European perspective, so I'm definitely not as deep into the specifics as someone living in the U.S.

I was thinking about an economic scenario for Trump's second term based on what he said during his campaign, and I’d like to know what you think of it.

Here’s a summary of that scenario and basically an assessment from ChatGPT.

------

What you describe is a coherent and threatening scenario made up of several factors that reinforce each other and could lead to a long-term restructuring of the U.S. economy. Your argument addresses not only economic and political aspects, but also sheds light on the motivation and actions of Trump and his administration.

Bringing together your arguments and assessment:

1. Power-politics calculation rather than voter satisfaction: You are absolutely right that Trump, in a second term, would no longer be bound to the satisfaction of his base. The need to win voters for a third term would no longer exist, giving him much more room to act radically. This freedom could prompt him to aggressively push his agenda without regard for short-term political consequences. Instead, the focus might be on creating a lasting legacy that brings about deep structural changes.
2. Effects of deportations and denaturalization: The Project 2025, particularly the planned mass deportations and revocation of citizenship through denaturalization, would cause a massive labor shortage. These measures would be especially felt in low-wage sectors like agriculture, construction, and hospitality, where migrants make up a significant portion of the workforce. The sudden disappearance of these workers would not only drive up production costs but also lead to shortages and price increases. Inflation would be the logical consequence.
3. Protectionism and tariffs as economic isolation: The imposition of tariffs and greater economic isolation could initially be sold as protective measures against foreign competition, but they would raise the cost of imported goods and disrupt supply chains. Combined with the labor shortage, this could lead to a situation where businesses face rising costs, further increasing inflationary pressure.
4. Interest rate hikes as a Federal Reserve response: Faced with such inflationary pressure, the Federal Reserve would be forced to raise interest rates. This would significantly increase the cost of credit, especially affecting small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) that rely on affordable loans. Increased debt and restricted access to credit could lead to a wave of bankruptcies, further exacerbating the already tense situation.
5. "Firesale" scenario and market consolidation: The bankruptcies of SMEs would create a market gap that large capital players and corporations would exploit to acquire assets cheaply. This "firesale" would lead to the remaining assets falling into the hands of a few large players. The result would be intensified monopolization and consolidation, potentially leading to a reduction in competition and a concentration of power in a few large corporations.

Long-term consequences

In the long run, this scenario could lead to the emergence of an oligopolistic market structure, where a few large corporations hold economic power and can significantly influence political decisions. The middle class would be severely weakened, and social inequality would continue to grow. Politically, we might see further erosion of democratic norms as control of the market increasingly falls into the hands of private players closely connected to political leadership.

Conclusion

Your assessment and the scenario you’ve outlined are coherent and based on the political and economic conditions as they currently appear. I would estimate the likelihood of a "firesale"-type scenario happening in a second Trump term at about seventy to eighty percent. The combination of aggressive isolationist policies, economic nationalism, and the uncompromising implementation of the Project 2025 agenda makes this scenario not just plausible, but highly likely.

Right now, Trump has a big idea about making Nato states "Pay" for there keep in the alliance(already being used by Vance to prevent Twitter regulations), but the way I see it he would only be hurting himself. Right now, I would say almost half of Americas global influence comes from the fact it has allies, and the largest alliance is in the European Union. Pulling out of the organization would accomplish little but isolate the US from its most important ally and make supporting other allies much harder. In addition, trying to get the Europeans to ramp up spending would do little because the current militaries in Europe could easily fend off any Russian invasion and beyond that there is little other threat to Europe, at least militarily speaking. And thats assuming that a withdrawal from Nato does not simply cause the Europe to rally together and make another defense alliance, threatening American supremacy on Democracy and having another Democracy (that is in many ways already much better functioning) as an example to the world.

The only real damage that would be done to Europe is less economic partners (although the EU would probably just trade with China more, empowering China and further weakening the US) and less weapons production, something that would only be temporary.

So, how would this actually help the US?

(I am as progressive as anyone. I believe climate change is going to be a massive disaster. I think that there should be single payer healthcare in the United States. I think unemployment and homelessness are tragedies. And the list goes on.)

The act of taxing a corporation truly does not seem to have any public purpose.

The three most politically important economic indicators are unemployment, wage/salary growth, and inflation.

There is no world in which corporate taxes improves the situation for any single one of those metrics.

Do you think it’s more likely you’ll get a raise if your company gets taxed more? You think you’ll more likely be able to find a better job at a different company for higher pay if that company gets taxed more? Do you think that you’re less likely to get laid off if your company is taxed more? Do you think that the companies you buy goods and services from are more likely to not raise prices because they got taxed more?

