Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[ricky2tricky4city]

In the run up to the vote.....Trump is eyeing power, period.

He'll analyse the demographic, analyse the fears, worries, concerns of each demographic, work out the groups he thinks he can reach, that total a number that gives him power. (It's just numbers, not faces)

He has a wild west tool, in SM, to reach these people, there are no barriers. He can speak direct to them if he wants. He's a showman, a storyteller, compelling (when the words coming out are what they want to hear).

Then he wins, he has what he wants. Power.
What one then has to worry, is, are all those things that you wanted important to him now? (He's probably forgotten most of what he's said tbh)

I don't think it's debatable that he's a narcissist. He has power for his own ends (a big one is, it keeps him out of prison), how dangerous he is with that power is about to unfold.

 

[Mikey10]

I wouldn't be so sure.

He is intent on creating a family dynasty. I think we will see elections in 4 years - but I would not be surprised if they were 'free' elections in the mould of those held in Russia and Hungary, for example.

He has power for his own ends (a big one is, it keeps him out of prison), how dangerous he is with that power is about to unfold.

Once he sorts his revenge list, I think he'll spend a lot of time playing golf, leaving the implementation of Project 25 to the likes of Bannon (who will be more than happy to have him out of the way). Trump's main focus will be on choosing who from his family and associates should succeed him - and on avoiding assassination, as more attempts are pretty much bolted-on, I fear.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I wouldn't be so sure.

He's already 78 and not in good mental or physical health. He's obviously had a gilded and feckless life, but I don't particularly see him lasting out this term

 

[SkipRat]

He's already 78 and not in good mental or physical health. He's obviously had a gilded and feckless life, but I don't particularly see him lasting out this term

Was chatting to a friend of mine the other day... He thinks Trump is showing the early signs of dementia and might not even last 4.

It might not even be Trump who we need to worry about, but rather the next person.

Who knows, the whole thing is one giant clusterf*ck and only time will tell.

 

[thfcsteff]

Answers below...

I think the emotiveness referred to is the whole "this is the end of democracy" Etc. It clearly isn't, Trump will be gone for good in 4 years time.

You are making a broad assumption. I think it behooves you to maybe take a look at what he and his sponsors have been cooking up the last three years or so. If -as looks likely- he gets the house and senate, he will be able to make the sort of sweeping changes which will 'surprise' people (not me). He has the supreme court where he wants it and could replace two more oldies once he's in and ensure it is a stronghold of draconianism. The truth is, we have no idea. I sincerely hope you're correct, but I have to warn you, declarative statements such as 'will be gone for good in 4 years' might only to apply to Trump in the mortal sense. He could -at the very least- ensure his party remains in in in...

As for the rest of it, Trump won off a much broader coalition than expected and than he did last time. I think there's a tendency by some to label not only white, right-wing/conservative people as racist and then also to (in my view) racially stereotype a whole bunch of "non-white/western" people into a lump of "you would all be better off under a left government/you lot are all left,".

We've discussed this often in this forum, and I think it's accurate to say there is a large swathe of people who feel rejected/unheard/pre-categorized as something they're not. Equally, there was such a battering ram of lies and misconception regarding the democrats that said-swathe got bamboozeled. It's complicated yet simple at the same time. As always, the republicans got behind their wedge and drove as a unit in the same direction repeatedly, whereas the Dems befuddled themselves and complicated matters.

It happens in this country when the same people were desperate to replace a young, ethnic minority PM leading a highly diverse government with "pale, stale and male" leading a largely white, middle aged government. Then they said tory members would never vote for Badenoch.

I've even seen a comment on here along the lines of "Americans will never vote for someone with a penis". People of all persuasion will vote for anything if its the best choice. Would you vote for Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris? They were dismal candidates.

I might very well have been that person. If not, I have most certainly said it. Because it is a factor. My specific words were that the US is not ready to be LED by someone without a penis, however they are seemingly happy to be led by someone who IS a penis. You should not ignore the mobilization of young white males who felt ostracized and unheard. The republicans (via the brand tagged 'wokeism') managed to convince the young make electorate that they were 'under seige' from 'leftie commie woke folk', which even a cursory look at the facts would've told you was flimflam. But it's all in the optics, and the Dems were never good at that. I'll again put myself forward as an example. I still enjoy comedians such as Mick Miller, even a bit of Bernard Manning makes me laugh now and again, but I will physically fight racists if they present themselves, I am not quiet at Spurs if I hear tossers singing or making prejudicial remarks, and I believe in moderate capitalism with a strong set of social services. I am also anti-homophobes, and supportive of LGBTQ+...equally, as said in other places, I understand the anger of a middle aged person who has no desire to necessarily 'stand' for something but feels attacked when told THEY are the problem. The TRUTH is, accusers are as much a minority as hardline racists, but we all get played (repeatedly) and the extremes on both sides are encouraged to fight it out on social media, in the streets, wherever. Anything for division.

