Stidmatt

I know how to put it. I voted for Elizabeth Warren in 2020 because she was the only candidate who was not reactionary. Bernie is obviously reactionary with his form of anti-billionaire populism. Biden is no less reactionary by his stance being a nebulous “let’s all get along.” Warren actually stood for something independent of the republican stance. She was the only one with a real vision.

If you delved into the websites of the three candidates, Warren was the only candidate with detailed plans for how her policies would work. She had the policies ready to go, ready to be laid on the table in Congress. Sanders had a vague notion of universal health care like Canada, the model he points to since his state is on the border, but he didn’t lay out too many details beyond that.

Biden is very simple. We need to move to the center and Republicans will like us. Given how he is in his second term… oh wait… no… he became one of the least popular presidents in history on leaving office.

I think that Bernie would have been a better president than Joe Biden without question. I think he likely would have had more experienced and knowledgeable cabinet officials for foreign affairs than Biden did. I think he would not have fallen for the trap of Gaza, and not withheld Ukrainian aid. I doubt he would have withdrawn from Afghanistan. But beyond that, I don’t think he would have been very successful in getting legislation passed through Congress. He likely would have had longer coattails than Biden, and if he did not have the crisis of the Taliban taking over Afghanistan in his first year, he likely would have won his midterms, and likely reelection if he chose to run in 2024. But beyond that, I don’t think much legislation would pass under President Sanders.

President Warren is a different animal. I am certain her foreign policy picks would have been far more experienced than the clowns Biden had running the show. She would not have fallen for Netanyahu’s lying, and she is far more supportive of Ukraine than any President has been since the fall of the Soviet Union. The war would be over by the time the 2024 election came around, giving her a major foreign policy victory, and a second term. She has advocated against the filibuster since before she was elected to the Senate and would make it her top priority, which would open the floodgates to the rest of her proposals. I don’t think everything would necessarily be rosy under her term, the media would have hated her just as much as they hated Obama, our only center-left president since LBJ. But the reality is that no matter how much the pundits would have hated her, she has already proven she is more capable of bringing results than Biden has been over their careers and would have been a better president than Biden.

Because she is not a reactionary politician.

If Democrats want to win a trifecta in 2028, I think we need to let go of Sanders/Biden reactionary politics. We need to abandon the failed Biden/Trump foreign policy. We need to move towards a more progressive direction that defines positive goals for what we want, not just in relation to Republicans. Our next president needs to be unforgivingly Atlanticist. Our next President needs to work on abandoning the government boat known as ESTA and reintroducing visa-free travel between the United States and the rest of NATO. Our next President needs to not just be unforgivingly an Atlanticist but cultivate our relationships with our Latin American allies, bringing Mexico back into the Rio Pact, and reforming our immigration system, erasing the damage George W. Bush did.

Only then will America be able to succeed.

The calls in 2016 were clear, from every political party except the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, the United Kingdom was going to leave the European Union and take control of their affairs. They were out. The UK was going to be a fully independent country (except for NATO purposes) in terms of trade, military, and immigration. No longer would the United Kingdom be shackeled by the Eurocrats in far away Brussels, appointed not by Britons but by Eastern Europeans and the United Kingdom would be fully independent and sovereign.

That’s the claim made by the Labour/Tory coalition and they won. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is no longer a member state of the European Union and now 5 years later to the day it is very clear that Brexit has devestated the British economy. This is coming from the BBC which I felt had a pro-Brexit bias in 2016.

The United Kingdom has a population of around 66,000,000 people. It has overseas territories around the world today. It used to control India, Canada, Australia, and much of Africa. It’s main language is the most commonly spoken language in the world. Even with all of these enormous advantages, losing membership to the European Union has been devestating to their economy. Trade with the EU makes up the largest share of British imports and exports.

Now imagine what will happen if Greenland were to become independent and lose its preferential trade access to the European Union. With a population of only around 56,000, and a large percentage of their budget coming from Denmark Greenland would be devestated from the loss of access to the EU market far more than the United Kingdom was.

If Greenland were independent it would be the 6th least populated country in the world outside of Europe. It would be close to that of Saint Kitts and Nevis, with a smaller population than Dominica. Of the 20 least populous countries in the world outside of Europe, two are African island nations, the rest are in the Caribbean and Oceania. The five comparable Oceanic nations, Tuvalu, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, and Tonga are in the tropics and maintain close relations with the US, Australia, and New Zealand giving them preferential trade and migration to and from at least one of those countries. The Caribbean nations form CARICOM, with a unified visa policy and they peg their currency to the United States dollar.

