“France’s government collapsed Wednesday following a vote of no confidence in the country’s prime minister, pushing the country’s political future into chaos and exacerbating its budgetary and looming economic crises.
The successful vote means center-right Prime Minister Michel Barnier will be out of a job, and that French President Emmanuel Macron will need to find someone to replace him. That’s not expected to be an easy task: While the president nominates prime ministers in France, his picks can be ousted at any time by no confidence votes, like Barnier was. And the National Assembly, the lower house of France’s parliament, is almost evenly divided between the far right, a loosely united and contentious left wing, and centrists including Macron’s allies. Few candidates will please all three factions.
Disagreement about who should be prime minister following surprise elections this past summer led to Barnier’s rise. He was seen as a capable, if not popular, choice for the job, and won enough approval to win the prime minister’s post. But he faced a significant challenge of trying to govern without a majority. His recent attempt to push through a 2025 national budget without a vote in the lower house of parliament infuriated lawmakers on both the right and left. As a result, France’s far-right party and its left-wing alliance each put forward no-confidence motions.
Now, France is stuck. Without a prime minister, the government’s ability to pass laws is hampered. In the long term, Barnier’s removal could deepen France’s ongoing budget crisis and is a reflection of an unprecedented polarization in French politics, for which a solution seems far out of reach.”
“Since taking Aleppo, HTS has “said all the right things,” said Ford, noting that Christian services were held on Sunday. The group has published a statement proclaiming “diversity is our strength” and calling for solidarity with Aleppo’s Kurdish population.
Alhamdo, the activist from Aleppo, told Vox he was not a supporter of HTS’s ideology, but gave them credit for their tactical leadership on the battlefield and felt that “they are developing their mentality.”
Ford, who spearheaded the move to designate the group — under its former name — as a terrorist organization when he served in the Obama administration, told Vox he “would be hard-pressed now, in 2024, to legally justify a listing” for the group in its current incarnation.
Of course, not everyone is likely to buy the group’s rebranding effort. That includes the Biden administration as well as regional governments, like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which used to staunchly back the Syrian opposition, but are fearful of the overtly Islamist turn some opposition groups have taken. These are the governments that have also been reaching out to try to normalize relations with Assad.
“For the UAE especially, HTS is Islamist. It is the Muslim Brotherhood. It is evil incarnate, no matter how many permutations it has undertaken,” Slim said. “This group was al-Qaeda, and it’s going to take a lot of change to convince the US, or the Saudis, or the Egyptians that it really has changed.””
…
“Another group involved in the rebel coalition is the Syrian National Army (SNA), which despite its name is a Turkish-backed proxy militia. Turkey has a more wary relationship with HTS, but reportedly gave the green light to the SNA’s involvement in the operation due to Assad’s unwillingness to engage in talks earlier this year.
Turkey’s bigger concern, though, is the Kurdish-dominated statelet that has emerged in Syria’s northeast. The Syrian Kurdish forces, known as the SDF, have been America’s primary allies in the ongoing campaign against ISIS, but Turkey views them as a branch of the PKK, the Turkey-based Kurdish militant group that has fought a decades-long insurgency against the Turkish government. The Turkish military and its proxy forces have launched several incursions over the border into Syria to push the Kurdish forces back.
The SDF also controlled some pockets of territory in and around Aleppo but has withdrawn from these as the rebels have advanced. Sinam Mohamad, the representative in Washington for the Syrian Democratic Council — as the predominantly Kurdish government in northeast Syria is known — said she believes Turkey is “planning to occupy some Syrian lands in order to destroy the autonomous administration of northeast Syria.” Despite the HTS’s assurances that Kurds have nothing to fear from Aleppo’s new rulers, she told Vox the group is a “terrorist organization” and that “we are really afraid about the minorities, especially the Kurdish people, in Aleppo city.””
…
“Iran and Russia — even in their diminished capacity — are unlikely to completely abandon a regime they see as strategically vital.
But even if the rebel offensive does not get much farther than the area it currently controls, their rapid success demonstrates a couple of important lessons. One, the war in Syria is not over. Many of the fighters who entered Aleppo this week were young children when the uprising against Assad began more than a decade ago, and there could well be years more fighting to come.
Second, it’s a mistake to consider conflicts like Syria in isolation. The Syrian conflict is often called a “civil war,” which generally means a war fought by factions existing within one country. But at the conflict’s height, it drew in countries from around the region, as well as the United States and Russia, presaging similar lines of conflict in Ukraine. Through the rise of ISIS, the massive global refugee crisis, and the spread of illegal drugs, it has had truly global ripple effects. Like a feedback loop, events abroad — particularly in Lebanon and Ukraine — are now helping drive events on the ground in Syria.
The latest offensive will have its own ripple effects. Optimistically, it could allow for refugees from Aleppo living abroad and elsewhere in Syria to return home, and weaken or even topple a truly odious regime, one that has used chemical weapons on its own people and is believed to have killed tens of thousands of civilians.
Pessimistically, it could lead to more chaos and displacement. HTS may yet go back to its former jihadist ways, the horrific levels of violence we saw years ago could return, more regional actors could be drawn in, and jihadist groups like ISIS could take advantage of the chaos to reconstitute themselves.
The world may have thought it was done with Syria. But Syrians themselves are not done, and the world has no choice but to pay attention again.”
