#electoral prospects

[tmarshconnors]

Labour Party Landslide Imminent..

As the political landscape continues to shift and evolve, there's a growing sense of déjà vu reminiscent of the historic 1997 General Election. Back then, the Labour Party, under the leadership of Tony Blair, achieved a monumental landslide victory, ending 18 years of Conservative rule. Fast forward to the present day, and many political pundits are speculating whether we're on the brink of witnessing a similar political upheaval.

The current state of affairs certainly seems to be favouring the Labour Party. Which I am wholeheartedly against but let’s face simple facts with widespread dissatisfaction over the Conservative government's handling of various issues ranging from the economy to english channel migrant crossings, there's a palpable sense of disillusionment among voters. I mean they don’t even act like “proper” conservatives. In all truth I can’t tell them apart anymore. Cause let’s face it we obviously are locked in a two party system for the foreseeable future.

As I have gotten older I won’t lie I have grown extremely cynical about politics and yes I do have some very strong views by some. I have always quoted the great classical Greek philosopher Plato “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” But here’s the sad blunt truth is my party the Conservative Party have been in power longer than any party since the war. We need to show that we are not stagnating, that we are capable of self-renewal sadly that isn’t happening at all. It’s making me question. “Why should I bother to vote anymore?”

Furthermore, the Conservative Party's internal divisions and scandals have further eroded confidence in their ability to govern effectively. From controversies surrounding leadership decisions to accusations of cronyism and corruption, the Tories are grappling with internal strife that threatens to undermine their electoral prospects. Against this backdrop, Labour appears as a beacon of stability and integrity, offering a viable alternative to the status quo. I feel no compunction at all they have well and truly brought all of this upon themselves.

Another crucial factor working in Labour's favour is the shifting demographics of the electorate. As younger, more diverse voters come of age, they bring with them a set of values and priorities that align closely with Labour's progressive platform. Issues such as climate change, social equality, and healthcare resonate strongly with this demographic, providing Labour with a natural advantage in winning their support. Younger voters most seem to be very naive about politics.

Of course, it's important to acknowledge that predicting election outcomes is always fraught with uncertainty. Political landscapes can change rapidly, and unforeseen events or developments could alter the trajectory of the race. Nevertheless, if current trends persist, it's not difficult to envision a scenario where Labour secures a landslide victory reminiscent of 1997. I mean I could be wrong and maybe just maybe the Conservatives will be reelected to power.

In conclusion, the parallels between the present moment and the historic 1997 General Election are striking. The writing is on the wall. With the Labour Party gaining momentum and the Conservative Party facing mounting challenges, the stage seems set for a seismic shift in British politics. While nothing is certain in politics, one thing is clear: the winds of change are blowing, and come election day, we may witness a decisive mandate for Labour that reshapes the course of the nation. As for myself when the time comes. I shall be voting for the Reform Party led by Richard Tice.

One more thing…

Never forget that exercising your right to vote are crucial steps toward making a difference. I firmly believe in that.

[newspatron]

Tamil Nadu’s Political Landscape: BJP’s Ascent

An in-depth look at BJP’s strategic ascent in Tamil Nadu’s political landscape. Click to read the full article.

DMK AIADMK PMK BJP TAMILNADU Explore the intricate political dynamics of Tamil Nadu as we delve into the BJP’s strategic ascent in the southern state. editor@newspatron.comBJP’s Political Strategy and AlliancesBJP’s Calculated Expansion in Tamil NaduThe Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) AllianceAmma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) CoalitionCrafting a Third FrontA Closer Look at Tamil Nadu’s Electoral…

[thedreadvampy]

absolutely sucks shit when people are like HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST PUTTING ANY CONDITIONS ON YOUR VOTE as if. the constant shift right doesn't have to do with the belief in major parties that they're owed votes by default on account of not being the other guy.

like they're going to ignore the public's wishes either way but fuck, you don't have to make it that easy for them. literally the second they get in. oh pwetty pwease Mr Biden can you wespect basic human wights? don't worry sir you'll still get my vote if not but I thought I'd ask nicely!!!!

hold their fucking feet to the fire dude. make it clear that your vote is conditional on them listening to the public on the clear and vital points.

