One moment, they’re having conversations with Obama and are setting certain expectations.

Then Trump comes in and tears all of that apart. And takes on a more isolationist view of the world. Previous treaties and agreements are ripped. And even long lasting alliances, like NATO, are threatened.

Then Biden comes in and reverses some of the actions Trump has taken. The world is now of the understanding that it is under similar expectations as it was during the Obama years.

Then Trump wins again and is now threatening to burn down Biden’s plans. America is now on the precipice of going into another isolationist period.

That’s three major reversals in a stunning 8 years. Whatever negotiations that were had are now obsolete. And everyone has to start all over again.

Take Ukraine for example. One moment they’re an ally and we must do everything we can to defeat Russia. Our European allies are counting on us. Then the next moment, Russia should have whatever it wants from Ukraine and we shouldn’t interfere with this conflict.

So as a prime minister, president or other foreign leader of the rest of the world, how do you deal with America’s schizophrenic foreign policy, that can turn on a dime every 4 years? And make all of your efforts and work irrelevant?

RFK is expected to join trumps administration with influence over agriculture and health policy. He has made it his goal to make America heathy again and has been a loud proponent for improving our regulation regarding food and agriculture. He has urged against the ultraprocessing of foods and the excessive pesticides used in our agriculture. This rhetoric seems as though he will push the executive branch to ban harmful pesticides and additives. This may be inline with banning substances such as high fructose corn syrup and getting the US in line with Europe. This type of regulation seems to be at odds with the deregulatory platform of the Republican Party.

How effective will RFK be? What kind of initiatives will RFK implement? Will his initiatives actually be beneficial for Americans? Will trump’s administration push back on RFKs initiatives for more regulation?

Yay or Nay?

Are you a resident of California? A Republican, Dem, Independent, or other? Are you from another state? How do you feel about it? Would both sides be better off apart?

I'm really interested in getting opinions from non-Californians. Please give logical reasons for your opinion.

Some governors and state attorney generals are already vowing to stand up to Trump to protect vulnerable population including women, LGBTQ Plus Communities and Immigrants. Some state AGS have proactively already written legal briefs to challenge many of the policies that they expect Trump to pursue. Newsom on Thursday, for instance, called for a special session of the legislators to safeguard California values as states prepare to raise legal hurdles against the next Trump administration.

In New York, Kathy Hucul along with Leticia James the AG under a Plan called the Empire State Freedom Initiative, it aims to protect Reproductive Rights, the Civil Rights, Immigrants, the Environment against potential abuse of power.

Illinois Governor said Thursday. “To anyone who intends to come take away the freedom and opportunity and dignity of Illinoisans: I would remind you that a happy warrior is still a warrior,” he continued. “You come for my people, you come through me.”

Althouhg people recognize that some conservative Supreme Court judges lean heavily conservative, many do not align, or support dictators; 2020 election challenges are in evidence of that.

Laurence Tribe says president does not have unlimited power to do what he says. One cannot just arrest or kail people for being critical; noting Habeas Corpus.

Are those guardrails still there to thwart attempts by Trump to usurp the Constitution?

Gavin Newsom’s quest to ‘Trump-proof’ California enrages incoming president - POLITICO

Hochul, AG James pledge to protect New Yorkers' rights

Illinois governor tells Trump: ‘You come for my people, you come through me’

Think about the various well known Democratic Party affiliated people. Who is the most popular? Who is most well known and well regarded? Is it Bernie Sanders?

Is there anyone else that is more popular than Sanders? Maybe Obama. But, he's retired. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is well known, but I don't think she's as well known as Sanders. Also, there is a cohort of people who strongly dislike her. In contrast, Sanders has appeal that even extends to potential members of the Republican electorate. He also has a strong media presence.

Are there any other Democratic Party affiliated people who rival Sanders in popularity?

Harvard’s Kennedy School (https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/critical-disinformation-studies-history-power-and-politics/) recently published a study about misinformation and disinformation, the US Department of State published information (https://www.state.gov/disarming-disinformation/) on the threats of and defenses to disinformation, and The Hill recently reported (https://thehill.com/national-security/4979502-2024-election-disinformation-impact/) “Disinformation from adversaries and Americans swamped 2024 election.”

If these sources, their studies, and reporting are true, where should Americans expect to find objective fact and truth about their government’s plans and actions in the future?

