Trump is just hot air of populism, basically anti-elitism, that the present elites are evil and screwing the ordinary people and he will solve everything. — ssu

He has the appearance of a populist because calls out the elites when it comes to things like censorship (particularly censorship of him) or when they go after his crimes, but when it comes to his economic grievances he's gonna blame the immigrants, the government, and other countries. They are stealing your jobs, they are bringing in crime and drugs, and they're taking your money. Inflation is caused by too much wasteful government spending and it's spending on other countries that don't deserve it or "woke" programs that help people who aren't you.

There is a concentrated effort against trade unions and the labor movement, and this will surely continue during the Trump years. Just look at the billionaires that are the backers of Trump. — ssu

This is the problem with Trump's theory of economic change which is that it completely ignores the role of big business in getting us where we are. It's not just the dirty immigrants who make stuff cheaper. And as far as I can tell these businesses are gonna be given way more influence in this upcoming administration than any previous administration I've seen, even under Trump's last government. The billionaires who benefitted the most from this neoliberal era are not gonna save us from neoliberalism.

If Trump did succeed in returning the US to a pre-1990s trade position, it would be the first step in the recreation of American labor unions. It would mean demands for a better social safety net would have power behind them. — frank

The irony is that empowering labor unions is what you wouldn't want if you want to encourage US onshoring. Businesses don't build in the US because the labor and safety standards are poor in countries like China.

That being said I don't think Trump would care about that. He hasn't been very pro-labor in his first term and as much as he may try to give some crumbs to the labor workers he's been trying to court he's certainly gonna be worse than the Democrats on the matter especially as he surrounds himself with anti-union business leaders like Elon Musk. There will probably be a port strike coming in January, so we'll see how he handles it.

I don't like Trump, mainly because I don't want to hear his mouth, but on this issue, he's actually lining up with exactly what he said he wanted to do back in 2016: shore up the position of American labor. — frank

He didn't really do that during his first term. In fact, Biden accomplished that. Also, the renegotiated NAFTA he did wasn't even that different from NAFTA.

I guess it depends on what commodity we're talking about. I think the main thing we get from Mexico is agricultural products. What kind of supply chain were you thinking of? — frank

I mean it's not just Mexico and it's not just agricultural products. The discussions I've seen haven't gone into specifics about the different industries, but they have generally given that time frame for the US to rebuild it's manufacturing infrastructure to pre-NAFTA levels. Two years is way too short a period to expect everything to be fixed especially given how offshoring happened over several decades.

I mean, inflation is coming down. The Fed is set to decrease rates again next year. When I say I think the tariffs will be permanent, I mean that it won't be possible to form a coalition to get rid of them again. As for Europe, I don't think it's even on the American radar at this point. I think we'll be parting ways in terms of fundamentals. — frank

A future president can remove tariffs if they want as much as Trump can impose them. You don't need congressional approval to get this done. You just need a president who disagrees with Trump's approach on the issue.

Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them. — frank

They'll still be hurt regardless. Whatever will be made in the US will be more expensive and retailers will have to bear that cost or make prices higher. So even in the case where tariffs will bring back US jobs the inflationary effects will be permanent.

Now of course it's debatable whether that is good or not, but that wasn't the concern for most voters this year. It was inflation and a belief that Trump will bring prices down which is the irony here.

I'd say more like two years, but I believe the tariffs will be permanent. — frank

The timeframe that's been thrown around is a decade. You can't just simply rebuild entire supply chains in a couple of years, one with the connections and an experienced workforce, especially if a good chunk of that workforce is gonna be deported.

But if you think Trump should impose these massive tariffs permanently and that the economy and prices would somehow work itself out before the midterms or the next presidential election, that's fine by me. I welcome it too, for different reasons.

A lot of those businesses rely on imports and they're the ones who have to pay for the tariffs.

As for manufacturing, it's not clear 25% tariffs will be enough to encourage investment in US production but assuming it is, it'll take at least a decade before those supply chains are built out and some companies may very well choose to wait out the Trump administration instead or at best move production to other countries like Vietnam which have equally cheap labor compared to China.

