Why Kamala Harris Lost
Being "not Trump" wasn't enough for voters who wanted "not Biden."

Few realistic political observers expected a blowout for Kamala Harris. But Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election was far from guaranteed, either. For most of Harris' relatively brief candidacy, she and Trump appeared to be locked in a very tight race. So Harris' incredibly dismal showing was also somewhat unexpected. She came up short in both the Electoral College and the popular vote, lost all seven swing states, and lost ground with most demographic groups. Even in reliably Democratic strongholds such as New Jersey and New York, Harris underperformed.
Some people are chalking Harris' loss up to sexism, misogyny, and racism. And no doubt some small segment of voters were motivated by such things, as some people always are. But one needn't imagine a mass hate wave to explain Trump's victory.
In the weeks leading up to the election, candidate Harris struggled to define herself as polls repeatedly showed little daylight between her and Trump. Often, Trump's flaws seemed to be Harris' main selling point: She was not Trump. But who was she? Even Harris herself seemed scared to say.
Throughout her brief campaign, Harris strenuously avoided laying out detailed plans or positions, outside of pledging to protect abortion access. Shehad an especially hard time articulating how her administration would be different from Biden's not-terribly-popular presidency or how she would turn things like inflation around.
This struggle to differentiate herself from Biden makes sense in light of her career history. Harris is probably best understood as an ambitious vessel for whatever drives Democratic voters in a given era. She represents the Democratic Party establishment through and through.
If Harris has any personal political priorities or animating ideology at her core, they've been buried so deep as to basically be undetectable—entirely subsumed by skilled pandering to the progressive zeitgeist. That's why Harris has a reputation as a flip-flopper. That's why she spent so much of her short 2024 campaign walking back positions she took during the rather different days of 2019 and 2020. And it's why she tried hard not to stake out strong positions on most issues this time around.
Yes, Harris had reproductive rights on her side. But while that's been a huge issue this election, it's only one issue—and not even one where Trump, who says he doesn't want a nationwide abortion ban, totally disagrees.
Though Harris' campaign largely avoided detailed policy proposals, we did get some glimpses of what a President Harris hoped to have in store for us. It included an incoherent "Medicare at Home" benefit, national rent-control policies, tax hikes on businesses, giving $25,000 to first-time homebuyers, giving "1 million loans that are fully forgivable" to "Black entrepreneurs and others" who want to start businesses, and some form of federal price controls for groceries—or, at least, a federal clampdown on price gouging, whatever that would have turned out to mean. And a continuation of Biden-era foreign policy, hostility toward mergers, intrusion into health care (including forcing insurance companies to cover over-the-counter contraception, and perhaps all sorts of over-the-counter products, with no cost sharing), and a weird fixation on so-called junk fees.
A lot of these proposals are promoted as ways to lower prices, increase opportunity, and help economically struggling Americans. But in practice, these policies would shift costs around or even drive them up, while throttling innovation and making everything from housing to condoms less affordable. They also lack a sort of cohesive appeal—a metanarrative or vision that the campaign could easily sell.
In many ways, a Harris presidency promised to be a continuation of the past four years. Harris would have put a glossier and more modern spin on the surface, but underneath it was the same selectively progressive and economically nonsensical schtick. Not a huge departure—but not an old white man (take your pick which) of questionable cognitive functioning.
That seemed to be mostly what the Harris campaign was selling. Voters apparently wanted something different.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She didn't really flip-flop or walk much back. Unnamed campaign staffers seem to be the source of most positions where she supposedly moderated. She avoided saying anything and despite blowing through a massive war chest in 3 months also did very little campaigning. The polls were always bs. Despite how hard the media tried to gaslight the public, there were enough voters who could see and feel the results of the Biden administrations stupid/malicious policies. Harris didn't do anything to separate from that.
A smarter evaluation of the election would consider that Trump ran a great campaign with many iconic moments. He brought in big names from across the aisle. While he did a lot of pandering that met with mostly apathy, he stuck to his guns on major issues. The Biden administration has been awful on just about everything. Trump offers a reversal of the state of affairs and Harris offered a continuation of the current dysfunction as an unlikable puppet who came across as even more mentally deficient and inept than corpse Biden.
You're harshing ENB's narrative.
GOOD
Did he? ENB;dr.
