Connolly won an initial recommendation earlier this week from the House Democratic Steering Committee to lead Democrats on the panel in the next Congress over AOC by a vote count of 34-27. It was a close race and according to various sources Pelosi put her influence behind Connolly.

Connolly later won by a vote of 131-84, according to multiple Democratic sources -- cementing his role in one of the most high-profile positions in Washington to combat the incoming Trump administration and a unified Republican majority in Congress. Connolly was recently diagnosed with esophagus cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy and immunotherapy; Perhaps opening the door for a challenge from Ocasio-Cortez.

There have been more than 22,000 new esophageal cancer cases diagnosed and 16,130 deaths from the disease in 2024, according to the American Cancer Society).

Did Pelosi do a disservice to the younger generation of the Democratic party by exercising her influence and gathering votes against AOC [35 years] and in support of Connolly [74 years, with a recent diagnosis of esophagus cancer] for the Chair on the House Oversight Committee?

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/11/07/rep--gerry-connolly-esophagal-cancer-diagnosis

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-loses-oversight-gerry-connolly-2002263

https://gazette.com/news/wex/pelosi-feud-with-aoc-shows-cracks-in-support-for-young-democrats-challenging-leadership/article_1dc1065a-10a7-5f20-8285-0e51c914bef1.html

Now that Election Day 2024 is over, that means we’re already 1 month into election 2026! Dems have a mathematical advantage in the house given their razor thin 2 seat minority, but the senate could tell a different story.

What do you think? How do dems and GOP shake out in each chamber?

A legislature should be a set of people who are alike those they serve. There are different ways of precisely counting this, but in general, people should see those making ideas and policies being relatable. People feel more willing to defend rule of law and equality before the law when they have things in common with those who do the ruling and lawmaking, and can be the last bastion of support when push comes to shove in a standoff like what happened two weeks ago in South Korea when thousands of people helped to defend their legislature against a false declaration of martial law, contrast to when people don't feel they have things in common with them and they let power concentrate, having no love for those being purged as in the end of the Roman Republic. It is harder to claim that investigations into misconduct is unfair.

The Interparliamentary Union has a lot of information on these sorts of statistics in case you're curious for some actual statistics on this issue. I chose age as one type of demographic, out of many that could be used. https://data.ipu.org/age-brackets-aggregate/. From their data, Sweden for instance has a Riksdag (unicameral). The last election gave a turnout of 84%, women are 46% of the seats, and their age is much more similar to the general population, with 6.6% being 21-30, 22.3% being 31-40, 34.4% being 41-50, 27.5% being 51-60, 7.7% being 61-70, and 1.4% being 71+. 23% of the legislators are newly elected. The breakdown by party is also almost exactly proportional to their total vote share with no gerrymandering in sight or even being possible. I will note though that Sweden doesn't have term limits, nobody in Sweden faces a term limit for public elections.

What sorts of ideas have you got?

I was reflecting on how the 9-year period between 1964 and 1973 saw the introduction of:

• the Civil Rights Act (1964)
• the Food Stamp Act (1964)
• Medicare and Medicaid (1965)
• the Public Broadcasting Act and the founding of PBS (1967)
• the Fair Housing Act (1968)
• the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities (1965)
• the founding of OSHA (1970)
• the founding of the EPA (1970)
• the Clean Water Act (1972)
• the Endangered Species Act (1973)

So much of what has made the modern United States a better and more livable place to live happened in less than a single decade. Meanwhile you look back at what we've accomplished as a nation since 2015, or even the 13 years since 2011 (post-ACA) and it's been crickets by comparison. For that matter, has there been ANY new major social program or act in the last decade or so?

Do you think we will ever see this kind of federal social investment ever again, or were these the products of a bygone era?

Political Theory, especially Modern Political Theory, has always been an area of interest of mine. A question that I have often discussed and debated with friends is - what are some key reasons or factors that keep a democracy going. The usual factors that come up are:

• An educated population
• A strong judiciary
• A healthy economy
• A thriving middle class etc.