What the EU should really do is to embrace for the tariffs that Trump will put on Europe. Assume a trade war that will hurt both sides will happen. — ssu

Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad.

The only thing positive here is that Trump is simply so inept, that in the end he will just have tantrums in the White House on how his loyal team hasn't been able to do anything and thus has betrayed him. Because if this man couldn't build a fucking wall, how can we assume that he can simply kick out every thirty third person living in the US? — ssu

Honestly I hope he follows through on this since that was what the people voted for. He doesn't really need congress to do either mass deportations or massive tariffs anyways. If people want to flirt with these ideas then give it to them and either they'll love it or they won't.

I'll say it again, I think Biden's domestic policies have been the right ones. I had hoped to see what he could do in the second term. — T Clark

What do you think he would do in a second term?

I like Sanders a lot, but I don't think his kind of liberal can win. We need to be more in the center. — T Clark

Sure. My general point is that the Democrats need a more bold vision than what they have been doing which is offering essentially the status quo with some tweaks. I don't think you can really put an end to the populist right otherwise, since this is a time where people want to move on from the neoliberal era.

I don't think influence is the primary issue, although they do have to deal with those further to the left. I think they do what they believe, both personally and ideologically. — T Clark

Given how they've treated him it seems more like they fear Bernie than simply disagree with him. Biden was a mediocre politician who came in 4th in Iowa despite being the initial frontrunner in 2020. The reason why he got the nomination was because Bernie was about to win it and the party leaders acted very quickly to rally around Biden before Super Tuesday.

What would a populist Democrat look like? What issues would they promote? — T Clark

Bernie is the easiest choice but anyone who has a bold vision that's different from the current Democrat party would be welcome as well.

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, I think Biden is the best president in my adult lifetime. — T Clark

I'd say yes domestically, particularly with regards to the amount of major legislation he passed. That being said, his foreign policy was abysmal and his ego causing him to run again makes him one of the worst in my opinion. Honestly if he just chose not to run again and Gaza didn't happen we'd be having a different conversation but unfortunately we got to see a very ugly side of him this past year.

Sounds like the general assessment I've been hearing is that the party needs to stop being oversensitive social justice warriors while focusing more on bread and butter issues which I certainly agree with. I mean that was the way forward for Democrats since 2016 (less Hillary Clinton with her neoliberalism and obsession over her gender and more Bernie Sanders who obsesses over working class issues).

The problem is that I feel like party leadership understands the latter but they actively choose not to change in order to maintain their influence. The neoliberal status quo era is over and to be able to push back against the populist right the left needs a populist message of their own. It's clear what that message should be but that makes the elites in the party uncomfortable so they'll do everything they can to push out any potentially inspiring candidates with a bold vision even if it comes at the risk of putting up dull and pathetic figures like Biden.

I think Palestinian sovereignty is the right thing, but it is a fraught issue here in the US and it's not clear to me who it helps. Both Jewish and Arabic voters tend to vote Democratic. One or the other is going to be pissed off no matter what you do. — T Clark

Yeah but it's hard to see most Jewish voters being mad simply for reining in Netanyahu from committing war crimes vs. Arabs who will be mad if you don't. Obama was able to stand up to Israel on issues like the Iran Nuclear Deal but his support from Jewish voters remained strong.

Well, I mean if Trump just completely cuts most (if not all) climate regulation and accelerates oil extraction then it is most certain we will not reach 1.5 nor even 2c by 2030, essentially guaranteeing the end of civilization. — Manuel

Nobody who's serious thought we'd reach 1.5C anyways even if we collectively got our act together. The 2030 goals are unrealistic too given how we like to flirt with electing climate denying idiots half the time. On the bright side, civilization won't end but we're gonna be way worse off than we would otherwise. The age of endless growth is gonna probably come to a halt at some point, one way or another.