Her biggest problem is that the Democrats have spent decades pandering to specific groups, dividing up the nation and hoping the most special interests glommed onto them. Remember Obama's "coalition of the ascendents"? When it got down to policy she ran on specific focus group policies to appeal to them no matter if it alienated a different one. This destroyed the "white guys for harris", "black women for harris", "gays for harris" etc because there was no unifying policy theme which Trump had. Trump promised to do things for all Americans not balkanized special interest groups. While Harris was paying Beyonce, Pink, Oprah etc to show up at concert gigs where people were there for them not her, Trump was holding rallies in Indianola, IN, Rocky Mt, NC, Bozeman, MT and St.Cloud, MN pulling in thousands.
That "ascendants" was just another revelation of how progressives think of themselves: superior and entitled to rule. And at least some of them expect us to recognize that as justification to bow down. With Joy.
It is now reported she spent 2B in 3 months and lost.
Even dems like Carville are calling for an audit.
Those celebrity endorsements cost MONEY!
As does all virtue signaling. But clever virtue grifters do it with other people's money.
So do "interviews" apparently. Maybe take a look at her campaign's bribery payments to Al Sharpton. What a clown car full of dildos.
That is a truly insane amount of money to spend on an election, and it shows exactly how fiscally sane her administration would have been had she won.
An audit probably won't find much more than spending millions on endorsements and just a tremendous and insane amount of waste and foolish spending. It's not outside the realm of possibility that a lot of that money somehow made it's way into her pockets, but I also doubt an audit would make that clear either.
What is super clear is that she has no notion of bang for a buck, and would spend the country into oblivion with confiscatory tax policy that would make King George III blush.
It was mentioned by carville that millions went to organizations set up by her campaign staff.
I would see 2 ads from her campaign every commercial break here. All the ads are terrible.
Just harassing viewers probably backfired. Most dems I know were even sick of her ads.
That's basically how I would assume any funds would end up in her pocket since that's been how it works for as long as I've been alive.
Set up proxy organizations that answer to you in reality if not on paper and shuffle funds around until it ends up in a bank account you control.
It's just staggering that her campaign could spend that much and have so little to show for it against Trump in particular.
It reminds me of Richard Pryor's version of Brewster's Millions when he was running for office. He realized you could waste a nearly infinite amount of money and have...nothing by the end of it which was his goal.
YouTube kept trying to push her ads through my ad filter there. Kept having to reset the damn thing due to that shit. And yes, they were absolutely terrible ads.
I bet Kamala has a very good idea of bang for a buck, or what else she can get for a bang.
^+1
She'd have done better if she learned what bang you can get for being a competent human being.
The endorsements and oversaturation would be fine. What they've already found is a bunch of self-dealing outside normal bounds as well as payoffs to media personalities she went to interview with. So if paying a lawyer for an NDA is a crime then there should be enough to put them all in orange jumpsuits for decades.
I read that at first as "King Kong III".
What is super clear is that she has no notion of bang for a buck
Willie Brown disagrees.
Not to mention that her campaign is at least $20 million in the red at the end of it all. She blew through their money and then some.
Maybe people will shut up about "buying elections" now.
Whatever good she might possibly have earned herself was undone with one sentence: "Not a Thing That Comes to Mind".
Vance rode the line throughout the campaign of supporting Trump policies while also acknowledging that he does differ in some areas. Out from the shadow as VP, Harris could easily have criticized the results of some of Biden's policies. She could even have softened the blow by admitting her different proposal benefits from hindsight.
She's an unlikeable empty suit. In contrast, Trump is polarizing, but entertaining and centered his campaign on making the country better for its citizens.
Hillary was unlikeable but is smart, Harris is unlikable, empty and dumb. Unlikeable and stupid is a hard life unless you are one of the DEI class.
Harris is both unlikable and unremarkable. At least Hillary Clinton was remarkable if remarkable in a way we all seem to hate.
An obvious answer was opposing the OSHA vaccine mandate.
Biden and Harris are both empty vessels, filled from the same Prog tap. Of course she couldn't think of anything to do "different".
Well, she wasn't actually gonna do anything. Ever. She was gonna run the country the same way Joe Biden has run the country: not in the slightest.
So what is she supposed to say? I'm gonna do X, Y and Z? That's somebody else's job.