(btw 'refusing to vote for Clinton is how Trump got in' no it literally is not. please remember that Trump lost the popular vote anyway and only got in because your country has a weird fucked up system where states are allowed to ignore how their constituents vote.)

(Refusing to vote New Labour after the Iraq War is how the Tories got in over here. Kinda. because what actually happened was we had the first hung parliament since 1979, and then the Lib Dems sold the country up the river for some minor concessions. and then Labour spent the next 10 years actively kneecapping itself by painting its own leadership as a bigger threat than the Tories, and when they had a leftist leading them they still brought the Tories to a hung parliament again in 2017.)

(anyway the point is you all seem to have a majorly inflated sense of how much democracy is involved in elections. Ultimately in cases where the race is close-run it is not the electorate that decide, it's like 100 people in positions of high power, be it the electoral college, the party leadership, or otherwise.)

(none of which is to say your vote is useless. your vote is valuable to politicians. there's a limit to how much they can get away with ignoring the public. but. because your vote is valuable, it's only useful as leverage if there's a possibility you might not give them it. and let's be clear, people WILL change direction if they're worried about losing votes. but unless you're offering them massive funding, then the only reason your opinion would carry any weight is if there's a possibility of your vote being withheld. if you stand up and say VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO YOU'VE GOT MY VOTE WHATEVER HAPPENS then like. You might as well just say 'ignore me, pay attention to those guys who might not vote for you'.)

if the centre and the left's votes are vocally assured regardless of the party's policy or stance, then the party will move right. bc they've already got you, so it's time to court the undecideds. YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT NECESSARY TO A POLITICIAN'S SUCCESS TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU WANT. they don't care. you have to use what little leverage you have, your vote, to make them care. it's the only form of accountability we can bring about that doesn't involve, like, storming the winter palace 🤷‍♀️

[neil-gaiman]

These are impressive, by author Steve Erickson. A small sample, but please go and read the whole:

WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF CONFUSING AN IMPERFECT CHOICE FOR AN UNCLEAR ONE Any dispassionate observer can reasonably conclude Biden should drop out of the campaign. It’s not ageist to suggest that though he’s not too old for the job at the moment, he will be sometime in the next four years, and from a political standpoint his age now so permeates the collective perception of him that nobody can see him straight; his poll numbers are almost perversely at odds with everything about his job performance. But presently every indication is that Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee, and sometime soon it will be time for the rest of us to just shut up about it. Whatever one thinks of his age or Israel policy or Afghanistan withdrawal or anything else, he’s still the only one of the two prospective nominees who will defend your right to call him unfit for the job. Now and then a choice can be at once profoundly imperfect and manifestly clear anyway. WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF DEUS EX MACHINA While wishing Trump to be accountable before the law, we must accept that any trial or decision by a higher court is unlikely to spare the country what it karmically doesn’t deserve to be spared: a national political referendum on who we are as a people. Otherwise Trump will evermore in the eyes of history — not to mention his supporters, who will find a way to believe it in any case — be martyr to a systemic technicality. Trump needs to be rejected electorally by every single patriot who can drag her- or himself to the polls to do so. Which brings us to the final resolution....

[wilwheaton]

With democracy itself on the line, the 2024 election will almost certainly be the nation’s most consequential since 1860. It will also be the weirdest. There are two fundamental facts about this campaign that do not appear to be making much of an impact on what, at least today, seems to be close to a majority of the electorate. The first and more obvious one is that few people in history have ever been less qualified to hold a position of any responsibility, much less the most powerful position in the world, than Donald Trump. If elected, he will certainly deploy that power to destroy virtually everything Americans have historically held dear about the nation’s democratic traditions. The second, less obvious, but no less objective fact is that Joe Biden has been a remarkably good president. Not everything has worked out, and one can certainly disagree with many of his decisions. His embrace of Bibi Netanyahu has clearly had disastrous consequences for Israel, Gaza, the United States, and likely for his own reelection prospects. But in terms of the way presidents are traditionally measured, Biden has been a smash. The U.S. economy is the envy of the world. Yes, inflation is higher than one would like, but jobs are plentiful, and so are raises for the people in them; wages are rising faster than inflation, as it happens. Violent crime is way down. Infrastructure investments are way up since 2020. Student loans are being forgiven. The labor movement is rebounding. We are leading the world in defending democracy in Ukraine. And yet, the danger of a Trump takeover remains as high as ever.

