Previously posted on my Facebook Page.
In response to post-midterms Facebook banter. <>I don’t think the election campaign per se is clean at all. As of today, per NY Times, voter turnout is 44 percent. Could be 2nd lowest in history, behind 2014's 40 percent. That's not even half of the voter population. Clearly but not sweeping, Blue won or winning. What I see: A growing passion for "newbies" in U.S. politics. A rebrand of the Left, mainly. More of personality "pitch" over policy platforms. Refer to the resumption of the Barack Obama campaign playbook.
Hint: Bernie Sanders' Dem-Soc template is no different from Zohran Mamdani and Abdul El-Sayed’s socialist pitch. But Bern failed. Meanwhile, the Blue women in the past weren't as successful but today, they are. Essentially, the shift is within Blue, not in Red's mass base.
But the run-up behavior is no different from the past. Filthy. Both sides. Yet Blue ran a dirtier campaign vs Donald Trump in 2024 that didn't work out. This time, the rebrand trick worked. But it's still dirty. Anyhow, Red’s voters are also divided but I reckon, the disgruntled faithful, chose not to vote at all. So back to the board. Two wars are still ongoing. But my real bright news was 2 days ago, per Associated Press: “Trump says U.S. will halt $4 billion in annual aid to Israel after talks with Netanyahu.”
Anyhow, U.S. elections are just sideshows to the REAL more significant upcoming elections in Europe. It is Europe that needs drastic leadership change. China intently quietly watches (as ever) but I don't think the CCP is so hot about how America votes. Whoever wins, Chinese business carries on. Unless Blue goes back to Joe's disastrous BBB, then we have a new drama episode.
Let me post this again: <>The highest year-over-year inflation rate during Donald Trump's presidency was 3.7 percent. Average: 2.46 percent. <>The highest inflation rate during the presidency of Joe Biden reached 9.1 percent year-over-year in June 2022. Average: 4.95 percent. Ergo: Blue effectively “erased” these numbers over the run-up theatrics of you-know. Voters were “influenced” by the rebrand of the product more than old-school scrutiny of political programs or leadership policies first. ☮️🗽☮️
Yahoo Finance: “Dow jumps around 1,300 points, S&P 500 and Nasdaq gain as markets react to midterms.” Would that mean, good stuff for the economy? Not necessarily. A jump in the Dow Jones Industrial Average etcetera reflects positive investor sentiment and corporate expectations, but it is not the same thing as the overall economy. Anyhow, America isn’t mired in economic murk as does the EU per se, so this Wall Street activity is pretty much a play within/around the corporate world.
Meanwhile, the war in Iran influences global economic trends more than the political intramurals in the U.S., which is pretty much a reflection of America’s divide. Both Left and Right in the U.S. confront fissures that add to an ever-growing population of anxious/stressed out humanity but this is an American Fact, rather than a universal truth. Irrelevant of the fear pitch, the U.S. economy is fine, at least compared with the 2009 recession or Joe Biden’s economy. 💸🏢💸
AFP: “Elon Musk jokes about GOP election defeat after spending record amount on party.” Elon spent at least $474 million on this election, marking the largest amount ever spent by a single individual donor in a U.S. election cycle. But that amount is “coffee money” to his trillion$ of course. Anyhow, overall individual Democratic candidates widely outraised Republican opponents in key individual midterm races. That’s always been the trend since Barack Obama days, regardless that Red’s party committees and Super PACs maintained a separate structural cash advantage. Political money is a complex bitch, I reckon.
Clearly, America is more high on “I beat you this time!” zeal over what'd become of certain policy playbooks. My major thought: Would the Left’s progressives be more decisive in dealing with the wars in Ukraine and Iran? First, they need to ease out War secretary Pete Hegseth off the military joint. Let’s see. 🏛🗽🏛
USA Today: “Pete Hegseth faces possible impeachment vote. And he's not the only one.” Of course, that points to Donald Trump. Impeachments in the U.S. is a political marquee feed, a highlight of Washington’s Hollywood-styled drama. American politics is more personality-oriented than it is about gut-level policies. When did that start to happen?
American politics has actually always been driven by personality and character attacks, but the modern transition into a deeply media-driven, "personality-first" spectacle occurred in two distinct phases: The 1820s and the 1960s, when the “murk-throw” gained influential mojo as the first major televised presidential nominee debates in American history took place: JFK versus Richard Nixon. But those years were relatively sedate compared with the 21st century’s political behavior, in the advent of internet journalism and Social Media obsession. Mockery, insult, shaming overpowered “standard,” fiscalizing criticisms.
Meanwhile, not necessarily in agreement with the (new) Left's reasons, but I concur with the removal of Mr Hegseth. I do believe the hawkish Pete is the significant dent in Mr Trump's essentially dovish military playbook. 🏛🗽🏛
Yahoo: “Vance blames Republican losses on Iran war: 'The real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone'.” Somehow, the writings on the wall kind-of sent this message: “Blue is divided on war, Red is divided on war.” But how the Iran war “affected” the U.S. economy isn’t so significant compared with how the war played up in “influencing” voter attitudes. Only 44 percent went out to vote (per NY Times), which is the second lowest midterms turnout since 2014’s 40 percent.
Although U.S. election zeal isn’t so hot, historically. Only half of eligible voters vote. So think-tanks work around such a slim variable, which makes “rebranding” effective as aided by a media that is more into flashy dramatics for clicks over info-dissemination. You see, the U.S. has always been at war overseas since the 1800s. No big deal. But the discourse hasn’t been this loud and rowdy until the internet or Social Media was born.
Approximately 74 percent of the U.S. population (around 253 to 254 million people) actively use social media. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are so high on voting. People would rather sit at home and argue politics, I guess. Perhaps voter interest would only spike if, indeed, the U.S. is down in economic murk. That crisis is more European (nowadays), rather than American. ☮️🗽☮️
Washington Post: “World leaders question if GOP midterm losses will weaken or embolden Trump.” / Yahoo: “Trump is back on the cover of Time.” The media makes Donald Trump so powerful or significant, that elections elsewhere in the world are credited to his “influence.” Which is absurd to me. It is highly offensive of other people’s ability to choose a leader or decide on a leadership, per their own realities. Yet if you ask me what superpower really shakes the universe? It is China.
For instance, Beijing’s 4 state-owned banks dominate the FDI and lending roost, hugely diminishing the IMF and World Bank’s historical clout. The BRICS trade bloc has considerably weakened G7. Look again at Europe.
So Mr Trump is overplayed, and in doing so, we are taken out from the lowdown of geopolitics. Which benefits Xi Jinping. The Chinese have always been indifferent to Hollywood-styled highlight reel politics, anyways. They just wanna do business. And as long as the world keeps on buying, the CCP is cool. 🏛🗽🏛