Well, that's true. She, like Biden, was just going to be the puppet with Obama's hand up her ass.
But did she like it more?
Arguably more used it it, anyway.
Fair point. It may have been a rare honest moment.
"...but not an old white man (take your pick which) of questionable cognitive functioning."
Yes, this! Butt twat happened to the choice of... VOTING LIBERTARIAN?!?!!? Twat are Libertarians anyway, leftover chopped turkey liver?
"Some people are chalking Harris' loss up to sexism, misogyny, and racism. And no doubt some small segment of voters were motivated by such things, as some people always are."
I really get tired of this talking point. Set aside that 'misogyny' is redundant once you've mentioned 'sexism'. Harris actually benefited from sexism and racism!
Seriously, that she was a (sorta) black woman was her only selling point, she was an affirmative action hire to begin with! She's literally the last person who should be complaining about sexism and racism, she'd have gotten nowhere without them.
More people were voting for her out of sexist and racist motives, than were voting against her for such reasons.
"More people were voting for her out of sexist and racist motives, than were voting against her for such reasons."
100%
Yup. And to some of us, a voter choosing to support a candidate based on race and sex is just as racist and sexist as a voter choosing to deny a candidate for those reasons.
In 2024, I will bet the farm that more people voted for Harris than against her based on sexism.
Misandry.
Seriously, that she was a (sorta) black woman was her only selling point, she was an affirmative action hire to begin with!
Given two paths to elite status when it isn't justified by merit, which do you think is more unjust? Being an "affirmative action hire" or being born into great wealth? Besides, what actual evidence is there that Harris didn't earn her success? Did she have below average grades and test scores compared to her peers accepted at the universities she attended for her undergraduate degree and law school? Did she have weak resumes for any jobs she was hired to do afterwards? Is there evidence that voters in S.F. and CA picked her because of her gender and race and not because of the policies she campaigned on? Or is it just a matter of faith that she didn't earn it because she's a female minority and a Democrat?
On the other hand, it is a matter of established fact that Donald J. Trump was born with a multimillionaire father, It is a fact that he was diagnosed with bone spurs by a podiatrist that had an office in one of his father's buildings, and that is how he got a draft deferment in 1968. It is a fact that he went into his father's business and benefited from all of his father's connections, had assistance in cash and credit backing on his early projects, and inherited hundreds of millions of dollars.
And yet, it is Trump that is worshiped by his fans as being "self-made". I'll give Trump credit for one talent: being able to build an image of himself as a mythical figure of success.
Only a willfully blind ignoramus could claim no knowledge of how Kamala jump started her career and how her staffs loathed her.
Willie Brown's staff liked her well enough.
In the end, even Willie Brown’s staff got sick of her shit.
Whoa! He got in through the back door? Why hasn't sarc mentioned this to Chase, he could have won hugely if he'd been gay!
No, Sarcasmic has assured us that you can't vote for teh gays.
Yes Kamal was in the bottom of her class and failed the bar exam.
I hear she did better on her oral exam.
Her most crucial oral exams were performed for Willie Brown’s staff.
And born of 2 wealthy professors but still only got into law school, lower tier, based on being a minority. Then worked to block that path to any conservative student.
AA will always be worse. It is an elevation based fully on the white guilt of those that put her there.
At least those born into wealth must still work to maintain that amount (at a minimum).
^ This is the slimy pile of lefty shit who supports murder for no discernable reason:
"JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, asshole.
The proper term is "eat shit and die"
If Trump had gotten the Republican nomination at the age of 35, you might have fairly said he got it by being born into great wealth.
But he didn't, he got it when he was 70. By then he had a life of his own.
A lot of people inherit a million dollars. Very few parlay it into billions of dollars, none of which occurred once he entered politics.
Now let's see if JasonT20 wants to tell us how his wonderful Bernie, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, the Clintons, AOC, etc. all made their millions, because none of them had great wealth before they entered politics.
But Democrats still complain about conservatives who get rich in order to get into politics, but not about liberals who get into politics in order to get rich. I guess that makes sense if you see government as an industry.
A lot of people inherit a million dollars. Very few parlay it into billions of dollars, none of which occurred once he entered politics.