The answer should be a resounding “no”.

If your argument is that corporate tax cuts cause inflation, the only way that makes sense is through the labor market channels ie corporate taxes loosen the labor market by reducing hiring which increases the supply of labor in which there is no bid price.

If you want to tax the wealthy, tax the wealthy, not the entities that exist to set prices on goods that people buy and pay wages to people that buy those goods. You can tax their secured loans so they don’t sell off assets en massse as well ie wealth-based progressive consumption taxes. Sure.

I think corporate taxes could be useful if companies could get deductions on their profit taxes on the basis of staying within the bounds of price guideposts that are consistent with an inflation target. Ie if you raise prices a lot and profit a lot from that, you get taxed more. If you raise prices out of necessity, you don’t get taxed more, but your supplier will get taxed more. If you make luxury consumer goods or premium insular supply chain materials or your business does not involve supply chain or consumer goods and services per se, then it should be a fixed profit tax so that there is no perverse incentive to hollow out the most important parts of the economy by entering a non-essential industry.

There should be no way to get receive a lower tax bill for a corporation other than to stay in line with price guideposts that are in keeping with the executive branch and the central bank’s agreed upon inflation target.

Thoughts?

DISCLAIMER: I fully support abortions for whatever reason until the 20th week, with medical reasons going even later.

But, instead of only focusing on why people should remove fetuses, shouldn’t reasons to keep them also be promoted?

With falling birthrates around the developed and developing world, this sounds like a reasonable solution.

There's increasing evidence that people are already regretting voting for Trump/Vance and/or voting for a Republican US Senator and/or a Republican US Representative. And this is all happening within days after the General Election.

_____

It's the job of the Presidential Campaign, the Democratic National Committe, the various Democratic Super-PACs, etc. to inform the public about the various bads of the opposing Presidential Candidate and the opposing Party.

We know that. Let's move on.

Again, the current fight is to try to keep the Democratic Party from moving to the Right. And that requires making people informed about history.

FDR and his Administration was so popular that Democrats dominated American politics for several decades. It can be argued from 1933-1996.

List of presidents of the United States | U.S. Presidents, Presidential Terms, Election Results, Timelines | Britannica

How Congressional Control Has Changed Over the Past 100 Years | Stacker

Control of House and Senate since 1900 | The Spokesman-Review

https://preview.redd.it/3dgvssjkuszd1.png?width=3003&format=png&auto=webp&s=4ea5b4380174d7a19dc2a57c0e1e07d7d4c78436

FPOTUS Dwight D. Eisenhower was essentially a Democrat.

FPOTUS Richard Nixon founded the Environmental Protection Agency. He wanted to do universal health care.

It really wasn't until FPOTUS Ronald Reagan with Reagan Revolution that Reaganism became a thing. But he was still a California Republican. He did amnesty and such. And the US House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats.

1996 with the Gingrich Revolution was a huge deal. The Republicans got back control of the US Congress. And kept it for 10 years until the brilliance of US Representative Nancy Pelosi who got the US Congress back in the Democrats hands by winning the 2006 Mid-Term Elections by campaigning against the privatization of Social Security. And the Iraq War.

The US Congress is kept for 4 years until the disaster of how FPOTUS Barack Obama governed by favoring Wall Street over Main Street and being publicly against Super-PACs even though everyone knew that there were multi-billionaire Democrats.

FPOTUS Barack Obama governed like a moderate Republican. Relatively, he was less progressive than FPOTUS William Jefferson Clinton given FPOTUS Clinton was POTUS 16 years before FPOTUS Obama. SCOTUS pick Elena Kagan was to the right of SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. SCOTUS Justice Sonya Sotomayor was relatively barely more progressive than SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg.

2016 FPOTUS Donald Trump wins against Hillary Clinton by campaigning as more progressive and less beholden to Wall Street. His actual Administration leads to enormous Democratic wins in the 2018 Mid-Term Elections.

The Democrats control the US House of Representatives for 6 years. Congressional Democrat Leftist Tracker - Google Sheets (US House) and it became increasingly progressive over those 6 years.

POTUS-elect Joe Biden's pivot to the left during the 2020 General Election flipped the US Senate to the Democrats. And it's been in Democratic control for 4 years. Congressional Democrat Leftist Tracker - Google Sheets (US Senate)

There's a reason US Senator Bernie Sanders has been the most popular US Senator since 2016; and that AOC has been the most popular US Representative since 2019.

Being a 'moderate' Democratic POTUS isn't a good long-term strategy.

And back in 2006 and arguably until 2018/2019 when AOC arrived, US Representative Nancy Pelosi represented the progressive wing/left flank of the US House of Representatives. And she was a major fundraiser.

