The religious right is a movement that consists of evangelical Christians, conservative Roman Catholics, and other lesser known religious groups. Those within this coalition advocate for (1) lives of the unborn; (2) family tradition and the nuclear family strucure; (3) religious freedom; (4) religious education; and (5) limited government intervention in economic matters.

The populist right consists of those whose beliefs proximately aligns with national populism ideology. Those within this coalition mostly advocate for (1) national sovereignty; (2) the protection of domestic industries from, both, detrimental and deletorious effects stemming from global competition; (3) strict law enforecment that guards against social chaos; (4) a strong cultural identity; and (5) family tradition and the nuclear family structure.

Religious Right or Populist Right: Comparing These Two Coalitions, Which Has More Influence on Republican U.S. Senators & Representatives, Republican State Executives & Legislators, and Republican Party Officials?

By "influence", I mean the ability to affect policy decisions, mobilize electoral support, sway legislative actions, and form strategic alliances within the Republican Party.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore vs George H.W Bush, Al gore won the popular vote by about 500k votes, however lost the electoral vote (266-271) and the state of Florida by 537 votes.

Now, why is this? In the 1992/1996 election, Bill Clinton knocked it out of the park with 370 and 379 respectively. He won extremely republican states like Florida, Ohio, Mississippi river states, West Virginia, Montana, ect.

While I am told that Gore lost a majority of the states and votes was because of Clinton’s scandals, i doubt that’s the main reason. Gore had some great plans for his presidency like his environmental acts and clinton was one of the greatest presidents yet he never got a majority of the states Clinton did

A lot of the time, when I talk about raising taxes on the rich people (in the US and my home country of Iran), I hear people say "They will just move out, and then we will collect no taxes from them." Is this an observed thing? Is this even a bad thing?

The Hill recently had an op-ed where two former law clerks for Potter Stewart are advocating that the 14th Amendment can be used to stop Trump from becoming President.

Is their view plausible?

I believe it would just require a vote of the House.

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/amp/

Hello friends,

The bipartisan border bill was rejected in congress because, well, Republicans needed the border crisis for their presidential campaign. Illegal border crossings and fentanyl crossing is a big problem, we can agree in all of that. The bipartisan border bill was presented as a solution for it all. Funding more border patrol officers, hiring more immigration staff, more equipment for easy fentanyl detection and more.

So my question is. If the bill was passed, how much would it improve the problem?

Thank you all and happy holidays!

As Trump ages and faces no future prospects for another office, will Republicans dissent more against the Trump brand a few years into his second term? Will the political chaos of the past decade ease, or will he continue in his influence and narrative in carrying the Republican party? If his influence diminishes, will the political environment continue to be chaotic like the past decade (is this the new normal)?

President Biden vetoed a bipartisan bill to expand federal judgeships, aiming to address court backlogs. Supporters argue it would improve access to justice, while critics worry about politicization. Should the judiciary be expanded? Was Biden’s veto justified, or does it raise more problems for the federal court system? Link to the article for more context.

Many in this Subreddit notice that the Republican Party has often moved further to the right in the “age of Trump”, with mass deportations and comments many can precise as becoming increasingly xenophobic becoming the norm. However, many within that Republican Party also notice a shift within democrats to focusing on “woke” ideology such as same-sex bathrooms rather than what they may see as biology (even though some of those Republicans are Catholics that reject Darwin, but that’s another discussion)

None of those specifically are my views, simply framing for the discussion

Is this simply a fear being perpetuated by both parties, and no shift is actually happening, or is our country collectively becoming more radical, or is one side the culprit?

The history of European immigration to the US, with Native Americans playing the role of host, presents an opportunity to reflect on how we can approach immigration differently today. The currently proposed slate of policies invite discussion regarding how we can make our immigration policies more humane. If we reflect on our past, how can we find common ground to build a more just and welcoming future for immigrants traveling to this country?

What specifically in American politics has shifted the American Right towards becoming so much more supportive of more extreme positions on immigration and is this sentiment justified?

If you go on Twitter you’ll see tons of accounts arguing that Mass Deportation is the centrist option and there are people now espousing extremely dehumanizing comments less on specific individuals but just on Brown people in general, whereas before it was just old school support for increased border security.

What has caused this and what is the rationalization for such a shift in rhetoric?