He inherited a lot more than "a million dollars". The total isn't accurately known since not much of it was public information, I imagine, but I don't see any disputes when it is reported as being a few hundred million, when transfers before Fred Trump's death are included.
Trump's success in real estate, such as it was, was largely a product of his younger years. How much has his net worth grown since the 90s? How does that growth compare to what it would have been had he been a passive investor in some index fund? I suppose all of the reporting on years and years of paying no income tax because of huge losses and bankruptcies of his ventures went right by his biggest fans. Those fans probably think that the fancy boardroom and offices shown on The Apprentice were actually his working offices and not sets for the show. Trump steaks, Trump airline, Trump University... the list of his business failures goes on and on, and he's got a couple billion of his current net worth now due to the meme stock nature of Trump Media that would be worth next to nothing if it was about the business itself rather than about his personality.
He was already a multi-billionaire when Fred Trump died in 1999 and he inherited his estate, you fucking jackass.
The rest of your retarded screed is that some of his business ventures failed, just like every other businessman's on the planet.
I get it, you're absolutely frothy with demented hate for the man, but if you want to try and be tricky go back to Huffpo where your marks are a bit dumber.
Also, you still didn't tell us how your Bernie, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, the Clintons, AOC, etc. all made their millions, because none of them had great wealth before they entered politics.
My very successful entrepreneur father has failed at every business but his last one. But that one's been going on for 20 years now and he has multiple employees and people to sell it to when he decides to retire.
Those who whine about Trump's bankruptcies are business and econ ignoramuses.
How much has your net worth grown since the 90s? How does that growth compare to what it would have been had you been a passive investor in some index fund?
There's a big difference between investing money passively in an index fund, then living off some other income stream while it builds, and actively managing your money so it builds while financing a billionaire lifestyle.
Sure, he'd have a lot of money today if he'd dumped it in an index fund and then lived like a monk. But he didn't do either.
See, that's the thing. Sure at one time Trump was a real estate developer, but Trump's wealth now is derived almost entirely from his image.
We even had these discussions here during his New York trial. What is the real value of Trump's NYC properties? Who knows, it changes day by day based on the monetization value of Trump's image. So Trump makes up an inflated number for the value of his properties in order to secure business loans, and it's totally legit (as his defenders here kept repeating) because the property value and his image are inextricably tied together.
Trump's steaks were garbage, Trump's vodka was garbage, Trump's university was garbage, the only reason any of them had any value whatsoever was not because of the quality of the product but because of the marketing of Trump's image.
His supporters see this, and don't care. It is just mind-blowing.
I’m so pleased this is driving you crazy.
Trump's steaks were garbage, Trump's vodka was garbage, Trump's university was garbage...
Is your knowledge from actually buying and trying them, Jeffy, or is this what your Democrat handlers told you to say?
/Personally I have no idea how good or bad they might have been thus I'll refrain from making judgement on these, but I will make judgement on Jeffy.
I guess if Trump makes most of his money from his brand, that makes him just like most upscale enterprises. And like the Biden brand.
Making your millions while a politician is totally cool for Lying Jeffy, but marketing failures in the private sphere he will not tolerate.
"Trump's steaks were garbage, Trump's vodka was garbage"
Why were they garbage, Lying Jeffy? Did you purchase them?
"His supporters see this, and don't care"
Maybe marketing failures in business are less of a big deal for them than say, Pelosi's insider trading or Biden selling influence.
Weird, huh?
LOL that is typical on-brand for you. You are going to go to the mat to defend this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150923090858/http://www.gourmet.com/food/2007/05/trumpsteak.html
He took mass-produced crap steaks, put his name on them, and then charged a fortune. This is a swindle.
Maybe this sort of thing should be socially disapproved upon. You know, like high credit card rates. What do you think?
Why would I disapprove of high credit card rates? Those who are a bigger risk should pay .
Get you finances in order, you loser.
Why would I disapprove of high credit card rates?
It's almost like jeff is a leftist authoritarian, posturing as "radical individualist", who'da thunk it.
Haha, Lying Jeffy going full leftist.
Liz Warren talking points.
Haha, Lying Jeffy going full leftist.
Liz Warren talking points.
