The post-election uptick in users isn’t the first time that Bluesky has benefitted from people leaving X.

As President-elect Donald Trump busily assembles his new administration, Democrat super-lawyer Marc Elias is quietly trying to reverse a key Republican win in a U.S. Senate race.

The post Schweizer: Marc Elias Is ‘Judge Shopping’ to Try to Repeat Al Franken’s Dubious Election Win for Bob Casey appeared first on Breitbart.

A source said that the government is allegedly trying to accuse Polymarket of market manipulation and rigging its polls in favour of Trump.

Meanwhile, the losing Democrats have turned the rifles on each other, seeking blame, but ignoring the larger reasons and implications of their decisive defeat.

1. 'Toxic media platform': Why 'The Guardian' quit X after US election results  The Times of India
2. Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X  The Guardian
3. ‘Toxic’: Leading UK media house decides to stop posting on Elon Musk-led X  Hindustan Times
4. A 200-year-old British media giant stops posting on X. Here's why  India Today
5. UK's 'The Guardian' Quits X Citing "Disturbing Content" On Platform  NDTV

The first minister's endorsement for the Democratic nominee was called "appalling" by Trump's business.

Politicians at Stormont and across the island of Ireland react to the US election result.

Like many people who live in America I have donated to US political candidates and campaigns. And like many people who live in America I have subsequently found my entire life suddenly and completely overwhelmed by text-messages and e-mail spam and phone calls and any number of other venal, stressy, desperate campaign messages. Now of […]

Harris criticised Trump’s legal woes, foreign policy, mostly on Ukraine, while Trump attacked her position on Israel

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris finish their Presidential campaigns in the swing states, as Election Day arrives in the US with polls showing a tight race, and officials taking steps to prevent possible violence; Israelis extremely interested ... ...

Richard Calvo, Vincent Pons, and Jesse Shapiro write: Many observers have forecast large partisan shifts in the US electorate based on demographic trends. Such forecasts are appealing because demographic trends are often predictable even over long horizons. We backtest demographic … Continue reading →

Test your knowledge of AI by completing our US elections edition of the AI or Real quiz

As adults in the US vote to decide their next president, Nina Blissett visits children living in the state of Pennsylvania to find out who they’re supporting.

With less than a day to go until the 2024 US election - here's everything you need to know...

Find out which viral news stories from the US election are real or fake with this quiz.

All eyes will be on the United States on Tuesday, 5 November 2024, as the world awaits the outcome of the contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. With the countdown clock to the 2024 US elections beginning to tick down towards polling day, markets are starting to brace themselves for what is yet to come.

Key Volatility Factors

The sharp differences between Harris' and Trump's policy platforms are creating an atmosphere of market volatility, as investors may be unsure which sectors stand to be affected by the outcome of this neck-and-neck race.

Beyond the presidency, control of Congress—both the House and Senate—plays a crucial role in determining policy outcomes and potential market reactions. Historically, markets have trended upward across presidential terms, yet analysts suggest that a divided government, where different parties control the presidency and Congress, may be optimal for market stability.

Understanding underlying market dynamics is crucial for those entering the online trading arena, and as the U.S. election on 5 November approaches, market volatility is reaching new heights, creating both risks and opportunities for traders. To help navigate this turbulent landscape, Plus500 offers a wealth of resources through its Trading Academy, including US election webinars, tutorials, eBooks, analysis, and up-to-date news articles.

These tools equip traders with the knowledge to better understand market dynamics and the potential impact of political developments on their trading strategies. In this uncertain environment, well-informed traders who grasp key concepts and trends might be better-placed to adapt to sudden price movements that could arise from unexpected election outcomes, although results are never guaranteed with trading.

The Economic Issues Driving the 2024 Election

The 2024 U.S. elections bring critical economic issues to the fore, with tax, trade, and energy policies as central themes. Donald Trump has proposed further corporate tax cuts to stimulate growth, particularly in manufacturing, energy, and technology, which may boost equity markets in the short term, but could increase federal deficits. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, supports targeted tax incentives for green sectors while proposing higher corporate taxes for social initiatives, potentially boosting clean energy stocks but affecting traditional sectors.

