> Interesting, especially the turnout figures. Apathy is a bitch.
Apathy is a only a symptom, the disease is political dysfunction that both parties have established as norm. The choices offered aren't really different, the rhetoric is fierce but the actions are wimpy, unless they benefit the donor class. The majority of those who don't vote understand this and for them voting is a waste of time.
The OP doesn't really move the needle either, same old, same old - making more people vote or vote for the Democrats ain't gonna change a thing, and it hasn't for a long time.
If you single tap on android it opens it with the three dots in the top right (which gives you the download option). Also after you tap once, you can pinch to zoom.
I really don't understand how countries like the USA can be even considered a democracy, when the only choice is swinging between two parties that only really make headway on a small handful of issues. The same goes for a lot of countries with a similar system. Over time, parts of the system get locked into a certain path through manipulation and then people vote between a small subset of two issues.
It's much more like an oligarchy with a sprinkle of democracy thrown in, rather than true representative leadership.
I wholeheartedly agree. To make matters worse, the “culture wars” have led to a situation where many voters for one party would never consider voting for members of the opposite party due to where the fall on cultural matters such as abortion, LGBT+ issues, race relations, etc. Someone’s position on abortion is far more predictive of political party than one’s positions regarding how the national debt should be dealt with. It’s easier for people to compromise on non-cultural matters.
Unfortunately, one effect of this is that people are “locked into” one party. The party then could take its voters for granted. “What are you going to do, vote Democratic/Republican?” is the attitude, which breeds apathy, which creates conditions that are ripe for bad actors to exploit.
I wish there were more choices, where conservatives have options beyond MAGA and where liberals and progressives have choices. I also wish there were a wider spectrum beyond liberal/conservative. Unfortunately the current system is such that the two main parties are entrenched, with third parties being massively disadvantaged.
I wish I had solutions. All I know is 2026 is coming fast, and we better be prepared.
The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The architects of the system were highly suspicious of Athenian democracy and the tyranny of the majority.
Third parties don't really work in this system. If a third party gains transaction on an issue, one of the two main parties will largely adopt those policies. Otherwise, the 3rd party just splits the vote and the party least like the third party wins.
Everything is always changing too. Both parties have changed quite a lot in even the last 10 years.
Even further back look at an election map of JFK and Nixon in 1960. The states have practically all flipped. California and the west coast voted all Republican. The southern states voted all Democrat.
> The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
I'm not sure why this basic issue is constantly attacked with the nonsensical claim that a republic is not a democracy. There are two forms of democracy - direct (never tried in the West) and representative (aka republic). In short, for all intends and purposes, the US and all other western democracies are both democracies and republics. And that's that.
The confusion goes back all the way to Hamilton who might have been too busy effing around to understand the difference.
Constitutional republic is a form of democracy. The parent post is largely unchanged if you find and replace "democracy" with "constitutional republic".
They were suspicious of the tyranny of the majority because they were rich slave owning aristocrats i.e. they were the tyrants and wanted to remain so.
The system does generally push towards a duopoly. Still there's more influence of voters inside the parties at the local levels than it seems at first. Many important issues are handled at the state level. There's more variation of the parties beliefs as well at that level. A Wyoming Republican can have fairly different views and priorities from a South Carolina Republican. Side note, personally I believe that the growth of the scope of the federal government reduces representation significantly.
A big difference with China or Russia's one party systems is that the presidential candidates are chosen in primaries, which can have a large effect. Both Obama and Trump were relative outsiders who were able to win their parties primaries without being heads of their parties.
To me the USA's executive branch system allows more choice in representative leadership than parliamentary systems where the parties choose the prime minister.
There are different kinds of parliamentary systems. In some, the prime minister is a big important leader, almost like a president in a presidential system. In others, they are just another interchangeable cog in the machine.
Here in Finland, it's rare that a prime minister manages to serve the full four-year term. Usually there are enough controversies and scandals that they eventually have to resign. But the government coalition just keeps going on, implementing the same policies as before, as the leader is ultimately not that important.
> Total Wealth Gains of Forbes 400 by Presidential Administration The Forbes 400 total wealth grew considerably more during Democratic administrations (+57.1%) compared to Republican administrations (+16.5%)
Wow, the last jump of the wealth of the Forbes 400 by 64% under Biden is insane. I'm guessing largely due to covid-19. Oddly under Trumps first term the Forbes 400 went up and then decreased a fair bit to end up at only 15% growth overall.
> Billionaire wealth grew an average of 57.1% under Democratic administrations compared to 16.5% under Republican administrations over the past 40 years. This counterintuitive pattern suggests many billionaire political donors prioritize immediate tax cuts over the stronger economic growth that historically occurs under Democratic policies.
