Category: Elections

  • Read RFA coverage of this topic in Burmese.

    During his recent visit to China, Myanmar’s junta chief Min Aung Hlaing promised top Communist Party officials that his regime will complete a census by the end of the year — then hold “free and fair elections,” he revealed on Tuesday.

    Min Aung Hlaing said he will invite international observers to monitor the vote — which opponents and rebel leaders have said would be a sham, and a way to legitimize the military’s grip on power.

    On Nov. 6, he traveled to Kunming, the capital of China’s Yunnan province, where he met with Chinese Premier Li Qiang on the sidelines of a regional summit. The trip marked his first trip to China since Myanmar’s military seized power in a February 2021 coup d’etat.

    On Tuesday, the junta leader told his Cabinet that he informed Li and other Chinese officials that his regime has collected census data covering 63% of Myanmar’s population and plans to complete the census before the new year.

    A census enumerator, right, asks questions to a family in Naypyitaw, Myanmar Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2024 as the country holds a national census to compile voter lists for a general election. (AP Photo/Aung Shine Oo)
    A census enumerator, right, asks questions to a family in Naypyitaw, Myanmar Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2024 as the country holds a national census to compile voter lists for a general election. (AP Photo/Aung Shine Oo)

    The census, aimed at tallying potential voters ahead of the 2025 elections, has met strong opposition from the country’s ethnic armed groups who say preparations for a nationwide vote are impossible while they battle a regime that continues to arrest and kill its critics.

    Since the country’s coup, the junta has been under pressure from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to hold elections.

    But the regime has continued to extend a state of emergency across the country and brought in tough new registration laws that disqualify many parties from standing, including the National League for Democracy, or NLD, deposed after winning a landslide victory in the 2020 election.

    RELATED STORIES

    Myanmar junta extends census as fighting, floods slow election preparations

    As Myanmar’s census draws to a close, observers question its accuracy

    Myanmar census-takers and their protectors face rebel attacks

    Despite opposition from Myanmar’s ethnic groups, Min Aung Hlaing said Tuesday that he told Chinese leaders they are willing to participate in an election to pursue their collective interests through legal means.

    ‘No victory without popular support’

    Aye Mya Mya Myo, who was elected as a lawmaker to the Yangon Region Parliament in 2020, dismissed the junta chief’s promises, telling RFA Burmese that “no matter what propaganda he employs,” the ballot will never enjoy widespread support.

    “No country that values human rights can believe that a regime responsible for widespread killing and oppression is capable of holding a fair election,” she said. “While some nations that disregard democratic principles and human rights, despite promoting peace and stability, may back the junta, it will never achieve victory without the support of the people.”

    Tun Kyi, a former political prisoner, told RFA that the junta is determined to hold elections “by any means necessary.” He also criticized the Chinese government’s support of the junta’s actions, which he said “encourages criminal behavior.”

    “The Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party are collaborating with the criminal leader Min Aung Hlaing, contributing to the problems in our country,” he said.

    Myanmar’s junta chief Gen. Min Aung Hlaing inspects officers during a parade to commemorate Myanmar's 78th Armed Forces Day in Naypyitaw, Myanmar, March 27, 2023. (AP Photo/Aung Shine Oo)
    Myanmar’s junta chief Gen. Min Aung Hlaing inspects officers during a parade to commemorate Myanmar’s 78th Armed Forces Day in Naypyitaw, Myanmar, March 27, 2023. (AP Photo/Aung Shine Oo)

    “The public will likely face various forms of pressure to vote. By supporting the junta forces responsible for violent attacks on civilians, the Chinese government and Communist Party are, in effect, endorsing and aiding criminals.”

    No mandate for junta

    Most people in Myanmar object to the military’s 2021 coup and the junta’s plans for an election, and are fighting to restore the results of the country’s 2020 vote, which saw the NLD win a sweeping victory.

    But despite popular sentiment, Min Aung Hlaing said he told Chinese leaders during his trip that the 2020 ballot was rife with voter fraud and that the junta had “taken effective action” against the party to prevent any meddling in the upcoming election.

    He also said that next year’s election will be conducted using an electronic voting system, divided by region “for security reasons.”

    The junta has repeatedly said that it will ensure voter lists are accurate ahead of the ballot, but the claim has been widely dismissed by observers.

    Translated by Aung Naing. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Wai Mar Tun for RFA Burmese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The last THREE presidential cycles have seen polling data way off the mark compared to the results. So the question is why are the polls so wrong and why do so many people still put faith in them? Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse […]

    The post Popular Election Pollsters FAIL To Get It Right Over & Over appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • After election defeats, political writers are quick to explain that if only the politicians had read my book and followed my advice, things would have been different for our side.

    My pitch is a bit different. Please read It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics, but not for a winning electoral strategy.

    If candidates opposed to reactionary authoritarian nationalism had advocated the positions I endorse, Trump and like-minded Republicans still would have won control of all three branches of the US government. But at least Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party, and activists further left (the category I put myself in) would have lost gracefully by being more honest.

    The book starts with an analysis of contemporary intellectual culture (defined in a non-snobby way, not just people with advanced degrees but the way we think together) before taking on three hot-button topics in today’s politics—race and white supremacy, sex/gender and the trans movement, and the economic implications of an ecological worldview.

    On race: I don’t hesitate to criticize the jargon and haughtiness of some anti-racist activists and acknowledge the failures of many institutionalized DEI programs, arguments that may have resonated with some white folks who voted for Trump. But I also argue that the United States remains a white-supremacist culture and that we white people have an obligation to change. Such “messaging” wouldn’t have won Democrats many white votes.