How Can This Country Possibly Be Electing Trump Again?

[oaks-and-willows]

So Kanaky-New Caledonia is going through the most violent times it has seen since the 1980s revolt and it's barely on the news. I'm not a local, let alone indigenous, but I'm stuck in Brisbane on my way there because the international airport of Nouméa closed, and worried indigenous friends are keeping me updated.

The Southern Province is seeing a lot of lootings and armed barricades, and two youths were killed by French special forces today.

Why? Because the French government passed a law that changes who gets to vote in Kanaky New Caledonia, from indigenous people, people born in KNC, and people who have lived there continuously since 1998, to everyone who has lived there for at least 10 years. Less than half the population is Kanak, and the strong influx of French people is shrinking their proportion even further. Immigrants who like the sun and the tropical sea but don't need that to mean that they'll learn about the cultures and the country, i.e. expats. So far, this influx was bad for the job prospects of locals and for property prices, but it didn't matter in local elections. The current government is pro-independence, a stance strongly congruent with Kanaks but not with Europeans.

This is Darmanin's and Macron's reaction to the third referendum on independence from France having failed. Darmanin called it 'a minimum of democracy'. The first two referendums were close calls and the second (51/49) more so than the first (53/46). The third was 90% against independence, which was due to a boycott of the referendum; it happened during Covid, electoral campaigns were impossible except vis TV, which is easier for the well-funded loyalists than for their opponents. Macron ignored this. The referendums were very peaceful and disciplined, but since this discipline was used by the State against the indigenous population to legitimize neo-colonialism, the current violence is not a surprise. Last time barricades were used, in the 1980s, they were very successful. We'll see what happens this time.

[eightyonekilograms]

My sense is that no one is having fun. Out in MAGA land people are frothing at the prospect of getting their retribution on the rest of the country. But they’re not having “fun” the way they did in 2016, when they felt like they had discovered what was either the new punk rock or the greatest reality show of all time. Anti-anti-Trump conservatives are mad that no Republican has emerged to save them from Trump. Inside Conservatism Inc. and #TeamNormal GOP politics, they now realize that they’re going to have to publicly defend Trump for another year while privately praying for him to go away—either via health event, jury verdict, or electoral defeat. That’s why they’re so cranky. Low-information independent voters are sour because they’ve signaled—over and over—that they don’t want a Trump-Biden rematch. Now they’re starting to understand that they’re going to get a rematch, good and hard. The progressive left is angry at Joe Biden because he didn’t deliver the big, progressive policies they wanted and also because he has been a strong and reliable ally for Israel. The mainstream of the Democratic party is pissed that they have to beat Donald Trump, and a bunch of radical malcontents looking to play spoiler, and a bunch of rich centrist moderates who simultaneously believe that (1) Biden and Trump are indistinguishable and (2) there is a vast chasm of difference between Biden and Joe Manchin / Larry Hogan. And finally there are people like me, who belong to the smallest subset of them all: Those who have been pleasantly surprised by Biden’s first term and view it as successful by nearly every objective measure. Those of us holding this view are regarded as lunatics by 70 percent of the country.

[anarchywoofwoof]

this is what happens when you have a dissenting opinion in the United States Congress. a lobby group with more power (money) and influence (money) than you can ever dream of having will literally hold your electoral prospects hostage.

$100 million specifically dedicated to ousting the most leftist, progressive members of Congress. including the only elected Palestinian-American.

this is why American elections are a sham. this is why people are disenfranchised by the Democratic party on a regular basis. the fact of the matter is that money’s involvement in politics will always create institutional rot. there’s no way around it.

source: democracy now

[drdemonprince]

i am genuinely curious about this:

if voting doesn’t matter, why have far right actors been putting up so many candidates for (especially local) elections? why are they so focussed on this? and why bother suppressing peoples votes with gerrymandering at all?

if this is a dumb question, or better answered by writing someone has already done, could you point me toward those resources?

thank you!