I don't think we can assume that billionaire wealth would have grown even more with uninterrupted Democratic administrations. I suspect that tax cuts and deregulation during Republican administrations were essential for future growth of their wealth, with effects lasting many years afterward. (The Democratic administrations never fully undid, if they undid at all, the tax cuts and deregulation that occurred in previous Republican administrations.) Also, I think if Democrats were holding onto power comfortably, there would be more calls for and less resistance to anti-billionaire economic policies coming from the left wing.
I'd be interested to see the chart of billionaire wealth growth compared to median income growth. Billionaires claim that it's not a zero-sum game, but if you look at the % of campaign contributions by the most wealthy, that's hard to believe. Relative wealth matters a lot. If the overall economy is growing, that ultimately gives more power to labor, who can more easily change jobs and demand higher wages, so there may be an occasional, intentional reset—an economic downturn, layoffs, etc.—just to put labor in its place and ensure continued billionaire dominance over the masses.
What does "It" refer to in your comment? The article does not mention wage growth; I'm the one who suggested that adding wage growth to the chart might be interesting and informative.
I would encourage you to research the amazing difference between Republican and Democratic administrations when it comes to economic performance in general. Democratic administrations economic performance is always massively better. The differences are stark, where Democratic policies encourage both GDP and wage growth. They hold true across all major economic indicators, such as gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.” The reason is very simple. Republicans have spent years wedded to austerity economics while Democrats are explicitly dedicated to job growth for the middle class and high taxes on the rich. Republicans continue their austerity policies as well as adopting policies aimed at making life easier for corporations and the wealthy. Democrats, by contrast, continue to focus on the poor and the working class.
The point is it doesn't matter. You can do the analysis however you choose. It's incontrovertible. We are all poorer because of austerity economics ... even the billionaires.
Interesting, especially the turnout figures. Apathy is a bitch.
(But damn I wish substack didn't disable pinch-to-zoom. I tried to give feedback, but their customer service chatbot wasn't sympathetic.)
> Interesting, especially the turnout figures. Apathy is a bitch.
Apathy is a only a symptom, the disease is political dysfunction that both parties have established as norm. The choices offered aren't really different, the rhetoric is fierce but the actions are wimpy, unless they benefit the donor class. The majority of those who don't vote understand this and for them voting is a waste of time.
The OP doesn't really move the needle either, same old, same old - making more people vote or vote for the Democrats ain't gonna change a thing, and it hasn't for a long time.
I didn't even notice substack was being an ass because I've told my browser (Brave) to Force Enable Zoom.
Well, holy crap--that's a feature in Firefox, too, under Settings->Accessibility.
Thanks!
If you single tap on android it opens it with the three dots in the top right (which gives you the download option). Also after you tap once, you can pinch to zoom.
[dead]
So if Dems show up for the midterms there’s a chance!
The Supreme Court vs lower courts is wild.
I really don't understand how countries like the USA can be even considered a democracy, when the only choice is swinging between two parties that only really make headway on a small handful of issues. The same goes for a lot of countries with a similar system. Over time, parts of the system get locked into a certain path through manipulation and then people vote between a small subset of two issues.
It's much more like an oligarchy with a sprinkle of democracy thrown in, rather than true representative leadership.
I wholeheartedly agree. To make matters worse, the “culture wars” have led to a situation where many voters for one party would never consider voting for members of the opposite party due to where the fall on cultural matters such as abortion, LGBT+ issues, race relations, etc. Someone’s position on abortion is far more predictive of political party than one’s positions regarding how the national debt should be dealt with. It’s easier for people to compromise on non-cultural matters.
Unfortunately, one effect of this is that people are “locked into” one party. The party then could take its voters for granted. “What are you going to do, vote Democratic/Republican?” is the attitude, which breeds apathy, which creates conditions that are ripe for bad actors to exploit.
I wish there were more choices, where conservatives have options beyond MAGA and where liberals and progressives have choices. I also wish there were a wider spectrum beyond liberal/conservative. Unfortunately the current system is such that the two main parties are entrenched, with third parties being massively disadvantaged.
I wish I had solutions. All I know is 2026 is coming fast, and we better be prepared.
The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The architects of the system were highly suspicious of Athenian democracy and the tyranny of the majority.
Third parties don't really work in this system. If a third party gains transaction on an issue, one of the two main parties will largely adopt those policies. Otherwise, the 3rd party just splits the vote and the party least like the third party wins.
Everything is always changing too. Both parties have changed quite a lot in even the last 10 years.
Even further back look at an election map of JFK and Nixon in 1960. The states have practically all flipped. California and the west coast voted all Republican. The southern states voted all Democrat.
> The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
I'm not sure why this basic issue is constantly attacked with the nonsensical claim that a republic is not a democracy. There are two forms of democracy - direct (never tried in the West) and representative (aka republic). In short, for all intends and purposes, the US and all other western democracies are both democracies and republics. And that's that.