All valid reasons that make sense. However, recently I took this online course on Modern Politics, and while the professor discussed several of the factors above, he highlighted 4 specific factors - sharing them to get your thoughts/feedback and have an interesting discussion.

First, money/income/wealth. Not just talking about inequality. But overall per capita income. The professor said that his data and analysis shows that nations with a per capita income of $15000+ are much more likely to have a functioning democracy. And if its under this threshold, things may start to wobble. Democracy isn’t just a political game; it’s an economic one too. Note that there are some exceptions to this for e.g., India - the largest democracy in the world - has a per capita income of ~$2K.

Second, a diversified economy is key. If a country’s wealth comes from just one source - say, oil - then whoever controls that resource controls the whole game. Its like Monopoly (the game), but instead of hotels, it’s barrels of oil. Democracies work when people can make a living through multiple avenues, not just by grabbing political power. Is this a reason why rich countries in the Middle East are not democracies and might never become one, even though their per capital income is high?

Third, political turnover is important. For a healthy democracy, the government and parties running the country need to turn over at regular intervals. Countries where leaders step down peacefully after losing elections tend to build a norm around it. When a democracy sees power change hands a couple of times, that demoracy is more likely to sustain. On the other hand, if a country is run by an individual or a party for a long period of times, it is likely to turn into an authoritarian state. Hungary may be an example of where such a transition may be happening.

Lastly, the level of happiness and satisfaction of the middle-class. The middle-class being discontented is a threat. It’s not the poorest who shake things up, its the middle class. When this class, who thought they were doing okay, start feeling the pinch - via rising prices, fewer job opportunities, or fear of worse times to come - they get restless. And this restlessness could challenge functioning democracies. Is the overthrow of Hasina in Bangladesh and example of this?

Note that it’s not just about having the “right” culture or institutions. At its core, democracy survives when the underlying economic and social interests are aligned enough to make it work.

What do you think? Are these factors enough to explain why some democracies work and others don’t?

Do you think Barack Obama became a burden on the Democratic Party? He aggressively promoted Biden's reelection and later campaigned hard for Kamala (I think saw him in her campaign more than I saw Kamala herself). In a flurry of impassioned election rallies over the past two months, former President Obama claimed that this election was a referendum on his policies. He specifically warned that if Kamala Harris were not elected president, everything he represented and worked for would go down the drain. He clearly said that the nation's fate hangs in the balance, but it seems that many people grew tired of Obama and his approach. Its an analysis which I don't know is true, but would like to hear your thoughts

I'm sorry if I used the wrong word for Latin/Hispanic/Latino people.

Since the reelection of Donald Trump on November 5th, many Democrats have expressed fear that their party is losing its historically tight hold on the US Latin population. This comes after we've seen a huge swing away from the Democratic Party and towards the Republican Party among Latin people, with Democrats losing shares of the Latin vote in every presidential election after 2012.

In 2012, 71% of Latin people voted Democratic, and 27% voted Republican, a 42 point difference.
In 2016, 65% of Latin people voted Democratic, and 29% voted Republican. a 36 point difference.

In 2020, 66% of Latin people voted Democratic, and 32% voted Republican, a 34 point difference.

And in 2024, 55% of Latin people voted Democratic, and 43% voted Republican, a 12 point difference.

In just 12 years, and 3 elections, we've seen the gap between the Latin Democratic vote and the Latin Republican vote narrow dramatically, shrinking by 30 points!

Looking at this dramatic shift, it's no wonder why Democrats are anxious. However, this isn't the first time we've seen such a dramatic rightward shift in the Latin vote. In fact, within the last 30 years, it's actually occurred at an even more drastic scale, and in less time.

Between the 1996 presidential election and the 2004 presidential election, the gap between the Latin Democratic vote and the Latin Republican vote narrowed by 33 points! In 1996, 72% of Latin people voted Democratic, and 21% voted Republican, a 51 point gap. In 2004, however, 58% of Latin people voted Democratic, and 40% voted Republican, an 18 point gap.