On trade, Trump has revived his stance on tariffs, particularly towards China, aiming to promote domestic industries. This could benefit U.S. manufacturing but may disrupt tech and consumer goods reliant on international supply chains. Harris's approach, while less aggressive, would aim for targeted tariffs, supporting U.S. interests without risking extensive trade conflicts, which could stabilise sectors sensitive to global markets.

Energy policy reflects another stark partisan contrast. Trump advocates for expanding fossil fuel production to reduce energy costs and inflation, which would likely favour traditional energy stocks. Harris's clean energy approach seeks to boost renewables like solar and wind, supporting sustainability-focused sectors, although it may come with initial cost implications for energy markets.

Potential Market Risks: Volatility, Fed Policy, and Foreign Relations

Market volatility could increase with trade and energy policy shifts, especially if Trump’s proposed tariffs amplify tensions with China. Retaliatory tariffs could hurt agriculture and technology exports, heightening risks in indices tied to these sectors. In contrast, Harris’s more moderate approach might result in steadier markets, benefiting industries with international exposure.

Monetary policy remains critical, with Trump favouring lower rates to spur growth, risking inflation if the Federal Reserve complies. Harris supports the Fed’s independence, suggesting more stable monetary policy with potential benefits for long-term economic stability.

Foreign relations also play a role, particularly concerning China and other trade partners. Trump’s tariff plans could heighten international tensions, whereas Harris’s approach is seen as less confrontational, benefiting multinational corporations and stabilising revenue streams from abroad, particularly in tech and healthcare.

Markets Affected by the US Election

In addition to concrete economic sectors that are seeing the impact of election season volatility, certain corners of the market are seeing ups and downs as well:

Forex & USD

The US dollar’s performance has fluctuated under different administrations, and the stakes are high this time around. A Republican victory could send the dollar soaring, fuelled by aggressive trade policies and rising interest rates, potentially strengthening it against the euro. On the flip side, if a Democrat takes the helm, analysts predict a softer dollar due to reduced fiscal expansion and declining real interest rates, which could benefit the euro in the EUR/USD pair. As election day approaches, volatility could be heightened, including on platforms like Plus500.

Commodities

The commodities market is already making waves. Rising geopolitical tensions, especially in the Middle East, are already influencing oil prices, and any further escalations could tighten supply routes like the Strait of Hormuz, potentially driving oil prices up sharply. Precious metals, traditionally seen as safe havens, may attract risk-averse investors amid election uncertainty. If policies post-election signal heightened government spending or inflation concerns, metals like gold and silver could see increased demand, reinforcing their role as hedges in uncertain times.

Trading Election-Related Indices with Plus500

With all of the aforementioned shifts underway, there are unique opportunities to trade on the shifting political landscape through OTC products on specific indices available on Plus500. Notably, these indices reflect the anticipated impact of party control on various sectors, enabling diverse trading strategies.

● The US Democrats in Power Index (BUDIPI) tracks companies poised to thrive under Democratic governance. This index is weighted by Free-Float Market Capitalization, meaning larger companies have a greater influence. Investors can look to sectors such as clean energy, healthcare, and technology, which are expected to benefit from policies likely to be enacted by a Democratic administration.

● Conversely, the US Republicans in Power Index (BURIPI) focuses on firms that are projected to gain from Republican leadership. The BURIPI index encompasses companies in the energy, defence, and financial sectors, reflecting potential tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending that could arise from a Republican victory.

● Additionally, traders can explore the Trumpnomics Index (BTRUIN), which specifically tracks businesses that may flourish under former President Trump’s economic policies. This index captures the performance of companies in industries such as fossil fuels, manufacturing, and infrastructure, which Trump has historically supported.

Riding the Volatility Wave

In the build-up to polling day, the potential for market volatility presents exciting trading opportunities as well as accompanying risks. With access to a wide range of OTC instruments and learning resources, Plus500 equips traders to potentially better navigate the uncertainties and ride the waves of uncertain global markets.

About Plus500

Plus500 is a global multi-asset fintech group operating proprietary technology-based trading platforms. Plus500 offers customers a range of trading products, including OTC (“Over-the-Counter” products, namely Contracts for Difference (CFDs)), share dealing, as well as futures and options on futures.