Voting doesn't matter if you want a leftist world.

The United States electoral system (and even the state itself) is fundamentally incompatible with leftist ideals of autonomy, justice, distribution of resources equitably to all people, and liberation of the marginalized. The country was founded upon the principles of land theft, genocide, enslavement, capitalist enterprise, and marginalization, and is structured on every level to reinforce those values and reproduce the inequalities those values have created. It has always been a country of gerrymandering, a country without body autonomy for Black people, Indigenous people, and women, a country where wealthy property owners hold greater sway. It's built into everything from how districts are drawn to the existence of the Senate.

If you want a violently colonialist capitalist empire, voting will do you just fine. Republicans push get-out-the-vote efforts because they would like to be the ones at the head of that empire, and because the system aligns very well with their ideals. Democrats are made wealthy, powerful, and high-status under the current system too. Votes matter for their careers and their shallow personal prospects.

Voting does not matter if you want this genocide to end. Both parties support it. Voting does not matter if you want unjust "wars" of this kind to stop. Both parties supported the assaults on Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and every other nation the US has historically invaded. Voting does not matter if you wish to see an end to climate change. Both parties oppose the Green New Deal and support the plundering of the rest of the world for resources. Voting does not matter if you care about immigrants. Both parties have continued to increase the number of people they deport and hold children in cages at the border. Voting does not matter if you want healthcare or other resources. Both parties have supported market-based "solutions" to poverty and have cut welfare programs dramatically for decades.

If you care about any of these issues, your vote is doing precisely nothing to bring the change you desire about. In fact, it communicates that you are okay with the current social order and the political options provided to you. If you desire a world not shaped by settler colonialism and corporate interests you will have to work with other people to build it.

[mariacallous]

Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that the country’s presidential election, that in peacetime would be expected next March, will not be taking place while Ukraine remains under martial law and is in a state of war with Russia.

Western right-wing social media personalities predictably greeted this news as confirmation of their prejudices against Ukrainian democracy. Failed politician and 2020 U.S. election denier Kari Lake was among those who complained, saying on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Zelensky is considering canceling elections in Ukraine. I didn’t realize that Democracy could just be turned off & on like a TV.” Not wanting to be left out, reactionary Michael Tracey dedicated several tweets to misunderstanding Ukraine’s constitution while furiously denouncing his own followers for correcting his mistakes via X’s Community Notes feature, claiming that “it’s totally false that holding elections during Martial Law is ‘banned’ by Ukraine’s constitution.” (The Community Note is, in fact, correct, and Tracey is, of course, wrong.)

So while, I hope, everyone knows not to take such figures seriously, Americans might still have qualms over the failure to hold elections. The United States itself has a habit, rare among democracies, of keeping the vote going even during wartime, as in 1864 and 1944.

Thus, it’s worth going into detail as to why the Ukrainian government has taken this position and how the Ukrainian electorate is responding to that. This news certainly didn’t come as a surprise to anyone in Ukraine, and the pressure surrounding wartime elections has been entirely external, leaving many Ukrainians baffled. The most prominent of these interventions was made by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who on a visit to Kyiv in August said he believed the Ukrainian government should hold elections in 2024. While it should be noted that, in responding to Graham, Zelensky appeared to hold the door open for elections next year, he also stressed that they were legally prohibited under martial law in the same interview.

These opinions are not confined to American conservatives either, with the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Tiny Kox, telling European Pravda in May that Ukraine is expected to “organize free and fair elections,” shortly before walking those comments back in a subsequent interview.

For the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians, the idea of holding elections next spring is absurd. A recent poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 81 percent of respondents thought that elections should not be held until after the end of the war. This view is shared across the country, with those in the eastern and southern regions most impacted by the ongoing conflict also overwhelmingly opposing holding elections during the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Ukrainian civil society has also reached the same conclusion, with more than 200 civil society institutions, NGOs, and human rights networks officially declaring their opposition to holding wartime elections. The prospect of holding elections next year had already been deemed “impossible” by Ukraine’s leading election monitoring NGO Opora in July, long before Graham arrived in Kyiv for his moment in front of the cameras.