"Majority of Americans support mass deportations" (CBS). — Leontiskos

Out of all the proposals, as with tariffs, it's popular, but the least popular out of the other options. Polls often also show a bigger support for a pathway to citizenship according to this Pew poll for instance. Trump has no interest in that.

Trump's love of tariffs is idiosyncratic from all political angles, true. But because of that it is not polarizing in any partisan manner. — Leontiskos

Not really. There's still a partisan split on it but apart from that yes it's a pretty controversial proposal, and I've even found his own supporters expressing concerns about it. Their answer is usually that it's one of those non-promises that he says he's gonna do but not really (despite doing it in his first term), somehow to be distinguished from those promises that they like that he will 100% do without question.

RFK and Gabbard are former Democrats, to name two within his administration. — Leontiskos

I mean RFK is his own case on things like healthcare and vaccines, which is apparently the one thing he's gonna have influence on in a Trump administration. Calling that "moderating" is a bit of a stretch to say the least...

This seems backwards to me. Trump's public persona was a liability in this election, not a boon. The Democrat platform was bad enough to strongly neutralize that liability. I am amazed at how completely it was neutralized. — Leontiskos

I can only speak to my own personal experience, but when I hear people say they "liked Trump's policies" they usually refer to how they felt about the state of the economy 4 years ago and they think Trump being in office will bring that back. They never really go into specifics about his actual policies even when I persistently press them. They think he will bring down prices but I bet they won't be able to tell you how he would do it because Trump himself is unable to tell you how he would it when he's asked. His actual stated policies include the tariffs and mass deportations I mentioned, tax cuts, and harassing the Fed to cut interest rates again, all inflationary BTW.

It's not policy proposals but rather nostalgia and in this election the latter took precedence over the former. Very little in this election was really about both candidate's actual plans, making meaningless stunts like Trump working at McDonalds the only other thing on voter's minds when they go to the voting booths. Say what you want about his personality, but he is a funny and charismatic guy, and people like Harris are not and when the latter refuses to go into details about what she believes in, and says she'll just continue Biden's legacy, then voters decided accordingly.

So what needs to change if "the platform isn't the problem"? A more impressive candidate and a focus on the policy proposals? I am not sure what golden policy proposals the Democrats are supposed to have in their back pocket. — Leontiskos

Messaging means alot which goes back to what I said about Trump being a great salesman and the Democrats being lousy at it. Trump is able to latch on to people's discontent in 2016 and this year about how bad everything is, even if he offered little in the way of solutions in the latter. Harris offered nothing.

Of course we shouldn't discount the self-imposed disadvantages the Dems had too going into this election. Fact is, we're analyzing an election loss where the Democrat ran a 3 month presidential campaign after taking over their 80 year old incumbent who was already incredibly unpopular during a time where people felt like the current economy wasn't so great.

Perhaps the reason for the election results are as simple as running a half-baked candidate in a year where the incumbent party was unpopular, especially given how widespread the shifts to the right are. As much as people like to make personal abandonment stories about certain demographics feeling left out it may be more a case of "inflation bad and Trump fix inflation" that affected and moved people this time around. Both could be easily fixed come 2028 if Trump ends up messing something up and the Democrats actually run a proper primary next time.

There’s no surprise as to why they would be. There was no reason to vote FOR her, and the motivation to vote AGAINST Trump, though still the correct move, wasn’t good enough. — Mikie

I'm pretty sure campaigning with the Cheneys while snubbing the left on Gaza contributed to that. Perhaps stop trying to court this mythical sane Republican voter next time.

But Trump moderated the conservatism of the Republicans and he now holds the center. — Leontiskos

I disagree that Trump has moderated alot of his positions. In fact he seems to be moving to the extremes on issues like immigration (where he wants mass deportations) and trade (where he wants to impose a global tariff on all goods). The only area where he's moderated is on abortion and social security but apart from that he's a standard Republican and governed like one in his first term.

Concede to Trump and adopt the same core positions? — Leontiskos

The Democrat platform isn't the problem since it remains popular (while Trump's ironically enough isn't) but Democrats aren't able to sell it as well as Trump is able to sell himself which goes back to the main problem I see for Democrats.