    On sex/gender: Mainstream feminism in the United States has gone all-in on the demands of the trans movement, even though that movement has never offered a coherent account of transgenderism. The Republicans exploited that incoherence effectively. For a decade, I have articulated a feminist challenge to transgender ideology, a position that would have made the Democrats a more credible voice for women’s rights. But because my analysis is rooted in a radical feminist critique of institutionalized male dominance, it’s bound to scare away many conservative voters.

    On environmentalism: Almost without exception, politicians on all sides advocate economic growth. The debate is usually about which policies are likely to be more effective. When population comes up in the United States, the most common concern is falling birthrates, not the problem of overpopulation. I argue that human survival depends on “fewer and less”—a dramatic reduction in the population and a dramatic reduction in aggregate consumption, with steps taken to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. I know of no politician from any party who faces the reality that the human future—if there is to be a human future—depends on our ability to shrink the economy, not expand it.

    I realize that my race and sex/gender arguments are radioactive in some circles, and that demanding an ecological reckoning guarantees being ignored by most everyone in the mainstream. If unsuccessful center/liberal/left candidates had embraced these positions, they likely would have lost by larger margins than they did. But at least they would have lost gracefully, making principled arguments that may not carry the day politically but offer a model for honestly engaging difficult questions.

    If I can’t promise electoral success in the short term, why should anyone bother with these critical perspectives? That’s a reasonable question, given that electoral success matters. I don’t believe that any of today’s politicians are going to magically solve our problems, but which politicians are setting policy today can either reduce the chances of a decent human future or carve out some space for hope.

    My only answer: Responses I have received to the book tell me that there are people—not a majority, not even a significant minority right now—who are facing tough questions and want a space to explore this kind of politics without fear of being baited or insulted. It’s possible that from that small group, a more honest and graceful politics is possible.

    The post Losing Honestly and Gracefully first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The post A Recipe for Disaster first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Democratic Party has a lot of soul-searching to do, and so far they are off to a really bad start. The massive defeats that the Party saw last week – losing every branch in the federal government – should be a wake up call that Democrats have lost touch with just about everybody in […]

    The post Massive 2024 Defeats Need To Be A Wake Up Call For Out Of Touch Democrats appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • This November, a few months after being naturalized as a U.S. citizen, Eloy Tupayachi Salas voted in a U.S. presidential election for the first time. As a North Carolina resident, he also voted on a constitutional amendment to change the language on voter eligibility from “every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized” to “only a citizen” who meets age and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • RNZ News

    A group representing local councils in Aotearoa New Zealand is calling for the Local Democracy Reporting programme to be expanded after the media company NZME announced a proposal to close 14 community newspapers.

    The LDR programme funds local authority coverage at various publications and is managed and funded by RNZ with support from NZ On Air.

    It covers most regions, apart from Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, the Kāpiti Coast, Otago, and parts of Manawatū-Whanganui and Canterbury.

    Local Government NZ, a body representing most councils, said the programme should be expanded to all communities.

    “Community newspapers have long played a key role in councils sharing what’s happening locally — from roading, parks and emergency management to big decisions about the future of their region,” LGNZ president Sam Broughton said in a statement.

    Broughton was concerned NZME’s plan to shut 14 papers would have a devastating impact on a combined 850,000 readers.

    “We are concerned that a move like this could have a negative impact on turnout in next year’s local elections.”

    Isolating rural communities
    Central Hawke’s Bay mayor Alex Walker said the lack of news coverage would isolate rural communities.

    “The axeing of the 14 newspapers would mean that communities like Hawke’s Bay are left with a single subscription-only news outlet, that’s focused more on urban areas,” she said.

    “These newspapers are also an effective two-way communication tool between council and the people they serve; particularly our older or more remote population who do not always have access to electronic media.”

    The group suggested that the LDR programme’s scope be expanded to cover the rest of the country.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • America’s Lawyer E123: Democrats are trying to figure out just what went wrong during this election cycle, and as usual, they can’t seem to agree on anything. If they don’t figure it out soon, they could be doomed for years to come. Polls in this year’s presidential election were all over the place, and in […]

    The post Democrats Lost Touch With All Of America appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • On election night, Howard University was flooded with individuals who worked their butts off the help get Kamala Harris elected, but the VP never showed up to console the heartbroken crowd. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

    The post Harris Abandoned Supporters At Howard University On Election Night appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • The scene is memorable enough.  November 2016.  The Twin Peaks Tavern, Castro District.  Men gathered, beside themselves.  “It’s shocking how those people voted him in,” splutters one over a Martini.  “Yes,” says a companion, bristling in anger at the election of Donald J. Trump, sex pest, dubious businessman, orange haired monster and reality television star. “Why were they ever given the vote?”  History had come full circle, the claim now being that tens of millions of voters in the 2016 US presidential election should have been disenfranchised.  In their mind, this bloc was to be abominated as Hillary Clinton’s designated “deplorables”, a monstrous collective needing to be pushed into the sea.

    In November 2024, we see similar tremors of doubt and consternation, though the official stance, as expressed by President Joe Biden, is to “accept the choice the country made.”  In the vast, noisy hinterland of social media speculation lie unproven claims that some 20 million votes have gone missing, necessitating a recount.  Ditto problems with failing voting machines.  In a statement of cool dismissive confidence, Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is adamant: “we have no evidence of any malicious activity that had a material impact on the security and integrity of our election infrastructure.”

    2016 might have given the Democrats meditative pause as to why Trump was elected.  Even more significantly, why Trump’s election was more apotheosis rather than gnarly distortion.  Instead of vanishing as aberrant over the Biden years, Trumpism has come home to roost in winning, not only the Electoral College but the majority vote by convincing margins.