The 20 smallest independent countries outside of Europe have small GDP per capia, with only the Bahamas with a GDP per capita above 20,000. The Bahamas has the fortunate advantage of being a one hour boat ride from Miami. Greenland is extremely remote, with no such advantage.

RealLifeLore is correct, if Greenland were to harness its minerals it runs the risk of looking like Qatar, with a small population and immense mineral wealth. Starting as a democracy should give them an advantage, which Qatar did not have. Look to Guyana, another democracy which has discovered immense oil wealth and see how that impacts their politics over the next 5 years. It’s very rare for small democracies to come across large amounts of natural resources, Guyana is the best example I know of. Maybe Greenland will harness the natural resources similar to how Norway did with their oil wealth if they are independent, but they still only have 1% of the population of Norway and Norway has the advantage of being in the EFTA. Greenland will likely have no such advantage. What will Greenland use as its currency? The smallest developed country with an independent free floating currency today is Iceland, with 5 times the population of Greenland, and they are a member of the EFTA and Schengen Area. If Greenland were to make its own free floating currency, it would be the most minor independnet currency in the world. The second smallest developed country with an independent free-floating currency is New Zealand, with almost 100 times the population of Greenland. There are challenges to going alone. The challenge if they choose to have a free floating currency is it could easily be susceptible to large swings from speculation, in a way no other currency in the world is today. This is why most countries peg their currency or just use a currency from a larger country, which provides stability. I do not expect Greenland would choose to have an independent free-floating currency, but this does come with the tradeoff of reducing Greenland’s independence.

So in terms of freedom and autonomy, what does Greenland have to gain? They right now are fully self-governing in all matters except defense and foreign relations. This gives them all the major advantages of independence without the economic disadvantages. While being fully self-governing they also elect two members to the Danish parliament, on par with other parts of Denmark. They have as much of a voice as someone in Copenhagen.

When it comes to how they left the European Economic Community in 1985 they didn’t fully leave because they remain an Overseas Territory with some trade advantages of that relationship. If they were to sever their relationship with Denmark they would lose this protection.

There are three factors which have to be considered all of which are valuable. Those are independence, economic well-being, and social freedom.

If you maximize independence you end up like Ukraine, a fully independent country without any military defense aside from themselves, no mutual protection pacts. You do not have the advatange of being in a free trade area, you miss out on the advantages of being able to travel freely to other places. Borders pop up if only for customs duties. The increase in trade barriers harms economic well-being, the increase in travel barriers infringes on social freedom. It puts you at risk of invasion. Most countries nowadays do not go for maximum indepdendence. Only fools actively advocate for it.

If you maximize economic well-being you will advocate for open borders with your neighbors, requiring you to establish a common visa policy and external trade policy. Joining organizations like the European Union is the inevitable endpoint of economic maximization. This provides many social and economic advantages, but it also means that you are restricting what laws you can make without violating the treaty.

If you maximize social freedom you are still going to minimize independence because expanded travel freedom through a customs union reduces independence.

What does Greenland value most? There are inevitable tradeoffs to such a decision.

I cannot tell them what to do. But we can learn from history and if I was Greenlandic I would not support any severing of ties with Denmark unless if membership in the European Union is assured. I do not think that is possible, so I think the status quo is probably close to the best deal Greenlanders have available to their massive yet sparsely populated island.

If I am correct, and the main objective of the Gaza war has been achieved which is to bring Trump into power and keep Netanyahu in power, and it sure looks like I am right… then thousands of Palestinian and Ukrainian civilians needlessly died to keep these two men in power.

Sure you lost your home, your grandparents were killed, your daughters were raped, your sons drafted, and your homes destroyed.

But just remember it was all worth it to these freaks to prevent liberal governments in Israel and the United States.

I’m disgusted by all of this.

Wars always end for one of two reasons:

1. The objective of the war has been achieved.
2. One side is fully exhausted and cannot keep fighting, leading to a stalemate.

Both Hamas and Israel are capable of continuing to fight… neither has exhausted their military abilities.

So the objective must have been achieved.

