Open questions. Get those questions out now so everybody keeps aware.
How will fired civil servants fare? That question looms.
What role, if any, will a Trump transition team assign Stephen Miller? Will he be eased out? Would Elon find a landing spot for Miller, besides Mars?
The headline tells it, except the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WckEFzGku0Q
And again, the file is a live stream, mostly waiting, so hit the stream as headlined.
1789, Constitution ratified.
1792, Whiskey Tax Rebellion.
Slave owners then were an elite equivalent to aristocrats with serfs marginalized, the elite organized and banded together. Serfs rebelled when the only portable (and potable) crop they had was distilled spirits.
Roads were not so good back then, and the Whiskey Tax Rebellion was in the newly penetrated non-coastal hill country. (JD land.)
Back then the proper powers restored equilibrium, law and order. And the whiskey tax was paid or the serfs not complying became outlaw moonshiners.
Tune. The song ended and the suits applauded. Now the suits say they're the rebels.
The beat goes on.
Make lemonade.
Headlining may change but at the post timestamp it remains:
Trump Towers!
Comeback of the Century: Historic Victory for Fmr Potus
Democracy Restored4547
Blowout: Wins National Popular Vote
The Donald Gets A Second Term — And a Mandate
American Realignment: His Yugest Tent Ever!
He Trumps Them All: Democrats, Globalists, Lawfare, Fake News, Fake Polls, Assassins, and More!
RIP: GOP Establishment Destroyed
Updates: Republicans Make Big Gains In Senate
Where Mercer money and Bannon'a personal will seem to part?
"RIP: GOP Establishment Destroyed."
I might be reading the Mercers wrongly, but my bet is they do not join Steve Bannon in that hummer.
UPDATE: DWT has spot-on most recent items. Better than Breitbart, ya betcha.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/24/democrats-white-working-class-00041807
What Republicans Know (and Democrats Don’t) About the White Working Class
There’s an important social and economic divide that drives working-class whites that progressive elites mostly miss — to their political peril.
Ever since J.D. Vance became the Republican Senate nominee in Ohio, journalists and pundits have been preoccupied with how Vance’s politics have shifted since the 2016 publication of his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. The book brought Vance fame and a platform that he used, among other things, to criticize Donald Trump. Since then, Vance’s positions on polarizing issues like immigration have lurched to the right and he sought — and won — Trump’s endorsement. Vance now also dabbles in conspiracy theories and has taken on a belligerent, Trump-like tone.
What the pundit class isn’t talking about, however, is an important consistency between 2016 author Vance and 2022 politician Vance. In his memoir, Vance pitted two groups of low-status whites against each other—those who work versus those who don’t. In academic circles, these two groups are sometimes labeled the “settled” working class versus the “hard living.” A broad and fuzzy line divides these two groups, but generally speaking, settled folks work consistently while the hard living do not. The latter are thus more likely to fall into destructive habits like substance abuse that lead to further destabilization and, importantly, to reliance on government benefits.
Vance has not renounced that divisive message. He no doubt hopes to garner the support of the slightly more upmarket of the two factions—which, probably not coincidentally, is also the group more likely to go to the polls. While elite progressives tend to see the white working class as monolithic, Vance’s competitiveness in the Ohio Senate race can be explained in no small part by his ability to politically exploit this cleavage.
As a scholar studying working-class and rural whites, I have written about this subtle but consequential divide. I have also lived it. I grew up working-class white, and I watched my truck driver father and teacher’s aide mother struggle mightily to stay on the “settled” side of the ledger. They worked to pay the bills, yes, but also because work set them apart from those in their community who were willing to accept public benefits. Work represented the moral high ground. Work was their religion.
[...]
Whenever I talk about this settled working class mindset to folks in my coastal progressive world, I get two responses. The first is an assumption that these folks are simply racists whose sole motivation is to deny benefits to people of color. The second response is that they are irrational, even delusional, not to see that they are vulnerable — that they might someday need public benefits, too, given the way precarity has not only crept up the socioeconomic ladder, but also outward and into a growing number of communities left behind by the knowledge economy.