For those who are unaware of what martial law is, in most countries it entails the suspension of a civilian government, replacing it with a military administration enacted during times of war, and it normally involves the curtailment of peacetime political freedoms such as freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. While martial law is never a positive political development for a nation-state, at times of war, such as the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, such legal measures become unfortunately necessary to save lives.

Both constitutionally and legally speaking, the Ukrainian government is simply following Ukrainian law. The Ukrainian constitution and martial law legislation clearly prohibit presidential, parliamentary, and local elections from taking place under martial law, and Zelensky’s comments last week were merely a repetition of what other Ukrainian government officials have said on this topic in recent months. Other European countries, such as Germany, have similar provisions for postponing wartime elections.

In response to Kox’s comment in May, Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said: “The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should clearly understand that there is a Constitution and laws of our country that we have to live by, and we will figure it out on our own. No elections can be held during martial law.”

Similarly, in June, Ruslan Stefanchuk, the speaker of Ukraine’s parliament, said: “If elections were possible during martial law, it could lead to the rupture of the state, which our enemy is waiting for. That is why I think the most correct and wise decision is to hold elections immediately after the end of martial law.”

Speaking in August, Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said: “It will be very difficult to hold elections in the country under such conditions. Indeed, there is martial law, there is war. When we end the war, then we will talk about elections.”

Some might dismiss the position of Ukrainian officials due to their own self-interest in remaining in power. If Zelensky were trying to cling to power against the wishes of Ukraine’s electorate, martial law would seem to provide the Ukrainian government with the legal and constitutional power to do just that.

However, this theory collapses on contact with Ukraine’s opinion polls. A survey taken this summer on a potential presidential election in Ukraine showed that more than 70 percent of respondents were planning to vote for Zelensky, with more than 50 percent of respondents supporting his ruling Servant of the People party.

The scale of the commanding lead that Zelensky has over his political opponents is nearly unheard of in any democracies, let alone Western ones. Few leaders around the world have the same level of popular support and legitimacy that Zelensky’s government currently holds. This is not a government that is in doubt about its democratic legitimacy, and if there were elections in March, the results would be almost guaranteed to be a landslide victory.

It is also true that Zelensky’s government under martial law banned 11 opposition political parties last March. However, the part that is often left out by those complaining about this is that these parties had explicit links to the Russian government and were in many cases actively assisting the Russian invasion. It’s hard to imagine any country not responding the same way when under invasion. For example, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s government banned Oswald Mosley’s pro-Nazi British Union of Fascists at the outbreak of World War II. Again, none of this means that Ukraine is no longer a functioning democracy—it is merely a democracy that is currently fighting off an invading army.

The final point is also the most overlooked by external observers pressuring the Ukrainian government into violating its constitutional obligations: the matter of safety. Holding elections while Russia continues to bombard civilian targets in Ukraine on a daily basis is not just dangerous; it is outright irresponsible. The Russian military has a track record of systematically targeting any large congregations of Ukrainian civilians. In October, Russia bombed a cafe where people had gathered for a wake, leaving 59 people dead.

In any wartime election, polling stations would become high-value targets for a Russian dictatorship that is hellbent on destroying Ukrainian democracy and a Russian military that carries out war crimes against civilians as its modus operandi.

Furthermore, 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory is under Russian occupation, and those citizens have just as much right as those living in Kyiv or Lviv to participate in Ukrainian elections, but trying to organize those under Russian occupation would put participants and organizers under mortal peril. Ukraine does not have the means of ensuring the safety of its electorate during this democratic process, and it’s arguable that no democratic nation could ensure the safety of its citizens under these conditions.

Lastly, while this situation has not arisen in Western democracies since the end of World War II, the United Kingdom also did not hold elections between 1940 and 1945, and at no point during that time were substantial parts of Britain occupied by Nazi Germany. Most of democratic Europe was occupied during World War II, but during World War I, France and other nations suspended elections. I have never heard anyone try to say this meant those countries ceased being democracies. The United States was able to hold elections during wartime because the front line was mercifully distant; Ukraine does not have that luxury.

