very_well_lost

joined 1 year ago
[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The big surprise to Democrats is that this also won over many Latino voters.

It blows my mind that anyone continues to be surprised by this. Republicans have been gaining ground with Latino voters since Bush. How much longer do we have to wait before the DNC stops scratching their heads and actually tries to do something about it?

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Pretty much, yeah

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Oliver Hall, a Harris campaign volunteer, found that economic concerns, particularly inflation, also drove voters to Donald Trump, despite low unemployment and wage growth touted by Democrats.

This. This right here is the issue.

According to the studies done by the Federal Reserve, only 54% of Americans have enough savings to cover 3 months of expenses. That means nearly half the country is basically living paycheck to paycheck.

Dems say wages are on the rise? So is the price of food, with some items still 50% more expensive than they were at the start of the pandemic (and now in even smaller packages to boot). Many Americans are also still stuck working a laughably low federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Why should they care about wage hikes when they haven't gotten a raise since 2009? Meanwhile a large portion of the working class is in food service where the base rate is even lower and they have scrape by on tips — tips that are harder and harder to come by as fewer and fewer Americans are choosing to eat out.

Dems say unemployment is falling? Of course it is, when many Americans have no choice but to work multiple jobs just to make rent. And speaking of rent, it's up a average of 30% which is even higher than the supposed ~25% wage growth Dems were running on.

If someone is living hand-to-mouth, struggling to keep a roof over their head and food in their stomach, the last thing they wanna hear about is fucking GDP or employment rates or the stock market. Millions of Americans are getting screwed by the economy, and when Democrats run on a message of prosperity, that spits in the face of their lived experiences. Meanwhile Trump tells them that the system is rigged and they're getting screwed. He points the finger at all the wrong things, of course, but at least he acknowledges that things suck, even if all his proposed "solutions" are all empty demagoguery.

Stop telling working Americans how great the economy is and start telling them what they want to hear, what they know in their bones is true: The system is rigged against you. The ownership class has spent the last 3 decades gleefully stealing our wages, raping the environment, and padding the pockets of politicians so that we all stay divided and distracted. Stop running for the economy and start running against it. Run against robber barons and union busters like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Run against the Kochs and the Waltons who've been fighting for decades to keep wages low and the keep the pockets of rich politicians full with hundreds of millions in PAC money. Run against Comcast, run against Starbucks, run against fucking Nestle.

And while you're at it, stop taking economic policy advice from capitalist assholes like Mark Cuban. Stop flaunting all your celebrity endorsements — more rich people who understand absolutely nothing about the day to day lives of working Americans. And for the love of God... please, please stop running to the right at every opportunity you get.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

We need a labor party.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let's quit pretending, that without all of the dirty money and influence from foreign countries, this idiot would have won.

I think you're wrong here, as least on the money side of things. Harris out-fundraised Trump 3 to 1, taking in almost a billion dollars this cycle. Democrats didn't lose because of dirty money — they had more than enough of their own to compete.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

But Main Street's still all cracked and broken!

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Kentucky also voted NO on a proposed constitutional amendment that would give the state legislator power to siphon funds from the public school system to give to private schools.

Small victory in spite of everything else, but a victory none the less

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Ask yourself: Why did Donald Trump win. And think about it. The answer is right before you and blazingly far more obvious than any particular action that was within Democrats or Kamala's control.

Trump won because more people voted for him, plain and simple.

For 9 years now I've listened to fellow progressives wring their hands and breathlessly say "I just don't understand how anyone could vote for him!" The problem, the real problem is that for like 95% of us, this statement is the end of the conversation. If the democrats want to win, they need to sit down and really, really consider the "why" of the Trump voter.

Yes, there's racism and yes there's sexism and yes there's xenophobia and christian nationalism that all influence the far right, but there are also plenty of people voting R that don't give a damn about that stuff. As the dust settles, it's becoming increasingly clear that lots of voters voted split-ticket in this cycle, so blaming it all on dogma and party loyalty isn't going to cut it — in fact, the data is suggesting that Americans are less loyal than ever to any particular political party, so what is it specifically about Trump that resonated with so many this time around?

I don't have any exact answers to that question (which is honestly pretty embarrassing since we've all had 9 years to contemplate this), but if I had to guess, I'd say it's something to do with the fact Trump actively acknowledges that things suck right now. "Make America Great Again" is a slogan that inherently implies we're living in an empire in decline. Regardless of which side of the isle they sit on, I think most Americans can agree with the sentiment that things are getting worse, and have been for a while.

Of course, the two sides have wildly different ideas about why things suck — with the right largely blaming the decline on immigration or abortion or LGBT proliferation or some nebulous "eroding of traditional American values", and with the left blaming things on regulatory capture, military adventurism, and the general corporate cannibalization of all our institutions and infrastructure. But both sides lately agree we're heading in the wrong direction, so why is Trump's message more resonant?

Maybe it's because Trump presents them with more tangible "boogiemen" while the Democrats play ineffective defense by pointing at rising GDP or the surging stock market or low unemployment numbers — stats that do nothing to speak to the lived experiences of individual voters. Maybe Democrats need to focus their attention less on policy proposals and "hope and change" and more on "boogiemen" like the right. Stop campaigning against Trump, stop campaigning for incremental change, stop campaigning for culture wars, and start campaigning against people like Elon Musk. Start campaigning against union-busting Howard Shultz. Campaign against Amazon. Campaign against Mark fucking Cuban who hoards $6 billion for himself and then turns around and acts like he gives a damn about the working class while simultaneously padding the pockets of Democrats so that if they ever do actually win, he can be sure his tidy fortune won't be at risk.