The Group retains operating licences and is regulated in the United Kingdom, Australia, Cyprus, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, the Seychelles, the United States, Estonia, Japan, the UAE and the Bahamas and through its OTC product portfolio, offers more than 2,500 different underlying global financial instruments, comprising equities, indices, commodities, options, ETFs, foreign exchange and cryptocurrencies. Customers of the Group can trade its OTC products in more than 60 countries and in 30 languages.

Plus500’s trading platforms are accessible from multiple operating systems (iOS, Android and Windows) and web browsers. Customer care is, and has always been, integral to Plus500. As such, OTC customers cannot be subject to negative balances. A free demo account is available on an unlimited basis for OTC trading platform users and sophisticated risk management tools are provided free of charge to manage leveraged exposure, and stop losses to help customers protect profits, while limiting capital losses.

Plus500 shares have a premium listing on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange (symbol: PLUS) and are a constituent of the FTSE 250 index. https://www.plus500.com/.

Hundreds of millions of Americans head to the ballots today to vote for who they believe should be their next President: Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. Although more than 81 million ballots have been cast early this year, most of the electorate will do so today, ultimately determining who will reside in the White House and control the Senate.

Later this evening, we will have the first results rolling in, although given the time differences across the 50 States and the District of Columbia, this will not be simultaneous.

Knowing the closing times of polling stations is crucial for traders and investors, particularly for the seven key battleground States (highlighted in bold below – often called ‘toss-up States’). These States account for 93 of the 538 Electoral College votes, of which a candidate needs 270 to win the election.

It is important to acknowledge that results will not be reported immediately at poll closing times as the counting process will still be ongoing. You can expect most of the seven swing States’ results to be reported between 11:00 pm and midnight ET (4:00-5.00 am GMT Wednesday).

*Times are Eastern Time (ET) and Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)

• 7 pm ET (midnight GMT Wednesday)

South Carolina (9), Indiana (11), and Kentucky (8) – Republican-leaning States (28 electoral votes)

Vermont (3) and Virginia (13) – Democratic-leaning States (16 electoral votes)

Georgia (16) – toss-up Votes (16 electoral votes)

• 7:30 pm ET (12:30 am GMT Wednesday)

West Virginia (4) and Ohio (17) – Republican-leaning States (21 electoral votes)

North Carolina (16) – toss-up Votes (16 electoral votes)

• 8:00 pm ET (1:00 am GMT Wednesday)

Missouri (10), Tennessee (11), Mississippi (6), Oklahoma (7), Alabama (9), Florida (30), and Maine District 2 (1) – Republican-leaning States (74 electoral votes)

New Hampshire (4), Maine (1), Massachusetts (11), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Connecticut (7), Rhode Island (4), Washington DC (12), Maryland (10), Delaware (3) – Democratic-leaning States (85 electoral votes)

Pennsylvania (19) – toss-up Votes (19 electoral votes)

• 9:00 pm ET (2:00 am GMT Wednesday)

North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Wyoming (3), Kansas (6), Louisiana (8), Texas (40), Nebraska (4), Lowa (6) – Republican-leaning States (73 electoral votes)

Colorado (10), Minnesota (10), New York (28), New Mexico (5), Nebraska District 2 (1) – Democratic-leaning States (54 electoral votes)

Michigan (15), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10) – toss-up Votes (36 electoral votes)

• 10:00 pm ET (3:00 am GMT Wednesday)

Montana (4) and Utah (6) – Republican-leaning States (10 electoral votes)

Nevada (6) – toss-up Votes (19 electoral votes)

• 11:00 pm ET (4:00 am GMT Wednesday)

Idaho (4) – Republican-leaning States (4 electoral votes)

Oregon (8), Washington (12), California (54) – Democratic-leaning States (74 electoral votes)

The economy ministry notes that in light of the US election result, renewed uncertainty among German households and firms cannot be ruled out. It goes without saying that Trump tariffs on German exports is of course the big risk to watch out for. But indirectly, Trump's tariffs on China will also have some impact on the EU market. If China finds it tough to export goods to the US, they might look to flood the market in Europe instead. That's some other form of risk to be mindful about.