    Much is made of Trump’s pathological campaign against the legitimacy of his loss in 2020, as well as it might.  Less is made, certainly from the centre left and Democratic quarters, of the conspiratorial webbing that served to excuse an appalling electoral performance on behalf of the donkey party and their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton.  Doing so shifted any coherent analysis about loss and misjudgement to plot and the sorcery of disruption – the very sorts of things that Trump would use to such effect after 2020.  Indeed, the seeds of election denialism were already sown in 2016 by the Democrats.  Trump would draw on this shoddy model with vengeful enthusiasm in 2020.

    In Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes make the point that the Clinton team took a matter of hours to concoct “the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up… Already, Russian hacking was the centrepiece of the argument.”

    In declassified notes provided in September 2020 by the then Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the picture of pre-emptive delegitimization becomes vivid.  Clinton, in late July 2016, “had approved a campaign plan to stir a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.”  Then Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan “subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”

    Since her loss, Clinton has been impervious to the notion that she lacked sufficient appeal in the electoral race.  Trump was, she has continued to insist, never a legitimate president to begin with.

    Other Democrat worthies never deviated from the narrative.  The late Californian Senator Dianne Feinstein was certain in January 2017 that the change in fortunes in the Clinton camp had much to do with the announcement the previous October that the FBI would be investigating Clinton’s private email server.  Typically, the issue of what was exposed was less relevant than the fact of exposure.  The former was irrelevant; the latter, Russian, unpardonable, causal and fundamental.

    In June 2019, former President Jimmy Carter went even further, showing that the Democrats would remain indifferent to Trump as a serious electoral phenomenon.  “I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016,” he stated on a panel hosted by the Carter Center at Leesburg, Virginia.  “He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.”  This execrable nonsense was fanned, fed and nurtured by media servitors, to such a degree as to prompt Gerard Baker, currently editor-at-large for the Wall Street Journal, to remark that it was mostly “among the most disturbing, dishonest, and tendentious I’ve ever seen.”

    An odd analysis in Politico by David Faris about the latest election suggests that Democrats “have the advantage of introspection” while the Republicans, after losing in 2020, “chose not to look inward and instead descended into a conspiratorial morass of denial and rage that prevented them, at least publicly, from addressing the sources of their defeat.”

    Faris misses the mark in one fundamental respect.  The Democrats were, fascinatingly enough, the proto-election denialists.  They did not storm the Capitol in patriotic, costumed moodiness, but they did try to eliminate Trump as an electoral force.  In doing so, they failed to see Trumpland take root under their noses.  His stunning and conclusive return to office demands something far more substantive in response than the amateurish, foamy undergraduate rage that has become the hallmark of a distinct monomania.

    The post They Were There First: Election Denialism, the Democratic Way first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Tim Walz was the only candidate on the presidential ticket that had a positive approval rating. The mountain of attacks the right wing leveled at him just never seemed to stick. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

    The post Republicans Failed To Tank Positive Approval Of “Everyman” Tim Walz appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Now that Donald Trump is set to regain control of the White House, he as made it abundantly clear, if you’re his political enemy then you better watch your back, because he’s coming for you. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

    The post Trump Prepares To Target Hit List Of Political Enemies appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • Fingers are already being pointed as to why Kamala Harris couldn’t defeat Donald Trump. Was it her connection to President Joe Biden, “word salad,” or embracing war hawks like Liz Cheney and Alberto Gonzales? Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

    The post Kamala Harris Labeled As All Vibes And No Substance appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A disturbing number of Americans in a new poll said that they have changed or altered their political stances based on the opinions of celebrities. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

    The post New Poll Finds Celebrity Endorsements Actually Sway Voters appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • COMMENTARY: By Patrick Gathara

    Anger and fear have greeted the return to power of former US strongman Donald Trump, a corrupt far-white extremist coup plotter who is also a convicted felon and rapist, following this week’s shock presidential election result.

    Ethnic tensions have been on the rise with members of the historically oppressed minority Black ethnic group reporting receiving threatening text messages, warning of a return to an era of enslavement.

    In a startling editorial, the tension-wracked country’s paper of record, The New York Times, declared that the country had made “a perilous choice” and that its fragile democracy was now on “a precarious course”.

    President-elect Trump’s victory marks the second time in eight years the extremist leader, who is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of using campaign funds to pay off a porn star he had cheated on his wife with, has defeated a female opponent from the ruling Democratic Party.

    Women continue to struggle to reach the highest office in the deeply conservative nation where their rights are increasingly under attack and child marriage is widespread.

    This has prompted traumatised supporters of Vice-President Kamala Harris, who had been handpicked to replace the unpopular, ageing incumbent, Joe Biden, to accuse American voters of racism to sexism.

    “It’s misogyny from Hispanic men, it’s misogyny from Black . . . who do not want a woman leading them,” insisted one TV anchor, adding that there “might be race issues with Hispanics that don’t want a Black woman as president of the United States.”

    Hateful tribal rhetoric
    The hateful tribal rhetoric has also included social media posts calling for any people of mixed race who failed to vote for Harris to be deported and for intensification of the genocide in Gaza due to Arab-American rejection of Harris over her support for the continued provision of weapons to the brutal apartheid state committing it.

    “Victory has many fathers but defeat is an orphan,” goes the saying popularised by former US President John F Kennedy, who was shot 61 years ago this month.

    The reluctance to attribute the loss to the grave and gratuitous missteps made by the Harris campaign has mystified America-watchers around the world.

    As an example, analysts point to her wholesale embrace of the Biden regime’s genocidal policy in the Middle East despite opinion polls showing that it was alienating voters.

    Harris and her supporters had tried to counter that by claiming that Trump would also be genocidal and that she would ameliorate the pain of bereaved families in the US by lowering the price of groceries.

    However, the election results showed that this was not a message voters appreciated. “Genocide is bad politics,” said one Arab-American activist.