“a broader analysis of global trends shows that Harris was fighting against some pretty strong headwinds and that any Democratic victory or overperformance would have turned out to be quite the global anomaly.
By the time 2024 is done, more voters will have gone to the polls than in any other year in history. And among the half of the world’s population living in a country with a national election this year, a clear and consistent picture has emerged: Voters are extremely upset with their governments.
Among democracies* that held elections this year, over 80 percent saw the incumbent party lose seats or vote share from the last election. That includes democracies of all kinds and in all corners of the globe.”
“According to exit polls, 55 percent of men voted for Trump in 2024, compared to 45 percent of women, for a 10-point gender gap — 1 point less than the 11-point gap in support for Trump in both 2020 and 2016.*
Compared to other exit polling results that point to how Trump’s victory may have boiled down to a referendum on President Joe Biden and the economy, this relatively static gender gap may not point to gender as a major factor in the election. But differences in the gender gap across groups of voters — such as growing gaps among Black and Latino voters — can tell us more about the country’s changing partisan landscape. And there’s a reason gender has also been widely discussed in the aftermath of Election Day: The role that gender played in each party’s 2024 presidential campaigns highlights a potential shift in the parties’ approaches to male and female voters, and how voters think about gender and politics.”
…
“Trump’s 11-point gap in support between men and women in 2016 and 2020 was a record, but men have been consistently more likely than women to back Republicans since 1980. From then until 2016, the gender gap in support for Republicans ranged from 0 points (in 1992) to 10 points (in 2000), according to exit polls. (The phenomenon of men consistently showing stronger support for the more ideologically conservative party than women is not limited to the U.S., either.)”
…
“the gender gap isn’t uniform across all groups. For example, white men and women voted more similarly to each other in 2024 than Black or Latino men and women.”
…
“Nonwhite and younger voters had the largest gender gaps”
…
“in 2020 Trump won 61 percent of white men and 55 percent of white women, for a 6-point gender gap among white voters. That gap was just 1 point bigger this year according to exit polls — 60 percent to 53 percent, for a 7-point gender gap among white voters. But the gender gap among nonwhite voters increased by significantly more.
Among Black voters, even as the vast majority of both men and women voted Democratic in both elections, Trump gained 2 points of support among men and lost 2 among women, moving the gender gap from 10 points in 2020 to 14 points in 2024. The gap is even more striking among Latino voters, one of the groups among whom Trump gained the most support overall compared to 2020. Four years ago, 36 percent of Latino men and 30 percent of Latino women supported Trump, a gender gap of just 6 points. That gap nearly tripled in 2024, as Trump’s support among Latino men went up by almost 20 percentage points: He won 55 percent of Latino men and 38 percent of Latino women, for a gender gap of 17 points.”
…
“49 percent of men and 37 percent of women aged 18 to 29 supported Trump, for a 12-point gender gap, 3 points larger than in 2020. The gap among men and women aged 30 to 39 was also 12 points, while it actually shrank among voters over 50.”
“In January, Delaware Rep.-elect Sarah McBride will also make history in congressional representation, becoming the first openly transgender individual to serve in Congress. But once again, being a trailblazer has come with challenges.
In response to McBride’s election, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution last week intended to ban transgender women like McBride from using women’s bathrooms in the Capitol. House Speaker Mike Johnson initially equivocated on the issue, but under pressure from fellow Republicans like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, he issued a statement that all single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House offices “are reserved for individuals of that biological sex.” Mace has since followed up with an even more sweeping proposal, a bill that would apply a transgender bathroom ban to all facilities on federal property.”
…
“56 percent of Americans said they agreed more that “transgender rights have gone too far, infringing on the rights of women and children,” compared to 32 percent who said they agreed more that “protecting transgender rights is essential to ensuring equality for all Americans.” And in another YouGov poll last week, a plurality of 43 percent of Americans said they’d prefer their congressional representatives to focus more on upholding traditional definitions of gender, versus 30 percent who wanted them to focus more on protecting the rights of transgender people (12 percent said neither, and 15 percent were unsure).
When it comes to specific policies, about half of Americans in that poll (including 78 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats) seemed to agree with Mace on bathroom bans, telling YouGov they think transgender people should use bathrooms that correspond to their assigned sex at birth, while 34 percent thought they should use bathrooms that align with their current gender identity, or either option.
Slightly more voters also seem to favor bans on sports participation, while opinions are split on banning gender-affirming care for youth. In an October UMass Amherst poll, a plurality of Americans, 47 percent, supported bans on transgender individuals’ participation in school sports teams matching their gender identity, compared to just 25 percent who opposed them (the rest were undecided). In a Morning Consult poll of registered voters from Nov. 6-7, 56 percent said they would support and 30 percent said they would oppose banning transgender girls and women from competing in high school and college sports. Meanwhile, 39 percent in the UMass Amherst poll said they would oppose policies to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth, while fewer, 35 percent, said they would support them. And in the Morning Consult poll, more were still in favor of the bans: 46 percent, compared to 39 percent opposed.”
…
“in an October CNN poll, registered voters were asked if they supported federal policies that were more supportive or more restrictive of transgender rights: Their answers were about evenly split between those options, but a plurality, 42 percent, said they “don’t have strong feelings either way.” That indicates that these issues may not be as pressing or important to many Americans as they are to politicians hoping to fan the culture war flames.”