For the german elections it is an interesting statistical information, that the age group 70+ is the only one with lower than average voting share for the AfD (our far-right). Meaning they are pushing the average down. That in Brandenburg already 16+ could vote (instead the more usual 18+) was probably helpful to the AfD.

Maybe it is too long since people experienced the results of war (ven 70+ are mostly post-war kids, but even post-war times was still strongly influenced by the results of war).

The other thing is, that the "normal" parties are getting more and more corrupt over time, sucking up to big companies. People are fed up with it for good reason, but voting far-right will not help in that regard (well, a big war would reset politics, as it would reset mostly everything, but this is not a good thing). In my opinion only a strong left - which means anti-capitalist - politics will help. Only that is supported by less than 5% of people, the liberal propaganda of how the markets will save us all has worked.

I also would add: a result of about 30% maybe a bit more is in line with historical voting share of the NSDAP (the party which was shortened to Nazi). As far as I know also other european countries had such voting shares for fascist parties. Here in germany many tell that propaganda turned peoples heads and made them vote NSDAP, in reality most germans were innocent, it was all Hitler and his honeyed tongue. The more I look into it, the more it seems Hitler and the NSDAP were pretty clear about what they wanted, about a third of people just is fine with it. And if non-Nazi politics has corrupted the system enough to piss everyone off, then these far-right will find their ground. The longer I live and see stuff, the more I think that about a third of people are just naturally far-right. They just need an excuse and an opportunity to show their colors.

I'd put the share of natural far-right people at 10-15%, varying by country. What gets added on top of it is just your common idiot in the face of crises or perceived crises, suckered in by being convinced of an easy solution.

I don't see anti-capitalism as the solution (I assume you are refering to Die Linke), but it certainly requires policies that put some much needed stops to the inherently bad traits of capitalism; so not something I'd call anti-capitalism, but rather socialism to keep capitalism in check because the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive, so there's no zero-sum game here. The most damaging trait is of course corruption, because money can buy power, leading to more money to buy even more power. Which is in a nutshell what made the SPD hollow over the years, not to mention that Scholz is more interested in being the chancellor than actually performing the job of a chancellor.

Another bad trait is exploitation of workers, because capitalism works on the basic premise of spending the least amount of money to gain the most amount of money. That's why we need minimum wage, a limit to work hours per week and so on. The third bad trait is that from a certain point onwards, money makes money. That's why there need to be laws for redistribution of wealth, because otherwise the gap between the rich and the vast majority of people will keep getting bigger.

We probably agree on the basic reasoning that the more people there are who can live happy lives, the lower the amount of people who are inclined to vote far-right will be. That has to be the goal and that's what will work in any country, so the sidestep to Austria and Germany we've had here remains relevant for the USA as well. The big problem, though, is that getting an entirely left government elected is a real challenge. Germany hasn't had one in two decades, Austria never had one. Which is probably why our far-right has been such a mainstay all this time.

You are a natural optimist it seems, a literal sunshine of hope.

Well, yeah, maybe you are right. I just find it very suspicious, that if the circumstances are right we end up with similar vote shares, about a third of people.

I see a problem, that if I say anti-capitalist people assume I am a communist or something along these lines. I probably should explain my stance in more detail.

Capitalism is a system, which incentivizes making money over everything else. So companies will be as exploitative as they legally can be. Or more if they get away with it. There is this notion of making the world better by creating nicer companies. You know, voting with your wallet (which always makes Jeff Bezos the winner). but all that realizes is that companies will signal the alliance with your values in the most cost-efficient way. A tweet supporting Black Live Matters costs them nothing, while actually reducing minerals from conflict regions in Africa (you know, the conflicts that lead to killed black people) is only happening when the government mandates it.

Which is why this whole neoliberal propaganda is really dangerous. They want small government, because they say governments are bad at deciding stuff. That is not wrong, but that leaves companies with more power and they are worse if left unchecked. Especially since in most countries governments are actually democratically controlled (however flawed the process is), while companies aren't.

So if I say anti-capitalist that isn't me rooting for communism. It is me saying we always need to push back against unchained economy. Big government with rules is helping, we see many good effects in europe limiting what companies can get away with. Maybe we could democratize economy as well. Maybe some other reforms. I am open to ideas.