    Worried over democracy
    As the scale of the extremists’ electoral win becomes increasingly clear, having taken control of not just the presidency but the upper house of Congress as well, many are worried about the prospects for democracy in the US which is still struggling to emerge from Trump’s first term.

    Despite conceding defeat, Harris has pledged to continue to “wage this fight” even as pro-democracy protests have broken out in several cities, raising fears of violence and political uncertainty in the gun-strewn country.

    This could imperil stability in North America and sub-Scandinavian Europe where a Caucasian Spring democratic revolution has failed to take hold, and a plethora of white-wing authoritarian populists have instead come to power across the region.

    However, there is a silver lining. The elections themselves were a massive improvement over the chaotic and shambolic, disputed November 2020 presidential polls which paved the way for a failed putsch two months later.

    This time, the voting was largely peaceful and there was relatively little delay in releasing results, a remarkable achievement for the numeracy-challenged nation where conspiracy theorists remain suspicious about the Islamic origins of mathematics, seeing it is as a ploy by the terror group “Al Jibra” to introduce Sharia Law to the US.

    In the coming months and years, there will be a need for the international community to stay engaged with the US and assist the country to try and undertake much-needed reforms to its electoral and governance systems, including changes to its constitution.

    During the campaigns, Harris loyalists warned that a win by Trump could lead to the complete gutting of its weak democratic systems, an outcome the world must work hard to avoid.

    However, figuring out how to support reform in the US and engage with a Trump regime while not being seen to legitimise the election of a man convicted of serious crimes, will be a tricky challenge for the globe’s mature Third-World democracies.

    Many may be forced to limit direct contact with him. “Choices have consequences,” as a US diplomat eloquently put it 11 years ago.

    Patrick Gathara is a Kenyan journalist, cartoonist, blogger and author. He is also senior editor for inclusive storytelling at The New Humanitarian. This article was first published by Al Jazeera and is republished under Creative Commons.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Donald Trump has secured a second term in office, becoming the second president to win, lose, and then win a presidential race. He’s also going to be the oldest person ever sworn in as president, which could create a lot of problems. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription […]

    The post Corporate Media Was Complicit In Trump’s Victory appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • TRUMP VOTER IN New Hampshire

    Cambridge, UK — As the voting results started coming in here from Virginia at 4 am (GMT, which is five hours later than Eastern Time in the US), I went to bed, having seen enough to know that Kamala Harris’s  crash campaign for the White House was failing.

    I knew what was coming.  I’d experienced it four times already. In 1968 I watched Richard Nixon, the notorious House version of Commie-hunter Sen. Joe McCarthy rouse what he dubbed  the “Silent Majority” of right-wing white bigots and pro-Vietnam War super-patriots and defeated Hubert Humphrey (an earlier VP who the Democratic party chose as their nominee when their incumbent president after, Lyndon Johnson decided not to seek re-election).

    There was a sense of hopelessness on the left the morning after Nixon’a election.

    It happened again in 1980, with the surprise win by Republican Ronald Reagan, who defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter.  That morning, I got up early and went down to Broadway from my 11th-floor apartment on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Walking down the largely empty sidewalk like a zombie, I passed a few people headed the other way, their faces looking similarly shell-shell shocked, until a neighborhood friend, John Hess, a spritely, gray-bearded retiree N.Y. Times staffer, bounded up to me cheerfully. “Isn’t it great?” He said with a smile. “The Republicans also took the Senate!”

    “What’s so great about that?” I asked, astonished that this radical leftist journalist would say such a thing.

    “Because,” he explained, “If the Democrats control Congress, Reagan can’t blame all his disasters on them. Now he won’t have the ability to blame anyone but himself!”

    Actually, in the event, Reagan managed to serve out two terms, and even accomplished some positive things including negotiating with House Majority Leader Democrat Tip O’Neill a rescue of the underfunded Social Security program and ending the Cold War and (at least temporarily) the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union.

    Then, of course, there was the Supreme Court which in 2000 stole the election for George W Bush by halting the vote counting in Florida, where it was clear that Democratic Vice President Al Gore, who had already won the popular vote, would also have won the state and its Electoral College total. Instead, the feckless top court gave the White House to Bush and Dick Cheney.

    And finally there was the night Donald Trump stunned the pundits and himself by winning the White House and defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    So waking up Wednesday morning to see that Trump would be president for another nightmare four-term had for me a definite “Groundhog Da” feel to it — but without the guy-gets-girl happy ending to it).

    Actually, this time Trump 2.0 is worse than those four earlier Republican wins. This time the Republican president will have solid control of both houses of Congress, with a Senate so overwhelmingly Republican that it will be able to pass almost any piece of legislation without Democrats blocking it, and will likely remain in Republican hands for Trump’s full term.  This time around, the Supreme Court too is solidly controlled 6-3 by hard-right justices, and Trump has made it clear that every cabinet office and every government agency will be run  by “loyal’ lackeys of his choosing, with even civil service employees either replaced or cowed into submission — including at such normally independent agencies as the Pentagon, CIA, Justice Department and EPA.  Even the late irrepressible John Hess would have  had a hard time finding a bright side to this Election Day outcome.

    Nonetheless I’m going to give it a try.

    First a reality check:  What we see in the 2024 election result is that a majority of Americans — men and women, rich and poor, white and people of color, educated and uneducated,  religious and atheist —  are either ready to gamble on a self-involved sociopathic, racist and misogynist criminal billionaire with anger issues or are too concerned with just getting by with their daily lives  to to worry about elections that never seem to change their lives for the better or that even make them harder. Analysis of the voting shows that a huge percentage of late voting younger people went for Trump. And a tidal wave of women voting for Harris didn’t materialize. More women voted than men, as usual, but plenty of them went for the pussy-grabbing rapist Trump. Trump also did better with Black men than he did in 2016 and 2024 and significantly improved his tally among Latinos (or as he calls them “Hispanics”). In the end Harris’s larger share of women voters was the same as Trump’s larger share of  men, making the predicted gender war a wash-out.

