Hacker News

points by chasd00 3 days ago | 0 comments

Happens every time Democrats win office, then it slowly trickles back up. The anti-datacenter vote screws up a lot of plans but the lack of power generation had already screwed up much of them anyway. He who shouldn't be named said that all these software people are in for a rude awakening when they try to scale real world infrastructure at the rate they're use to scaling virtual software infrastructure.

[–] enjoyyourlife 3 days ago

Additionally voters rebuffed data centers in every ballot measure

See https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/04/data-center-ballot-measures-...

[–] SoftTalker 3 days ago

There's always market volatility in the time surrounding elections, no matter which party dominates. Once the uncertainty settles down, the markets usually do as well.

[–] tencentshill 2 days ago

Trump is/was the very agent of uncertainty himself. Destroyed years of corporate plans and preparations every waking hour with random tariff announcements. Literally a one-man recession.

[–] jiggawatts 2 days ago

I’m surprised his tariffs didn’t have a bigger impact, I fully expected them to crater the US economy.

[–] mandeepj 2 days ago

The economy toppled the regime; At least, what Red leaders are saying. You are missing out.

https://x.com/JeffFlake/status/2118355575356727470

https://x.com/tedcruz/status/2118125881067487633

[–] SoftTalker 2 days ago

Always does. They forgot the organizing principle of Bill Clinton's campaign: It's the economy, stupid!

A lot of people liked Trump's brash and swaggering personality but not to the point that they stopped caring about their pocketbook.

[–] jpadkins 2 days ago

is it possible you were mislead?

[–] selectodude 2 days ago

The American consumer might be the most resilient thing on the planet. Blows my mind but there you have it.

[–] UltraSane 2 days ago

They were basically just a national sales tax.

[–] sagarm 2 days ago

Nope, because it was also a tax on inputs. Worse, supply chains that crossed the border multiple times would be taxed multiple times. The chaos also made it impossible to plan.

[–] SoftTalker 2 days ago

Trump was certainly an outlier, but the observation holds.

Trump (come January anyway) is a lame duck now, especially with a blue Congress. He won't get anything substantial through Congress and everyone's attention will will rapidly shift to who is running in 2028. Nobody on the R side will be seeking or hoping for his endorsement; his leverage over them has been neutralized; they will be working on new messaging to get their traditional voters back. That campaign started on Wednesday.

[–] grey-area 2 days ago

Sure, he's also a self-centred fool who hates being ignored and thinks he can run again in 2028. I expect him to bomb Iran in the next few days, and congress/senate to be too slow/weak to stop him.

[–] SoftTalker 2 days ago

I don't think so. I would not be a bit surprised if impeachment proceedings were started on January 3 (though I think it not to be the best use of their time, they certainly aren't going to listen to me).

[–] Itoldmyselfso 2 days ago

He's already been impeached twice, with very little coming out of it. Many republicans would have to truly abandon him for any drastic consequences to happen.

[–] grey-area 2 days ago

I fervently hope you're right.

[–] humanlion87 2 days ago

He has been pushing a lot of his agenda via executive orders. I doubt Congress is going to stop him since he can veto whatever he wants.

[–] Terr_ 2 days ago

> Trump (come January anyway) is a lame duck now

I'm concerned that this might rest too heavily on the presumption of regularity and legality.

There's a lot of (additional) illegal stuff Trump could do if 33 out of ~44 Republican senators are willing to pretend it's not "enough" to remove him from office.

[–] ted_bunny 2 days ago

People always forget the Erdoǧan Principle. Democracy is a train. You take it to where you want to go, and then you step off.

[–] sagarm 2 days ago

This is cope. Trump is still very popular among Republican primary voters. An anti-Trump candidate faces an uphill battle with the base of the party.

[–] asdff 2 days ago

He’s great if you are in his circle due to the prolific insider trading opportunities. Might be the most lucrative presidency ever for some people in this country.

[–] jerlam 2 days ago

This election was different in that the polling leading up to the election was more incorrect than usual, but in the opposite way as previous recent elections. People made financial decisions based on those bad polls. This wasn't the usual midterm backlash.

[–] lesuorac 2 days ago

What plan did people make that falls apart when Democrats aren’t in office for a couple months?

[–] Forgeties79 2 days ago

This is a myth. You can see in both 2018 and 2020, both of which saw Democrat victories, that NASDAQ composite actually went up within 24 hours. Same with the dow. You also see the nasdaq still up a week later in 2018. It was like 2% down in 2020 a week later, which is not meaningful for this argument especially given Covid is a confounding factor. I stopped doing research after this point for specific examples.

There is no meaningful trend or change that happens after elections. Some sector see some weird shifts that correct generally within days

[–] chasd00 2 days ago

That’s what I said, the market swings and then eventually comes back to normal.

[–] dgellow 2 days ago

You can say Elon

[–] horns4lyfe 2 days ago

Who are you talking about?

[–] johnsimer 2 days ago

Elon Musk, on the Dwarkesh podcast

[–] apt-apt-apt-apt 2 days ago

Voldemort, presumably

[–] ajross 2 days ago

> Happens every time Democrats win office

With all respect, that's ridiculous analysis. Even if that were true, the election was the day BEFORE yesterday! You're telling me that the entire world of trading and investment was unable to see the obvious news on their televisions and needed to wait an entire trading day before issuing the sell orders? No one was able to front run this?

That's just silly, sorry.

[–] dodger-dog 2 days ago

"then it slowly trickles back up" as it slowly dawns on people that very littel has changed.

[–] paulpauper 3 days ago

Too much leverage if I had to guess. Stop losses got triggered at the correction threshold.

[–] johsole 2 days ago

> He who shouldn't be named

You had a good comment until this line.

[–] chasd00 2 days ago

If I had said Elon Musk then there would just be a sea of replies about how evil he is and then more about how amazing he is. It’s best to not even mention his name on HN if you want to stay on topic.

[–] bryanlarsen 3 days ago

The fate of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act will be highly instructive. It's a bill that's fabulous for renewable energy, good for affordability, good for fossil fuel interests, and could likely pass with a filibuster-proof and veto-proof majority if the Dems don't sabotage it.

Almost all of the interconnect backlog is renewables, so this helps renewables far more than it helps fossil interests, but some progressives want to sabotage the bill because it could theoretically help fossil fuel interests. Yet, there's no way a "better" bill would get past filibuster or Trump's veto.

We'll find out if Democrats let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. Whether they're willing to compromise to get things done.