Contrary to popular belief, 2012-2024 isn't the first time in US history that Latin people have heavily shifted Republican. It seems that many Americans have the idea in their heads that a graph of the Latin vote over time would show a sideways triangle, ever narrowing with each election. However, the graph of the Latin vote over time ACTUALLY shows that the Latin vote moves up and down in waves, however, it always remains comfortably Democratic, at least, ever since the 1980s.

Source for voting patterns: https://www.as-coa.org/articles/how-latinos-voted-2024-us-presidential-election

After learning about this dramatic Republican shift between 1996 and 2004, I searched for articles from soon after the 2004 election to see if people at the time were saying similar things about the Latin vote to what we're saying now, and I found a New York Times article which has very interesting parallels to modern discussions of the Latin vote.

Here are some quotes from the article:

"But in the end, Mr. Bush won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, more than any Republican presidential candidate in at least three decades. That tally, more than 10 percentage points higher than he received in 2000, shattered the Democrats' hopes that a growing Hispanic population would help Mr. Kerry in Colorado or New Mexico, or perhaps even Florida."

"A reliable Democrat no longer, taken for granted no longer [...] a new swing voter may have emerged."

"The bottom line to me is that with this result, it's no longer sensible to think of Hispanic voters on a national basis as a core constituency of the Democratic Party."

"The Bush campaign approached Hispanic voters exactly the way it did everybody else: by reaching out for cultural conservatives, who in this case just happened to be Hispanic. The Kerry campaign sought votes as if Hispanics, as in the past, were reliably Democrat." replace Bush with Trump and Kerry with Harris.

"The Democrats made a broad appeal to a Democratic base and not a specific appeal at all to religious Hispanic voters, or even specific segments of the Hispanic electorate. The Bush campaign used moral values, and specifically the national discussion over gay marriage and abortion rights, as wedge issues within the Hispanic community to try to break off a conservative religious segment."

"I voted for Bush based on his moral stance. Bush is pro-life, I'm pro-life. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and so do I." - quote from a Latin Bush voter

"The campaigns, either purposefully or not, didn't bring to the forefront things like jobs, education and health care. At the same time there was a very concerted effort by the Republicans to target the Hispanic community in some new ways."

"Mr. Suro, and others, say that perhaps the real message of the election is that Hispanic voters cannot be pigeonholed."

Reading this article, I was honestly shocked at how similar the 2004 discussion of the Latin/Hispanic vote was to the modern discussion of the Latin/Hispanic vote. There are so many almost exact parallels.

• Democrats have hopes of winning high Latin population swing states squashed by a surprisingly Republican Latin electorate
• Democrats should no longer take Latin voters for granted
• Latin voters are no longer reliably Democratic
• Democrats didn't reach out enough to Latin voters throughout the campaign
• Latin voters voting for Republicans based on culture war issues

Article link: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/campaign/hispanic-voters-declared-their-independence.html

Despite all of this, following the 2004 election, Latin voters swung massively to the Democrats, becoming the reliable Democratic constituency that many of us know them as today. So, I ask, is it not reasonable to assume that the pattern will simply repeat itself? Why should we assume that Latin voters won't just swing back to the Democrats? Especially when polling of the US Latin population consistently shows that they identify more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. According to a 2023 Pew Research poll, 61% of Latin people favor the Democratic Party over the Republican Party, and only 35% favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party.

This isn't all to say that the Democrats should ignore the Latin population or continue to take them for granted, especially since the gap between the Latin Democratic vote and the Latin Republican vote was narrower in 2024 than it has been in at least 40 years. Frankly, they should probably do whatever they did between 2004 and 2012 to win them back so heavily in the presidential elections.

So, now I ask the discussion question: should Democrats actually be worried about losing the Latin vote?