Is rent too high? Is the price of groceries becoming a burden? Have wages been stagnant for two decades? Fucking acknowledge it— no, don't just acknowledge it, tell people they're right to feel that way and that they should be fucking angry about it. Then spend every last campaign dollar and stump speech and political add attacking the people who made it that way. Rally people against an actual enemy, the real enemy, and maybe we'll finally start voting for you without having to hold our noses. Of course, the DNC probably has too much vested interest in keeping their corporate donors happy to ever make this the message. After all, the Harris campaign raised nearly a billion dollars this cycle. Then again, what good is a billion bucks if it loses your the house, Senate and presidency?

Anyway, that's just the two cents of a frustrated liberal who isn't terribly surprised by the situation we're now facing once again. Take it with a grain of salt — I'm just as dumb as everyone else.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Biden should've never run again in the first place. He should have kept to his pledge of being a "one term president" and gracefully made way for the DNC to hold an open primary where the voters could've expressed there preference for an actual message, rather than being force-fed yet another campaign of "What are you going to do? Vote for Trump?"

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (3 children)

anti-capitalist

net worth of $30 million

okay buddy

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 118 points 5 days ago

It's only fine until those sulfates react with water vapor in the atmosphere to form sulphuric acid. That stuff rains back down and contributes to ocean acidification which is causing serious harm to all sorts of marine ecosystems.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

"And then it got worse."

 

A new investigation with NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope into K2-18 b, an exoplanet 8.6 times as massive as Earth, has revealed the presence of carbon-bearing molecules including methane and carbon dioxide. Webb’s discovery adds to recent studies suggesting that K2-18 b could be a Hycean exoplanet, one which has the potential to possess a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and a water ocean-covered surface.

 

Scientists have been working on models of planet formation since before we knew exoplanets existed. Originally guided by the properties of the planets in our Solar System, these models turned out to be remarkably good at also accounting for exoplanets without an equivalent in our Solar System, like super Earths and hot Neptunes. Add in the ability of planets to move around thanks to gravitational interactions, and the properties of exoplanets could usually be accounted for.

Today, a large international team of researchers is announcing the discovery of something our models can't explain. It's roughly Neptune's size but four times more massive. Its density—well above that of iron—is compatible with either the entire planet being almost entirely solid or it having an ocean deep enough to drown entire planets. While the people who discovered it offer a couple of theories for its formation, neither is especially likely.

 

In their jiggles and shakes, red giant stars encode a record of the magnetic fields near their cores.

 

A new NASA study offers an explanation of how quakes could be the source of the mysteriously smooth terrain on moons circling Jupiter and Saturn.

 

Astronomers have uncovered a link between Neptune's shifting cloud abundance and the 11-year solar cycle, in which the waxing and waning of the Sun's entangled magnetic fields drives solar activity.

 

Giant black holes were supposed to be bit players in the early cosmic story. But recent James Webb Space Telescope observations are finding an unexpected abundance of the beasts.

 

Magnetars are some of the most extreme objects we know about, with magnetic fields so strong that chemistry becomes impossible in their vicinity. They're neutron stars with a superfluid interior that includes charged particles, so it's easy to understand how a magnetic dynamo is maintained to support that magnetic field. But it's a little harder to fully understand what starts the dynamo off in the first place.

The leading idea, which benefits from its simplicity, is that the magnetar inherits its magnetic field from the star that exploded in a supernova to create it. The original magnetic field, when crushed down to match the tiny size of the resulting neutron star, would provide a massive kick to start the magnetar off. There's just one problem with this idea: we haven't spotted any of the highly magnetized precursor stars that this hypothesis requires.

It turns out that we have been observing one for years. It just looked like something completely different, and it took a more careful analysis, published today in Science, to understand what we've been observing.

 

New observations of a faraway rocky world that might have its own magnetic field could help astronomers understand the seemingly haphazard magnetic fields swaddling our solar system’s planets.

 

When JAXA’s Hayabusa-1 spacecraft delivered samples from asteroid Ryugu to Earth in late 2020, anticipation was high. What could the space rock possibly be waiting to tell us?

Asteroids are time capsules of the Solar System, containing material from early in its history. As a 2021 study found, the Ryugu samples contained carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, all necessary ingredients for life, and a 2022 study discovered evidence of water (and possibly a subsurface lake) that had long since dried up. Ryugu and its parent body were also revealed to carry some of the most ancient rocks in the Solar System. However, the pieces of this asteroid still had more to say.

It turned out that two of the Ryugu samples each had a shard of something that visually stood out. Researchers discovered they were seeing fragments, or clasts, of rock with a chemical composition that differed from the rest of Ryugu. These clasts were higher in sulfur and iron, but lower in oxygen, magnesium, and silicon. That meant they could not have possibly formed with Ryugu, so they had to have been acquired through a later impact; but the asteroid still had more to say.

 

By measuring the universe’s emptiest spaces, scientists can study how matter clumps together and how fast it flies apart.

 

Four years from now, if all goes well, a nuclear-powered rocket engine will launch into space for the first time. The rocket itself will be conventional, but the payload boosted into orbit will be a different matter.

NASA announced Wednesday that it is partnering with the US Department of Defense to launch a nuclear-powered rocket engine into space as early as 2027. The US space agency will invest about $300 million in the project to develop a next-generation propulsion system for in-space transportation.

view more: next ›