Indeed, it’s true that many in the settled working class would benefit from big structural government interventions like single-payer health care, universal pre-K and other childcare supports, greater investments in education and broadband. They would also benefit if higher taxes on the wealthy paid for these interventions. That many white workers don’t see it this way leads to the oft-heard assertion that working-class whites vote against their own interests.
But both of these progressive responses further alienate folks with strong identities as workers, those hanging on to a version of the American dream that places the individual squarely in the driver’s seat.
First, going straight to allegations of racism is incendiary and infuriating to the folks being labeled “racist.” They tend to define that term narrowly, referring to people who say the n-word or explicitly endorse white nationalism. (Academics label this cohort “old-fashioned racists” to differentiate from the many broader definitions that now dominate public discourse.) Many of these folks know they don’t use overtly racist terms or believe in white supremacy. But just as those oriented to work tend to discount the significance of beneficial structures in their own lives, they also tend to discount the force of structural racism in others’ lives.
Plus, an assumption that these white workers are thinking only in terms of the “welfare queen” stereotype fails to consider that most of the non-workers who people like Pamela and Monna know are almost certainly white folks. After all, they live in Marshalltown, Iowa and Athens, Ohio — virtually all-white burgs. Ditto my folks in the Arkansas Ozarks.
I’m not saying that no one in the settled working class has racist impulses; some do. I am pointing out their tendency to harbor class-based animus toward anyone who doesn’t work, regardless of skin color. Bias based on race and bias based on class are not mutually exclusive, and it can be easier to assume that racial animus is at work when in fact, it’s classist or cultural animus directed at those on a lower economic or social rung. As the late cultural critic Joe Bageant expressed it, “what middle America loathes … are poor and poorish people, especially the kind who look and sound like they just might live in a house trailer.”
[...]
In July 2016, Senator Chuck Schumer suggested Democrats could ignore this constituency. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania,” he said, “we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Schumer’s strategy proved a notorious disaster for Democrats, and it’s not a gamble the party can afford to repeat in 2022 or 2024. If anything, white workers look more critical than ever to a winning Democratic coalition, as more Latinos drift into the Republican column.
Politico published in 2022, when killing Roe v. Wade was fresh, and Dems did okay enough to get away with such Schumer "wisdom." The year JD won his Senate seat. This time Schumer's fan loaded. It wasn't okay. It was flawed thought.
The 'burbs are not doing super today either, globalism pinches there also.
..................................................
Supporting Harris over Trump, there was little point to my posting of this item sooner. Had Harris have won, there'd be no point to posting it. At all. She lost.
Now it is proper that the item be considered. The item touches more upon JD Vance, in parts omitted. His Ohio victory. Match it to today's election map.
..................................................
In part, Vance in 2022, which is in the above quoted item if the original is read, is superseded by Politico, again, https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/03/business-leaders-jd-vance-republican-populism-00186981
Business leaders watched with growing frustration as Donald Trump pushed the Republican Party toward a kind of populism they fear will threaten their bottom lines. Now, they’re worried about JD Vance.
The Ohio senator represents a new kind of conservative right that is skeptical of corporations and eschews the GOP’s old free trade ideology. And he has done little in office or as the vice presidential nominee to quell their concerns.
Vance has consistently bashed big business, expressed antipathy toward corporate merger activities, sided with labor and emphasized his support for costly tariffs. He’s spoken favorably of the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission chair, Lina Khan, who is universally viewed as a thorn in the side of major businesses, and forged unlikely alliances with progressives including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
With Vance by Trump’s side, some corporate leaders worry a second Trump administration would be even more hostile to their interests than the first was. While he would have little agenda-setting power of his own, Vance would likely reinforce Trump on key economic issues — trade policy, labor issues, market power — unlike former Vice President Mike Pence, who acted more as a check on Trump’s populist leanings.
“[Vance] has taken a tack that big business, particularly some of the big tech stuff, is by definition bad,” said William H. Strong, a Republican donor and financial executive. “Just because you’re big doesn’t mean you’re bad ... I don’t like those broad characterizations that he alludes to that big business is somehow bad. It’s just not.”