Given that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian politicians, Ukrainian civil society, and the Ukrainian electorate have categorically rejected the notion of holding elections while the country remains locked in an existential war with Russia, there is little excuse for external observers to be piling additional pressure onto Kyiv to hold a dangerous, illegal vanity contest with an already foregone conclusion.

[tuurverheydepoetryandprose]

I can’t stand to see some liberals preemptively guilt-tripping and blaming every pro-Palestinian person for a future Biden defeat.

Like, loyalist liberals have let the democrats get away with massive amounts of atrocities and derelictions of duty over the decades. You let them drone strike the Middle East without accountability, you let them renege on codifying Roe, you let them accept republican obstruction, you let them water down universal healthcare, you let them hem and haw over climate action, the list goes on and on. The democrats have had so many opportunities to make meaningful improvements and irreversible protections to people’s rights and they neglected to do so every time, all while cranking up the imperialist and carceral violence.

If Biden loses it’s not the fault of supporters of Palestine, it’s the fault of ‘vote blue no matter who’ diehards who have sat back for decades letting the democrats become more and more unrepresentative, undemocratic, blatantly imperialist and shamefully negligent, letting them get away with it without any pushback.

It’s the people who have pressured strangers into voting for bad options for as long as they’ve been around, but ignored the concerns of millions for literal decades just because the democrats’ ineptitude and cynicism didn’t affect them.

If you support a party no matter what, let them bullshit their way into office, let them go back on most of their promises for multiple terms, this is what you get. A party that is confident there is no accountability or electoral consequences for its antidemocratic policies.

Strategically, voting Biden is a ‘safer’ bet for most, but it’s absolutely not a morally pure choice and framing it that way is disrespectful to the thousands of people who have died because of his decisions.

It’s actually amazing when you think about it. The republicans’ Project 2025 is such an insanely awful prospect, just openly totalitarian, hyperreactonary etc. It’s so extreme most people would have voted against it in a heartbeat if they knew what it was. But now, because the Democrats just won’t abandon their white supremacist imperialist ambitions, the election might go either way. It’s just a staggering feat of immorality and stupidity. And everyone supporting the democrats unquestioningly is responsible.

If you don’t want people to abandon this rotten system, fight to make it better. If you don’t want to do that, don’t be indignant when people abandon you.

You abandoned them first.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

S.V. Dáte at HuffPost:

WASHINGTON ― Would Donald Trump ever have become president if he hadn’t paid off porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet in the days before the 2016 election? The answer is impossible to know, but the premise of the question forms the basis of the very first criminal trial of a former president in American history: whether Trump’s scheme to keep Daniels’ claim of a 2006 affair with him under wraps was, in fact, a crime for which the coup-attempting former president should be punished. While “hush money case” has become the shorthand to describe the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to go to trial, particularly among Trump defenders who wish to diminish it, that is not how it will be described to prospective jurors Monday at the scheduled start of jury selection. Judge Juan Merchan’s first sentence of a 223-word summary describing the case to jurors reads: “The allegations are, in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the 34-count indictment against Trump just over a year ago, will argue that the ledger entries and other business documents Trump created claiming that he was paying lawyer Michael Cohen for “legal services” when in reality he was repaying him for the $130,000 check he delivered to Daniels, were felonies under New York law. “The core is not money for sex,” Bragg told New York’s public radio affiliate last year. “We would say it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.” Trump’s campaign did not respond to HuffPost’s queries for this report. He has primarily argued on social media and in his campaign speeches that the case was brought to hurt his efforts to regain the presidency, another piece of the “witch hunt” that he claims the “deep state” is conducting against him.

He repeated those claims Friday during a brief news conference. “It’s not even a crime,” he said. “It’s very unfair that we have this judge who hates Trump.” It’s unclear precisely how long the trial will last or even how many days it will take to seat a jury, although estimates suggest it could stretch into June. Merchan, in an April 8 letter to prosecutors and defense lawyers, noted the logistical challenges involved in trying a former president and presumptive major party nominee who travels with a substantial Secret Service detail. “In a case where security concerns are implicated every time anyone enters or exits the courtroom, or mingles around the corridors, moving the entire jury panel is no simple task,” Merchan wrote.