Actually, that would be your pal ML.
https://reason.com/2024/11/29/republican-populism-aims-to-expand-the-nanny-state/?comments=true#comment-10817870
https://reason.com/2024/11/29/republican-populism-aims-to-expand-the-nanny-state/?comments=true#comment-10817884
I actually don't think credit card interest rates should be capped by the government. But your pal ML thinks it should be frowned upon. Maybe you should be calling him a "leftist" and "spewing Liz Warren talking points".
And here is a review of Trump Vodka.
https://vodkabuzz.com/vodkas/trump-vodka/
So, Trump Vodka smelled like paint and had the flavor of rubbing alcohol. It's only good if it is in a cocktail and paired with something that will mask its terrible flavor.
Also note that both of those reviews were written well before he was running for president, so it's going to be hard to try to pin them on some sort of partisan bias.
He sells crap stuff and charges a fortune based just on the strength of his name.
Oh, I also note that you omitted mention of Trump University. I suspect that was not an accident, because Trump University was such a fraud he had to settle many lawsuits over how bad it was. You can't disguise that sort of fraud.
I don’t think you will ever understand how satisfying this character arc is for me, Lying Jeffy.
I really hope you spend the next four years tard raging against how much Trump’s business ventures offend your sensibilities. Just…perfect.
That is the best part....chemjeff doesn't see it because it is his blind spot.
It's you and your team that has the glaringly obvious double standard. Remember that Hunter Biden earned a considerable income sitting on the board of Burisma, an energy company in Ukraine, and we heard over and over again how he has zero experience in the energy sector and this was just an influence peddling scheme in disguise. Okay, fair enough. But you know who was financially harmed by that decision? Burisma and, by extension, its customers in Ukraine. That's it.
Trump on the other hand, repackages crap steaks and resells them for a fortune in a fancy box with his name on it. He's nakedly fleecing people. And the people he is swindling are ordinary Americans. But that is just good ol' American Capitalism, right?
That is why you and your team are such frauds. Trump has a long history of screwing over ordinary Americans with his business ventures. And yet you all think he is some type of 'champion of the people'. You're a bunch of lying retards if you really think that.
Sad. Yet glorious at the same time!
^ This is the slimy pile of lefty shit who supports government murder:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Crawl into a woodchipper and make the world a better place, asshole.
This seems to be an example of one should not ask questions they don't already know the answer to. It sinks your whole 'just asking questions' schtick instantly.
If you did not know those things already, one wonders why you would have voted for Kamala in the first place.
This seems to be an example of one should not ask questions they don't already know the answer to. It sinks your whole 'just asking questions' schtick instantly.
I'm not sea lioning with a "just asking questions schtick". And yeah, I did know the answer to the questions I asked. I knew that no one had any evidence that Harris benefited from affirmative action. The comments claiming that Harris got jobs because of sucking Willie Brown's dick is the only argument anyone has offered here, and that isn't about affirmative action at all.
She absolutely did benefit from affirmative action.
https://time.com/5803677/joe-biden-woman-vice-president/
Note I did not accuse you of 'sealioning' I'm noting that you asked a ton of questions with obvious and readily available answers to anyone that's bothered to do even the smallest amount of research.
So either you're hoping for some 'gotchas' on this, or are ignorant and looking for information on her background only now after she's lost her bid for President. I'm not really sure which is worse.
She got into law school based on a pathway for minorities you retarded leftist lying fuck. I already mentioned it above.
https://www.campusreform.org/article/kamala-harris-admitted-law-school-economic-hardship-program-despite-parents-working-college-profs/26657
That's not true. From your own article:
So the program was for individuals who suffered major life hurdles, economic hardship, or a disability. It wasn't a racial quota.
I imagine that Kamala Harris as a college student, did what many many college students did: apply for as many financial and and scholarship opportunities as they could find. Only in some partisan bizarro world is this considered 'scandalous'.
"The majority are students of color". Wonder why?
In the fall of 1969, Dean Arthur Sammis launched the Minority Admissions Program (later renamed LEOP) with an initial class of 40 students.
Jeffsarc doesn't care to dig. Surface level scumming is all he's capable of.
”LEOP offers admission to approximately 50 high-achieving students each year—up to 20 percent of the class—who have experienced major life hurdles, such as educational disadvantage, economic hardship, or disability,”
Harris was the daughter of two well-paid university professors. Clearly she did not suffer educational disadvantage, economic hardship, or disability. So how did she qualify for that program? Because there's another criteria, that those running the program won't admit, but that seems clear when the majority of the beneficiaries were people of color. She had no actual disadvantages, but still benefited from AA because most liberals who are given power _assume_ everyone of color is disadvantaged in spite of the facts - and we let them get away with this racial discrimination.