[Daily Trust] Global stock markets rose and the dollar slid yesterday as investors steel themselves for a coin-toss US presidential election, an interest rate decision and expected Chinese stimulus measures.

ChatGPT blocked 250,000 AI image requests of US election candidates

What investors need to know about markets and the US election

US election: A turning point for global enforcement of Big Tech?

Stocks rally and euro tumbles as Trump declares victory in the US election

Richard Lutz rummages through the vestiges of the last week

Fresh off the latest meeting about incorporation, and I want to say: thank you to the moderators and Jessamyn who keep the site going and thank you to the volunteers past and present putting in work to build new possibilities for the site, including making it easier for more people to volunteer and contribute in different ways.

I'm also truly proud of the decision made early on by the volunteers to do things together, even if that meant slowing down. I'm the kind of person who sees a problem and goes into fix-it mode as fast as possible. Practicing on a hugely meaningful project like Metafilter to listen and consider all of our viewpoints and work through to a communal path was hard. It was sometimes frustratingly slow! But by the second half of our timeline, I can see now that we get important things done faster and faster and how strong the foundation we've built is (heh, bad pun) because we've got trust and a collaborative thoughtful process.

I'd also like to recognise the people who took a deep breath before writing a reply in a high-termperature thread, the people who edited down the snark in their comments or thought - I'll change to the thread about kitten videos instead. It is hard to be civil and think about other people when they're text on a screen - and it's harder when so much media encourages profit by provoking yelling.

Metafilter is an internet third space that isn't trying to profit actively from yelling. And sometimes we gotta yell in some threads - but most of the time we talk, and I so so appreciate having a third space where people can talk without an algorithm aimed at our lizard brains.

If you're visiting MetaFilter for the first time in a while because whoa, US election, just a friendly reminder that MetaFilter depends on member support in order to keep running. Additionally, MetaFilter is moving to a community-run model, so you might want to check out the latest update about that.

But because this is a weblog, a few additional links about communities below the fold.

Online communities come with real-world consequences for individuals and societies (Communications Psychology; the bibliography is fun)

How to find your community (Vox)

How to find healthy online communities (Mental Health America)

(Nostalgia trip) Online communities (Pew Research, 2001)

And more nostalgia - the classic 1995 Ghosts in the Machine

The 2024 presidential election is coming to some sort of conclusion (don't forget to vote), but 24/7 slog is making many of us anxious. Thankfully Belladonna made a post about 'How not to freak out about the US election' and plenty of people chimed with advice about how to stay somewhat calm. Hang in there everyone, an end is in sight!

Lewis W. Diuguid is a multimedia consultant, lecturer, freelance writer and editor, certified diversity facilitator. He is a former columnist, editorial board member, op-ed page editor, and letters editor at […]

The post Jounalist, author Lewis W. Diuguid observations: US election November 5, 2024 appeared first on KKFI.

Harris or Trump? The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Jerusalem assesses who Israelis and Palestinians want to win.

Polls predicted a tight race - then Donald Trump won a commanding victory. So what went wrong?

It has been a night of contrasting emotions as vote-counting continues across key swing states.

Donald Trump's impending White House return poses questions once again about conflicts of interest related to his business empire, with new cryptocurrency and other ventures raising fresh concerns.

The 2024 US Election: Global Consequences 26 September 2024 — 5:30PM TO 6:45PM Anonymous (not verified) 17 September 2024 Online

This webinar explores what is at stake for US policy in key regions around the globe.

In the lead up to the 2024 US presidential election, Chatham House experts discuss:

• What is at stake for US policy towards China, Europe, and Latin America and what challenges will confront the next US president?

• Can the US lead when its partners and allies are continually dissatisfied by the new turn in its trade and economic policy?

• What are the core humanitarian challenges and how can they be addressed?

Business Briefing: US election geopolitical and economic risk scenarios 10 October 2024 — 11:45AM TO 1:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 23 September 2024 Chatham House

Please join us for this critical discussion of the US Election related global business risks.

The outcome of the US presidential election will have significant, intersecting implications for global as well as American business. At stake will be the degree of continuity and stability on both the domestic and international fronts, with a Harris presidency pursuing policies building broadly on the Biden Administration and a second Trump Administration departing sharply from them—with both shaped and limited by control of Congress.

