Stock-market volatility; the CDC's entire vaccine advisory board removed despite RFK, Jr's promise to Congress not to do so; ICE raids in Los Angeles (and elsewhere) that triggered protests (also in LA and elsewhere), protests that periodically flare up into violence, and the violence in LA has resulted in 4,700 federal troops being sent in, despite LA and California officials saying they had the situation under control. California is suing the federal government: 4,000 of the soldiers are California National Guard members, and there's a difference of opinion over the legality of federalizing them in this manner.
Meanwhile, at least two foreign journalists covering the mess in LA have been hit by "less-lethal" fire, and if you're in the few blocks where law enforcement, ICE agents and protesters clash, it looks pretty bad even before it turns physical. (Elsewhere in the sprawling city, it's life as usual, which seems to be a surprise to some commentators. There are ten million people in LA County, compared to almost seven million in, say, all of Indiana or Tennessee: there's a lot of room for life-goes-on. We only see what the cameras are pointed at.)
American voters chose this, 49.8% to (at least) 48.3. (Yes, yes, only the electoral college votes matter, and that was more lopsided, call it 58%.). In LA County alone, out of 3.7 million votes,* 1.2 million went to the Republican Presidential candidate. They voted for this, and I hope they don't have urgent business near the protests.
Vote for blood, expect blood. Still think it was a good idea?
_________________________
* 37% turnout? An estimated 17% of LA County residents are non-citizens. That leaves 46% sitting on their hands come Election Day, and compares very unfavorably to a national turnout of almost 64%. If you worry that a few high-population states dominate elections, I guess LA's got your back.
Update
6 months ago
5 comments:
As Prof. Peart noted: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
Who the hell is Prof. Peart? Oh, wait...I got it. It took a moment. Donna Halper would have instantly recognized your reference. :)
The Orange one keeps blathering about winning in a "landslide". Not hardly...it's more like a lava flow, with everything it touches turning to flame.
He won a lower % of the vote than Bush 1 won in '88, or Bush 2 in '08. Neither left office particularly beloved.
Both big parties have misunderstood the actual shift in the public.
Go back to the days of Clinton, and it was a roughly 40%-20%-40% split. Some were basically on your side no matter what, some against you no matter what, and that middle bit that could be won over. Bill was good at ignoring his 40% and aiming at getting 10+% of the middle.
Now, it's basically a 33%-33%-33% split, and the parties have hardened in their approach to issues. There's no interest from the base of either in seeing their candidates making a broad appeal to the middle.
One political irony is that as the electoral margins get slimmer, the radicals get more influence, because they're needed to make majorities. Sadly.
Post a Comment