- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Summary
In the 2024 election, Democrats excelled with highly engaged voters but lost ground with less-engaged voters, particularly younger, working-class, and non-college-educated individuals.
Vice President Kamala Harris won among voters who closely follow politics by 5 points but trailed Donald Trump by 14 points among less-engaged voters.
Democratic strategists highlighted failures in outreach, reliance on narrow data models, and ineffective messaging.
Critics noted the party’s brand is often defined by extreme voices, while Republicans capitalized on dissatisfaction with the economy and national direction, resonating with everyday frustrations.
The chief executive of the US has been a Democrat for 4 years, and it was absolutely their responsibility to prosecute (or ensure prosecution happens to) anyone that broke the law, or to at least protect the country. The norm has been for Presidents to maintain a firewall between themselves and prosecutorial decisions, but that’s not constitutionally mandated as far as I can tell.
It’s a norm because prosecution is both an executive and judicial function. It straddles both branches and you want it to be neutral in exercising prosecutorial discretion. When the chief executive steps in to direct prosecution, it has a strong tendency to become political and lead away from democracy.
Seems like the same happens when we cling to that norm too closely, as well.
To be clear I’m just talking about federal prosecutors. State and local tend to be political and, as a result, that tends to be where you see way more corruption. Ironically, it’s also why state AGs will have policies that are entirely different from the governor’s: they’re a separate political office.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, per se. In theory it is good to keep that distance between the executive and the prosecutorial decisions. But I hold that view in the same way that I hold the view that war is bad. Sometimes it is necessary when you’re given no other choice. Not to belabor the point, but this man is a danger not only to marginalized groups, but to American society and the world at large. The constitution imbues the presidency with the authority and power to take action and if this wasn’t the time to use the power afforded to it, then I don’t know man…
The correct solution for an outlier event is to set up a proper Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The U.S. still thinks it’s above that, but it’s not. A TRC would have worked after 1/6 because it was an inherently partisan event. You cannot have it be bipartisan for the same reason the Nazis didn’t get to be judges at Nuremberg and neither Shining Path nor the former government officials in Peru got to sit on their TRC. The group that perpetrated the violence shouldn’t get to adjudicate it.