    Here in the UK, where I am living for the next nine months, I can see what the results of such so-called populist voting trends can be. British voters in 1979 elected a hard-right Prime Minister named Margaret Thatcher and allowed her and her Conservative Party to set off a seismic shift of the country’s politics away from social democracy and a rather classical conservatism into a two-party Neo-liberal dystopia where both parties accepted the notion that capitalism, unfettered markets, and a coddled business elite managing things was the best option for society.

    This  narrowed political playing field has led over the ensuing decades to a long period British economic doldrums, and to a turning away by Brits from the rest of Europe, as resentment and hostility towards outsiders, including eastern Europeans, and especially people from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean — all of them willing to work for less and to leave countries that had it even worse — availed themselves of the lack of borders across Europe  to flock to the UK. This latter phenomenon led to the narrow victory of a referendum that resulted inBritain’s removing itself from the European Union. Called Brexit, this abrupt anti-immigrant “secession” has wreaked havoc on the nation’s economy and living standards, as well as the operation of key services like the country’s once vaunted National Health System.

    Just this past July, British voters, frustrated  with a country and government where “nothing works anymore,” turned out the Conservatives after 15 straight years of Tory rule and handed a landslide win to the Labour Party and its new Prime Minister Keir Starmer.  How that new government will fare in its effort to right the ship of state and its stagnating economy, given the incredible decades-long disinvestment and privatization it is hoping to reverse, remains to be seen.

    I suspect the US, under a second Trump administration, this time emboldened by a political realignment at least as profound as was Thatcher’s 1979 win in the UK, will soon be similarly strip-mined and privatized.

    The one bright spot, however, if President-re-elect Trump, a shameless liar, can be taken at his word, would be if he actually were to brings an end to the decade of US military aid political  brinksmanship in pushing Ukraine to break away from neighboring Russia’s sphere of influence and to join NATO, the US-led anti-Russian alliance created way back at the start of the Cold War of he 1950s. Trump says, quite logically, that US efforts to pull Ukraine into NATO, a mutual protection pact whose very existence is an existential threat to Russia, and the Ukraine government’s now ten-year old armed conflict with first its ethic Russian minority and then, when Russia responded by invading Ukraine, with Russia, a leading nuclear power,  has led to a war in which Ukraine’s military is largely underwritten by US arms and financial banking interests. It is a war that the US knows poses a high risk of provoking a devastating and potentially world-ending nuclear conflict between ther world’s two nuclear superpowers.

    During the just concluded election campaign, Trump promised to bring an end to that bloody military conflict immediately before even waiting for his second inauguration in January.  He has also promised to end the one-sided slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, though without specifying how.

    I am no fan of Trump, but I have to say should he successfully cut short those two bloody conflicts, or even ends the Ukraine war while at least not making things worse in Gaza, his new presidency would be off to a great start. He should follow that up by returning the US to the treaty relationship on nuclear weapons that his Republican predecessor Ronald  Reagan worked out with former Soviet and Russia leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which effectively, if all too briefly,  ended the two countries’ nuclear standoff and raised humanity’s hopes for an end to nuclear weapons altogether. Trump should also follow through with his prior effort to pull the US out of NATO, which long ago morphed into a cover for and participant in US global military actions around the world and simply serves as an excuse for ploughing over a trillion dollars a year into the coffers of the US arms industry.

    Martin Luther King, a year to the day before the day in 1968 that he was assassinated (my birthday) he gave a speech at the Riverside Church in New York titled Beyond Vietnam:A Time to End the Silence.” In it he correctly identified the US, at that time conducting a bloody aggressive war in Indochina, as being “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”  It has remained so, Indeed its endless wars and “interventions,” have reportedly killed well over 6 million people, mostly civilians, around the world in the eight decades since WWII.

    Trump knows this and has talked of pulling US forces back from the hundreds of places they are based in foreign lands (though that idea was at one point linked by him to the idea of using them against American dissidents here at home — NOT a Great idea!).

    He should pull them back and decommission them.

    Trump has said on a number of occasions that he does not want wars — that as a businessman, he wants the US to do business with other nations, on a level playing field.  That is a great sentiment, and it’s one that his base, those MAGA voters, some of whom I know and have had conversations with,. Trump should be held to that promise, and should downsize the US military to a size appropriate to a country that is not facing any threat of invasion and that stops meddling militarily in other countries and maintaining bases around the globe. That is a position a lot of Trump’s MAGA backers agree with.

    For now though, all we have from President-elect Trump are promises like  “I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to stop wars,” and unless acted upon these cannot be taken seriously. But that said, I have to say the words themselves are welcome, and it’w a promise that I’ve never heard the likes of coming from any other president-elect of either party.. (Okay, Richard Nixon claimed during his first presidential race that he had a “secret plan’ for ending the war in Vietnam, but that “plan” turned out to be to massively carpet-bomb North Vietnam using B-52s. expand the war  into Laos and Cambodia and to ship more US combat troops into the country. Once elected, he kept the war going until he resigned from office in disgrace.)

    We on the left are facing an existential crisis with Trump’s election victory but also an opportunity

    Supporting the Democrats and their chosen candidate Kamala Harris as a tactical move to preserve freedom to organize and to protest was clearly unsuccessful as her poorly performed campaign did worse than Hillary Clinton did against Trump eight years before. Indeed, she lost not just in the Electoral College tally but in the popular vote, which Clinton at least won.  The Democratic Party has been shown once again to be a pathetic joke as a political opponent. Sen. Bernie Sanders,  who won a resounding re-election to the Senate in Vermont, identified right before Harris’s concession speech on Thursday, the party’s problem:  It is owned by billionaires and moneyed consultants wedded to corporate interests, and is  dismissive or even hostile to the interests of the working class.