You talk about Harris being a 'dismal candidate' did you actually bother to read any of her policies? If NOTHING ELSE, 20+million Americans would still be looking forward to affordable health insurance via the Affordable Care act, which the Speaker of the House has already said will be one of the first things to go. There's much more she had on the ticket for average Americans. So yes, she was absolutely worth a vote, unless you bought the flimflam rhetoric which was very well foghorned by the republicans.

There's just so much projection of people's own anger, prejudices and other emotions onto other people in current politics. That goes for all "sides", but I feel like its a particularly acute issue on "the left left", who in particular have reduced the words "racist, fascist and dictator" to a very low bar in arguments.

I think it's on both sides. And frankly, I think the perspective people themselves start from dictates who they apportion blame to the most.

 

[thfcsteff]

Was chatting to a friend of mine the other day... He thinks Trump is showing the early signs of dementia and might not even last 4.

It might not even be Trump who we need to worry about, but rather the next person.

Who knows, the whole thing is one giant clusterf*ck and only time will tell.

I think this is absolutely the case.

 

[thfcsteff]

In the run up to the vote.....Trump is eyeing power, period.

He'll analyse the demographic, analyse the fears, worries, concerns of each demographic, work out the groups he thinks he can reach, that total a number that gives him power. (It's just numbers, not faces)

He has a wild west tool, in SM, to reach these people, there are no barriers. He can speak direct to them if he wants. He's a showman, a storyteller, compelling (when the words coming out are what they want to hear).

Then he wins, he has what he wants. Power.
What one then has to worry, is, are all those things that you wanted important to him now? (He's probably forgotten most of what he's said tbh)

I don't think it's debatable that he's a narcissist. He has power for his own ends (a big one is, it keeps him out of prison), how dangerous he is with that power is about to unfold.

What has altered slightly since his first term, is that he now has a degree of political ego. That is not good, and adds a further twist to all you've correctly stated.

 

[SpiderSpurs]

He's already 78 and not in good mental or physical health. He's obviously had a gilded and feckless life, but I don't particularly see him lasting out this term

He doesn't necessarily need too.

 

[SkipRat]

I think this is absolutely the case.

It's all about the long game.

Just like Microsoft and xbox, buying up game studios and IP. They have so much money they don't have to worry about the short term and can afford to make a loss to get what they want want and market domination, that rewards them in the future.

It feels like it's the same way for GOP, Trump is just a tool for the here and now, massage his ego and he'll do what you want, and get you the votes and your foot in the door.

Add the fact there is no mechanism to stop him and his policies, or those pulling the strings behind the scenes... As you say, America could reach a point of no return, and the dems be relegated to insignificance for years to come.

 

[johnola]

Seems like whilst urban heads are turned to spectate on the USA circus our farmers are about to go on strike.

And we are about to get a once in a lifetime lesson on what really matters.

Even a ration book won’t help you if there is no food in town.

 

[SkipRat]

Seems like whilst urban heads are turned to spectate on the USA circus our farmers are about to go on strike.

And we are about to get a once in a lifetime lesson on what really matters.

Even a ration book won’t help you if there is no food in town.

Yup.... Labour and their ruling on inheritance rehashing farms... it's going to hurt a lot of farmers and their families who have worked that land for generations.

Just to spite the likes of Clarkson.

That entire budget, was a joke. It done more harm than good.

 

[thfcsteff]

It's all about the long game.

Just like Microsoft and xbox, buying up game studios and IP. They have so much money they don't have to worry about the short term and can afford to make a loss to get what they want want and market domination, that rewards them in the future.

It feels like it's the same way for GOP, Trump is just a tool for the here and now, massage his ego and he'll do what you want, and get you the votes and your foot in the door.

