What makes you think we had a "functional" federal government before the election?
You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades. When the people are desperate, they make desperate choices. There's a reason that Biden was extremely unpopular at the end of his term. Don't ignore that.
False equivalence or just false.
By many measures the Democratic Party is still an ordinary political party that tries to enact particular policies to address particular problems based on facts and a cost-benefit analysis. The ACA is one example. The IRA is another. There are many. While in power they diligently seek to pass legislation addressing priorities they ran for office on. You may disagree with these priorities, but the majorities who elected them do agree with them. And in fact, typically a majority of Americans, including many who vote against Democrats, also agree with these priorities.
The Republicans also run on platforms but are much less successful at converting their positions into legislation, largely because their coalition contains a fractious contingent that is motivated by attention more than policy goals, but also because in the event they get cold feet: they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example. The repeated attempts to repeal the ACA is another.
What you're reacting to, I think, is the failure to pass policy due to checks and balances -- you need both houses of the legislature, the executive, and, increasingly, agreement of the courts. But even if the policy passed, nearly 50% of the populace would think they had been failed by its passage.
I hope you and I don't have to learn how functional the government was before the Republicans broke it. The avian flu is a great test case. International trade is another. Here's hoping the mass layoffs Trump intended to set into motion and the collapse of state and local governments due to sudden budget shocks doesn't set off another Great Depression. That would be another interesting test case. What happens when ram the ship of state into a granite cliff?
https://web.archive.org/web/20081114051543/https://barackoba...
The IRA?
The ACA was more or less Romneycare, a Republican idea, but ironically passed with zero Republican votes. The ACA was a permanent government subsidy to the very health insurance companies that people hated and continue to hate, as evidenced by the recent celebration over the murder of a health insurance CEO. The ACA has not resulted in universal health care. It has not ended medical debt and bankruptcy. It has not ended the practice of claim denial. It has not controlled health insurance premium costs, which have surpassed the inflation rate despite bad inflation in recent years.
In any case, the question of the extent to which candidates keep their promises is not particularly interesting, because even their policy proposals are contolled by their campaign donors. Fundamental changes in the system are rarely on the table. The disparity of wealth in the US has continued to grow unabated over the past 50 years, through Democratic and Republican presidencies.
> they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example.
Um, they succeeded at that. Roe was overturned by Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents.
I agree with much of what you say, but the ACA is popular. Its popularity is growing. Passing the ACA was a matter of getting half a loaf rather than none. It was an attempt to do something. The rest is just goalpost moving. You set out an extreme position: "completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades". They passed the ACA. The ACA is popular, has brought the cost of healthcare down, brought health coverage to millions of people, etc., etc. I wouldn't have preferred this system, but it obviously is not a complete failure.
> In any case, the question of the extent to which candidates keep their promises is not particularly interesting, because even their policy proposals are controlled by their campaign donors. Fundamental changes in the system are rarely on the table. The disparity of wealth in the US has continued to grow unabated over the past 50 years, through Democratic and Republican presidencies.
Sure, and this sucks, but "the Democrats are as bad as a Republicans" is a recipe for cynicism and resignation, not revolution.
> Roe was overturned by Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents.
I pointed this out precisely because they did succeed at it. They succeeded at it and then struggled in the next two elections, and arguably the third as well. In every national election this year around the world the ruling party was thrown out. This is the first time since ... well, since the chart I got this fact from begins, that no election was one by an incumbent party:
https://jabberwocking.com/bad-economies-only-recently-starte...
That Harris came as close as she did actually shows that the headwinds against the Republicans have continued.
My point was that when they take the power they have won and attempt to enact their policy positions they start losing. This was an example of that.
It's more popular than nothing, of course. I wouldn't trade it for nothing either.
> Its popularity is growing.
This is somewhat misleading. Over the years, its polling has gone up and down within a range. https://news.gallup.com/poll/654101/health-coverage-governme...
> Passing the ACA was a matter of getting half a loaf rather than none. It was an attempt to do something.
This is the kind of Sophie's Choice I hate. Single-payer health care was proposed in the US in the 1970s but was killed by Jimmy Carter, inspiring Ted Kennedy to primary challenge him. We could have had it, and still could have it.
Polling doesn't tell the whole story, because single-payer was taken off the table for decades. It wasn't part of the public debate, because hardly any political leaders advocated for it, not even Democrats. Bernie Sanders, a socialist, almost single-handedly resuscitated single-payer. Regardless of the polling, single-payer is demonstrably superior, as shown by nearly every developed country in the world besides the United States. The reason we don't have it is massive corruption, the health care industry buying off opposition. Buying Democrats as well as Republicans.
> "the Democrats are as bad as a Republicans"
I didn't say that. I said they're both corrupt.
> They succeeded at it and then struggled in the next two elections, and arguably the third as well.
Third? What third? Dobbs was decided in 2022. To say that Republicans "struggled" seems like an overstatement. Perhaps they won fewer seats in Congress than they could have, but they still took control of the House in 2022, adding the Senate and Presidency in 2024. If only Democrats experienced such a "struggle".
> My point was that when they take the power they have won and attempt to enact their policy positions they start losing. This was an example of that.
Republicans gained full control of the federal government a mere two years after Dobbs. That's winning, not losing.