Republicans flipped four Senate seats. They have flipped four House seats, but have lost two to the Democrats. Assuming all uncalled House races go to the current leader, the Republicans would have a very narrow three-seat majority in the House. How will this affect Republican policy, since passing legislation will require either total party unity or bipartisanship? The last Trump administration, despite having a trifecta between 2016 and 2018, often found itself in disputes with Congress. Is this likely to repeat itself? Will Republicans find themselves in the same position Democrats were between 2020 and 2022? As they do not have a filibuster-proof majority, are Senate Republicans likely to try to eliminate the filibuster?

If you don’t know already, 48 of the 50 states + DC used block voting for the electoral college. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in those states + DC takes all of the state’s electoral votes. Main and Nebraska do it differently.

In both states, electoral votes are allocated to each congressional district. Whenever wins the popular vote in those districts wins that district’s electoral vote into. The remaining 2 votes (dubbed senatorial votes), are given to the winners of the state wide popular vote.

This is why District 2 of Maine, a rural conservative district, always votes red. The GOP candidate wins the vote in that district alone. But the District 1 vote and the senatorial votes go to the Dems because this district is urban (and therefore liberal) and the state’s population is overall liberal.

Nebraska has the opposite case. Of its 3 districts, 2 are rural while 1, Lincoln, is liberal. So the Dems often (not always) win the district Lincoln is in only while the other two and the senatorial votes go red (the state itself is majority conservative).

If all states adopted this model, it would give political minorities an actual voice/representation. For example: conservative districts in the east of California, Oregon, Washington. Liberal districts in Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia, etc.

It would also force candidates to go district to district rather than 1-2 cities in a state to campaign and call it a day.

What do you think? Would this system be for the better or for worse?

As of right now, third parties/candidates are not taken seriously. But as political polarization in the US keeps rising, the future of this sentiment seems uncertain.

Do you think in some time that a third party will come as a centrist medium or in another form? If so, what series of events (even if unlikely) would need to occur for one to take office?

in 2016 and 2020 IL and NJ voted blue by about 15-20 %. in 2024 her margins in these states were cut down to 8% and 5%, respectively. what happened here ? and are IL and NJ realistically going to be in play for the GOP or is this just a one-off ?

NOTE : if we’re talking about other traditionally blue states u could also discuss others such as NYS. she won it by 12 points, which is not a lot when u consider prev candidates like obama, hillary and biden won it by more than 20% each time and the fact that NYC votes 9 out of 10 blue.

The fall of the Berlin Wall offers valuable insights for modern international relations. The power of coordinated international action, demonstrated in 1989, remains relevant when addressing contemporary challenges. Maintaining strong alliances while engaging in dialogue with competitors continues to be a crucial element of effective foreign policy. Stong alliances include military ones such as NATO. Likewise, economic integration remains a powerful tool, though its application has grown more complex in an interconnected global economy.

November 9, 1989, marked a pivotal moment in world history as the Berlin Wall fell, symbolizing the end of the Cold War division between East and West. This seismic shift in global politics resulted from decades of diplomatic engagement, economic factors, strong military alliances, and strategic leadership. But would this historic event have unfolded similarly under today's Republican leadership, particularly with the party's perceived push towards isolationism?

During the Reagan era, the United States engaged actively with both allies and adversaries, exemplified by the "trust but verify" approach with the Soviet Union. This nuanced strategy combined firm principles with diplomatic flexibility, reinforced by multilateral pressure through NATO and other international organizations. Reagan's leadership was characterized by clear, direct communication, as seen in his famous challenge to Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!" This approach was balanced with a sophisticated understanding of diplomatic negotiation and the importance of maintaining multiple channels of communication.

Fast-forward to the present, and the Republican Party's stance on international relations has shifted significantly. Under Trump's past and presumed leadership, the United States has increasingly disengaged from Europe, exemplified by the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. This isolationist approach raises concerns about the future of international cooperation and the ability to address global challenges.

In today's interconnected world, isolationism is unlikely to yield the same results as the coordinated international action that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The security landscape has transformed dramatically, with new threats emerging from non-state actors, cyber threats, and environmental challenges. This is combined with the rise of existing and new U.S. adversiarial state actors who see opportunity in climate change to engage in resource competition. It can be argued that these challenges require collaborative solutions that cross national boundaries.