Add the fact there is no mechanism to stop him and his policies, or those pulling the strings behind the scenes... As you say, America could reach a point of no return, and the dems be relegated to insignificance for years to come.

This is a very interesting co-definer of all that has driven both modern Republicans and of the vehicle Trump made his 'deal' to ride in...

jesus and john wayne - Google Search

 

[SkipRat]

This is a very interesting co-definer of all that has driven both modern Republicans and of the vehicle Trump made his 'deal' to ride in...

jesus and john wayne - Google Search

I have heard about this before, never read it... Probably be ause i would face palm myself into a spike to end it all.

It was interesting to hear that project 2025 has been around for a long time, and that many of the suggestions, from which this came from, Regan had already implemented 60% when he was in power.

Bloody religious nut jobs ruining everything. They are not gonna be marching people to the gas Chambers, or will still feel like America has turned into an insane Christian religious cult...

Is going to be bizzar....

A bit like that American women in Donnie Darko that thought Patrick Swazys character was amazing...

Exactly like that, but for Christianity and Trump....

 

[Mikey10]

Answers below...


You are making a broad assumption. I think it behooves you to maybe take a look at what he and his sponsors have been cooking up the last three years or so. If -as looks likely- he gets the house and senate, he will be able to make the sort of sweeping changes which will 'surprise' people (not me). He has the supreme court where he wants it and could replace two more oldies once he's in and ensure it is a stronghold of draconianism. The truth is, we have no idea. I sincerely hope you're correct, but I have to warn you, declarative statements such as 'will be gone for good in 4 years' might only to apply to Trump in the mortal sense. He could -at the very least- ensure his party remains in in in...




We've discussed this often in this forum, and I think it's accurate to say there is a large swathe of people who feel rejected/unheard/pre-categorized as something they're not. Equally, there was such a battering ram of lies and misconception regarding the democrats that said-swathe got bamboozeled. It's complicated yet simple at the same time. As always, the republicans got behind their wedge and drove as a unit in the same direction repeatedly, whereas the Dems befuddled themselves and complicated matters.





I might very well have been that person. If not, I have most certainly said it. Because it is a factor. My specific words were that the US is not ready to be LED by someone without a penis, however they are seemingly happy to be led by someone who IS a penis. You should not ignore the mobilization of young white males who felt ostracized and unheard. The republicans (via the brand tagged 'wokeism') managed to convince the young make electorate that they were 'under seige' from 'leftie commie woke folk', which even a cursory look at the facts would've told you was flimflam. But it's all in the optics, and the Dems were never good at that. I'll again put myself forward as an example. I still enjoy comedians such as Mick Miller, even a bit of Bernard Manning makes me laugh now and again, but I will physically fight racists if they present themselves, I am not quiet at Spurs if I hear tossers singing or making prejudicial remarks, and I believe in moderate capitalism with a strong set of social services. I am also anti-homophobes, and supportive of LGBTQ+...equally, as said in other places, I understand the anger of a middle aged person who has no desire to necessarily 'stand' for something but feels attacked when told THEY are the problem. The TRUTH is, accusers are as much a minority as hardline racists, but we all get played (repeatedly) and the extremes on both sides are encouraged to fight it out on social media, in the streets, wherever. Anything for division.

You talk about Harris being a 'dismal candidate' did you actually bother to read any of her policies? If NOTHING ELSE, 20+million Americans would still be looking forward to affordable health insurance via the Affordable Care act, which the Speaker of the House has already said will be one of the first things to go. There's much more she had on the ticket for average Americans. So yes, she was absolutely worth a vote, unless you bought the flimflam rhetoric which was very well foghorned by the republicans.



I think it's on both sides. And frankly, I think the perspective people themselves start from dictates who they apportion blame to the most.

Outstanding post.

 

[Rorschach]

Answers below...


You are making a broad assumption. I think it behooves you to maybe take a look at what he and his sponsors have been cooking up the last three years or so. If -as looks likely- he gets the house and senate, he will be able to make the sort of sweeping changes which will 'surprise' people (not me). He has the supreme court where he wants it and could replace two more oldies once he's in and ensure it is a stronghold of draconianism. The truth is, we have no idea. I sincerely hope you're correct, but I have to warn you, declarative statements such as 'will be gone for good in 4 years' might only to apply to Trump in the mortal sense. He could -at the very least- ensure his party remains in in in...