    But the pathetic showing of third party candidates in this,  as in prior elections,  has shown that building a third party is also a fool’s errand in a country where the political system is structured to prevent them.

    That leaves us with the option of building a large movement outside of political parties focussed around broad popular issues that would bring working-class people together common goals like peace and demilitarization, significantly raising the minimum wage, improving and protecting Social Security, making Medicare universal for all ages, passing the Equal Rights Amendment and protecting every women’s right to control her own body and health and seriously addressing the climate crisis.

    Trump has made it clear that he wants unrestrained power, without the hindrances of a Constitution or a Congress composed of members who might think for themselves and perform their intended constitutional role as a check and balance on the Executive Branch. Trump’s history of lying, criminality, racism and misogyny and his willingness to appeal to American citizens’ basest instincts are well known. But we are stuck with him. He cannot be defeated in the courts because he has a bunch of sycophants packing the Supreme Court and in the lower level federal courts.  Impeachment cannot happen and is a waste of time and effort. The weakened Congressional Democrats can no longer even put on a impeachment committee hearing this time.

    With a mass movement we can pressure Trump and his Congressional supporters to do what they promised. If they go back on those promises, we can work to peel away those people who just voted for him as a “change disrupter,” especially as they begin to discover he really doesn’t give a damn about them.

    Meanwhile we need to do the hard work of organize]ing wide support for resisting Trump’s worst ideas — the ones that will harm the defenseless and that will grievously contribute to climate change. For example, we need to support a campaign to protect undocumented people living in the USA from brutal arrest, detention and forced deportation, especially in cases that break up families.  We clearly need to build a mass movement to protect programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.  A key here is that most of Trump’s own voting base depend on those programs and on the Affordable Care Act. Trump and his advisers know this. This is why Trump vowed during his campaign not to cut them. He needs to be held to that promise. And we need to call out every Trump effort to worsen climate change by the reversal of what climate saving measures have been introduced, and by trying to sack or silence those civil service employees responsible for measuring or ameliorating climate change.

    Trump, by making this false promises he won’t keep in order to win the election has handed us what we need to organize this same people.

    The post If Trump Can Be Believed, His Return to the White House Could be a Good Thing…at least Internationally first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Some of the votes Americans cast on Tuesday that may have mattered most for the climate were quite a bit downballot from the presidential ticket: A handful of states held elections for the commissions that regulate utilities, and thereby exercise direct control over what sort of energy mix will fuel the coming years’ expected growth in electricity demand. In three closely watched races around the country — the utility commissions in Arizona, Montana, and Louisiana — Republican candidates either won or are in the lead. While they generally pitched themselves to voters as market-friendly, favoring an all-of-the-above approach to energy, clean energy advocates interviewed by Grist cast these candidates as deferential to the power companies they aspired to regulate.

    Arizona is, in a word, sunny. Its geography makes it “the famously obvious place to build solar,” said Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, a nonprofit that works to get clean energy advocates elected. But its utilities have built just a sliver of the potential solar energy that there is room for in the state — and the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s investor-owned utilities, is partly to blame for that. That commission’s most recent goal for renewable energy, set in 2007, was an unambitious 15 percent to be reached by 2025. “Their goals are worse than where Texas currently is and where Iowa currently is on clean energy,” Spears said. What’s more, the current slate of commissioners is in the process of considering whether to ditch that goal altogether.

    Those commissioners have held a 4-1 Republican majority on the commission since 2022, and in that time they’ve approved the construction of new gas plants, imposed new fees on rooftop solar, and raised electricity rates. Tuesday’s election, in which three of the commission’s five seats were on the ballot, gave voters a chance to reverse course. The race hasn’t yet been officially called, but three Republican candidates are in the lead, ahead of three Democratic candidates, two Green candidates, and a write-in independent. (The election is structured such that candidates don’t run for individual seats or in districts; rather, the seats go to the three top vote-getters.)

    So far, the Republican candidate who’s gotten the most votes is Rachel Walden, a member of the Mesa school board who’s made a name for herself in Arizona politics with transphobic comments and a failed lawsuit against the Mesa school district over its policies on student bathroom usage. “She’s a candidate who doesn’t have a lot of specific energy experience but seems to be very diehard to the kind of MAGA movement more broadly,” said Stephanie Chase, a researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog nonprofit.

    In Montana, three seats were open on the Public Service Commission, but one in particular — District 4 — captured the attention of clean energy advocates, because it was the only one in which a non-Republican candidate was running. Elena Evans, an independent, began her campaign after learning that the incumbent commissioner in her district, Jennifer Fielder, was running unopposed. The race focused less on clean energy than affordability: Evans said in interviews she decided to run because of the 28 percent rate hike that the all-Republican commission had approved. In the closest of the commission’s three elections, Fielder beat Evans with 55 percent of the vote.

    Like in Arizona, the Montana PSC has neglected to take advantage of its state’s untapped potential for renewable energy — wind. A Montana commissioner was captured on a hot mic in 2019 candidly acknowledging that the purpose of a rate cut for renewable energy providers was to kill solar development in the state.

    While one independent on the commission wouldn’t have likely swayed the course of its decisions, Evans would have had the opportunity “to be a consumer voice,” in Chase’s words, as the commission deliberated not only over future decisions on renewable energy, but also the looming question of the future of a coal plant in eastern Montana. The Colstrip power plant has been co-owned by utilities in nearby states, which, in anticipation of those states’ renewable energy targets kicking in, are selling their shares of its energy to the Montana utility NorthWestern Energy. These deals could saddle ratepayers in Montana with new costs, both for the purchase and for compliance with environmental regulations.