64% of Americans disapprove of Israeli action in Gaza, despite Biden’s unconditional support. https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx

74% of Americans disapprove of how the withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/354182/american-public-opinion-afghanistan-situation.aspx

Only Republicans oppose American support of Ukraine. 86% of Democrat support helping Ukraine. https://news.gallup.com/poll/513680/american-views-ukraine-war-charts.aspx

On these three issues, and only these issues, the Biden administration’s actions were out of line with what the American people want.

There are three keys to successfully running for any political office.

First of all, stand for popular positions. Don’t be undecided on major issues, have your stances aligned with your party unless you have a very good reason not to.

Second, more experience is better if you are running for a state-wide office or a seat in Congress.

Third, if your party dominates state government, your party should be doing a good job. Otherwise, the opposite, obviously.

The party index of your state doesn’t matter as much as these factors. These factors ultimately determine the party index of your state.

This is similar to  the Cook Partisan Voting Index

We can quantify this for governors and Senators.

1. Governor’s Party
2. State plurality for the President in the last election
3. Incumbent party
4. Senators partisan affiliation
5. Which candidate has been at a higher level of office.

Add up the scores for both candidates, the candidate with the higher number is likely to win.

When the predictions do not match reality, this is sending you a signal that something is wrong. If it is a local issue and happening once or twice, it is likely a problem with one of the candidates the system does not capture. Maybe they had a scandal. Maybe their issue stances did not align with their constituents. If it is isolated to only a few cases per year then it is a local issue.

However, if there is a large number of upsets across the country all at once it tells us that a fundamental problem is in play. Either the President did something that makes people upset, or the party machinery is in trouble.

It is easy to tell the difference, by looking at presidential approval ratings. If the president’s approval ratings are low, the president is unpopular and there is something wrong with policy.

This tells you whether the party’s strategy is wrong, or whether the president is unpopular.

Historical analysis

My system only misses the Pennsylvania Senate election in the 2024 elections for governor or Senator. It was a very tight race. It predicts Montana and Ohio were tossups, and they were. This shows that the losses this year were basically what we should have expected. So we look at presidential approval, which was low. Biden must have made unpopular decisions in his last two years which cost Democrats the election. The party machinery did not fail.

Biden’s disapproval in the midterms was higher than his approval, so one would expect a small loss in the midterms but not a large one, exactly as we observed. We also observe that my system has only one miss, the Nevada governor’s race where conservative Democrat Steve Sisolak barely lost reelection. Everything else is exactly what my system would predict. Biden needed to look and analyze what he did which was unpopular, but he did not in his hubris. Furthermore, Harris underperformed Democratic candidates nationwide, meaning this was not a problem with the Democratic party, but there were fundamental problems with the Biden Administration that remain unaddressed.

Moving back in time, Donald Trump was unpopular throughout all of his first presidency, leading to the shellacking the Republicans received in 2018. This is pretty clearly voters sending a message that we were angry at Donald Trump. Trump should have analyzed his results and moved back to what Americans want, but he will never do that because he is a demagogue. I expect him to do the same over the next two years, pissing off Americans, and Democrats will likely win in 2026.

Obama’s approval however was never very low, in the midterms of 2014 his disapproval was around 5o-55%, and in 2010 it was 50%. You would expect some loss of seats, but not the massive gains by Republicans as we observed in 2010 and 2014. This implies that voters are not unhappy with the president overall, and there is something wrong with the party machinery.

What is interesting about Obama compared to Biden and Trump is that his approval increased over the second half of his first term. As opposed to what would happen later with Harris he won his reelection and significantly outperformed Democrats running for Congress. He had some coattails, with Democrats picking up 8 seats in the House in 2012, but not enough to get another trifecta. This is a lot of proof that Americans were not unhappy with Obama, but the Democratic Party’s machinery was failing outside of his control.

I have analyzed results back to 2010 focusing on seats that flipped and every senate seat in 2024. You can view my results here: https://1drv.ms/x/c/6c8d84458ba76309/EegBqMb4-bFBn1WX6IK9eIkBzYVmBtG59OrI64-AqrgbtA

If you don’t have good candidates to vote for, you won’t have good people in office.

A summary of how Orban came to power:

In 2009 the Hungarian Prime Minister resigned after the war in Georgia because he had put his entire political fortunes on a gas pipeline from Russia. This is a very unpopular move in former Russian colonies like Hungary.

Orban ran and won in 2010 offering a different stance compared to the nominally center-left party which was leaving office. The Democratic Coalition has remained a minor party ever since due to its pro-Russian history.