We've discussed this often in this forum, and I think it's accurate to say there is a large swathe of people who feel rejected/unheard/pre-categorized as something they're not. Equally, there was such a battering ram of lies and misconception regarding the democrats that said-swathe got bamboozeled. It's complicated yet simple at the same time. As always, the republicans got behind their wedge and drove as a unit in the same direction repeatedly, whereas the Dems befuddled themselves and complicated matters.





I might very well have been that person. If not, I have most certainly said it. Because it is a factor. My specific words were that the US is not ready to be LED by someone without a penis, however they are seemingly happy to be led by someone who IS a penis. You should not ignore the mobilization of young white males who felt ostracized and unheard. The republicans (via the brand tagged 'wokeism') managed to convince the young make electorate that they were 'under seige' from 'leftie commie woke folk', which even a cursory look at the facts would've told you was flimflam. But it's all in the optics, and the Dems were never good at that. I'll again put myself forward as an example. I still enjoy comedians such as Mick Miller, even a bit of Bernard Manning makes me laugh now and again, but I will physically fight racists if they present themselves, I am not quiet at Spurs if I hear tossers singing or making prejudicial remarks, and I believe in moderate capitalism with a strong set of social services. I am also anti-homophobes, and supportive of LGBTQ+...equally, as said in other places, I understand the anger of a middle aged person who has no desire to necessarily 'stand' for something but feels attacked when told THEY are the problem. The TRUTH is, accusers are as much a minority as hardline racists, but we all get played (repeatedly) and the extremes on both sides are encouraged to fight it out on social media, in the streets, wherever. Anything for division.

You talk about Harris being a 'dismal candidate' did you actually bother to read any of her policies? If NOTHING ELSE, 20+million Americans would still be looking forward to affordable health insurance via the Affordable Care act, which the Speaker of the House has already said will be one of the first things to go. There's much more she had on the ticket for average Americans. So yes, she was absolutely worth a vote, unless you bought the flimflam rhetoric which was very well foghorned by the republicans.



I think it's on both sides. And frankly, I think the perspective people themselves start from dictates who they apportion blame to the most.

I saw a report on the Harris phone bank responses. These were the comments undecided voters made to the folks phoning them as they were trying to persuade them to vote for Harris. The short version of this report was that the most common response by far was they liked Harris' policies 'but can a woman do the job?'. So for all the hot-takes on the interweb about why she didn't win I think a lot of the reason is just plain old misogyny coupled with a splash of racism, which obviously nobody would admit to on one of these calls.

A secondary mortal wound was the loss of the progressive vote. I read an excellent essay on why the progressive vote disappeared. The short version is that they stayed away because, after the last two elections, promises were not kept. They sat it out.

 

[P.D.]

I think we are largley in agrrement. MSM is a minor player now. More broadly though the left's message cannot be heard. The right own the megaphone. The rightwing message being pushed by Fox, the Sinclair network, the Murdochs empire, fudging Elon, bro Podcasters, targeted social media, Russian troll farms, AI bots, etc is overwhelming. Even outlets like CNN just regurgitate right-wing media talking points as their listenership is getting old and conservative. You cannot counter this deluge without building out an equivalent megaphone to be heard IMO, and that won't be easy.

What the Dems are trying to push is broadly popular, if they could be heard. Blind policy surveys show overwhelming support for democratic policies compared to the GOP policies even among Trump supporters, once they don't know which party is proposing them. And this cognitive dissonance is obvious even in this election just gone where ballot measures on abortion policies and minimum wage are approved, and then on the exact same ballot paper vote for Trump and project 2025 which will just take these away again.

Aside, Warren being against crypto is a good thing in my book. It is a waste of energy. Her policy platform for the 2020 election was brilliant IMO, but that's a whole other discussion.

Polling policies in isolation doesn't really mean anything, they come as a package. If you polled people on spending an extra £25bn on the NHS I'm sure it would be positive, if you then say there needs to be these tax rises to pay for it the reaction will change.