An already volatile geopolitical environment and global economy may become even more unpredictable in the face of potential American political instability and uncertain leadership in the international community.

Please join us for this critical session to discuss:

• How might trade policy differ between a Harris and Trump presidency? Will national security pressures, especially over China, lead to greater policy commonalities than expected?

• What might differing approaches to decarbonization and the energy transition mean for the future of policy toward EVs, critical mineral supply chains, and ‘green’ industrial subsidy?

• How might each Administration approach fiscal policy? Will either push for a tightening to the current loose policy—and what may be implications for US debt and the dollar?

• What economic effects can we expect in the case of a disputed election result or non-peaceful transfer of power—and will Corporate America be compelled to make public statements?

What the US election means for trade policy Expert comment LJefferson 10 October 2024

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump could not be more different when it comes to trade, despite a changed economic landscape.

Trade policy is playing a relatively subdued role in this autumn’s US election. Yes, former president Trump has proposed tariffs of anywhere from 20 per cent to 100 per cent, asserting the revenue could fund policy areas from deficit reduction to childcare, all while growing US employment and promoting world peace.
  
But unlike 2020, or even more 2016, the international trade architecture has not been a lively part of this year’s campaign. The two parties now start from a shared expectation of an international economic landscape shaped more by competition and industrial policy than by continued liberalization. However, the two presidential candidates’ views of which trade tools to use, and whether to proceed with allies and partners or unilaterally, could not be more different.

New set of trade expectations

A large part of the relative calm has to do with the emergence of a new set of expectations on trade that are shared across Republicans and Democrats, and that are unlikely to shift in the next four years regardless of who occupies the White House.

First, neither party can field the support to pass a traditional comprehensive free trade agreement through Congress. While each party still has a wing of elected officials who would like to see the US return to negotiating deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or attempt expansive new deals with Europe or in the Western Hemisphere, they are unlikely to reach critical mass in the immediate future, regardless of who holds the White House – or who controls Congress.

This shift in perception of the relative value of such deals – and their potential to cause political blowback for legislators – also means that the cost to any administration that wanted to propose such a deal would be high.

Second, there is broad bipartisan support to continue measures aimed at promoting US security in the face of high-technology challenges from Beijing that have both military and security applications. This means continued US activism in export controls and other more innovative measures.

Less divergence on clean energy

While there is also cross-party enthusiasm for approaches to building up US manufacturing that fall under the rubric of industrial policy, the parties diverge significantly when it comes to specific content. However, around clean energy that divergence will be less than the campaign trail rhetoric suggests.

Because clean energy generation is spread so broadly across the United States – with a great deal of wind and solar generation in Republican-governed ‘red states,’ and investment from the Inflation Reduction Act flowing to red states as much or more than blue ones – such incentives, and their effects on trade policy, are here to stay. Despite this, a Republican presidency or Congress will certainly seek to water down or eliminate parts of the Inflation Reduction Act that focus specifically on transition away from fossil fuels.
 
Coupled with this commitment to making America a clean energy superpower, there is considerable cross-party interest in trade initiatives that promote clean energy and manufacturing – whether from a climate perspective or a pure economic competitiveness perspective. A wide range of creative proposals are buzzing around Congress and think-tanks – from a carbon border measure, to resuscitating the Global Steel Arrangement, to critical mineral-focused deals. Though the topic is often overlooked in overviews of trade policy, it is the one where we are most likely to see classic trade tools used.

A vast difference between the two candidates

Beyond those broad strokes of an emerging ‘new Washington consensus,’ as former US trade representative and current head of the Council on Foreign Relations Michael Froman describes it: who wins the presidency will make a vast difference in what Washington does on trade – and how it aims to achieve its goals.

A Harris administration will aim to develop shared economic security agendas with allies and partners – quite possibly expanding beyond the Biden Administration’s G7 focus to pursue more deals with a broader range of partners. Trump, on the other hand, has explicitly said he will pursue US economic interests at the expense of allies and partners. ‘Under my leadership,’ he said in a speech in Georgia last month, ‘we’re going to take other countries’ jobs,’ specifically citing allies Germany and South Korea as targets.