Yes. If you say corruption, many people think that politicians are actually paid to make decision. That might happen, but the reality is often more mundane. Big companies can pay people that have as their work to talk to politicians: about certain ideas, cherry-picked statistics and so on. Normal people on the other hand have to work, talking to politicians they only can do in their spare time, which is limited and also shared with more fun things like family or hobby. Which means if you are getting more successful as a politician, than more and more people you are talking with are actually paid to talk to you about certain ideas. And these are the things that have the most money behind them.

Yes, this is what I am saying. You bring up big government with minimum wage and limiting work hours, this is sadly needed, because the capitalist incentives are to exploit workers as much as possible. And despite what people think: people looking for work are less powerful than companies offering work. They will not balance their needs in a fair way (except government supports the workers in some way).

Yeah, I see shifting the overton window to the right all the time. At this point I would say SPD and Grüne in Germany aren't left-wing parties anymore, they are more center. But I see AfD supporter claim all the time that government is ruled by extreme leftist. That is how far the overton window has shifted to th right. Happens in other countries as well, the Democrats in the US cannot be called left in any serious way, but reading online you would think they want a communist utopia.

While I agree that Harris is not leading by much, the conventional wisdom of "She may need to win nationally by 2-3 points to win the election" may be a bit outdated. Per Nate Silver, polling this cycle indicates that the electoral advantage may have significantly shrunk (obviously that is contingent on poll accuracy):

Yeah, it's damning stuff, but:

1. It's stuff we basically already knew or suspected, just with harder evidence attached.

2. Like all the other cases against him that would be completely open and shut if it were anybody else, none of it will matter unless he's defeated in November.

That's because we here all know he's guilty and it makes no difference in the electoral arena anyway.

Well, here is one crisis averted: Port Worker Strike ends with the port workers getting a significant wage increase. Again, Biden sides with unions and unions see their demands met without significant consequences to the greater economy. This won't affect polling (although an extended strike could have negatively affected Dems), but union workers should take notice.

Harris is doing fine. She's sitting on 49% of the vote in RCP's moving average atm and that's including undecided voters, which obviously won't be a factor once the votes are tallied. Gauging which way independents are leaning is the key to grasping which way most of the few remaining undecided voters will likely go in the end because they're definitely concentrated in that group and right now it looks about even with them or slightly Harris-leaning. Thus we reach the conclusion that if the election were tomorrow, Harris's vote share would likely exceed 50%, landing in territory comparable to Biden's 51.3% of the vote four years ago; an impressive feat considering how deeply unpopular Biden's presidency has been. (Seriously, Biden's currently about 14 points underwater in job approval. His personal favorability numbers are also worse than Trump's.) The reason it's close is because Trump hasn't lost any votes since 2020, it would appear. He got 46.8% of the vote then and is currently sitting on 46.9% in the RCP moving average of polls today, and that's before you factor in the remaining undecided voters who may go his way. In the end, he'd probably get around 48% of the vote if the election were tomorrow, which would be his best showing to date. The dif would be made up by fringe third party candidates.

What I'm trying to communicate here is that this election isn't really about Trump. That's not what's making the difference. He's not losing this election so much as Kamala is winning it. Harris's support has steadily increased in tandem with her personal favorability numbers. In other words, the more people hear from Kamala Harris, the more they tend to like her as a person and that's her edge: likability. "Likability" is also partially about issues, not just your background and communication style, and by embracing a populist economic message left of Biden's and a raft of sane, relatively centrist positions on the social issues arguably skewing right of Biden's (e.g. comprehensive immigration reform leading with a border security emphasis, an all-of-the-above energy policy, liberal (i.e. two-state solution) Zionism, etc.), she's been proving herself an in-touch and well-balanced, well-reasoned person who genuinely listens to and cares about regular people, and it's helping her start to catch up to Trump on his best-polling issues.

There are three possibilities. Either the vote distribution has shifted pretty significantly, the popular vote is off, or the swing state polling is off. Personally, I'm inclined to think the first is the most likely. It certainly can happen. For instance Ohio and Florida shifted drastically to the right since 2016 to the point where they're not even considered swing states now, and Georgia and North Carolina have been shifting left. But, over the course of four years, I'm not so inclined to believe there is such a drastic shift.

And they did so back then, too:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Border_and_Commercial_Agreement

Maybe someone tell Putin that supporting right-wing regimes in Europe may not be a winning strategy for him...