On communication the wonderful thing about today's world is that anyone can spin up a podcast, website, blog or whatever and those delivering good content will thrive. Even on the right wing news anyone can get involved (or vice versa), Harris was invited onto Rogans podcast, Buttigeg is a regular on fox news and pretty well respected on there I believe. Trump even did a panel at the national association of black journalists for example but you have to take the opportunities to get our your message. Actually Harris did go on fox but couldn't answer even the most basic questions and it seemed only opened up when she started dropping in the polls not because she was happy to talk. If you're afraid to engage with voters why should they vote for you. Biden has done less press conferences than any of the last 7 presidents for example - https://www.axios.com/2024/07/04/biden-media-interviews-press-data

You should read more up on crypto (if you're interested), only Bitcoin is really energy intensive but even then a lot of mining runs on renewable or excess capacity. Besides that's not why Warren is against it, she believes it funds terrorists and fraudsters which it does along with regular banking and cash. Crypto is actually another reason the dems lost, they've had a huge crackdown on it for the last few years with little basis to do so whilst millions of people have bought it in the last few years - they've become a powerful group of voters.

 

[Rorschach]

Polling policies in isolation doesn't really mean anything, they come as a package. If you polled people on spending an extra £25bn on the NHS I'm sure it would be positive, if you then say there needs to be these tax rises to pay for it the reaction will change.

On communication the wonderful thing about today's world is that anyone can spin up a podcast, website, blog or whatever and those delivering good content will thrive. Even on the right wing news anyone can get involved (or vice versa), Harris was invited onto Rogans podcast, Buttigeg is a regular on fox news and pretty well respected on there I believe. Trump even did a panel at the national association of black journalists for example but you have to take the opportunities to get our your message. Actually Harris did go on fox but couldn't answer even the most basic questions and it seemed only opened up when she started dropping in the polls not because she was happy to talk. If you're afraid to engage with voters why should they vote for you. Biden has done less press conferences than any of the last 7 presidents for example - https://www.axios.com/2024/07/04/biden-media-interviews-press-data

You should read more up on crypto (if you're interested), only Bitcoin is really energy intensive but even then a lot of mining runs on renewable or excess capacity. Besides that's not why Warren is against it, she believes it funds terrorists and fraudsters which it does along with regular banking and cash. Crypto is actually another reason the dems lost, they've had a huge crackdown on it for the last few years with little basis to do so whilst millions of people have bought it in the last few years - they've become a powerful group of voters.

The dems policy package was popular and they were not proposing any new taxes. Ignorance of these policies was the issue. They couldn't;t get the message out and often Harris policies were ascribed to Trump. It all boils down to the same thing, Dems don't have the media infrastructure that the right has and depend somewhat on MSM to get their message out. That's not going to cut it any more.

I know plenty about crypto. I dabbled at the start but it was not for me.

Edit- This is good from Joseph O'Neill if you have the time to read it. The tldr is to fight fire with fire.

All Bets Are Off | Joseph O’Neill, Daniel Drake

“The Democrats must do everything in their power and influence to oppose, slow down, and attach political costs to the Trump agenda.”

www.nybooks.com

 

[P.D.]

The dems policy package was popular and they were not proposing any new taxes. Ignorance of these policies was the issue. They couldn't;t get the message out and often Harris policies were ascribed to Trump. It all boils down to the same thing, Dems don't have the media infrastructure that the right has and depend somewhat on MSM to get their message out. That's not going to cut it any more.

I know plenty about crypto. I dabbled at the start but it was not for me.

Edit- This is good from Joseph O'Neill if you have the time to read it. The tldr is to fight fire with fire.

All Bets Are Off | Joseph O’Neill, Daniel Drake

“The Democrats must do everything in their power and influence to oppose, slow down, and attach political costs to the Trump agenda.”

www.nybooks.com

Some of them were just populist policies like grants to buy houses etc, both parties are just spend spend spend. Look at the size of their deficit and how it's ballooned in the last few years. I think they have plenty of media access, they just haven't worked out how to use it properly - most people don't read news in the traditional way. I've said before all these places going behind a paywall forces people onto twitter etc where the algorithms just promote more and more of the same view so even if they want too they don't really see the other side. They had the opportunity to get to other voters but they didn't take them - Harris barely did any interviews to start, why turn down Rogan who would have reached many of the voters she needed? He's not a hostile interviewer, lets his guests speak etc.

Thanks for the link - good read and I agree with the author.

 

[Kompakted]

These arguments sound like the Corbyn manifesto of 2019 where Momentum got confused that all of their policies were more popular than the tories, but they got trounced.

Tony Blair called this the difference between a 1 minute conversation and a 10 minute conversation with a voter: You ask a voter a question that requires a yes/no or short response, you'll likely get a different answer than if you had a 10 minute conversation with them about how they saw things overall.