While Vice-President Harris has criticized Trump’s tariff proposals, and noted their likely negative effects on consumers, she has not signalled that she would make changes to the tariffs on China first imposed by President Trump and then adjusted by President Biden. 
A Trump administration would use tariffs aggressively, but it remains absolutely unclear how. 

The US election could create the need for a G7 alternative – without American representation Expert comment jon.wallace 15 October 2024

Traditional allies of the US need to find a way to work together on some global policy issues even when the US itself is not engaged. A ‘G6 plus’ group could provide an answer.

When Jamaica pulled out of the nascent West Indies Federation in 1961, Trinidad and Tobago’s then prime minister, Dr Eric Williams, famously said ‘One from ten leaves nought’. In the run up to the US elections on 5 November, the US’s longstanding allies need to ask themselves if the same logic must apply to the G7. 

A Donald Trump victory will result in stark differences between the US and its closest partners on key global economic issues. US allies would no doubt try and persuade the new president to moderate his position, but experience suggests that this will have little, if any, effect.  

They may then want to work around the US, or on a parallel track. But doing so will be very hard unless they have a framework for discussing and developing ideas collectively. Could some form of ‘G6 plus’ forum help?

The role of the G7 today

The G7 no longer acts as a steering group for the global economy. However, it remains a critical forum for the US and its allies to coordinate their efforts to help solve global problems, to defend common Western interests, to resolve internal disputes and to underpin information exchange. 

In the past two years, the G7 has come to be seen by the US and other members as one of the most effective international mechanisms. It has played a critical role coordinating Western efforts to recover from the last pandemic and prepare for future ones.  

It has been pivotal in weakening Russia’s economy following the attack on Ukraine and has acted to strengthen Western economic security and resilience more broadly.  

The G7 has also responded to ‘Global South’ calls for help in dealing with the pandemic aftermath and the Ukraine war. 

Trump’s approach to the G7

The problem is that the G7’s effectiveness depends critically on full US engagement, sometimes as a leader of initiatives (such as the decision to impose an ‘oil price cap’ on Russia in autumn 2022) or as an essential partner. 

If elected, former President Trump is likely to abandon the G7 as an instrument of international economic policy. This is effectively what happened during his first presidency and there are reasons to expect this to be repeated. 

Many of Trump’s international economic policies are highly controversial with US allies, including his apparent determination to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, impose across the board 10-20 per cent tariffs and even punish countries for not using the dollar. His domestic policies, including mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and aggressive deregulation and fiscal easing could lead to further sharp disagreements.  

Furthermore, Trump demonstrates general antipathy towards multilateralism. Under his presidency, US representatives in the G7 and G20 sought to weaken core values and policies that have underpinned international economic cooperation for decades – including the importance of a rules based international system, the IMF’s global safety net role, and the responsibility of the advanced world to assist the poorest countries financially.  

Other G7 and G20 countries tried to preserve as much as possible of the previous consensus. But in the case of climate change, the only solution was to have a separate text for the US. Critically, such efforts diverted time and attention from the enormous challenges facing the world at the time. 

Trump went through four different G7/G20 Sherpas during his presidency and disowned the final declaration of the 2018 Canadian G7 summit after hundreds of hours of negotiation, and despite previously signing off on the text. The US failed to host a final leaders’ summit, even virtually, during his administration’s G7 presidency.  

Of course, how far Trump carries through his most radical policies will depend, among other things, on the outcome of the Congressional elections and the stance taken by US courts. 

He may also have second thoughts if elected. His first administration sometimes supported significant multilateral economic initiatives, notably the G20’s Debt Service Suspension Initiative and ‘Common Framework’ for debt rescheduling. 

But, in the event of a second Trump administration, the most likely scenario for the G7 is a repeat of the paralysis of 2017-20, which would be even more costly today.

Should Vice President Kamala Harris win on 5 November, the situation should in theory be very different. She will likely continue with President Joe Biden’s collaborative approach to the G7.