The confusion goes back all the way to Hamilton who might have been too busy effing around to understand the difference.
Constitutional republic is a form of democracy. The parent post is largely unchanged if you find and replace "democracy" with "constitutional republic".
They were suspicious of the tyranny of the majority because they were rich slave owning aristocrats i.e. they were the tyrants and wanted to remain so.
The system does generally push towards a duopoly. Still there's more influence of voters inside the parties at the local levels than it seems at first. Many important issues are handled at the state level. There's more variation of the parties beliefs as well at that level. A Wyoming Republican can have fairly different views and priorities from a South Carolina Republican. Side note, personally I believe that the growth of the scope of the federal government reduces representation significantly.
A big difference with China or Russia's one party systems is that the presidential candidates are chosen in primaries, which can have a large effect. Both Obama and Trump were relative outsiders who were able to win their parties primaries without being heads of their parties.
To me the USA's executive branch system allows more choice in representative leadership than parliamentary systems where the parties choose the prime minister.
There are different kinds of parliamentary systems. In some, the prime minister is a big important leader, almost like a president in a presidential system. In others, they are just another interchangeable cog in the machine.
Here in Finland, it's rare that a prime minister manages to serve the full four-year term. Usually there are enough controversies and scandals that they eventually have to resign. But the government coalition just keeps going on, implementing the same policies as before, as the leader is ultimately not that important.
> Total Wealth Gains of Forbes 400 by Presidential Administration The Forbes 400 total wealth grew considerably more during Democratic administrations (+57.1%) compared to Republican administrations (+16.5%)
Wow, the last jump of the wealth of the Forbes 400 by 64% under Biden is insane. I'm guessing largely due to covid-19. Oddly under Trumps first term the Forbes 400 went up and then decreased a fair bit to end up at only 15% growth overall.
Phenomenal. Just wish I knew if this was under a CC license.
It doesn't explicitly mention a license, but it has this right underneath "Overview of the Insights" near the top:
> A quick note: All of the data visualizations in this roundup are free to use as common content. You are welcome to share and republish them.
Very interesting, this was just dead a moment ago, but the charting and data viz seems great!
> Billionaire wealth grew an average of 57.1% under Democratic administrations compared to 16.5% under Republican administrations over the past 40 years. This counterintuitive pattern suggests many billionaire political donors prioritize immediate tax cuts over the stronger economic growth that historically occurs under Democratic policies.
I don't think we can assume that billionaire wealth would have grown even more with uninterrupted Democratic administrations. I suspect that tax cuts and deregulation during Republican administrations were essential for future growth of their wealth, with effects lasting many years afterward. (The Democratic administrations never fully undid, if they undid at all, the tax cuts and deregulation that occurred in previous Republican administrations.) Also, I think if Democrats were holding onto power comfortably, there would be more calls for and less resistance to anti-billionaire economic policies coming from the left wing.
I'd be interested to see the chart of billionaire wealth growth compared to median income growth. Billionaires claim that it's not a zero-sum game, but if you look at the % of campaign contributions by the most wealthy, that's hard to believe. Relative wealth matters a lot. If the overall economy is growing, that ultimately gives more power to labor, who can more easily change jobs and demand higher wages, so there may be an occasional, intentional reset—an economic downturn, layoffs, etc.—just to put labor in its place and ensure continued billionaire dominance over the masses.
It is comparing the stock market to wage growth and making up stories about arbitrary windows of stock market returns.
What does "It" refer to in your comment? The article does not mention wage growth; I'm the one who suggested that adding wage growth to the chart might be interesting and informative.
I would encourage you to research the amazing difference between Republican and Democratic administrations when it comes to economic performance in general. Democratic administrations economic performance is always massively better. The differences are stark, where Democratic policies encourage both GDP and wage growth. They hold true across all major economic indicators, such as gross domestic product, employment, incomes, productivity, even stock prices. It’s true if you examine only the precise period when a president is in office, or instead assume that a president’s policies affect the economy only after a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. The gap “holds almost regardless of how you define success,” two economics professors at Princeton, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson, write. They describe it as “startlingly large.” The reason is very simple. Republicans have spent years wedded to austerity economics while Democrats are explicitly dedicated to job growth for the middle class and high taxes on the rich. Republicans continue their austerity policies as well as adopting policies aimed at making life easier for corporations and the wealthy. Democrats, by contrast, continue to focus on the poor and the working class.
Should we only focus on US House and their party-in-control (as stated in Article I Section 7 of U.S. Constitution)
Should we factor in six-month delay for enacted OMNIBUS to take effect?
Should we even delve further to even variable enactment delays of each bill?
The point is it doesn't matter. You can do the analysis however you choose. It's incontrovertible. We are all poorer because of austerity economics ... even the billionaires.
[dead]
[flagged]