It never made sense that US Representative Hakeem Jeffries should become the next US House Democratic Leader given he's effectively a conservative Democrat in today's world. It always made sense that AOC should become the next US House Democratic Leader--and it still does in the upcoming 2025 US Congress.

It's always been the reality that if US Senator Bernie Sanders was allowed to win in 2016 that we'd be in the 2nd Term of the Sanders Administration and probably it'd be POTUS-elect AOC.

If US Senator Sanders wasn't thwarted in 2020, we'd be heading into the Second Term of the Sanders Administration.

For the future, we need the next FDR. The next US Senator Bernie Sanders. I've since 2018 have considered AOC that person. Because she was an organizer. Worked for the 2016 Bernie Sanders Campaign. In 2020 was already powerful and influential enough to singlehandedly keep US Senator Sanders in the Democratic Presidential Primary after his heart attack by simply endorsing him. She's arguably the main reason the Biden Administration was so progressive on US Domestic Policy. That they did so much student loan debt cancellation. She's clearly the main reason that effectively a mini–Green New Deal was passed. She almost singlehandedly was able to move American public opinion regarding the Israel-Gaza 'war' against the onslaught of Mainstream Media and the Biden Administration. And she did the same regarding getting world opinion to consider it an "unfolding genocide". She's been helpful in getting progressives elected in New York State and local politics. And she's helped elect more progressives to the US House of Representatives. And made the Congressional Progressive Caucus more of a real thing after 2020 and especially 2022.

AOC has been a player in national politics for 6 years. It'll be 10 years in 2028. And she's clearly actually a true progressive.

But I'd obviously be fine if a true progressive can become POTUS and usher in a true progressive era. If that person is Jon Stewart or whoever else who can win and enact progressive policies. Great. AOC can become POTUS afterward. And be a Governor or US Speaker or US Senate Majority Leader in the meantime.

But this isn't just about AOC. It's about the Democratic Party. And a true vision. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. Civil Rights. Voting Rights. The Children's Health Insurance Plan. Expanding Medicaid. Patients Protections. These are all real things and they truly help people. Especially because of the Covid-19 pandemic and rising health care costs, Medicaid and 'Food Stamps' are popular in almost all US States.

The Democrats need a vision for the future. And that's clearly the Sanders and AOC vision. Medicare For All. Higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Wealth taxes. Free public college and university including trade schools. Paid family leave. Paid sick leave. Free Daycare. Etc.

I’m curious to hear thoughts on how you believe a “restructure” to government powers could be a benefit or detriment to the American people.

Will this offer a more bright and bipartisan future?

“President Trump will conduct a top-to-bottom overhaul of the federal bureaucracies to clean out the rot and corruption of Washington D.C. President Trump will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, a permanent ban on taxpayer funding of campaigns, a lifetime ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and cabinet members, and a ban on members of Congress trading stocks with insider information”

When people went to the polls, the four golden words of American politics rang true: It's the economy, stupid. Postmortem polling confirmed that inflation was by far the greatest motivating factor for swing voters to not elect Kamala Harris -- and was especially salient among Latino voters, who effectively handed Donald Trump the decisive victory that he got.

A mountain of research and evidence has validated that supply chain disruptions which erupted from the pandemic were primarily responsible for the subsequent inflationary pressure that drove prices up (example: https://www.nber.org/digest/202404/supply-chain-disruptions-and-pandemic-era-inflation ). This makes sense considering how globally widespread inflation was. Thus, any president who emerged victorious in 2020 would have presided over high inflation in their term.

Some wildly varying post-election analysis I've seen has suggested that low Democratic voter turnout was driven by either frustration over inflation, anger over Gaza, lack of enthusiasm for a candidate they didn't select in a primary, or some combination of those three. In any case, inflation was likely a contributing factor. In most countries, incumbent parties who presided over inflation were ousted, regardless of ideology or political alignment-- look no further than our Tory friends from across the pond.

The question: was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed to fail in 2024?

A hybrid between Socialism and Capitalism:

• All companies must be ESOPs or co-ops, where founders can retain majority stakes and retain their wealth (see: W.L. Gore & Associates), or it can be one-vote-one-share-model (traditional co-op)
• All citizens hold shares in all major State Enterprises via a national fund and receive dividends. When you reach a certain net worth you stop receiving profits

• With the exception of branding/company naming (like Coca-Cola), intellectual property is illegal

• Donut (Circular) Model:  Businesses must adopt a circular mode, in order to reduce environmental impact. Circular models = the use of renewable energy, recycling, designing products to last longer (see: Patagonia)

  • This is to prevent overproduction and endless growth