Good summary. Agree completely with the article - it actually makes sense out of the blind spot that Dems had in this election. Plus that pointer on how Mexico bucked the worldwide trend theorectically gives Dems a pointer on how to recalibrate and take back the initiative.

It seems to me that rather than explicitly trying to listen to the elite and ignore the cries of the common class, the article instead explains that the indicators that Dems were using to get a measure on the economy sort of betrayed them. See for example,

For those focused on short-term macroeconomic indicators like growth and unemployment, that immiseration has been hard to see—and voters’ cries of misery beggared belief.

And also,

rates of homelessness and child poverty predictably resurged. Yet since this was in effect simply a return to the pre-Covid norm, it seems to have barely registered

They saw the traditional indicators said things looked great and rolled with that, instead of digging deeper after a pandemic unprecedented in modern times to see if maybe those traditions had become outdated (as the article hints at).

Overall this is a more positive take, because it means that if Dems just looked at the wrong place and got the wrong idea as a result, they’d be more open making whatever necessary adjustments are needed to avoid a repeat mistake.

Removed by mod

I think this is the right idea. Rather than having a single party that tries to represent everyone (from moderate never-Trumpers to progressives like Sanders to to far-left folks like Andrew Yang (UBI)), have separate parties and platforms for these very different folks.

But maybe keep the DNC as a kind of shell or umbrella - since these folks would need to unify on a candidate for President (to prevent splitting of votes leading to MAGA forever winning the presidency). I’m guessing each party (nevers, progressive party, UBI party, etc) would hold their own primary for a presidential candidate, then hold a “joint group primary” to pick just one to run in the general election.

Do you have a source for the numbers?

I was an insightful post over at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 a little over a week ago. It was made before the final numbers were in, but if you look at Wisconsin and North Carolina for example, Harris did better in those battleground states in 2024 than Biden did in 2020 (when he won). And then orange voldemort somehow did even better than Harris there.

Turnout was lower overall, but the author of that post suggests it is because of low turnout or protest votes in the deep blue states.

Thanks to the stupid Electoral College, that didn’t matter. We can get 100% turnout in California and New York, and have every single vote there go blue, and still lose.

DNC leadership knows this. Without the center, they figure that there’s no chance in holding the blue wall. I’d love for them and myself to be proven wrong (though I suspect it may be too late for that, either way).

I think piefed.social/pyfedi (which is slowly implementing support for all such objects) should get a mention here as well

Hmm… well that’s disappointing. I know the IRS in the US does this (as per https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor ) was hoping Canada was made of stronger stuff.

Wife would be the biggest factor in all this I think, so yeah.

That said (noting for posterity), you’re right - it is pretty challenging to emigrate with a criminal record. But it’s not impossible. See for example https://www.cicnews.com/2023/12/three-ways-to-overcome-a-cannabis-conviction-before-coming-to-canada-1240675.html#gs.i5eu5j

If you got the 13 years due to possession of cannabis in the US for example - that’s not a crime in Canada, so you’d have to disclose it but it wouldn’t pose an issue in moving (assuming you otherwise were eligible and passed all the bars in getting here).

For things which are also crimes in Canada, sometimes you can apply for criminal rehabiliation - so in your case, eight years from now, you’d be eligible to apply for that (five years of good behaviour and no crimes after your sentence/probation/restriction ends).

The article explains,

without verifying what turned out to be sham documents.

In other words, they did have to do the same thing, but instead of spending lots of time and money on the real thing (which was impossible for them anyways because - you know, they’re scammers) they did it for free with tools like photoshop.

Now, the lack of verification is probably a new thing post covid - if someone had tried this back in 2011 I’m guessing the CRA would have attempted to verify, caught that they were sham documents, and serious consequences would ensure.

So I dug into the source code a bit to see how it’s used. It turns out that IPFS might actually optional, as per the log line on https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L213 (“Getting additional peers from IPFS API”)

The list of required bootstrap peers is hardcoded in the same file, but a few lines above, specifically at https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L181

I say might be because - while the required bootstrap peers include a bunch of ones based on bootstrap.libp2p.io - there is a long list of hardcoded ip addresses and I don’t recognize any of them.