^ This is the assholic pile of lefty shit who supports government murder for no reason:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Get fucked with a barb-wire wrapped broomstick, asshole
1. She was born to to credentialed academics - so she was born into money too.
2. Yes, she got lower grades than her peers in college. And she failed the Bar.
3. Yes, she had weak resumes for her whole career - which was kickstarted by having an affair with a powerful man, benefitting from his patronage.
4. Biden specifically stated he picked her for her gender and race.
I also note that they pretend that those 'some people' who are motivated by those things solely exist in the Republican party when even a casual reading of the sentence seems to acknowledge that some portion of the general populace, not Republicans in particular, engage in that kind of thinking.
One need not go down the rabbit hole of which side might be more or less animated by that, but it's glaring that it's only ever attributed to one party. It's amusing that it's specifically attributed to the party that freed American slaves, while the party that wanted to keep them locked down is considered pure as driven snow. It's quite the magical transformation.
Set aside that 'misogyny' is redundant once you've mentioned 'sexism'.
What are you? Some kind of biologist?
This is actually part of the tell that ENB, identity politics, or both aren't done. Even if only by passive observation, she's not saying the sexism of women believing women are superior or that a woman is deserving of the role cost Kamala the election. It's all those evil men who want to beat women and keep them in their place, a minority to be sure, *as well as* any men and backstabbing misogynist women who don't specifically want to oppress women and/or keep them in their place, but think they generally don't and/or Kamala specifically won't lead as well.
It's their fault for not exalting women baselessly.
Or maybe, just maybe, people finally realized that the policies of the democrat party are intended to destroy America as a free country?
This. On so many issues polling shows Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues.
Taxes? Polls show most people prefer lower taxes.
Immigration? Polls show that a vast majority of voters want illegal immigration severely curtailed and illegal aliens deported.
Transgender ideology? Most voters do not want it in their schools or around their children.
Government spending? Again voters want it reduced with the only real issue being what to cut and how much.
I could continue but on issue after issue the Democrats are in the minority on what the voters want and you don't win elections being in the minority on the most issues.
Yeah, but for the elites in the New Democratic Party, a majority is just a fig leaf for rule by the superior class. I bet we will see more manipulation of our "democracy" to eliminate that pesky 50% plus one requirement for power.
> Yeah, but for the elites in the New Democratic Party, a majority is just a fig leaf for rule by the superior class. I bet we will see more manipulation of our "democracy" to eliminate that pesky 50% plus one requirement for power.
Let's be perfectly clear. A majority of participating voters does not, by necessity, "a majority" make. This election had a participation rate of about 65%. Trump won with just over 50%. Half of 65% of eligible voters is 1/3 of eligible voters. That fraction gets even smaller when you factor in voting age, but otherwise disenfranchised, Americans.
The simple fact is that 2/3+ of voting age Americans did not vote for Trump and 2/3+ did not vote for Harris.
Elections, and this one is no different, are never settled by a majority of eligible voters, much less voting age Americans.
Or maybe, just maybe, people finally realized that the policies of the democrat party are intended to destroy America as a free country?
The people that believe that were always going to vote for a Republican over a Democrat. Just like the people that believe that capitalism is evil were always going to vote for a Democrat over a Republican. It never ceases to amaze me how people that have political views on or adjacent to an extreme still manage to convince themselves that a large number of people agree with them. They also tend to derive a sense of superiority for knowing The Truth when most people are being fooled, and they don't see the contradiction in holding to both of those beliefs.
I mean the election proved a large number of people agreed with them. And they didn't have to rely on ballot harvesting like dems do, signing up the homeless to vote like dems do, etc etc.
Printing ballots to be dumped on election night at 3 AM……..
Counting ballots a month after an election is over...
I wonder if Jason wants to explain to us where those millions upon millions of Biden voters who miraculously appeared at three in the morning in 2020 have disappeared to.
Out of nowhere old Joe Biden who campaigned from his basement got the biggest voter turnout percentage in 150 years, reversing a 100 year trend. And now in 2024 they all disappeared again and it's all back to where it was before. I bet Jason has an explanation.