Last I checked Harris in the closing stretch of the election avoided going into any policy specifics while using the same old "Trump bad" line of attack that's been used since 2016. It's not surprising why she lost.

I suppose if I were to look on the bright side of things it's better off for the Democrats that Trump won this time since they were in major need of rebranding anyways. Even if Harris won, I would imagine she'd be a mediocre president who wouldn't accomplish anything and likely lose reelection putting the party in the same spot in 4 years. Losing to Trump twice after barely eeking out a win in 2020 when they ran their "safe" candidate should be a clear sign that what they're doing isn't working. Also puts them in a good position if Trump inevitably screws things up now that he's in power again.

The democratic party needs a total changeover. Take these four years and get rid of the centrist stupid people, find a candidate who's charismatic and gathered around just basic left leaning politics in economy and welfare. Produce a STRONG narrative in marketing with slogans that are quotable and that resonate with the voters who don't understand policy or politics in general. — Christoffer

Also ditch all the social stuff while you're at it. Nobody cares about identity politics or whether someone says mean words.

The solution isn't that hard, it really isn't. However I worry that the problem isn't that the Dems are incompetent but that they're incompetent by design. It's not like there weren't opportunities these past few election cycles, but the party always made sure that the candidate that was nominated was the candidate that wouldn't rock the boat. Maybe they'll let the party decide next time, though to be honest I'm hoping for more of a dark horse candidate like Obama than some of the obvious options on the table like Newsom.

The real shame will be 4 years of environmental deregulation, and the gutting of science. He’ll try to repeal the IRA, which may be possible now that they’ll have a trifecta (although a lot of republican districts have benefited, and with a slim house majority that may not fly). — Mikie

The IRA was the only reason why I wanted Harris to win since she literally has nothing on climate for me to care about. She would've continued the funding at least. It's fate is largely on the House now though as you say a slim GOP majority will likely not repeal the IRA given it's benefits to red districts. The great thing is that the Republicans don't really care about the debt so whatever tax cuts they have planned will likely just be subsidized through more borrowing.

Also, and equally damaging, is the free reign of appointing judges, which will further the courts to the right for a generation. I imagine Alito or Thomas will retire, and Sotomayer is in poor health I hear— so he may get another 3. He’ll have a full 4 years of a Republican Senate too, because 2026 there’s no chance Dems take it back, given the map. — Mikie

There's always the possibility of the Dems getting rid of the filibuster and passing all the court proof laws they want. I don't care about the argument that this gives Republicans the same power. If they want to use it to enact some of their preferred legislation like a federal abortion ban then they're more than welcome to try. Maybe we'll see politics actually be about a clash of ideas again.

But it’ll all likely swing back in ‘28. That is, if the party moves towards Bernie and away from the Clinton-Obama establishment neoliberal crowd. — Mikie

What names do you have in mind to pin our hopes behind? Bernie is too old now (older than Biden) and alot of the names floated before Harris became the nominee like Shapiro and Whitmer aren't really appealing. AOC also lost alot of her luster too since her initial victory in 2018.

I'm hoping for Jon Stewart personally. He's antiwar so he'll be way better on issues like Gaza and he's Jewish so the Israelis can't call him an anti-Semite. He's an outsider but a big enough celebrity that he can't be dismissed out of hand by the MSM. Plus he's funny and as Trump has shown being funny overrides literally everything in politics.

Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing? — frank

Trade policy since we're talking about it. A global trade war sounds like it'd be pretty bad for everyone including the US ironically enough.

The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a while, I'm guessing the two will be a stable pair for the world. — frank

Exactly and I think this will accelerate that.

The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because everyone benefits from it. Transitioning to a different structure would require some kind of massive crisis. It's not the kind of thing anyone would choose. So China will continue to do the best it can with the US. — frank

One can argue that the current situation is a crisis, or has the potential to lead to one. At the very least I think alot of countries are gonna reassess their reliance on the US, which is to the benefit of countries like China. Even after Trump leaves how long will it be before people elect another lunatic?