Most people just focus on their country's own government such as the US with Democrat and Republican, but what about worldwide, which government do you think is the best morally? I'm not really well versed in politics so I have no idea, but I'd like to see what people think is the best government in the world currently.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been a hot topic for years now, but the debate over its effectiveness and impact on society has only intensified. Some see it as a revolutionary solution to poverty, inequality, and job displacement due to automation. Others argue that it’s a dangerous idea that could lead to economic collapse and discourage hard work.

Here’s where I stand:

• Supporters of UBI argue that it would provide a safety net for all citizens, ensuring basic living standards regardless of job status. This would allow people to pursue passions, education, and creative work without the constant fear of financial instability. Plus, with automation taking away traditional jobs, UBI could be a necessary step to prevent mass unemployment.
• Critics believe that UBI would be a massive drain on the economy. Funding it would require huge tax hikes or redistribution of wealth, which could discourage productivity and innovation. What happens when people receive money without working for it? Could we see widespread dependency on the government? And, would businesses stop paying fair wages, knowing that everyone has a basic income?

UBI proponents point to countries like Finland and Canada, where small-scale pilot programs showed promising results. However, critics argue that those pilots were limited and didn’t account for the long-term consequences.

In my opinion, we need to seriously evaluate how we want our society to function moving forward. Do we value an individual’s right to financial stability and freedom, even if it means higher taxes or a shift in the job market? Or do we stick to a more traditional system where hard work, employment, and self-sufficiency are valued above all else?

I want to hear what the Reddit community thinks:

• Should we experiment with UBI as a long-term solution?
• Or would it be disastrous for the economy and our sense of personal responsibility?

Let the debate begin!"

Many safe blue states in the recent election came to close margins for the Republicans i.e New Jersey only won by 6% , Minnesoda 5% and even new hampshire which was really close only won by 2% . So by 2028 do you think that more safe or blue leaning states would be up for contention ? Would states like New Hampshire flip ?

The recent release of the House Ethics Committee report outlining their investigation and conclusions regarding the behavior of (former) Rep. Matt Gaetz, have put in writing some of the allegations that have been following Gaetz for a couple of years now. Without any criminal prosecution of Gaetz (the DOJ previously declined to pursue charges, and none of the states involved have shown signs of investigating), are these allegations enough to destroy Gaetz's political fortunes? Or, will the notoriously short memory of the American electorate allow him a second act, at some future point?

In the federal judiciary, the Congress can clearly pass new legislation if the courts make rulings they don't like on most topics. The issue with Chevron deference could have been solved decades ago by writing that concept in to law. If an executive rule is not upheld by a court for conflict with statute or otherwise not being a power of the executive, well, the legislature could probably enact it themselves or at least vote on whether it should be adopted or not. The issue with a lone judge in the fifth circuit getting a bunch of cases that have no good reason to actually be given to him via forum shopping and daring the appeals courts and supreme court to override him at some point later would be an easy thing to resolve by legislation.

But with Congress having so little energy to move its wheels of operation that it feels like trying to change Jupiter's motion around the Sun, little actually comes out of these processes with finality or public input.

State governments however do have their own independent rules and systems, and they too can respond to state judicial rulings. They can usually react to the ruling by statutory changes or sometimes changes to executive and administrative rules, and the state governments are far more likely to propose constitutional changes for the people to vote on as well if there is a showdown. How effective do you think this is in practice overall, in states you admire, and in your own state or territory?

A big part of Kamala Harris’s campaign that she was running on was that she was different from Joe Biden and that her presidency won’t be more of the same. That being said, the consensus was that she wasn’t very successful at fully separating herself from Biden and his administration. When asked on The View about whether she would have done anything differently than President Biden, she said that not a thing comes to mind. So my question would be what should she have done to distance herself from Biden?

Usually there are at least 4 retirements in a cycle. Who can you see retiring, and additionally, who would run in their place?

Note: just because they’ve said they’re running for re election doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind. Take Roy Blunt in 2022, he initially said he was running for re election and then retired. Same with Feinstein in 2024 before her passing.

Panama, Greenland...? Will Trump's foreign policy simply be not unlike a Mob boss? Make an offer you cannot refuse. Will any country ( or representative or Senator) have to roll over to Trump's whim to avoid his retribution?

Is AOC losing the vote to be the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee a good or bad thing for Democrats nationally?

She lost to 74 year old Dem Rep Gerry Connolly who is considered a moderate, and apparently Nancy Pelosi lobbied against her.

It seems to be indicative of the tug of war between the more left wing of the Democrat party and the more centrist wing.