Vance isn’t raising concern among business leaders only because of specific policies he might push. They also fear Vance would help turn the party more broadly even further away from the pro-business, small government conservatism that defined its policies for decades, accelerating the years-long change.
Gone are the days of the free-market approaches of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman.
“That orthodoxy has definitely changed, which is there’s much more an open discussion about tariffs, there’s much more an open discussion about antitrust, there’s much more of a discussion about like appealing to union — to rank and file union members,” said a partner at a major investment firm who has given to both Republicans and Democrats and who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “That’s a huge change over the past decade that we’ve seen, and Trump has ushered in … Maybe that’s where the whole party is moving.”
While many business leaders and GOP donors see a Trump administration as still better for business than a Harris one, the GOP’s ongoing ideological realignment has made the party an increasingly uncomfortable fit.
“It’s more of a grin and bear it strategy,” said energy executive Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor. “Overall, a Trump administration is better for the economy, better for business. I don’t see people sliding to the Harris administration but I see them as no longer a perfect fit for the Republican Party — but it’s what they have.”
Some people are particularly concerned about Vance’s isolationist philosophy, Eberhart said. He himself would not have picked Vance to be Trump’s next vice president, he said.
Still, the business community needed to come to terms with the change [...]But the party might not be done changing.
Corporate America’s relationship with Trump has been fraught since he became a mainstay of national politics in 2016. The corporate world favors stability, and Trump’s tenure brought anything but. Business leaders were quick to distance themselves from him, and those who found themselves in Trump’s crossfire paid a price.
“The days of corporate lobbyists controlling Washington through weak, ineffective politicians like Kamala Harris are over,” said Vance spokesperson William Martin in a statement.
Many Republicans — even the former president himself — acknowledge that a vice president has little real power. But Trump is notoriously persuadable, and some fear what impact Vance could have on Trump’s positions in a seat of unfettered access.
For those perturbed by Trump’s tumultuousness, Pence quelled some of those concerns during the first Trump administration. He was a Washington insider who previously chaired the House Republican Conference, and he was strategic in his battles in a Trump White House, working to steer the debate when Trump veered off course.
The fear now around Vance is that it’s not clear how or whether the potential next vice president would shape Trump’s views in those situations, said one Republican lobbyist and Trump White House alum.
“The thinking now of the business community is that Vance will not be a check on some of the more populist ideas that Trump has, so I think that primarily is where the focus is,” the person said, pointing to, for example, Vance’s praise of Khan.
At the helm of the consumer protection agency, Khan has aggressively gone after corporate juggernauts, to the chagrin of technology giants, grocers, and healthcare companies. Despite pressure to the contrary, it’s unclear if even Kamala Harris, if elected, would keep her on and risk upsetting financial allies.
Vance has praised Khan’s antitrust actions, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board fretted that Vance could push Trump to reappoint her. “Do Republicans want to rein in the regulatory state or unleash it?” asked the longtime conservative allies on the Journal’s editorial board.
Vance does have his defenders in the business community. Some point to his time in Silicon Valley as a venture capitalist as evidence [...] And while Vance has been a populist on certain economic policy issues, there is still widespread belief that he is in lockstep with Trump’s overall vision to cut taxes and slash regulations for big businesses.
But it can be hard to nail down exactly where Vance stands on key issues. He was one of Trump’s most vocal critics before becoming one of his most effective attack dogs.
As one media CEO put it, Vance was “generally quite effective” in the vice presidential debate. “Why he acts like a buffoon at other times is puzzling. But it clearly reflects at least his view of what one has to do to appeal to the broader Republican electorate, and of course of Trump himself.”
During Vance’s time in the Senate, the Ohio senator has proven to be an unpredictable firebrand. He has praised Hungary’s authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán and worked with Warren and other Democrats on legislation to punish leaders of big banks when their businesses fail.
[...] Amid the realignment of business and partisanship, the Harris campaign has sought to brandish its support from business leaders and sell itself as a ticket backed by the corporate class. Billionaire entrepreneur and television personality Mark Cuban has been a top emissary of the campaign, telling his followers that Harris is listening to the business community.
