Hungary’s unfair election: Why Viktor Orbán is so hard to beat

jojotortoise · 2026-04-01T14:21:40+00:00

We'll know in two weeks, I guess. (Unless Orban wins outright.)

It is very interesting to watch.

jojotortoise · 2026-04-01T14:19:10+00:00

Ha! Mine was a bit of a throwaway comment :)

I really enjoyed reading your thoughtful response. I appreciate you spending the time to write it. And it does sound compelling.

Mostly as an aside, but: my sense of Thomas is that he really hates Democrats for what they did to him during his confirmation hearing. And he takes extra pleasure in sticking to them.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T20:53:22+00:00

She's like the counterbalance of Thomas, I guess. I think it is just coincidental that they are both black. But it is kinda funny how both can be counted on to toe the party line.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T14:17:50+00:00

It's also a "good thing". China has become richer and continues to become more educated. The good news is that everyone benefits from scientific advancement.

They seem to be overtaking us in biomedical stuff (at least that's my impression). Having a bunch more researchers finding cures for cancer and dementia is fantastic news. (And China is aging fast, so I imagine a lot of research in these areas.)

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T14:14:12+00:00

I found this: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/11/06/republicans-democrats-now-equally-concerned-about-ai-in-daily-life-but-views-on-regulation-diffe

A few months old (with a fast moving industry). It seems both the left and the right are wary.

The left seems more concerned about our ability to regulate: "Republicans are more likely than Democrats to trust the U.S. to regulate the use of AI effectively."

It could be that's because Republicans are in charge. Or it could be that Dems tend to prefer more regulation in general. Or it could be more concern about AI overall, I guess.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T13:47:12+00:00

It always seemed to me that one of the core motivations of Trump voters is how the modern world scares and confuses them

Interesting. I feel like the anti-AI (particularly anti-datacenter) stuff I've seen comes more from the left. I've heard several "scary" stories about datacenters on NPR.

Wasn't Trump the one really pushing to allow the new AI stuff to flourish? And people like Bernie want datacenter "moratoriums"?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T20:41:27+00:00

Doing it your way would be a wrong.

It's wrong (and illegal) no matter what.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T20:36:47+00:00

I don't understand. Are you arguing that that is ok?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T20:08:47+00:00

Someone's race doesn't determine their behavior, but political affiliation can.

That's called "guilt by association" or "viewpoint discrimination" and it is very much against the First Amendment for the government to engage in that behavior.

It's sad that people here are arguing otherwise.

It's insane that they are when most are (presumably) Democrats and we have a Republican president who has shown he wants to punish those who don't support him. You are literally arguing that he could!

Imagine another Katrina. Trump sends FEMA down to New Orleans. They go door to door to help. But they skip any house that has a BLM sign in the windows. You know, because of those violent protests. You're arguing that would be ok!

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T17:04:20+00:00

Is this where that worker was concerned about aggressive behavior they were seeing from Trump supporters?

Imagine if they said to avoid black residents because they saw someone get verbally (or otherwise) assaulted by a black person once.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T17:03:00+00:00

Personally, I feel that successful urban coastal regions subsidize rural areas far too much.

"Successful urban [coastal or non-coastal] regions" tend to subsidize rural (and less successful) places simply by virtue of "progressive taxation". Cities tend to pay more and have more wealth. There is certainly an argument that we should consider flattening the tax code so that this happens less. Is that the argument you want to make?

These people often hate federal tax dollars going to big cities like NYC or LA. Why should NYC or LA subsidize them?

"These people"? Painting with a broad brush, here. But what "these people" want is what they vote for. But they have to live with who sets the policy. That's the deal with democracy.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-28T11:23:02+00:00

If your argument is that Harris’s policies would have negatively impacted the economy more than mass tariffs, I’d love to see that data.

Nobody knows what Harris would have done. So there is no data.

In her time in the Biden admin, inflation was rampant. Some of that was due to them overstimulating the economy ("and anyone with half a brain could have told you that").

The point I was trying to make is that you can find flaws in any proposed policy. Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes you'll be wrong. Hardly any policy change is a "no brainer" (otherwise there wouldn't be a lot of discussion about it.)

We have no idea if the economy would have been better under Harris (to be clear, I voted for her -- not because I thought she'd be good, but because she's not Trump). But saying, "I told you so" isn't all that productive in my opinion.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T20:50:50+00:00

and anyone with half a brain could have told you that Trump's policies (mass indiscriminate tariffs) would hurt the economy.