For me, thirty-five years ago today, I watched the fall of the Berlin Wall unfold on TV. Having served in the military at the time, I was both joyful for the people of Europe and proud of my part in the Cold War. While I have strong personal opinions, I'm concerned that the possable Republican Party's shift towards isolationism may undermine the progress in U.S. global leadership made since the fall of the Berlin Wall. I would like to engage other measured viewpoints. The question remains: Are 'Berlin Wall Fall moments' still possible in today's global landscape under isolationism?

One of Trump's signature campaign policies is a mass deportation plan for undocumented migrants that far dwarfs any previous immigration crackdown on U.S. history. One that if carried out as advertised, could have significant economic, social and political impacts.

In terms of economics, there is potential for such a crackdown to have significantly effects on the agricultural and construction sectors that rely heavily on migrant labor. What is the potential for mass deportation to cause an inflationary spike on the economy not soon after Trump was elected on the back of discontent over inflation?

Socially, Trump owed his victory to support from Latino voters, be it Mexican-Americans who are legal citizens that strongly dislike illegal immigration from Central America, or Guatemalan and Honduran migrants that genuinely believe Trump is blustering. If Trump goes as far as stated with deportation, is there a risk of eroding that support, particularly if legal migrants and naturalized citizens are caught up in the deportations as advocates have warned? Would it potentially lead to the pendulum swinging back in favor of pro-immigration sentiment much like the family separation policy did during Trump's first term?

Politically, how would Trump try to negotiate with Mexico, Guatemala and other Latin American countries in trying to get them to accept deported migrants back? How would those migrants be sheltered and cared for while awaiting deportation?

Finally, there has been talk as to whether Trump can even accomplish such a massive immigration crackdown. Aside from the sheer logistics in terms of manpower and resources needed to carry out such a task, there are other obstacles from litigation in immigration courts, to companies trying to plead for exemptions in their particular sectors. Then there is the influence of Trump's longtime adviser and architect on immigration policy Stephen Miller, who among other things had advocated sinking migrant boats with drones and supports denaturalization or stripping natural-born citizens of their rights.

Would Trump inevitably balk at the sheer logistical, legal and economic challenges of pursuing mass deportation enough that he just does the classic Trump overpromising and underdelivering by deporting a few migrants before declaring Mission Accomplished? Or would the influence of ideological hardliners like Miller ensure that they will pursue mass deportation with no exemptions or compromises?

On the prospect of a purge of top generals and admirals by the incoming Trump administration, to ensure personal loyalty to him....

This matter has been debated frequently on Reddit. However, I have some niche experience in this realm, having helped maintain Wikipedia's articles listing four-star (admirals and generals) and three-star (vice admirals and lieutenant generals) officers in the United States military since late 2020.

Military officer appointment procedures stem from the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), passed in 1980, and are codified in Title 10 of the United States Code. When the Armed Services committees pass their yearly defense authorisation bill, any changes demanded of the military consist of updates to Title 10. Officers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

While the military is supposed to be apolitical, senior officers can, and have been, removed at the President's pleasure. After all, ultimately, the President decides who they want to work with, and senior officers are vetted partially on how well they could work with the commander in chief. Recent removals have occurred when the individual expresses open disagreement with the commander in chief, makes severe public gaffes, or are unlucky enough to commit professional incompetence (Moseley 2008, McChrystal 2010, Mattis 2013). Since the main duty of senior officers outside command is to present honest military advice to the commander-in-chief, and to Congress, relieving them before the end of their assignments is unexpected and risks the wrath of their retired colleagues and their supporters in Congress.

Before I enter my initial opinions for discussion, here are some stats (accurate as of 9 November 2024). Of the four-star officers currently on active duty (44 in total):

1. 9 are African-American (including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs CQ Brown, the principal military advisor to the President).
2. 6 were initially promoted to four-star general or admiral under the Trump administration (one, GEN LaCamera, is retiring with a Senate-confirmed successor already in place).
3. 3 are women, all initially appointed by the Biden administration, and the first woman appointed to each of their roles, received a lot of publicity (ADMs Franchetti, Fagan, and Levine).
4. 1 serves in a non-military political office that can hold the rank of admiral in the Public Health Service if desired (ADM Levine, the first openly transgender person to hold the rank of admiral).