Bragg’s filing accompanying the indictment lays out the plan Trump and his ally David Pecker, publisher of the National Enquirer, developed to “catch and kill” stories that could hurt Trump’s presidential campaign. The scheme also involved paying off a doorman at a Trump building, who claimed Trump had a fathered a child outside his marriages, as well as a Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who also claimed she’d had an affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007. Neither of those payments, though, were made by Cohen, and the actual indictment only involves Trump’s reimbursements to him.

To what extent Trump’s successful pre-election silencing of Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, played a role in his narrow 2016 win is unclear. Trump lost the national popular vote by 2.9 million ballots but won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a combined 77,744 votes, which gave him a healthy Electoral College victory. After watching his poll numbers crater after the Oct. 7, 2016, release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he bragged that his celebrity allowed him to grab women by the genitals, Trump slowly recovered over the coming weeks as Russia’s spy agencies and their ally, Julian Assange, on a near daily basis released stolen emails designed to hurt Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

[...]

Whether it would have cost Trump the election, of course, does not matter in terms of his criminal trial. Prosecutors must only prove that Trump had Cohen make the payment to Daniels for the purpose of influencing the election and that he subsequently created fake business records to disguise the purpose of the reimbursements.

“I think the case is strong as a matter of both evidence and New York law,” said Norm Eisen, a White House lawyer under former President Barack Obama who recently published a book about the New York prosecution. “If Bragg proves that theory of the case, and I think he will, he will establish this was no minor hush-money peccadillo but a serious democracy crime.” Trump faces three other felony criminal prosecutions ― two of them based on his attempt to remain in power despite having lost reelection in 2020. A federal indictment could go to trial as early as late August, depending on the timing of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on his claim that he is immune from prosecution. A Georgia state prosecution based on his attempt to overturn his election loss in that state could also start later this year. An unrelated second federal prosecution based on his refusal to turn over secret documents he took with him from the White House to his South Florida country club has not yet been set for trial.

Today is the first day of Donald Trump's first criminal trial in New York v. Trump to determine whether the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal made by Donald Trump to falsify business records in order to influence the 2016 elections leads to convictions for Trump.

If Trump is convicted on even one charge, he'll be forever known as Convicted Felon Donald Trump, and that would hurt him at the polls come election day because people who are hesitant on voting Joe Biden again but don't like DJT likely won't vote for a convicted felon to lead the nation.

See Also:

HuffPost: Trump’s Hush Money Trial: What To Expect

The Guardian: Donald Trump’s hush-money trial: a timeline of the case

[loving-n0t-heyting]

What's the bad thing about the recall election?

The point of the recall was to make an example of persky before other criminal judges in cali: be more lenient in sentencing than we regard as fitting, and your place on the bench will also be put on the block. In this the recall campaign succeeded: CA courts saw an immediate uptick in severity of sentencing, and california lawyers will openly tell you that judges discussed the success of the campaign in apprehensive terms. If, like me, you think that severe sentences are one of, if not the, greatest ills in the American criminal justice system, this should naturally concern you greatly

This also should help dispense with the fake-deep tripe someone was giving me in the reblogs about how the legitimate public anger over brock turners light sentence was coopted by the "carceral surveillance state" to "manufacture consent" for increased sentencing severity. This gets the causation completely backwards: first came the grassroots opposition campaign, then the courts (the "carceral surveillance state") responded by acceding to the publics threat. In this sense the public accountability mechanisms worked as advertised

Judicial elections are generally a social cancer anyway, even if recall campaigns are especially bad. Lots of peer nations have no truck with them. Judges and prospective judges running for the bench electorally always always always wind up pandering to lawandorder jagoffs first and foremost; as just one example, there is a richly attested link between judicial elections and liberal application of the death penalty. "Lynching by proxy" i always call it. This is a useful example to point out to pseudowoke antielectoralists who will eagerly justify squandering their hard wom democratic rights at the ballot box by explaining our elected officials dont care what we have to think of them. Turns out elected judges care a lot what we think of them, its just tgat most of the ppl voting for them think they should be evil

[oaks-and-willows]

So Kanaky-New Caledonia is going through the most violent times it has seen since the 1980s revolt and it's barely on the news. I'm not a local, let alone indigenous, but I'm stuck in Brisbane on my way there because the international airport of Nouméa closed, and worried indigenous friends are keeping me updated.