But business leaders are still broadly with the GOP. They concede that their fortunes would still be better during a Trump presidency than a Harris one. He has promised to extend his tax bill and reduce the corporate tax rate. Even with some headaches among the Republican donor class, Harris is perceived as a graver threat to the bottom line in the short term.
Republican donor Eric Levine, a lawyer who works closely with large corporations, said that he hoped some more traditional Republicans would surround the former president. He would not have picked Vance for vice president and would have preferred “virtually anybody else on that stage” from the Republican primary debates. He likened some elements of Vance’s speech at the Republican National Convention to remarks that could have been given by Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and progressive champion, and said “that doesn’t make me warm and fuzzy.” But, Levine contended, Trump’s ticket was still stronger than the alternative.
[...] “There are folks within the Republican Party who want to go back to the pre-2016 mindset. I think that it’s just not possible,” said Jonathan Baron, a Washington-based public affairs advisor.
The reason, he suggested, should be obvious.
“The success of figures as unconventional and new as Donald Trump and JD Vance,” he said, “is the best evidence that the change is unavoidable.”
Long quotes sometimes are needed. Trump, remember, was shut out by bankers after he stiffed them on his NJ casino adventures. He went to Deutsche Bank.
With the previous Clinton onward trend of finance uber alles, as engine of the economy and let the rest of the world manufacture, Dems and bankers control money policy worldwide, and face Trump holding a grudge against finance having pinched him hard, where it incentivised his coming down the elevator to run.
And won. And said, "Stop the steal," and "Fight. Fight. Fight." when the shot missed.
Trump clearly had a grudge against GHW Bush's New World Order when it gave him no favored (and to his mind deserved) place at or near the top.
Bankers instead, Rockefeller Chicago School Milton Friedman and monetary policy supreme, while he saw himself as a mover-shaker entrepreneur. Art of the Deal, and from the bank freeze having to sell his name as a shaky brand after Atlantic City.
Vance fits into things. Venture capital had to grow because of banker conservatism, always check the collateral mentality and "track record" where being born to wealth as Trump was is not enough, if misbehaving lately. Elon scored with Pay Pal along with Theil, and is a risk taker. Trump has "enemies within." and this blog has been critical, so we'll see. But Schumer and his bullshit lost and has to go, or what's the other outcome? Schumer is expendable, if the Dems see house cleaning needed; else, love Hakim Jeffries as perpetual House minority leader.
And venture capital has innovated. That is a truth.
Musk was a cofounder but split from OpenAI, and has bought his GPUs and embraced Rust, and done his LLM in Rust, not C, and now has Trump's ear.
Lots of GPUs and a fleet of Teslas that now do not drive themselves.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There will be turbulence. So -- Buckle your seatbelt please.
Jettison failures in thought and action, and HOPE they, the Dems, CHANGE.
Realistically, is that going to happen? Unlikely, but -- Time will tell.
With POTUS, SCOTUS, and apparently leads in both Houses of Congress, Trump won. Big win. Saying something. What he does with his "mandate" is suggested by Project 2025, and by a Catholic majority SCOTUS, a Catholic VP, and a Catholic Heritage Foundation head - all Catholics of the kind different from Francis- with-compassion, where these instead have what seems a Leonard Leo Knights of Malta hubris-seeded roadmap instead.
Buckle up.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/INV_TeslaDealership_GettyImages-1494887228-d84da0e690bd42fea0ebf3a667fc85bc.jpg) |
| Brandon Bell / Getty Images |
https://www.investopedia.com/tesla-jumps-as-musk-seen-winning-under-trump-presidency-8740434
Changed the top of the sidebar. Time to move to an answer, if we can.
The election, at heart, was a story. Told by media. Told by Trump. Told by Harris.
The story unfolded. Accept it. Trump now seems to have a quadrilateral base of action.
Presidency, Senate and House narrowly. The SCOTUS majority.
Checks and balances shall be put to a test.
Will Democratic Party leadership find someone else to blame?
We'll see. The Inner Party seems sure of itself, and can keen and invent excuses.
THEY LOST. WHAT DOES THAT SUGGEST? TO YOU? TO THEM? CHANGE AND HOPE?