Nonetheless, major issues may still arise where America’s allies want to take a fundamentally different approach and need a mechanism to do so. These could include policy on the WTO, de-risking the economic relationship with China, restricting carbon leakage, and regulating US-dominated big tech.  

How should US allies respond?

No US ally will want to be seen to be leading development of a new ‘G6’ that excludes the US. The top priority will be securing the best possible relationship with the incoming president. Political weakness and/or new governments in France, Germany, the UK and Japan will add to this hesitancy.

Any new forum will therefore need to be as low profile as possible. The concept should initially be discussed in private by sherpas from each participating country. Once established, officials should as far as possible meet online. Leaders should only meet online, at least initially.  

Participants should be fully transparent about the forum’s existence and avoid any grand ‘framing’ along the lines of the EU’s ‘strategic autonomy’. Instead, it should be described as a practical, largely technocratic forum intended to coordinate activity among Western economic powers in those areas where the US chooses not to engage. A suitably innocuous name – such as the ‘the sustainable growth club’ could help.

Topics should be limited to those requiring urgent collective global action, such as climate, health, tech governance, development finance and trade – and where the US federal government is not an ‘essential’ partner. Such a forum should not therefore address defence.  

US election rhetoric on migration undermines Washington’s soft power in Latin America Expert comment jon.wallace 23 October 2024

As US public opinion hardens, the Democratic party takes a tougher stance, and Donald Trump proposes mass deportations, Latin American leaders note a lack of long-term policy.

The US’s broken immigration system has become a central theme of the 2024 election campaign. But the discussion on immigration, undocumented immigrants, and asylum seekers – increasingly lurching into dehumanizing rhetoric – extends beyond US borders. 

As one former senior director of the National Security Council told me, ‘when the president travels or meets with heads of state from Latin America what comes up –regardless of the country – isn’t US–Cuba policy or even trade. It’s immigration’. How the US talks about and treats citizens of Latin American and the Caribbean matters to elected politicians in the region. 

The roots of the US immigration debate go deep and will not be easily resolved, even with a sweeping reform of the system. 

According to a January 2024 Pew survey, 78 per cent of Americans ‘say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country at the Mexico border is either a crisis (45 per cent) or a major problem (32 per cent)’. Worries about the border are not limited to Republican voters: 73 per cent of Democrats feel that the issue is either a crisis or major problem. 

Despite the heated popular temperature, the numbers of undocumented immigrants encountered at the US–Mexico border has actually dropped in recent months. US Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) reported 301,981 encounters with irregular border crossings in December 2023; by August 2024 this had dropped to 107,473.  

Nevertheless, illegal border crossings have increased under Biden. During his administration USCBP reported 8 million encounters along the Mexico border compared to 2.5 million under Donald Trump. 

Mexico

Any attempt to address the issue promises to affect US relations with Mexico, requiring the cooperation of newly elected president Claudia Sheinbaum. Her predecessor and founder of her Morena party, leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), proved an unexpectedly cooperative partner for the previous Trump administration and Biden White House. 

But that came at a cost, particularly for Biden. In return for AMLO’s cooperation, the US soft-pedalled criticism over his failures to disrupt narcotics trafficking and criminal networks and for his steady weakening of checks on executive power. 

Mexico’s borders with other countries are also under pressure. Mexico remains the primary sending country to the US. But political repression and insecurity in countries including Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala and Venezuela has pushed their citizens to travel across Mexico to the US. Economic collapse and humanitarian crises in Cuba and Venezuela have further fuelled the flight.

Rhetoric

The Kamala Harris and Trump campaigns have struck different positions on how to stem the flow of illegal immigration. But as US public opinion shifts, both parties are talking tougher. 

Harris is continuing Biden’s hardening stance, including the controversial move to bar those who cross the border illegally from applying for asylum. 

Biden’s early ‘roots’ strategy, to provide economic and security support in countries from where migrants are travelling, has fallen by the wayside. 

The Trump campaign is taking more extreme positions. The Republican presidential candidate mentions immigration in almost every campaign speech. 

He proposes to carry out the ‘largest deportation in US history’, using ICE personnel, the National Guard and local police forces to round up undocumented immigrants, including in their workplaces. 

The campaign has also pledged to end birth-right citizenship and Biden’s programme of parole for humanitarian reasons. Trump also plans to restore his first term policies including construction of the border wall. 