Maybe those tens of millions decided to only ever vote if Joe was the candidate.
Interesting how no one in the MSM is asking where the missing voters went.
I mean the election proved a large number of people agreed with them. And they didn't have to rely on ballot harvesting like dems do, signing up the homeless to vote like dems do, etc etc.
Yep. It's funny how all of the fraud goes away when Trump actually wins. It is obvious that I should never engage in a coin flip with a Trump fan. Heads they win, tails I lose. Or even more accurate, if it turns up heads when I called heads, then it only turned up heads because I cheated somehow, despite not being the one to flip the coin.
Not sorry this is driving you nuts.
Does the "T" stand for "tard", as in retard?
What's funny is it didn't go away. There are still the same issues. Midnight dumps of ballots in dem districts retard. Dems literally trying to count illegal votes.
Amazing how ignorant you are.
"It's funny how all of the fraud goes away when Trump actually wins."
So what happened to those millions upon millions of Biden voters who miraculously appeared for the first time ever at three in the morning in 2020 when the mail-in ballots were added, and have subsequently disappeared never to be seen again?
https://x.com/DeanoFate/status/1855280355789472159/photo/3
That big spike is a large urban center (probably Milwaukee) reporting all their votes at once. Quelle surprise, large urban centers have way more Democrats than Republicans. It's not proof of fraud. It's proof that you will try to rationalize your conspiracy theory using any dishonest means that you can.
> I mean the election proved a large number of people agreed with them. And they didn't have to rely on ballot harvesting like dems do, signing up the homeless to vote like dems do, etc etc.
65% voter participation rate.
50% of the participants voted for Trump.
48% (plus a smidge) voted for Harris.
35% of voters did not participate.
Do the math. 1/3~ish of eligible voters voted for each candidate. Where I come from, 1/3 is not a particularly large proportion.
^ This is the slimy lefty shitpile who supports murder for no discernable reason:
"JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, asshole.
What is more dangerous.
People who believe that Democrats are out to destroy the country, or people who want to destroy capitalism and thus the country.
It's amusing that you basically end up agreeing that Democrats are out to destroy the country which makes the Republican position that Democrats are out to destroy the country...factual.
Labeling both as a fringe group is curious given Kamala's idea's on things like taxing unrealized capital gains, does it not? Is that not a literal example of attempting to destroy the country? I guess you could excuse it as empty pandering, but it's empty pandering to radicals that would see you dead so...maybe not a great pick.
People who believe that Democrats are out to destroy the country, or people who want to destroy capitalism and thus the country.
One of those is a significant fraction of the voting population, even if not near a majority. The other is so insignificant as to barely even exist. "Destroy capitalism"? I've never known anyone that advocates for that, or seen any politician that would hint at it. There is no one with any political aspirations of actually getting into office that would go farther than the most leftist European welfare state, which is still mostly capitalist.
So, in your educated view Kamala Harris was pandering to a tiny faction of her audience while Trump was pandering the large percentage of his audience.
Also, in your opinion, taxing unrealized capital gains would somehow not upend the entire economy and crash it. That was the first message I heard from her in the election. It happened.
Which is probably why Kamala Harris lost, among other reasons. She pandered to the craziest fringe of her in-groups, thus making Trump's majority of supporters that think that Democrats are insane and trying to destroy America...actually correct in this case.
You can say she did this out of ignorance rather than malice, I suppose, but there's really no other way of looking at that without twisting everything she says into something else and pretending that's what she meant. She's either retarded, or hostile to the United States. Personally I bank on retarded.
Also, in your opinion, taxing unrealized capital gains would somehow not upend the entire economy and crash it.
I don't see where I said anything about taxing unrealized capital gains, but if you're going to base "destroying capitalism" on that one idea, I guess that is an opinion you could have. Apparently, taxing unrealized gains has been tried. It didn't work well, to say the least. But it hardly "destroyed capitalism", since those countries eventually saw the problems and abandoned those positions.
That was the first message I heard from her in the election. It happened.
