Derec
Contributor
Jarhyn's hobbyhorse does not have anything to do with the Midterms.
The state of the economy, and costs of things like energy and real estate, does, however.
Not directly. There is no "WTI spot price" lever hidden on the bottom of the Resolute desk.
But the president (and Congress) can impose policies that in turn, together with other countries' policies and variables in nobody's control (like weather, physics and geology), affect the price of oil and other energy sources and carriers.
That would be a worthwhile discussion topic relevant to the Midterms, if there was a disagreement about those cuts being a bad thing.
In a discussion forum, topics over there is a disagreement attract most attention. And the real estate and energy discussion was spurned by Gospel's now infamous post #7. I do not disagree with him that things like housing and energy costs are important. I disagree with him on his assessment of housing market being "in flames" and that "energy costs [are] punching everyone in the throat". I also disagree with him that existence of these issues means that we should not talk about the candidates themselves. I think the quality of candidates matters a great deal. Poor candidates can destroy an overall favorable political landscape, as Republicans found out in 2022.
Personally, I have not noticed insane increase in price of groceries. But you are right, ACA subsidies hitting the wallet will have a huge impact on many households, including Trump voters.
While stronger immigration enforcement was sorely needed, especially in so-called sanctuary cities, Trump has gone too far. Hopefully, the pendulum does not swing back to the "let them all in" sentiment of the 2019 Dem primary debates.
The asylum system is abused by millions of people coming here for economic reason. And "hard working" or not, no country can allow to let in anybody who wants to come in. There need to be sensible rules, and they need to be enforced. Including deporting people here illegally.
Things indeed look good for Dems right now.
That is a familiar pattern of US politics. As one party wins, they perceive a large mandate, and go overboard. Then voters punish them by voting them out, and the other party misinterprets that as a mandate for radical change in their direction. Like Dems wanting Biden to be the second coming of FDR. Rinse, repeat, except Trump dials everything up to 11.
That is indeed a good development. Of course, a sane SCOTUS would have banned partisan gerrymandering, and mandated a non-partisan way to draw districts in all 50 states. Partisan gerrymandering is bad for Democracy whether it happens in Illinois, NY or now in California, or if it does in Texas or Georgia.