Trump’s proposals provide little opportunity for a broad, bipartisan consensus on immigration. Should he win in November he is likely, as he did in his first term, to attempt to push his policies via executive action, opening up challenges in federal court. 

A Harris victory would at least create space for the resurrection of the Biden administration’s 2024 immigration enforcement bill, originally supported by moderate Republican leadership in the Senate, but defeated following pressure from Trump. 

The bill would have toughened enforcement at the border – increasing funding for detention centres, asylum hearings and for local governments and border patrols. It would also permit ICE to shut down the border when crossings surpassed an average of 5,000 per day or 8,500 on a single day.

Undermining US influence

But such legislation, while promising to address domestic US perceptions of the crisis, threatens to reduce US soft power in Latin America. That would be counterproductive at a time when the US is attempting to consolidate global support in its competition with China and conflict with Russia. 

For Latin American leaders, US rhetoric on immigration rankles. The priorities of Latin American and Caribbean leaders and their voters are long term: economic growth, improved security, and climate change. These issues require investment and commitment from an engaged and reliable US partner. Sadly, Latin Americans can see such issues are not on the domestic agenda in US politics. 

To improve regional perceptions of US intentions after the election, new policy should seek to address the root causes of migration. That will require a multi-pronged, bipartisan approach that focuses attention and resources on US neighbours south of the border.  

The US’s immigration system will need to broaden paths for legal immigration to meet US labour needs, while delivering increased support for border security, and accelerated (and humane) processes for detaining and repatriating illegal border crossers and asylum claims.  

But any sustainable answer also requires addressing the multifaceted reasons driving migrants north. Any future US administration will need to risk unpopularity with some voters at home and engage with sending countries and their neighbours. 

Impact of the US Election on Global Climate Politics 25 November 2020 — 1:00PM TO 2:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 16 November 2020 Online

Panellists discuss how Joe Biden’s victory will impact international efforts to tackle climate change. Will climate finally become a common area for global cooperation?

Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump is already having a positive impact on international efforts to tackle climate change. Leaders from across the world, including the UK, Canada, Australia and Fiji, have used their first messages to the President-elect to draw attention to the climate crisis.

Biden has promised to re-join the global community in its commitment to the Paris Agreement – but this could be the easy part. More difficult will be whether and how Biden is able to deliver his ambitious climate plan, and how effectively he is able to integrate climate change into foreign policy efforts and national security strategies.

Global climate action has also moved forward in the last four years. The European Union recently pledged to become climate neutral by 2050, and China, Japan and South Korea have committed to achieving carbon neutral economies.

How will the US re-enter this global landscape of distributed leadership and what difficulties does it face? Will the US be willing to work within a competitive partnership with the EU and China? How will Biden’s win change the dynamic of COP26 next year? 

The dollar slid on Monday as investors braced for a potential pivot this week for the global economy as the United States chooses a new leader, and as it likely cuts interest rates again with major implications for bond yields.

US Indo-Pacific Relations on the Eve of US Elections 2024 US Indo-Pacific Relations on the Eve of US Elections 2024

Twitch have introduced a new "Politics and Sensitive Social Issues" label for streams that "focus" on topics like "elections, civic integrity, and war or military conflict". As with the streaming giant's existing labels for M-rated material, sexual themes or depictions of gambling, the idea is that viewers can filter out such streams in advance by altering their settings.

Advertisers, similarly, can "make better choices about the content they want to advertise next to" - in other words, pull their ads from a whole swathe of material if they don't want to be associated with anything controversial. Twitch's hope is that "the labels will allow advertisers to have more context to inform which types of streams they show their ads alongside, which we expect to increase brands’ confidence in running ads on Twitch, and could bring new advertisers to our service."

Read more

AI search engine embraces 2024 US election with live tracker and chatbot info hub.

The upcoming US presidential election will determine how the country regulates tech, combats the climate crisis and decides on access to abortion

The accounts are part of pro-Trump and pro-Harris networks sharing each other’s content multiple times a day.

Sundar Pichai stressed to employees that Google's products must be a trusted info source for all, amid White House vote counting.