Here is what I surmise based on my personal experience, and what other articles have already stated:

• The incoming administration will target generals and admirals too closely identified with their predecessor's DEI initiatives. Here are the most likely departures:
  • ADM Levine, who isn't technically military, serves in a political role (Assistant Secretary for Health) and only holds military rank to outrank the three-star surgeon general, is easily the first one out.
  • Gen Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. George Floyd (iykyk). The chairman of the Joint Chiefs served a 2-year term by law, typically renewed once by the President with Senate confirmation, until it was changed in 2017 to an uninterrupted 4-year term. Brown may simply be relieved prematurely at his 2-year halfway mark, October 2025.
  • ADM Franchetti, the first woman to be chief of naval operations (head of the Navy). Her selection as the CNO was highly publicized, following the 2021 promotions of GEN Richardson, Gen Van Ovost, and ADM Fagan (Richardson and Van Ovost have retired). However, the President made the call to choose Franchetti, overruling the DOD's pick, thus giving the incoming administration a possible opening.
• For those worrying about blatantly "Trumpist" generals being appointed, I don't see that happening without a sudden culture shift in the military. Not soon, anyway.
  • For starters, the tradition that the military stay out of partisan politics is sacrosanct. I haven't seen any recent cases where an active duty military officer (including LTG Mike Flynn) paraded around any partisan leanings. While the military's values typically lean traditional Republican, open loyalty to a President typically shows only after retirement.
  • If the President-elect is serious about appointing "loyal" officers to senior military roles, he'll have to comb the lower ranks. Title 10, Section 601 of the U.S. Code stipulates that only one-star officers and above can be promoted to general or admiral, so the maximum he could do is promote colonels and Navy captains to one-star ranks and begin choosing from there.
  • On the "culture shift", open, public loyalty to a President from the upper military brass (the kind we likely worry about) will only show once the practice becomes either legally acceptable or murky enough on paper to no longer be important.
  • To dismiss disloyal officers and comb the lower ranks for desired ones will likely require a special commission to investigate. The military officers and DOD professionals (smth smth Schedule F) in charge of vetting prospective senior officers for the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, JCS chairman, Secretary of Defense and President would have no clue on how to select based on the "loyalty" the President-elect desires.
• The President, and allied defense advisors, may try to replace DOPMA or loosen its requirements so officers from lower ranks can be promoted faster to reach the upper brass, or increase the maximum retirement age of 64 to keep favoured officers for as long as possible (not unheard of - the DOD under Rumsfeld tried to increase it to 72). Senate confirmation will remain part of the process, but a pliant majority until at least 2027 should make it a breeze.

r/Military focuses on topics like military pay, veterans' benefits, the state of military barracks, and on the political side, how the incoming administration will affect the willingness of the rank-and-file to continue military service. This community often provides more analytical insights, so I look forward to it.

Once again, this matter has been debated frequently in other areas on Reddit, but I hope I've provided additional insight so productive responses are forthcoming. Maybe there's cause for concern, maybe there isn't - i.e. only a few officers will see termination. We won't know until he takes office. What do you think?

P.S. Sorry if I sound abrasive in this post. I've been described as having a stiff and formal manner of speaking.

P.P.S. The military being used for partisan purposes with a purge of senior officers is inherently a political matter. The jargon-heavy nature of this post hopefully doesn't change that.

P.P.P.S. If this question looks partisan in any way whatsoever, I apologise and am welcome to receive comments on how I can reword portions to be less disparaging in nature.

Sources:

• Pentagon anticipates major upheaval with Trump’s return to White House
• Pentagon officials anxious Trump may fire the military’s top general
• Trump may further test US military norms in second term
• Legislative history of United States four-star officers (Wikipedia article - this is a TL;DR, there are individual articles for certain eras which one should read if time permits)

What changes can they make? What should they prioritize, and what shouldn’t they spend so much energy on?

Should they go more centrist/right or go more progressive?

Whats the winning message?

Donald Trump didn’t just win. He won in a landslide. He won all 7 battleground states. He even won the popular vote, which is a first for republicans in decades. It was a thorough ass-kicking.

The trends are clear. Hispanics, by and large, are trending towards Republican. Thats concerning because the hispanic vote is a large voting group.

Democrats are also losing white women. Which is even more concerning because it’s impossible to win an election without white women.

So what’s the problem? Are democrats virtue signaling too much? Should they tamp down some of the more controversial stances republicans love to hammer away, like transgender women in women sports (which quite literally effects like 2 people in the country but makes up for 50% of Republican talking points)? Should democrats be more fiery and aggressive, since that is what worked for Trump?