On one hand, left-wing Democrats argue that the party lost because it failed to motivate the activist wing of the party, especially young people, by embracing anti-Trump Republicans like Liz Cheney and catering to corporate interests. This threading of the middle line, they claim, is the wrong way to go, and reconfiguring the party's messaging around left-wing values like universal health care, high taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, and doubling down on diversity, equality and inclusivity, also known as DEI, is key to returning to power.

On the other hand, moderate Democrats argue, Trump's return to office proves that the American people will not stand for a Democratic party that has deserted the working class to focus on niche issues no one cares about like taxpayer funded gender-affirming care for incarcerated trans people. Moderate Democrats believe that the party should continue on the path walked by Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The most potent argument for moderate Democrats is that Joe Biden, the quintessential moderate, roundly defeated Donald Trump in 2020 by 7 million votes.

Left-wing Democrats' answer is that, yes, Biden may have won in 2020, but his administration's failure to secure another victory proves that the time has come to ditch moderate policies and to move to the left. If a far-right candidate like Trump can win the voters' hearts, why couldn't a far-left candidate, they say?

Moderate Democrats' answer is that the 2024 election was Harris' failure, not Biden's, and Harris' move to Biden's left was a strategic mistake.

Left-wing Democrats' answer is that voters repudiated the Biden administration as a whole, not solely Harris.

Who is right?

Per title.

There's a lot of theories as to what the Democrats could have and should have done in order to secure a more favourable result in the recent election.

Now that we have the miracle of hindsight, a key question to explore here is whether one of the most important decisions - Joe Biden's intention to run for a second term instead of stepping back early enough to go through a more thorough and lengthier selection process and introduction of a Democratic candidate would have made a difference.

What would have changed? Who would the most likely candidate have been if not Kamala Harris, and would they have carried the day, and possibly carried down-ticket nominations within the Senate and House to the point where it might have changed the balance of power in the outcome?

Many people have bemoaned the influence that money can have on politics, there was a comprehensive set of rules to prevent spending on campaigns to alter the outcome of elections however these overturned in the supreme court case of Citizens United vs FEC on account that restricting payments for PR campaigns violates the first amendment, so how can this be done without violating the Constitution? Furthermore these rules didn't prevent lobbying which many people also believe is a way how the political process can be influences using money.

Romania recently voided the first round of their presidential elections when the constitutional court found that illegal and unconstitutional foreign influence had pervaded the election, and that the candidate with the most votes in the first round also is basically attempting to overthrow the constitutional structure (in this case, getting rid of the idea of Romania as a multi party system). That candidate basically came out of nowhere with no discernable source of financing or expenditures.

You could see a lot of obsession in 1787 with the idea of a country keeping foreign powers from messing with the election. They had the president be necessarily a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution as a grandfather clause (Hamilton was eligible). They required them to be a resident for 14 years as well, with senators being 9 years a citizen and representatives 7. The electors also crucially never met in the same place, they all voted in the state capitals and mailed the federal capital where Congress would count them and presumably vote between the top candidates if nobody had a majority. The military would have a lot of difficulty in attempting anything like a coup or forcing a person to be elected president, and foreign powers would have a hard time too. They could see how Poland-Lithuania was being carved up by Prussia, Austria, and Russia, and the Holy Roman Empire's prince electors were often rulers of foreign realms too and was becoming increasingly incapable.

Much of the European empires which reached their peak from 1840 to 1970 also took advantage of internal division in many cases. In Zanzibar, the British backed a rival to the sultan to become sultan himself, who would not have become or stayed sultan without British support and this did what the British told him to do, and similar tactics were used elsewhere like in India, and foreign powers also tried to mess with Greece in 1862 when they ordered them to elect a different king. The Franco-Prussian War also started when France tried to veto a Hohenzollern for the crown of Spain.

What tools and enforcement mechanism do you see as most effective to safeguard this element?

LBJ was a hawkish senator, and with the Democratic party growing more dovish throughout the 60s, I feel like if LBJ chose the dove-in-chief as his running mate, he could have avoided the possibility of himself being primaried down the road. Could LBJ choosing McCarthy as his running mate have avoided LBJ being primaried?

Today the house passed a bill without a debt ceiling increase after the GOP failed to pass its own bill without the debt ceiling increase provision. Do you think the bill was offered with the anticipation that it would not pass? Was it just something to appease the incoming president? Or do you think it was a good faith proposal that just didn’t work?