I'm not supporting Trump here, but I'm just going through his policies. What you bring up here is why he wishes to impose tarriffs. He's using his bully power to limit trade with a nation that needs it, which will weaken them. If they locate other markets in Europe, I would expect tarriffs in Europe. And so what would then happen is that someone takes out a calculator and realizes the better way to make money is not to create their economic policies from moral theories, but instead to maximize profits. — Hanover

Tariffs only work with regards to the US-China/India trade relationship. You mentioned how places like Canada and Japan will invest more in the US because of the deregulation but China and India produce way more goods at a cheaper cost and Trump's tariffs won't do anything to change that.

If anything starting a global trade war may weaken the US's economic standing on the global stage, as other countries are more likely to become less dependent on the US market and trade with each other, strengthening China's hand. I think that is likely to happen even after Trump leaves office because the US has shown itself to be an unpredictable trading partner. That's not even going into the likely counter tariffs imposed on the US from other nations who don't like the idea of a 20% tariff being imposed on them.

This is the whole thing about him wanting to force NATO nations to pay for their own defense. He's threatening Europe with insecurity by underfunding NATO unless European nations better foot the bill. This fits his "everything is a deal" persona. — Hanover

Yeah but I don't see the end goal of all this to cut spending domestically and fund things like, say, healthcare. That may be what people like Bernie would do but Trump in his first term has increased military spending like every other president and I've seen no indications that he would change that in what he says. He only seems interested in NATO countries paying their fair share for it's own sake.

I'm not getting into the weeds of what causes what because I don't know enough about it. I can say that fuel costs are an important part of everyone's budget and they've increased. Sam's Club sells gas at like 10 cents cheaper per gallon and cars are up and down the street to save the $2.00 on a tank. It's part of inflation control. — Hanover

Gas prices have gone down since 2022 but we haven't seen the costs of other goods go down in turn. Inflation has consistently been happening for the past century while gas prices have fluctuated. There is no connection between gas prices being low and the cost of everyday items.

1. The US economy will boom under this plan, as global change regulations are expensive. The US will outproduce the EU and will attract places like Canada and Japan to engage in business with them. It is doubtful those nations will prioritize the ethics of global resource management over reduced prices. — Hanover

Yeah but it probably won't beat places like China and India given how much more lax their regulations are. Those are the countries they need to compete with.

4. This is exactly what Trump is trying to motivate. He's trying to save on defense costs by pushing it back on Europe. — Hanover

Has he suggested decreasing defense spending before? It sounds like he will just continue the status quo of the US being the biggest spender on defense by far. I think it appeals to his tough guy persona.

5. A shift toward more drilling will reduce oil prices and forestall climate friendly alternatives like electric cars and the like, which many Americans have no interest in anyway. Any drop in cost of living, even if temporary, will make Trump very popular because inflation of basic needs (like fuel, housing, and food) have risen drastically recently. — Hanover

There's only so much more drilling that can be done to reduce oil prices (contrary to what some on the right say the Biden administration is overseeing record production right now). Also contrary to what Trump says, there is little correlation between the price of other goods the price of oil and gas.

Never act in panic. This was a big mistake the democrats did this year. In panic they replaced Old Joe with laughing Kamalahaha. — Eros1982

I can point to alot of things that Dems did wrong (like running with the Cheneys while snubbing the Palestinians in their base) but replacing Joe was one of the only reasonable things they did this election cycle. Joe Biden was ultimately the biggest drag on the party even after dropping out and his connection to Kamala was what doomed her more than anything.

The problem with the Dems was what we saw these past few election cycles: the Dems never listen to their base. They could've let the voters decide who should best represent them but why do that and risk someone who the party establishment can't control when they can have one of their goons be nominated instead? The last time they didn't do that was in 2008 with a dark horse named Obama and look how that turned out for them. Clinton, Biden, and Harris were all terrible candidates. Clinton was massively unpopular when she ran in 2016, Biden couldn't even win the first few primaries despite being the frontrunner, and Harris didn't even get any votes in any of her primaries. But they were all nominated anyways and often through some shady tactics that undermined any opposition. Maybe next time they will let the party decide, but who knows if there will be a next time.