The Southern Province is seeing a lot of lootings and armed barricades, and two youths were killed by French special forces today.

Why? Because the French government passed a law that changes who gets to vote in Kanaky New Caledonia, from indigenous people, people born in KNC, and people who have lived there continuously since 1998, to everyone who has lived there for at least 10 years. Less than half the population is Kanak, and the strong influx of French people is shrinking their proportion even further. Immigrants who like the sun and the tropical sea but don't need that to mean that they'll learn about the cultures and the country, i.e. expats. So far, this influx was bad for the job prospects of locals and for property prices, but it didn't matter in local elections. The current government is pro-independence, a stance strongly congruent with Kanaks but not with Europeans.

This is Darmanin's and Macron's reaction to the third referendum on independence from France having failed. Darmanin called it 'a minimum of democracy'. The first two referendums were close calls and the second (51/49) more so than the first (53/46). The third was 90% against independence, which was due to a boycott of the referendum; it happened during Covid, electoral campaigns were impossible except vis TV, which is easier for the well-funded loyalists than for their opponents. Macron ignored this. The referendums were very peaceful and disciplined, but since this discipline was used by the State against the indigenous population to legitimize neo-colonialism, the current violence is not a surprise. Last time barricades were used, in the 1980s, they were very successful. We'll see what happens this time.

[radiofreederry]

Fuck Biden for not playing hardball on this but I'm really not sure the Court realizes what a bad decision this is for Republican electoral prospects

[schraubd]

Media Alt-Centrists in Disarray

  When I first saw this Tweet (Xeet?), my eye was drawn to "Dems should pursue working-class voters of all races." It's a great example of something that is simultaneously (a) alt-center conventional wisdom and (b) utterly inane. What are the sorts of policies Dems should pursue to working-class voters of all races? Answer: the ones they're already supporting!  The difference between talking and delivering. pic.twitter.com/mb6bp65eKV — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 31, 2023 Price negotiations for prescription drugs is a great, obvious example of a policy that's geared to the interest of working-class voters of all races. Standing with the incipient wave of labor mobilization is another. The infrastructure bill was yet another. All of these are centerpiece items of the Democratic Party's economic agenda. But the alt-center punditry acts as if they don't exist. The "advice" on offer is "do what you're already doing, but make me pay attention to it." And one cannot help but think that the price the pundits have put on "make me pay attention to it" is "stop distracting me by also supporting policies that are distinctively to the benefit of specific historically marginalized communities." At the same time, there is a separate vapidity in the "advice" that Biden shouldn't run for reelection. Again, as advice this is just terrible: Biden has a proven electoral track record and has already beaten Trump once. There's no universe where a chaotic primary free-for-all would actually be healthy for the Democratic Party or the broader prospect of ensuring that Trump or any of his lackeys stay out of the White House. The desire for "a real primary" is just thinly-disguised thirst for the good old days of "Dems in disarray" and the chaotic intraparty knife fights that aren't happening on the GOP side because virtually all of Trump's "challengers" can't help but cozy up to him (with a not-so-subtle wink to the various factions within the Democratic Party whose definition of a "real primary" excludes any primary where their preferred candidate doesn't march to victory). Finally, "faculty lounge" politics is also a meaningless phrase. If it's meant to refer to the notion that Democratic party politics take their cues from whatever petition is currently being passed around the Wesleyan anthropology department email list, it's delusional. If it's meant to be a general referent to so-called "culture war" politics, then it's horribly outdated -- we are long past the days where the main "culture" wedge issues favored Republicans over Democrats. Republicans are getting absolutely blitzed on reproductive rights as their radical campaigns to imprison, maim, and murder women are predictably reviled. And their anti-LGBTQ agenda doesn't fare much better. Democrats have a lot of room to punish Republicans for their extremism here, and absolutely should. Biden should run for reelection, and in the process will no doubt trounce token primary opposition. He should promote his policies which will improve the lives of working class voters of all races, and he should absolutely torch Republicans for their unabashed extremism in desiring to take American "culture" back to the 19th century. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/zVgUnOJ