Under Orban, there has been fairly consistent growth in Hungary’s GDP per capita. They have remained part of the European Union, NATO, and most importantly the Schengen area. Granted, he is a right-wing asshole, postponing Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the Schengen Area and refusing to send Ukraine military aid during this war, but Hungary has remained part of these vital institutions.

It’s only since Orban has been refusing to send Ukraine military aid in the last few years that a real opposition has formed against him. The left-wing coalition in Hungary has not recovered since. The only opposition to Orban which has managed to form in response to him over the last few years is also center-right and also opposes sending aid to Ukraine, so don’t expect them to change any.

Plus, Fidesz has never won an outright majority in parliament, they have always been in coalition with a center-right party.

The reason Orban has stayed in power is simply because the left wing in Hungary effectively does not exist.

If the center-left parties can make it clear they oppose Putin and support Ukraine, maybe things will change. The polling data tends to match up with the election results very closely. If Hungary got too despotic, they are in the Schengen Area so there is nothing stopping Hungarians from moving anywhere else in the Schengen Area or European Union. This acts as an effective brake on Orban’s right-wing policies.

For a counter-example, British citizens used to have the same rights Hungarians do but since Brexit went into effect they no longer have the right to freely live and work in the European Union. If the Tories come to power under Nigel Farage, the British people will be effectively trapped in a way that Hungarians are not.

For this reason, while I am no fan of Viktor Orban for many legitimate reasons, he is still a better prime minister than Keir Starmer or David Cameron.

First of all, I do not think anyone from Biden’s cabinet is going to run again. Even if they do, I do not think any of them will be able to win. They’re done. They had their chance. They blew it. Biden set Trump up for a victory through many mistakes in foreign policy, and everyone in the cabinet will have to face the question “you were working on the Biden team, and when Harris ran against Trump she lost the popular vote. What makes you more qualified than her?” They’re all done with their careers in government.

Generally, candidates will be sitting senators or governors. There are no living Democratic vice presidents who are likely to run again. It is unheard of for a Democratic candidate who lost the general election to run again and win. Harris will not be the first. Trump was able to pull it off because he has built a cult of personality. Harris does not have a cult of personality. It will be someone new.

So if we look at incumbent Senators or governors both after 1970 there are only 3 senators who will likely run. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

I think it is indisputable that the War in Gaza was a major factor in bringing down the Biden administration, so we want a candidate in 2028 who supported a ceasefire. I think it is also indisputable that the War in Ukraine harmed the economy, made Biden look weak, and significantly harmed Harris’ chances of winning last November. Chris Murphy is the only sitting senator born since 1970 who has supported arming Ukraine above what the administration has done and supported a ceasefire in Gaza. He might be low profile as Senators go, but I think that could change over the next 4 years if he plays his cards right. He is well-positioned to run for president.

Other senators who supported a ceasefire and were born after 1960 were Klobuchar, Booker, and Duckworth. These three senators are other likely candidates for the presidency in 2028.

There are a wide array of democratic governors who might run for president, including Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, J.B. Pritzker, and Wes Moore.

We are looking for a governor who supports Ukraine, and supported a ceasefire in Gaza.

The one member of the House who has built up an impressive public profile and might run in 2028 is AOC.

Our next president is likely on this post.

It was negotiating with Ho Chi Minh to prolong the war in Vietnam in 1968.

It was keeping Americans hostage in Iran in 1980.

It was ending work visas for farm workers.

It was implementing visas for EU citizens to travel to the United States.

They allowed money laundering from the Gulf States to flow freely.

They allowed Russian oligarchs to set up bank accounts in London and Tel Aviv without scrutiny.

It was Brexit.

It was the support for qualified immunity.

It was abandoning Afghanistan without congressional approval.

It was the lack of solidarity with Ukraine.

It was bombing civilians in Gaza as Hamas leadership was safe in Qatar.

It was prolonging the bombing of Gaza until inauguration day.

It was giving US visa-lite access to Qatar before Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Romania.

Don’t be surprised they have now banned the word liberal on Instagram.

All of these are signs of looming fascism.

We need strong progressive leadership to stand up to all of these policies that have brought Trump to power.

We need to offer a real alternative.

Vote progressive.

This old article popped to the top of my results when looking for a summary of Ricardo’s trade theory, so I have to comment on why Ricardo was right.