I don't know if Trump will actually do the things he promised. I hope not. But if he doesn't, his voters will be pissed. If he does, there will be serious negative impacts. That's the problem with simplistic proposals for complex problems. So it seems to me Trump is in a lose-lose situation. The good news: this bodes well for the next election cycle. — Relativist

He doesn't need to do them and would be better off not doing them. Things won't change but he can bullshit his way into telling people they have gotten better and alot of people may buy it. Of course I think he probably will do alot of them unfortunately. He sounds very passionate about tariffs as the solution to everything and he did do a trade war with China the last time around (though this time will be way more widespread and intense). Will people be swayed by his statements that he solved inflation despite prices likely increasing from the tariffs and them criticizing the Dems for being out of touch in the past 4 years? Maybe, I really cannot say, but it doesn't really matter at this point since they'll be dealing with it all the same.

Do you think that he and Vance and Musk and RFK and Bannon will be able to agree on anything and not end up derailing themselves in acrimony in a few months? — Tom Storm

Musk says he wants to slash government spending and bust unions, while RFK undermines vaccines. Both of these people could've pushed for climate action on the right given their backgrounds, but why make things better when you can make everything a hell of a lot worse?

And Harris could still carry the popular vote. But she's a weak uninspiring candidate is the problem. — Baden

I still blame Biden ultimately for tying his party's hands like this. Even Harris herself is incapable of distancing herself from him because she's a part of his administration. His decision to run again and his (even now) stubborn belief that he's capable of winning is the biggest reason why the Democrats lost.

Kind of accepted the possibility of Trump winning since Israel started their war in Lebanon in late September so the result tonight isn't surprising to me. Well we get what we voted for. We'll see if prices now magically go down to 2019 levels now that Trump is in office again.

However, "when shit hits the fan" as it were and you need daily approval of the president for all sorts of military actions and responses, then the inability to predict Trump is a problem. — boethius

In such a case he'll probably defer to a third party because he has no idea what the right military course of action would be and doesn't seem to be interested in being heavily involved in these types of situations for long (look at how he approached COVID). It'll probably depend on the people he would surround himself with so we will likely see things deescalate if he hands it off to people like Tucker or Tulsi though there is the (unlikely ATM) risk he appoints some crazy hawk like Bolton. I dunno, what does Project 2025 say about a future Trump cabinet?

Sure, but none of that is on the scale of crashing the global economy in a mad scheme to attack Iran without an endgame. — boethius

Maybe but my sense is that he can do literally anything and his base won't care one bit.

The issue of buying Trump is related in my these only to escalating the genocide, simply to avoid paying for something you can get for free anyways under Biden. — boethius

The one (I guess) good thing I can say about Biden is that although he would ultimately allow these escalations to happen in the end, he may be slowing them down with his constant concerns, which wouldn't happen with Trump. Israel doesn't care about the concerns that the US brings up but they could be slowing down their violations if only to keep up this appearance of listening to them. If the Israelis are impatient and want to nuke Gaza and be done with it, then they may very well be fine with paying some money to speed the genocide process up.

Obviously Trump has no problem wither further violence against the Palestinians, but if he's asked for something he's going to want something in return. — boethius

A small price for AIPAC. The great thing with Trump is that more things are on sale with him, such as the West Bank.

Where I'm unsure how easy it is to buy Trump is to do something that would make him unpopular like starting a giant war that can't be won and would also cause a major economic catastrophe sending oil sky high (he's also super proud of keeping oil prices low). — boethius

It's not a matter of him being bought off to outright start a war which I agree he wouldn't do if the option was explicitly presented to him. However there are plenty of escalatory actions that the guy may not know is escalatory. I'm talking about him accidentally putting Iran in a position where they put Trump in a position to start a war. Perhaps he could be told that assassinating a top Iranian general in the middle of Tehran like Israel did when they killed Nasrallah would be a good idea, with assurances from Netanyahu that this definitely wouldn't get the Iranians to retaliate in a major way. He could very well be paid off to do something like that, as he was when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem.

