Tariffs alone will never build a domestic base. They can be part of a strategy to do that, but they must be paired with subsidies and tax breaks. It's very expensive to develop a manufacturing base, so it must be done strategically. Generally it's only worth doing for critical infrastructure and basic necessities. It's part of why the US has focused primarily on food production and power.
I still blame the Democrats, they're a shit party that talks a big game then utterly fails to deliver on it again and again, and Kamala was somehow even worse than average. But they're not entirely to blame, there were a lot of factors that went into this loss. A couple of the bigger ones I think were the Republicans mastery of propaganda (helped along by foreign actors), and the generally poor education in the US. Republicans have spent literally half a century now perfecting how to push peoples buttons and Fox "News" and their shows are a master class in lying just well enough to convince the ignorant. Added to that was Twitter with its army of bots both foreign and domestic with Musk providing cover to them.
Like every Democrat for the last forever I didn't like her policies in general although there were a couple that weren't terrible. On the other hand I would have gladly taken all her policies over the absolute shit storm that Trump is about to rain on this country. The closest thing to a Democrat I liked was when Bernie ran on the Democrat ticket, but then the DNC did everything in their power to fuck him over. Maybe he would have lost anyway, but he never even really got the chance, so I guess we'll never really know.
They needed a blend of both. Explain in detail your plan, but pair it with simple slogans and sound bites. That way you cover all your bases, the low information voters get motivated by the sound bite and the high information voters by your detailed plans (assuming they're good). You can of course have a terrible plan that loses the high information voters even if your sound bites are keeping people engaged.
When the bar is just that low literally anything can be the most in decades.
It wasn't more than half the country, in total 65% of the country voted for any candidate. Trump got about 55% of that, or a bit over 36% of the country. That's still way higher than it should be, but well below half. There's a bunch of possible explanations for why the remaining 35% of the country didn't vote, and only some of those explanations would be tacit support of Trump.
Biden would have done just as bad as Harris because Harris ran on Biden's platform plus a little extra helping of GOP policies (for some stupid fucking reason). OK, Biden might have done slightly better, but not enough to actually win. Anyone who stood a chance of winning would have to run on essentially the opposite of Biden's policies instead of pulling Kamala's "nope, wouldn't change a single thing" platform.
I'm not sure exactly what the point of this article is. It doesn't actually allege any wrongdoing, and it seems he hasn't been to Russia since Zalinsky took office. Even prior to that there could have been innocent explanations for his travel to Russia. Basically this is some smoke, but no actual evidence of fire. It certainly raises some eyebrows, but considering those eyebrows were already raised prior to this this doesn't really seem to be adding anything new.
Not sure exactly the point you're trying to make, but you're half right. It is a politicians job to convince voters to support their policies, that's true, but it's also equally true that voters should support good policies. While it's not their "job" to do so, they still suffer the consequences for failing to do so all the same. No matter how you slice it, people were stupid to not listen to Bernie all this time.
We also need competition and for decades now the offices that were supposed to safe guard us from monopolies have been green lighting again and again mergers and acquisitions that result in only one or two dominant players in every market. There should be a blanket rule that if there are less than 10 companies (of somewhat similar scale) operating in some market none of them are allowed to merge or acquire each other.
Was just in a very long thread with him, but he seems to think economic issues are exclusively centrist.
So I was spitballing some ideas around this a while back, although I was more focused on income inequality at the time. I think the best idea I came up with was something like a progressive taxation system where a company's taxes were determined by the highest paid employee (including the value of benefits and things like stock grants) minus the lowest paid employee, divided by the company head count. If executives want to keep bringing in eye watering salaries they either need to pay all their employees significantly more, or higher a hell of a lot more of them at current rates. There's probably some flaws and things that could be tweaked there, but I think it's a start.