200 Years of Ricardian Trade Theory: How Is This Still A Thing?

If this article was right, Brexit would have had a negative or beneficial impact to the United Kingdom’s economy. The truth has been the exact opposite.

Ricardo’s main ideas are the following:

• When countries are able to trade freely with each other, they will specialize in what they are best at and both countries will be better off by trading than producing everything at home. This is comparative advantage.
• Free trade does not have to be reciprocal to be beneficial to the country with low to no tariffs on imports. So even if the other country requires visas for your citizens, you are still better off allowing their citizens to travel to your country without a visa. Reciprocity is shooting your foot to spite your face.

Brexit is a near-perfect test of Ricardian trade theory, and Ricardo has been vindicated once again.

This is why he is still a major part of every economics education. Because his predictions work.

In 2001 bin Laden bit the hand which likely fed him and attacked the United States.

Afghanistan had undergone over 20 years of war already, starting with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, followed by a brutal civil war which the Taliban won in 1994. They then decided to attack the United States only 7 years later.

As a result, the United States went in to take out their support of international terrorism and prevent future attacks coming from Afghanistan. The cheapest way to do this is through nation building. The least expensive way in terms of both lives and money. Giving people options and building a civil society reduces the number of potential recruits for terrorist organizations, at a very low cost for taxpayers.

This was the status quo for twenty years and the literacy rate in Afghanistan increased rapidly. As soon as Trump became president we reduced our investment in Afghani literacy, leading to his verbal agreement with the Taliban to give them control of the country, which is exactly what happened.

During the time we were in Afghanistan under Bush and Obama we continued to invest in Afghani education which was a very good investment.

Afghanistan was not highly rated on indices under the Islamic Republic scoring at 2.85/10 in 2020 on the democracy index. There was a lot of corruption, a lot of poverty, and lots of work to do. But at least girls were going to school.

But nowadays they are the lowest ranked country in the world according to the Economist Democracy Index. It had a poor score on par with Egypt and Cuba, and today they are rated lower than North Korea.

Al Qaeda has been increasing its network of training camps in Afghanistan now that the Taliban controls the country. If you don’t think they will attack the United States and our allies, you are a fool.

Terrorism is going to increase as a result of the unratified Trump/Biden agreement.

People know this, as we can see with how the withdrawal from Afghanistan was the lynchpin which moved Biden from net approval to net disapproval. Biden did not have any significant wins to counteract his loss in Afghanistan. He had a major loss in 2022 6 months after the withdrawal when Russia invaded Ukraine. He had a further loss in 2023 when Hamas kidnapped 30 Israeli citizens.

He lost the midterms.

He did not have any significant wins to counteract his three major foreign policy losses.

No one really cares about the reasons why. The United States is the most powerful country in the world. We alone have the power to deter terrorist groups and rogue states into compliance. We alone have the ability to send a large amount of weapons or troops to any place in the world to keep the peace. No other country in the history of the world has had the amount of military power the United States has today. No other country has more alliances. No other government has more information than us.

Which means that when a terrorist group launches a surprise attack anywhere in the world like happened from Gaza we must ask how much the United States knew? What could we have done to prevent it? Why didn’t we?

When Russia invades its neighbors, what information did we already have to know of the pending attack? Why didn’t we send significant military equipment to Ukraine before the invasion to prevent the attack in the first place? Why did we put significant barriers towards Ukraine using the weapons we did send them from the beginning? What was going through Biden’s mind?

Nuclear war? Give me a break. Send them missile defense systems to block the missiles like we have given to Israel.

The truth is that after these massive failures Biden has not had a single success. Biden has not been the major voice speaking out for Ukraine. Leaders in former Warsaw Pact colonies and Macron have done far more than Biden has as a percentage of GDP, along with fewer restrictions. Biden has been far more like Scholz, Merkel, and Starmer.

Biden was played like a fiddle with the situation in Gaza, which brought down his presidency.

There are a lot of lessons from the Biden presidency which we need to learn to do better in the future. Republicans are obviously going to be worse.

We cannot afford to make these mistakes again.

The next time we have a Democratic president we need someone who is unabashadly Atlanticist. Someone who opposes authoritarianism, and is willing to use all available tools to strenghten democracies and preserve the peace.

We need a president who will bring us closer to our allies. Cut down on visa restrictions, end ESTA, and bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.

That’s the type of foreign policy victory which will allow the next Democratic president to win reelection.