Definitely Trump participates in these sorts of transactions but all this stuff his base also wanted. His MO is more seeing what his base wants and then maximizing his gains in following through on that. — boethius

He can snub his base all he wants and they will still suck up to him. He was supposed to "drain the swamp" but his major piece of legislation was a tax cut to the rich. He was supposed to get Mexico to pay for the wall but shut down the government because congress wouldn't fund it. He was supposed to bring back jobs to the Midwest, which ironically enough happened under Biden. None of that matters.

There is nothing that he can't brush off with his usual bullshit. We unfortunately live in a political environment where substance doesn't matter which explains the current campaigns going on right now. His base currently supports him because they think he will bring down prices, but his economic plans include a 20% global tariff on all imported goods that most people believe is inflationary. That should mean something but his base doesn't and won't care.

Definitely possible. I'm definitely not arguing the genocide would stop under Trump, just that I find it unlikely he'll attack Iran. However, Trump being erratic and also loving good press, he may see forcing Israel to let aid in Gaza as an easy win. — boethius

He's probably not knowingly gonna do something that will be akin to starting a war, but I can't definitively rule out him being duped into it. He was convinced to assassinate Soleimani after all. The Iranians will do all they can to avoid escalation but as we see with the Israeli's constant provocation they can be moved to retaliate and who knows where that will go.

It's unclear to me what hard influence the Israeli lobby has over Trump so maybe he can be just paid off as you say, but perhaps not. — boethius

I mean he has been paid off by people like Sheldon Adelson and now his wife. He was the one who ripped up the Iran deal, moved the embassy to Jerusalem, and did the Abraham Accords which bypassed the Palestinian issue. Like you said, Trump isn't knowledgeable about the middle east so he could be casually led into agreeing to things that most other presidents won't including Biden.

As a result I don't see him giving a damn about the Palestinians or their plight. His administration would probably pass the responsibility to someone like his son in law Kushner who's made his intentions to build beachfront property on Gaza well known.

The reason to escalate as far as possible now while Biden is present, try to "finish the final solution job", would be, even if Trump can simply be bought, to simply avoid needing to do that. Escalating as far as possible now and then deescalating (whether it is Trump or Harris that wins) is simply cheaper than needing to cut a deal with the next president, whether Trump or Harris. — boethius

Biden is still gonna be president for a few more months so yeah the possibility of Israel starting a war with Iran isn't completely out of the question. In fact Netanyahu may be more likely to do it during the lame duck period just so he can tie the next administration's hands. If Netanyahu feels emboldened by a Trump victory to start a war with Iran that would probably be when he'd do it. Would also provide cover for his buddy Trump to pretend like he's some kind of dove too.

When Trump talks about Iran he never mentions a need to attack them but just goes on about how he sanctioned them and they were broke and he kept the price of oil down and they would never dare due anything because he's Trump etc. — boethius

He did suggest that Israel should attack the nuclear facilities in Iran in response to the Oct 1 attack. Of course that may be him playing politics because he thinks a war with Iran would help him but I just want to throw that out there.

Apart from that I agree that Trump's general aversion to wars will probably discourage Israel from starting a war with Iran since they won't have the ironclad guarantee that Biden would provide that the US would be involved. Of course that same assessment would also mean that entities like China and Russia would be more emboldened to invade places like Taiwan.

Unfortunately I don't see him encouraging Netanyahu to deescalate in Gaza or Lebanon especially if the US doesn't have to get involved. Trump is also paid off by folks like Adelson too mind you so probably he'll be transactional in matters like the West Bank.

:roll:

But he’s succeeded in convincing a very large number of people that the facts don’t matter, or alternatively, that they’re not facts, and that he’s the sole purveyor of facts. And that is definitely evil, although he has many willing co-conspirators in the dissemination of that evil. — Wayfarer

That says more about us than it does about him honestly. Fact is, even if Trump loses (an apparent coin flip at this point) it'll only be a matter of time before the next lunatic comes in that people will find reasons to support. It's happened before in Germany, it's happening now, and it will happen in the future.