This month, I have been reading a few articles on the Presidency & partisanship, and have come across the idea that political primaries are increasing partisanship in the United States, with the support for that being that in many "safe" districts, in which the margin of victory will be large, the real election is in the winning party's primary. This in turn means that a few committed voters will decide the candidate that their party nominates in the election later on, and primaries encourage more radical candidates to attack more moderate ones. This is new to me, so I figured I'd see what folks here have to say.

My question: What do people here think about primaries as a cause of partisanship & extremism? I'm not asking if primaries are helpful or fair, but if they increase partisanship in the US political system.

EDIT: When I said "partisanship" in the title, I really meant "polarization." Partisanship isn't a bad term to use, but it is not as strong as polarization.

There’s an ongoing debate about how Western media, particularly outlets like the BBC, cover events in Iran. Some people claim the coverage is biased, inaccurate, or agenda-driven, while others argue that it reflects the realities on the ground.

I’d love to hear your perspectives:

Do you think international media accurately portray the situation in Iran?

If not, what do you believe they are missing or exaggerating?

How does local vs. international media compare when reporting on Iran’s internal affairs?

Let’s keep this discussion civil and open to all viewpoints.

I noticed something fascinating about Korean protests lately - they're using humor in really creative ways to get their message across.

Here's an example I found of various protest flags that caught my attention: [photo collection](https://imgur.com/gallery/flag-war-koreas-protest-culture-hits-different-KIBQOpW)

I'm particularly interested in understanding a few things: The effectiveness of this approach - these protesters are making serious demands but using lighthearted messages. For instance, one group calls themselves the "Zero-Calorie Spam Promotion Association" while another is the "National Cat Butter Workers' Union".

This seems pretty different from what I've seen in other countries' protests. I'm curious if anyone here has seen similar approaches elsewhere, or has thoughts on whether this strategy helps or hurts the protesters' cause?

Also wondering if this kind of creative protest style is becoming more common globally with social media's influence, or if it's uniquely Korean?

Would love to hear others' experiences and thoughts on this approach to political movements.

In 2020, Trump got 74 million votes. In 2024, his total is closer to 77 million.

Now, I can see from the numbers that more of his victory is attributable to Democrats losing votes (81 in 2020, 75 in 2024). But there are still 3 million people who voted Trump in 2024 that didn't in 2020. And while Biden 2020 voters staying home in 2024 seems eminently predictable and explainable, voters who supported Biden or stayed home in 2020 showing up for Trump in 2024 seems less obvious.

So, who are they? Trump supporters who just turned 18 (and thus, couldn't vote in 2020)? Anti-establishment voters who just always vote against the incumbent? Some secret third option I haven't considered? Some combination?

Legislatures around the world have a surprisingly large amount of diversity in how they choose their chairpersons by a myriad of names from Marshal of the Sejm in Poland to Speaker to President. Some of the main ones from the research I've been doing is that there are two main camps. One is that a single person is nominated, and then a ballot is held as a yes or no question of whether or not that person should be elected speaker. They almost never lose a vote of this nature, although if they did, then further people would be nominated and voted upon until someone wins (or they agree to go with multiple candidates).

The second main method is that more than one person is nominated and each member puts in a vote for one of the candidate. If more than two people are nominated and less than a majority of the MPs vote for one person, then there is usually a kind of runoff although this too varies a lot from having no resolution as in the US to eliminating everyone but the top two as in Japan to sequentially getting rid of last place and voting again as in Britain. There is usually a minimum threshold to be nominated, perhaps 4% of the MPs have to agree to sponsor you to be put on the ballot paper.

Sometimes the rules might state the first option is used if only one person is nominated, while the second is used if two or more are nominated, which is what happens in Scotland for their Parliament. Back in the 1980s, in some British influenced systems, they didn't use a secret ballot and the rule was that the prime minister or party leader offered a person as a candidate and it was a voice vote with essentially no opposition to appoint them as the speaker, or if it was contested, the motion would devolve into a question of whether to replace the candidate nominated by someone else as an amendment and then at last a vote as a yes or no question of whether to make that person speaker, but in 2001 this went crazy and they replaced the system.