    In Louisiana, the largest utility regulated by the Public Service Commission is Entergy, which Daniel Tait, a researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute, described as “one of the most reviled utilities in the country by its customers.” Louisiana’s utilities are legally permitted to donate directly to the campaign funds for commissioners who regulate them — and they do so in great volume.

    The race to replace Louisiana Public Service Commissioner Craig Greene, who is retiring at the end of his term, commanded attention because, though a Republican representing a deep-red part of the state, Greene is considered the swing vote among the five commissioners, two of whom are Democrats. In his eight years in office, he’s become known for “his willingness to hold Entergy accountable,” according to Tait — voting with the progressive commissioner Davante Lewis on issues like energy efficiency programs and limiting utilities’ political spending.

    On Tuesday, Greene’s seat was won by Jean-Paul Coussan, a state senator from Lafayette who accepted utility donations, supports an expansion of gas infrastructure, and has criticized renewables for “driv[ing] out oil and gas jobs.” Tait described Coussan as less hostile to clean energy than his Republican opponent in the race, Julie Quinn, but further right than the Democrat he defeated, Nick Laborde.

    In an interview with the Louisiana Illuminator, Coussan cast his energy policies as based on free markets. “It’s critical that we look at the most affordable options. I think renewables are currently part of the matrix and will be in the future,” he said. “We also need to address the reality that we’ve got an abundant supply of natural gas.”

    Coussan has also spoken of the needs of Louisianans who are suffering from repeated hurricanes and rising rates. “The things that he has said since being elected are contradictory in nature,” Tait said of Coussan. “He says he wants affordable and reliable energy, and that he cares about storm protection, because there are so many issues in Louisiana, but the very thing that’s creating these storms is climate change — which is being caused by carbon emissions.”

    “You can’t make the problem worse and say you want to work hard to solve the problem,” Tait added.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline These downballot elections may slow the shift to clean energy on Nov 8, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • COMMENTARY: By Paul G Buchanan

    Surveying the wreckage of the US elections, here are some observations that have emerged:

    Campaigns based on hope do not always defeat campaigns based on fear.

    Having dozens of retired high ranking military and diplomatic officials warn against the danger Donald Trump poses to democracy (including people who worked for him) did not matter to many voters.

    Likewise, having former politicians and hundreds of academics, intellectuals, legal scholars, community leaders and social activists repudiate Trump’s policies of division mattered not an iota to the voting majority.

    Nor did Kamala Harris’s endorsement by dozens of high profile celebrities make a difference to the MAGA mob.

    Raising +US$ billion in political donations did not produce victory got Harris. It turns out outspending the opponent is not the key to electoral success.

    Incoherent racist and xenophobic rants (“they are eating the dogs, they are eating the cats”) did not give the MAGA mob any pause when considering their choices. In fact, it appears that the resort to crude depictions of opponents (“stupid KaMAla”)and scapegoats (like Puerto Ricans) strengthened the bond between Trump and his supporters.

    ‘Garbage can’ narrative
    Macroeconomic and social indicators such as higher employment and lower crime and undocumented immigrant numbers could not overcome the MAGA narrative that the US was “the garbage can of the world.”

    Nor could Harris, despite her accomplished resume in all three government branches at the local, state and federal levels, overcome the narrative that she was “dumb” and a DEI hire who was promoted for reasons other than merit.

    It did not matter to the MAGA mob that Trump threatened retribution against his opponents, real and imagined, using the Federal State as his instrument of revenge.

    "Standing up to Trump the duty of every public servant"
    “Standing up to Trump the duty of every public servant” . . . A New York Times edirtorial reoublished today in the New Zealand Herald.

    Age was not a factor even though Trump displays evident signs of cognitive decline.

    Reproductive rights were not the watershed issue many thought that they would be, including for many female voters. Conversely, the MAGA efforts to court “bro” support via social media catering to younger men worked very well.

    In a way, this is a double setback for women: as an issue of bodily autonomy and as an issue of gender equality given the attitudes of Trump endorsers like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate. Those angry younger men interact with females, and their misogyny has now been reaffirmed as part of a political winning strategy.

    Ukraine, Europe much to fear
    Ukraine and Western Europe have much to fear.

    So does the federal bureaucracy and regulatory system, which will now be subject to Project 2025, Elon Musk’s razor gang approach to public spending and RFK Jr’s public health edicts.

    In fact, it looks like the Trump second term approach to governance will take a page out of Argentine president Javier Milei’s “chainsaw” approach, with results that will be similar but far broader in scope if implemented in the same way.

    So all in all, from where I sit it looks like a bit of a calamity in the making. But then again, I am just another fool with a “woke” degree.

    Dr Paul G Buchanan is the director of 36th-Parallel Assessments, a geopolitical and strategic analysis consultancy. This article is republished with the permission of the author.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • America’s Lawyer E122: Donald Trump has won the 2024 Presidential election, surpassing expectations and breaking down the “blue wall” in the Midwest. We’ll bring you the details. And an absurd amount of voters say that they have changed their political opinions based on celebrity endorsements. All that, and more is coming up, so don’t go […]

    The post Democrats In The Ditch – Dig Your Way Out appeared first on The Ring of Fire Network.

    This post was originally published on The Ring of Fire.

  • “Of all the modern delusions, the ballot has certainly been the greatest.” —Lucy Parsons You do not vote fascism away. Even though this feels obvious, the right-wing political establishment in the U.S. has accomplished something remarkable with the help of the Democratic Party. They managed to shift the discourse so far right that they normalized positions that were possibly once…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As the dust settles over election day, it’s worth reflecting that it’s not only the election results that have been at stake, but the future of the presidency and its powers. Over the course of the first quarter of this century, the American presidency has accumulated ever more power, rendering the office increasingly less constrained by either Congress or the courts. With Donald Trump’s…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The chickens that the Democrats hatched in 2016 came home to roost in 2024. Back then, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), representing the party’s establishment, promoted Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. They thought him to be an easy mark who would be opposed by both the Republican Party establishment and most US voters.