Should Democrats make Bernie Sanders the party leader and have him run in 2028? He’s getting older but if Trump can be president at 78, why not Bernie who’s only a few years older than him but seems to be more mentally there?

What can Democrats do to not have a repeat of the 2024 election?

Hi everyone!

The results of the 2024 election is an indicator that the Democratic party may need to shift their vision and style in order to ensure that they can secure a win in 2028. The results of the 2024 election might signify that the days of trotting out conventional candidates may be over. With that being said, who should they begin looking into?

Would candidates like J. B. Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, or Wes Moore be enough to guarantee victory?

Or should they pivot to a celebrity like Matthew McConaughey, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, or Jon Stewart?

What are your thoughts?

I’ve seen this been suggested many times but not sure what the benefit could be to dissolving something that brings peace amongst countries. I’ve seen that the effect of it could cause a war torn Europe and a more than likely chaotic situation worldwide

I find it quite interesting that the concept of climate change at all was almost completely absent from the presidential election and national conversation as a whole. Other than a few brief remarks when a hurricane hits or a question at a debate climate change as a political issue as almost evaporated.

This is a marked shift from 8 years ago when Trump was pilloried for saying climate change is a hoax and for pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

Now the GOP terrified senate candidates in the blue wall states running aggressive ad campaigns saying the democratic party was going to ban gasoline cars. The attacks were so severe that Michigan Senate Candidate Elissa Slotkin released her own ad disavowing the claim of banning gas cars and saying she drives a gas car too. In previous years trumps statements of aggressive drilling And boosting energy production through the roof would’ve been challenged by democrats citing carbon emissions, but in 2024 any such pushback was non existent.

What happened to climate change as a salient political issue? Did the activist movement just fizzle out. The voters not really believe in the supposed theory of accelerated transition away from fossil fuels as the only hope of survival? Did the rhetoric from the climate activists reach such apocalyptic levels that people just don’t believe them anymore? Do people still believe in it but just can’t afford to care if it means gas prices will increase? How did climate change die as a political issue?

I'm in the U.S. and I remember when Brexit passed and everyone said it would lead to a steady decline. It was all over the news for a while, but obviously other world events have taken over. I'm just wondering what were the after effects, did they hit as bad as some people predicted, and for those who voted for Brexit, has a significant proportion of them changed their opinions or do most folks stick to their guns?

As the election has settled and the final calls are being made, it's pretty obvious that Trump had an extremely dominant performance in all of the swing states. Ironically, the democrats themselves had a few victories of their own in the senate and governer races in MI, WI, NV, and NC due to the high level of split ticket voting.

The real question however is that what states are likely to be the future swing states in future?

For reference:

The Rust Belt States of MI, WI, and PA were all within 2% margins of victory with Wisconsin being the closest

Georgia surprisingly wasn't too far off at around a 2.2% margin of victory. A far cry from Biden's performance but far less than his margin of victory against Hilary

North Carolina was at a margin of 3.4%

And while Arizona has yet to be called and fully counted, this state is showing to be the least swingiest state of all as Trump is leading by 6% points (which for reference is high than the margin for New Jersey and Virginia which were D +5 and supposed to be safe blue states)

The once competitive states of Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, and Florida have all been won by double digits and imply a big political realignment

With these states in mind, what does the outlook look for future swing states? Will it be the same seven or will other states like New Jersey, New Hampshire and Minnesota join the crew?

We've all seen articles about the future of the Democratic Party, but I am also wondering about the future of the Republican Party. In my eyes, the party has moved toward an erosion of our democracy - backing a candidate with legal issues, stop the steal, questioning of mainstream media, etc. In my opinion, this was because Trump's support base proved too powerful against those who spoke out (Cheney, Romney, etc), but comes at the cost of a strong democracy. Moreover, it seems to have proved to be a successful strategy. Do you think the party will revert back after Trump or is this the new norm?

Trump, who has long been supportive of using tariffs as a means of trade policy, has proposed among other things a flat tariff of around 10% on imports on other countries, as well as a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. In particular, Trump has stated that these tariffs will also provide revenue in order to offset the costs of what will likely be another massive round of tax cuts.