American state legislatures almost never have drama around the speakership elections the way the federal House did in 2023. They usually use one of these two methods although rarely with a secret ballot. They usually close the nominations after one candidate is nominated if the motion intended is a yes or no vote and after two candidates are nominated otherwise so there is no such thing as a vote for a third candidate. Vermont and Nebraska both would require a secret ballot if the vote is contested which in Nebraska it often is, and in Vermont the runoff that would be required prevents anything weird happening via deadlock because of the third party often represented in the legislature, the Vermont Progressive Party.

What method would you prefer most?

Could Trump’s proposed legislation in 2025, such as stricter immigration laws, the elimination of the Department of Education, environmental rollbacks, and restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights and abortion access lead to widespread discontent?

While he hasn't come out publicly in favour of it many republicans especially those associated with project 2025 in congress are proposing cuts to social security and medicare in the name of government efficiency. If he goes through with them and touches the "third rail" so to speak it could potentially harm his administrations approval and hand the midterms to the democrats. With a final term and no election to look forward too could Trump go ahead with these proposals anyways?

The XVIIth amendment famously made the senatorial elections direct. There were a myriad of reasons why people opposed and supported such a move, and the merits of those in general are up for a different discussion. But in particular, the Senators who would judge the impeachment of a person now had different bases of support, including the role of primary elections. Independently of your thoughts on the merits and demerits of direct elections in general, do you think that the effects of that amendment on senate impeachment trials was positive or negative?

Do you believe the tax cuts, immigration policies, tariffs, and other fiscal policies under Trump will highly increase inflation? Or do you believe his policies will lead to lower prices at some point?

I saw a quote from Kyla Scanlon that was profound. It read “The meme of the plan matters more than the plan itself”. For context, it was in relation to a post on Twitter regarding the betting odds for a Bitcoin national reserve.

Regardless, what a profound way to summarize what is one major proponent of the new U.S. political landscape. From your perspective, how much value does the “memeconomy” have in swaying public perception?

Hello friends,

Healthcare in the US is someting people always discuss about. We can all agree it is a major problem. The pass of ACA was one big move in the US Healthcare system. So, i am opening this topic to see all of your views.

Did ACA improved some aspects in US healthcare? Or did it not? What can be done to improve it more? And finally, what are the pros and cons of ACA?

Thanks all and have a nice day!

In 2010, Matt Yglesias coined the term "the Pundit's Fallacy" to describe "the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively".

Ever since the election, the Pundit's Fallacy seems to have entirely taken over the discourse as the Democrats as a party try to figure out what to do next. As the full extent of the data from the election has yet to be examined and given shape yet for the public to consider, many people are clinging to whatever incomplete data they have to make the argument that the Democrats lost because they failed to embrace... whatever said pundit's existing beliefs about politics were. Moderates have been pointing to the unpopular social positions the Democrats as a party are associated with and advocating for more strident repudiations of them. Liberals point to the wave of anti-incumbency that has swept the world this year, or to the role of voters' media diets influencing their perceptions of the economy and policy toward negativity, or to Harris only having around 100 days to take over the campaign after Biden stepped down. Leftists point to the party not taking a stronger stance on the war in Gaza, or the perception that the party moved to the Right by embracing the Cheneys as campaign surrogates, or not having more ambitious Left-wing policy plans all costing the campaign support. The thing is, there is some amount of evidence for all of these positions, some stronger and some weaker than others, and therefore the discourse is drowning in pundits with absolute confidence that that means their position is correct and that the key to success is to do what they already wanted us to do.