    That stratagem turned out to be correct about the Republican establishment but wrong about the electorate. In any case, Trump went on to not only capture the GOP but the archaic Electoral College as well.

    The DNC reprised that strategy with the same suicidal results this year, putting all their deplorable eggs into the one basket of running on a platform of “not-Trump.”

    Trump campaigned on the gambit of asking whether Americans felt they were better off now after four years of Joe Biden. The populace roared back a resounding “NO.” Pitching to a disaffected and dispossessed citizenry, he threw them reactionary red meat, scapegoating immigrants and others.

    Kamala Harris flew the blue banner but her woke message that she was “not Trump” was less convincing. A red tsunami has swept the Democrats not only out of the White House but congress and many governorships. Trump is on track to win the popular vote.

    This “triumph of the swill,” borrowing from the Dead Kennedys, will have consequences for the Supreme Court and the larger makeup of the US politics going into the future. MAGA has now firmly infected the body politic and threatens to metastasize. Hillary Clinton’s smug words in 2016, “Trump is the gift that keeps on giving,” turned out to be unintentionally prescient.

    Would it have been any different had the DNC not rigged the 2016 presidential nomination for establishment candidate Clinton by sabotaging Bernie Sanders, who campaigned on issues of empowerment and economic benefit that also appealed to Trump voters? For them, the fear that Sanders could activate and organize genuine grassroots discontent into a social movement was greater than the risk of a Trump presidency.

    But the faux independent senator from Vermont had a fatal flaw – “though shalt not do anything that harms the Democratic Party.” This was all the DNC needed to crush his campaign. His “Our Revolution” was domesticated, while Bernie shepherded progressives into the big blue tent.

    Green Party campaign manager Jason Call, speaking personally on election night, said it was better to vote for a third party candidate who was opposed to the genocide in Palestine. Even if one accepts the bogus argument that doing so throws the election to Trump, in the larger picture, that would still be preferable to telling the Democrats, who are the party in power, that their conduct is acceptable.

    Democratic Party supporters, of course, disagree. They claim that Trump is even more pro-Zionist than their candidate, which may be true. Although today the Democratic Party is arguably the leading war party, we will have cold comfort with the Republicans in power. And domestically the Democrats spout a better line on some social wedge issues that don’t threaten elite rule, such as women’s reproductive rights, although their walk is not as good as their talk.

    Yes, things will get worse under Trump. But things would also get worse under Harris. This is because the entire political discourse has been staggering to the right regardless of which wing of the duopoly is in power.

    In contrast, the voting public is well to the left of them on almost every issue, from universal public healthcare to opposition to endless war. By any objective measure, Jill Stein’s Green Party campaign was middle of the road compared to her corporate party competitors.

    The lesser-evil voting strategy itself bears some degree of responsibility for this reactionary tide. By unconditionally supporting the Democrats, progressive-leaning voters become a captured constituency to be ignored. They incentivize the Democrats to scurry even further to the right to try to pick up the votes of the undecided and to further cater to the class interests of their corporate funders.

    Wednesday morning quarterbacks (election day is on Tuesday) are saying that the Democrats should have given more emphasis in their campaign messaging to economic issues affecting working people. This ignores the fact that Harris, and Biden before her, had claimed that they had turned the economy around.

    The debate on how much better the post-Covid economy is and who benefited leads to a deeper question. The current incarnation of capitalism, what is popularly called “neoliberalism,” has failed to meet the material needs of working people. This structural problem, not simply a question of policy, begs for another economic model.

    The now manifest failure of the Democrats to offer a platform beyond “not Trump” exposes their bankruptcy. They do not even pretend to have an agenda to address the underlying economic distress, because the limits of the economic system that they embrace provides no succor.

    In fact, neither of the major parties offer an alternative to neoliberalism. Both duopoly wings tend to campaign on cultural rather than substantive economic issues precisely because neither have solutions to the erosion of the quality of life for most citizens.

    The Republican’s capitalized on popular discontent with the incumbents. But come the mid-term elections in two years, the tables will be turned. This drama is being played out abroad with social democrats getting the boot in places like Argentina and Austria, part of a larger blowback filling the sails of an international far-right insurgence.

    A major left-liberal concern is the supposed imminent threat of fascism. Their fear is focused on Trump’s dysfunctionality and his “deplorable” working class minions; not on the security apparatus of the state, which they have learned to love. However, fascism is not a personality disorder. The ruling class – whether its nominal head wears a red or blue hat – has no reason to impose a fascist dictatorship as long as people embrace rather than oppose the security state.

    The New York Times reported: “US stocks, the value of the dollar, and yields on Treasury bonds all recorded gains as Mr. Trump’s victory became clear.” That is good for the ruling class but not so much for the rest of us.

    Lesser-evil voting contributes to the rightward trajectory of US politics at this time when structural change is needed. Absent a third-party alternative, the two-party duopoly doesn’t even recognize existential threats, such as global warming or nuclear annihilation, let alone address them.

    Meanwhile, the US military launched a test hypersonic nuclear missile right after the polls closed on November 5. The scariest thing about their “reassurance” to the American public regarding this practice run for World War III was that it was “routine.”

  • Roger D. Harris is on the state central committee of the Peace and Freedom Party, the only ballot-qualified socialist party in California. The views expressed here are his own.
  • The post A Third Party Perspective on the Rightward Lurch of the US Body Politic first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.