Unfortunately alot of this election is based on vibes with very little substance and I say that for both sides. Eh, I guess people get what they voted for, whether they know it or not.

If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that. — Mikie

I mean they saved a bunch of the Teamster's pensions and yet alot of their members would still vote for the billionaire who's last administration has been terrible for labor. In fact I imagine alot of them would somehow believe Bernie is terrible for labor too while praising Musk as a hero for the working class. For sure Democrats often take their voters for granted and rarely deliver on their promises, but there are moments where I just feel like none of that really matters anymore and we've all just gone insane. For sure it mattered in 2016 when Trump ran on a populist message and won, but he's not even doing that anymore and that doesn't seem to have changed a thing.

Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation. — Mikie

I think you're not taking into account how both sides feel after 2016 and 2020. Even in an objectively toss-up race the left, after having been burned by the polling errors in the previous elections, are way more likely to be pessimistic and believe that there is some unknown factor in Trump's favor this time. Hell that is the sense I get from reading your earlier prediction. Even in 2020 as the polls were showing Biden solidly ahead they always had most people expecting that Trump will win anyways. Unless Harris is up by double digits at this point I'm not surprised that the markets will go in that direction.

He'll surely come up with some excuse as long as he sees this war as key to his political survival. For sure Sinwar was a terrible person who was a major obstacle to a ceasefire deal but I am kind of surprised that he was taken out since Netanyahu and him were partners relying on each other in keeping this bloody conflict going as much as Iran and the US were partners in keeping it from escalating any further. From what I can gather it wasn't a targeted assassination like Nasrallah or Haniyeh so I'm guessing Bibi screwed up and accidentally reopened the Gaza ceasefire talks again, something he really doesn't want.

Now that Sinwar passed away—who was the main objective of Israel since October 7th—Netanyahu would like to stop killing civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, right? — javi2541997

Apparently Bibi is now saying the war isn't yet over because they have to get the hostages out, which is why he is continuing to reject a ceasefire deal that does both at the same time.

Zero. There has been no cases where IDF soldiers and/or Israeli civilians went house to house murdering, raping, and torturing Palestinians in a manner comparable to 10/7. — BitconnectCarlos

Apart from the 40,000+ Palestinians killed, many of whom were tortured and raped by the IDF. But if you happen to disagree I invite you to go to Gaza yourself and tell them all that.

Never underestimate the impact how a large terrorist attack can be put to use to rouse people to support war. — ssu

What the Israelis don't seem to understand is that it goes both ways. How many Oct 7s have happened to the people in Gaza and now Lebanon and how many civilians have been radicalized as a result?

The DNC strategy at this point is to lay low, appeal to the middle, say as little as possible (see any of the uninspiring, friendly interviews she’s done), and bring it back to how bad Trump is and was. — Mikie

I think it was a mistake for Harris to keep the Biden people on her campaign team for this reason. These are the same idiots who thought it was a good idea to hide a candidate with a 35% approval rating and hope for the best when people vote. They're still acting like they're running with a guy who must be covered in bubble wrap until election day. Either because these people are that incompetent or they think that changing strategies with a new candidate is an implicit acknowledgement of their own failures is unclear but they're not changing their strategy and taking advantage of a more energetic candidate like they should be. Of course, the Republicans haven't really adapted to running against someone who isn't Biden either. They still believe for whatever reason that Harris cannot finish a sentence and that she needs notes or a teleprompter to say anything.

That being said this strategy isn't that really much different from Trump's to be honest (apart from arguably the laying low part). He's not doing as many events as he did in 2016 (though he is making up for it in other ways), he's trying to appeal to the middle with regards to abortion, his statements always lack any substance, he's doing uninspiring friendly interviews with right wing podcasters and Fox, and every time he speaks he has to talk about how bad the Democrats are.