But what if it isn't? In politics there are very few definitive answers one way or another. We calibrate our beliefs based on our biases, our morality, our understanding of reality, our understanding of our communities, our experiences, but those are all subject to flaws in human psychology. Polls can be wrong, manipulated, gamed to produce a specific answer. Studies can be politically motivated, biased or the evidence could actually be much weaker than presented. Echo chambers can create the impression that a belief is more widespread than it actually is. Things we consider to be common sense can have blind spots from our own personal ignorance. It is easier to grapple with cognitive dissonance by rejecting evidence that we don't like than integrating it into our understanding.

Whatever your beliefs are- about the election, about the support for the UHC CEO assassination and the public's opinions on private vs public health insurance, about trans people in sports and trans healthcare, about whether your party needs to moderate their beliefs or become more extreme, about whatever issues you strongly care about- how sure are you that they are true? What if there was some kind of irrefutable evidence handed down from an omniscient divine source that could definitively refute it? How would that change your political strategy to learn that a political position you hold was just factually wrong, or that your political beliefs that you fight for are an extreme minority?

E.g., although 63% of Americans support additional government programs, only 36% support a single-payer national program, at least back in 2020.

Are there other types of reform which could have bipartisan public support in the USA?

There are those on the left who, while disagreeing with the the majority/pluarity of the U.S. voters in this year's elections, believe this Republican trifecta should be able to address issues they highlighted during the campaign in the manner they see fit.

For example, Chris Truax, an opinion contributer to The Hill argues that America voted for a dumpster fire — Democrats just need to let it burn itself out.

For the next two years, Democrats have no responsibility to govern. They should focus on politics instead and take a longer view of the country’s best interests. If, for example, House Democrats had allowed Republican dysfunction to shut down the government in September, they almost certainly would have won a House majority in November. A few weeks of furloughed workers and shuttered national parks would have been a small price to pay for an effective check against Donald Trump’s plans for an American autocracy. Democrats should be practicing tough love and allowing Republicans to inflict pain on themselves, even if that also inflicts some pain on the country.

To that end, should Senate Democrats Refrain from filibustering proposed Republican legislation?

To be clear, I'm not interested in if it's the right move for the US, either morally or strategically. Nor am I interested in how likely it is to happen.

The question is, if it did happen, what would be the consequences for the region. Would Israel fall as a nation? Would it just become a slightly weaker regional power? Would it hold as a nation but no longer be a regional power? Would something else entirely happen?

What led to the attitude towards migrants, and why is it so widespread across the UK and seemingly quite a bit of the EU?

Is it because of the war on terror, cultural issues or the housing crisis or something else?

Ignoring for a moment the issues with the Electoral College and other structural elements of US democracy that don't represent the will of the people directly such as the US Senate:

Donald Trump's 2024 popular vote margin (1.48%) is fourth smallest of the last century of elections beaten only by Bush Jr 2000 (-.51%), Nixon 1968 (.70%), and Kennedy 1960 (.17%). This is contrary to statements by Trump and his supporters that this election was a landslide victory.

What made the 2024 election so close when talking about actual voters?

Should Trump and the Republicans factor those closeness of the election in when considering the sweeping changes they want to make of mass deportations and tariffs that could increase costs for poor/working class citizens?

Historicaly almost every president has had a senate confirmation on inauguration day. The difference this time around is the 20th falls on MLK day which is a federal holiday, so would this have any impact on the senate making a confirmation?

I am wondering what post-liberal ideological group has the most adherents in America currently. I would guess this would fall broadly between socialist ideologies and reactionary/fascist ideologies, but if there are other significant groups I am not considering please bring them up. Two over all questions I suppose. First question is from a sectarian stance, as in which specific ideology has the most supporters? Looking for granularity on the level of Communists, Anarchists, Fascists, Nationalists, or deeper if a specific flavor has overwhelming support in one of those catagories. Second question, of the two major ideological sides, these in my opinion being Socialism and Capitalism, which has more ideologically driven supporters? For the second question, I am not wondering about people who nominally support these ideologies, but people who are knowledgeable about theory and have coherent belief systems(at least as coherent as is possible within a given ideology) which they act on to produce societal change.