Economists have warned that if these tariffs were to be implemented, it would cause a significant inflationary shock as company supply chains are disrupted and are forced to hike prices on certain goods in order to maintain profit margins. Given how Trump was elected off of a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment over inflation, a policy like this may end up eroding whatever goodwill and support he gained from voters hoping his presidency would resolve it. Not to mention the inevitable trade wars as countries impose tariffs of their own, hurting American manufacturers.

Some have argued that Trump's proposed tariffs are merely a pre-negotiation ploy that can be negotiated down to more reasonable levels when trade talks with China, the EU and others resume. Others think that Trump will inevitably balk or be convinced not to overreach in order to avoid alienating voters with sudden sticker shock. But given how the moderating voices of Trump's first term are gone and Trump's own mercantilist views towards trade, its also just as possible Trump will proceed with his tariff plan as intended, perhaps hoping to deflect the backlash and claim it was the fault of certain countries and companies for not complying.

In short, what do you suppose will be the economic and political of Trump's tariff policy will be? Will they go as far as stated, or perhaps be negotiated to a more moderate level?

Seems like this happened in 2016 too where celebrities supported Hilary and she lost. I remember this did not happen with Biden and he won.

What are your thoughts? Is it really useful for celebrities to express their supports?

As the title explains, I want to know who Trump has in mind for his Cabinet. I know it is a little early but what do you guys think? Who will be in Trump's 2024 Cabinet? Will people like Elon Musk, RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard get a say or cabinet position and if so what?

I mean it was republicans' top concern all days leading up to the election day. They even had lawyers preparing to sue counties, all disappeared and they accepted the results.

Should liberals raise the issue now since reps would have done the same if they lost?

We live in a divided country and the republicans and democrats have wildly different visions for the future. Some of those decisions are very personal.

Of course Trump won the election. And Trump has the backing of SCOTUS, which gave him absolute immunity as president. It’s also very likely that Republicans will have control over all three branches of government - all of Congress (senate and house), presidency and SCOTUS. Even if some of the lower courts argue and can’t decide over issues, it will go up to the Trump-friendly SCOTUS.

What happens then if Trump and the Republicans, realizing how much power they have, act boldly and pass federal laws forcing all states to follow new controversial laws, that affect people personally. For example, abortion.

I would imagine it would play out in the courts until it makes its way to SCOTUS. Usually this particular SCOTUS always sides with state autonomy, when issues between federal and state are presented before them. But they also have been known to not follow precedent, even their own when it suits them.

So what happens if SCOTUS rules with the Republican majority and instructs all states to follow new federal abortion laws, for example. And what happens if blue states, like New York, refuse to follow these new federal laws or abide by SCOTUS ruling?

Does Trump send the military to New York? Arrest Gov Hochul and NY AG James? Does New York send its own forces to protect its NY Gov and AG?

Where does all of this end?

Now that Donald Trump has defeated Kamala Harris to become the president elect of the United States I am interested in who you all think could be the potential candidates for both parties in the 2028 presidential election. With Donald Trump being unable to run again and Kamala Harris being unlikely to run again who would be the front runners?

I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter about Vance becoming president for any number of reasons, from Trump’s death to some sort of coup-esque situation or even just Trump pardoning himself and retiring. How likely is this is to actually happen at some point in the next four years? Will there be a President Vance before 2028?

Trump appeared on various popular podcasts shortly before the 2024 election including the podcasts of Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Lex Fridman, Logan Paul and some others.

Did this strategy move the needle in the election? Trump appears to have obtained a greater share of the young male vote this time around?

On the NTY Daily podcast it was mentioned that in 2016 and 2024 the democrats basically chose their presidential candidate from the top down without giving much room for voters to have any other option. In 2020 the field was larger and there were more options (although they coalesced pretty quickly). The Democratic Party claims to be in favor of ranked choice voting and popular vote reforms. Is there a reason that the party doesn’t change their primary process to include these reforms?

After the recent Trump election, I've noticed a massive upsurge in pro-Trump or anti-Kamala posts on Reddit claiming that the bots are done, or how Kamala is Anti-Man and stuff.

The thing about the Trump elections is that as a Harris supporter I can kinda understand where his supporters are coming from and why he voted for him.

That being said, looking back on the Bush elections, I don't understand how anyone could have voted for him considering he is so universally reviled today. Like he won against Kerry with the popular adn electoral vote in 2004, but I have no idea what his supporters liked about him over Kerry because it seems like all conservatives and liberals reject what Bush stood for.