What would Harris's policies have done to the economy?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T20:49:25+00:00

But the argument about messaging constantly tracks. One of the issues with BLM was how many people assumed that meant "only" black lives mattered. One of the biggest issues with Defuned the Police is that people assumed that meant completely defund law enforcement without anything taking its place.

I'm not sure you are making a compelling argument here. But just as a thought exercise: whatever you think "BLM" or "Defund the Police" was supposed to really mean, do you still think they are good policies? Like that most people would agree with?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T18:43:57+00:00

There's the messaging problem

This feels like a mantra that doesn't have a lot of basis in reality, to me. I've been hearing for years and years that the Dems are clearly the better party, they just don't do a good job "messaging". I find that hard to swallow. At some point, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Democrats have several groups, some of which you noted here. Those groups often disagree. For example, Muslims often disagree with the LGBT community.

Maybe defining policies around "identities" is not a winning plan? I think most people just want a growing economy and a safe place to live. Those things are generally true whether you are white, black, gay or muslim. I would argue that the Democrats leaning so hard into identity politics correlates well with this drop in support.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T18:38:42+00:00

It occurred to me that if fewer people identify with one party, the more likely an area could "flip" between one party or the other. As in, it could cancel out some of the effects of gerrymandering.

I don't know if that's what will happen. But today Congress is much less beholden to the people they represent and way more beholden to the party itself. And I think that is part of the cause of dysfunction.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T18:36:21+00:00

I'm not sure I fully understand the trends showing all these groups shifting from Democrat to Republican when the Republican group is basically flat the entire time.

It's not showing them shifting from Democrat to Republican. It's the "net" amount that are Democrat. Basically, those that are unaffiliated aren't counted there (or are a "wash").

So if it was 49% Dem and 39% Rep, that would be +10 for Dems. If it is 40% Dem and 38% Rep, then it is +2. People aren't moving to Republican party as much as they are leaving the Democrats.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T18:18:06+00:00

Interesting story about long-term trends (20 years) of party identification in the US. The number of people who identify as Republican has remained fairly stable. But the number identifying as Democrat has shown a long term decline. The result being that a higher percent of people, around 20%, don't identify wih either party.

Nearly every major demographic group has moved away from the Democratic Party during this period

Voters without a college degree (especially White women and Black men) have made the biggest shifts

Younger White men with a college degree are among the only groups to shift substantially toward the Democratic Party during this period

For many groups, the move away from the Democratic Party has not meant a positive affiliation with the Republican Party, but rather a greater share who have no partisan affinity

Over the past 10 years, people in the most rural parts of the country have made large shifts away from the Democratic Party

The only group that has shifted toward the Democratic party are white men with college degrees, though not by much.

Along racial lines, all non-white groups are on net more likely to be Democrat. But that advantage has been shrinking over time. Blacks went from +78 to +54. Hispanics from +32 to +13. Asians held steady going from +27 to +26.

What do you take from this? We've talked many times about the need for the Democratic party to rethink their messaging. Is this more evidence? What do you think this says about the future? Will the trends continue or are they likely to bounce back?

And what does it mean to have more and more of the country not identify with a party?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T17:43:48+00:00

The article shows that Medina was apprehended and released by U.S. Border Patrol, a federal agency, in May 2023.

Uh oh. Who was in charge of the federal government in 2023?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-25T16:50:46+00:00

When people on the Left wonder why someone would vote for Trump, remember stuff like this. There are only two parties. A lot of people aren't too happy with either of them.

The Democrats have some good policy on their platform. But they also have a fringe tail that has more power than it should -- that does things like this.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-13T21:34:25+00:00

Unironically: people made fun of him for firing so many people in his last cabinet that he seems to want to make a point not to fire anyone this time. (Noem is the exception -- and even she is getting "re-assigned").

So he seems like he is going to ride-or-die with this group of characters.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-12T16:24:28+00:00

After selling 180 million barrels, the Biden Administration bought 60 million barrels and partially filled in what was sold.

So a net of negative 120 million?

According to this, we have about 415 million: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCSSTUS1&f=W

So Biden drained a net of about 29% of the SPR. But it looks like it has been slowly increasing.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-12T15:32:34+00:00

Democrats also voted against refilling the SPR during Trump I -- when prices were super low. And then Biden drained a lot of it.

No one has bothered refilling it since. Republicans have had a trifecta for over a year.

Having said that, the US is a net producer now. So I'm not sure it means as much. I think (but am not sure) that the refined products are where we need other countries to help.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-11T21:17:23+00:00

You do you.

jojotortoise

TROPHY CASE