Libertarians everywhere are delighted.
Jackthelad
Demonizing people who disagree with you makes them dig in their heels and elect the dangerous candidate and party, in spite of their best interests. Demonizing those people feels satisfying and necessary in the moment, but it ultimately backfires.
The so-called enlightened people can't be counted on to vote. (I say this as one of those so-called enlightened people, albeit not in your country and therefore unable to shift the balance with you.)
Until you folks figure these two things out, this is your new reality.
This is absolutely right. There's been an arrogance and complacency from moderate parties in the West over the last 20 years, assuming that the electorate will just automatically vote for them regardless. Now they've got to try and get these people back from the extremes, which is going to be harder to do than if they hadn't taken them for granted before.
It's part of a trend of a significant portion of the electorate feeling ignored. It's a trend that's happening in large parts of the West, we're seeing it in Europe too in places like France and Germany.
Now you can argue about whether these people have a genuine grievance or not. But if we don't try and address the underlying causes of these people abandoning moderate parties, we're going to see more and more extreme candidates and parties being successful. And I don't think that's something any of us want.
The American Constitution will stop him doing a lot of things people are scared of.
That's for the maximum amount of protection, but it continues to protect afterwards. It's not a cliff edge.
It's based on recognisable names. "Harris" is quite generic, whereas Kamala is instantly recognisable.
The similar situation in the UK was when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. He was often referred to as Boris, as opposed to Johnson.
He's the Foreign Secretary. One of our chief diplomats. What do you expect him to do?