So those might be libp2p.io ip addresses, but they might also be IPFS ip addresses, or even belong to someone else altogether. (Edit: There are WHOIS tools online like https://lookup.icann.org/en that can be used to look these up and figure out who they belong to if you are really curious, but I can’t be bothered to do that right now.)

In any case, it looks like the way this works is that from a peer, libp2p tries to look up additional peers, and so on. So at most IPFS would be used as a way to get a listing, but once the desired peer is found, IPFS is cut out of the picture for that particular connection and NAT hole punching is used to establish a direct connection between peers instead (as per the linked wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole/punching/(networking )

Agreed. The current party is trying to be a coalition that brings in folks from as far right as neocons like Dick Cheney to as far left as Andrew Yang (UBI) along with super progressives like the Bern.

I’ve said before that it naturally makes sense for it to split up based on that. I guess without systemic and constitutional reform, the new parties would have to cooperate and agree on e.g. a single candidate for President (maybe a multi-party group primary?)

But if we had a primary this year I feel like a candidate would have been chosen who could have won, so anything that forces primaries to occur (and allow voters more choice) is a good thing.

At first glance, “the right call” makes me think spatially in terms of direction - i.e. always call the phone number on the right side of the page, instead of the left side.

(Obviously they mean the correct call to get the correct help, but it’s still funny).

But they still are actively refusing to acknowledge the American working class exists and are struggling.

The Bern is smart and usually right about these kind of things.

That said, I’d argue that even in the campaign this year some steps were taken in the right direction, e.g.

We have not even brought forth legislation to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, despite the fact that some 20 million people in this country are working for less than $15 an hour

But then, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/23/politics/federal-minimum-wage-harris-trump/index.html

Whoever told Kamala to brag about the economy to anyone that isn’t a millionaire needs to be the first person to never work in politics again

I can see this as being a calculated risk - take credit for something that sounds good - but yeah they forgot the maxim “it’s the economy, stupid!”

We need a popular vote of registered Dem voters to determine DNC leadership and party platform

Better yet, a reformed system so that a third party who implements this has a legitimate shot at the highest offices.

If we keep giving leadership to whoever gets the most donations, they’ll keep ignoring the working class because it’s easier to get money from the wealthy.

Perhaps I defeated myself here - I came here to justify the Dems but if I’m saying we have a better shot at reforming the US constitution than we do at reforming the internals of the Dem party, then I’ve really done the opposite.

I had to find work in Canada, but since I am a software engineer, I was able to take advantage of NAFTA (back when it was still called that) to help me do so.

Let us know how it goes. I’m curious to see how you manage to move forward on this. I’m aware of a lot of options here (e.g. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vanhack/_working-remotely-from-canada-with-your-current-activity-7120340233904148481-GXUd ) but curious to see which one ends up being the right fit for you in particular.

• From a fellow exile who got out to Canada in the first term

Curious to see about this. I was in a similar situation (“offices and employees all over the world”) but still could not get my company to sponsor me overseas, even though my direct manager and my skip worked really hard to try and make it work.

Will they exist in 2028? To me this is a bigger question that no one else seems to want to answer.

orange voldemort is already constitutionally ineligible to run for re-election but has expressed interest in running for a third time. Has anyone heard any plans about what may be afoot here to enable him?

My worst fears have been realized. Republicans have taken control of the House. There are now no safeguards.

Well, consider the numbers in https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229

It’s older so based on older numbers, but the estimates from there line up pretty well with the total sum as of right now.

Basically, if turnout was depressed, it was only in the deep blue (and maybe deep red) - where it didn’t matter. In the swing states, turnout was higher for both sides in 2024 than in 2020 - and that’s even before trying to account for the peculiarities of the 2020 vote.

The article really did the line up of the three posters so well though …

But I am certainly troubled by those attacking the actress online for having these feelings. That’s not right.

Agree with this - the fan just trying to make the movie poster imitate the older poster.

But I can see where the actress is coming from as well - these feelings are almost certainly part of the reason why the original movie poster from the studio decided to show the full faces of the actresses instead of imitating the 2003 poster in a more direct homage. It’s a tricky balance, but at the same time it’s hard to blame the fan for wanting to celebrate Wicked in art.