It's even the way you ask a question also:

Q1: "should there be privatisation in the NHS?"
Q2: "Should the NHS be able to utilise the private sector where necessary to help relieve pressure?"

I bet the responses to those questions would look significantly different.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Answers below...


You are making a broad assumption. I think it behooves you to maybe take a look at what he and his sponsors have been cooking up the last three years or so. If -as looks likely- he gets the house and senate, he will be able to make the sort of sweeping changes which will 'surprise' people (not me). He has the supreme court where he wants it and could replace two more oldies once he's in and ensure it is a stronghold of draconianism. The truth is, we have no idea. I sincerely hope you're correct, but I have to warn you, declarative statements such as 'will be gone for good in 4 years' might only to apply to Trump in the mortal sense. He could -at the very least- ensure his party remains in in in...

We've discussed this often in this forum, and I think it's accurate to say there is a large swathe of people who feel rejected/unheard/pre-categorized as something they're not. Equally, there was such a battering ram of lies and misconception regarding the democrats that said-swathe got bamboozeled. It's complicated yet simple at the same time. As always, the republicans got behind their wedge and drove as a unit in the same direction repeatedly, whereas the Dems befuddled themselves and complicated matters.

I might very well have been that person. If not, I have most certainly said it. Because it is a factor. My specific words were that the US is not ready to be LED by someone without a penis, however they are seemingly happy to be led by someone who IS a penis. You should not ignore the mobilization of young white males who felt ostracized and unheard. The republicans (via the brand tagged 'wokeism') managed to convince the young make electorate that they were 'under seige' from 'leftie commie woke folk', which even a cursory look at the facts would've told you was flimflam. But it's all in the optics, and the Dems were never good at that. I'll again put myself forward as an example. I still enjoy comedians such as Mick Miller, even a bit of Bernard Manning makes me laugh now and again, but I will physically fight racists if they present themselves, I am not quiet at Spurs if I hear tossers singing or making prejudicial remarks, and I believe in moderate capitalism with a strong set of social services. I am also anti-homophobes, and supportive of LGBTQ+...equally, as said in other places, I understand the anger of a middle aged person who has no desire to necessarily 'stand' for something but feels attacked when told THEY are the problem. The TRUTH is, accusers are as much a minority as hardline racists, but we all get played (repeatedly) and the extremes on both sides are encouraged to fight it out on social media, in the streets, wherever. Anything for division.

You talk about Harris being a 'dismal candidate' did you actually bother to read any of her policies? If NOTHING ELSE, 20+million Americans would still be looking forward to affordable health insurance via the Affordable Care act, which the Speaker of the House has already said will be one of the first things to go. There's much more she had on the ticket for average Americans. So yes, she was absolutely worth a vote, unless you bought the flimflam rhetoric which was very well foghorned by the republicans.



I think it's on both sides. And frankly, I think the perspective people themselves start from dictates who they apportion blame to the most.

I saw a report on the Harris phone bank responses. These were the comments undecided voters made to the folks phoning them as they were trying to persuade them to vote for Harris. The short version of this report was that the most common response by far was they liked Harris' policies 'but can a woman do the job?'. So for all the hot-takes on the interweb about why she didn't win I think a lot of the reason is just plain old misogyny coupled with a splash of racism, which obviously nobody would admit to on one of these calls.

A secondary mortal wound was the loss of the progressive vote. I read an excellent essay on why the progressive vote disappeared. The short version is that they stayed away because, after the last two elections, promises were not kept. They sat it out.

The dems policy package was popular and they were not proposing any new taxes. Ignorance of these policies was the issue. They couldn't;t get the message out and often Harris policies were ascribed to Trump. It all boils down to the same thing, Dems don't have the media infrastructure that the right has and depend somewhat on MSM to get their message out. That's not going to cut it any more.

I know plenty about crypto. I dabbled at the start but it was not for me.

Edit- This is good from Joseph O'Neill if you have the time to read it. The tldr is to fight fire with fire.

All Bets Are Off | Joseph O’Neill, Daniel Drake

“The Democrats must do everything in their power and influence to oppose, slow down, and attach political costs to the Trump agenda.”

www.nybooks.com

This is worth an hour of your time...Heather Cox Richardson an exceptional political historian, she dissects the election result holistically and with clarity.