If presidential candidates floating some economically damaging ideas was disqualifying, then neither Harris nor Trump would have been elected. Nor would many of the people that have been elected President in the last century. Good thing it is Congress that sets tax rates, then, right? Oh, wait, Trump will just impose tariffs if he feels like it and claim that it is a "national security" necessity. The inevitable inflation that would cause will somehow not be his fault, I suppose.
You can say she did this out of ignorance rather than malice, I suppose, but there's really no other way of looking at that without twisting everything she says into something else and pretending that's what she meant.
I thought you were talking about Trump there, until you said "she". Trump has had more than enough surrogates telling us what he really meant for eight years. Harris, well, I take her meaning to be what she says, but I have yet to hear anything that would "destroy capitalism." To repeat myself, you can believe all you like that Democrats really do want that, but that is a function of the bubble you live in, not reality.
The hysterical responses of people like BYODB is how you get Bernie voters. He thinks that taxing unrealized capital gains is 'destroying capitalism', when it isn't - it is a bad idea, to be sure, but it is not going to bring about some socialist revolution either. Left-wingers see this, and see people like BYODB and his crew calling every economic idea that they disagree with as equivalent to "destroying capitalism" or "socialism" or "Marxism", and they (correctly) say "well, if they are going to call even milquetoast center-left ideas 'socialism', then I might as well vote for an actual socialist, since they are going to call ANY of our ideas 'socialist' no matter what".
So you admit to being a corporate, machine Democrat, Jeffy?
No, Jeff likes to cosplay as a Libertinian, who caucuses with Democrats.
I'm a libertarian who rejects both Team Red and Team Blue. This stands in opposition to the conservatives cos-playing as 'libertarians' who are really Republicans but are ashamed to admit it.
You're a fascist who claims to be a libertarian but always ends up peddling corporatism, autocracy and aristocracy here in the comments.
Actually, you are a fascist who claims to be a libertarian populist but always ends up peddling right-wing authoritarian social conservatism.
You’re about as libertarian as Mussolini, Jeffy.
I don't see where I said anything about taxing unrealized capital gains, but if you're going to base "destroying capitalism" on that one idea, I guess that is an opinion you could have.
No shit. I'm the one that brought it up, and you are the one who ignored it jackass. Pretending Kamala Harris never said anything that could possibly appeal to the far left that want to destroy capitalism is an exact example of you shouldn't ask questions you don't already know the answer to. It leads to looking like a dumbass.
You asked for examples, I gave you one, then you ignored it. Gee, I wonder why?
Belief in personal freedom is 'extreme'?
"Few realistic political observers expected a blowout for Kamala Harris. But Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election was far from guaranteed, either."
How many of them expected a blowout for Trump? Because that's what happened.
How "realistic" should we consider these political observers when they got almost everything wrong at almost every stage of the game?
It wasn't a blowout for Trump. It was widespread but shallow. A few hundred thousand votes could have swung the election, same as 2016 and 2020.
NYT: “The ‘Landslide’ That Wasn’t,” You and all the folks at MSBNC, etc. pumping this article producing so much sour grapes.
Ok, so let’s consider. There is some validity to the argument if one limits it to strictly the numbers. Obama got more EC votes. Biden got more mythical popular votes (there is no “popular vote”). After California finishes counting, Trump’s total will be below 50% (i.e., only a plurality and not a majority of votes).
But supporting the blowout side of things…
Trump carried all 7 so-called swing states, and flipped 6 of them.
Only a tiny number of districts became more blue (western exurbs of Atlanta being the most apparent), whereas the map of districts that became more red in their Presidential votes is almost solid red.
Trump increased his numbers significantly almost across the board, inc. about 3M more of those mythical popular votes.
Trump 2024 was the only Republican other than GW Bush’s 2nd term (2004) to win the mythical popular vote since 1988.
Trump’s mythical popular vote count is the 2nd highest ever recorded (to only Biden’s 81M tally, which is a HUGE statistical outlier).
Republicans held the House, and flipped the Senate (+4).
Trump out-performed polls, mythical popular vote, and EC votes by large enough margins in fortified elections by enough that even election deniers like Nancy Pelosi have largely had to just accept the loss.
I’m not going to say there’s a mandate” to do anything he wants…his results were nowhere near Reagan’s results, for example, but for MSM to bend over backwards to spin this somehow as some sort of “if the ball bounces differently on 1 or two plays, we win” result is just stupid.
And Trump did all of that in spite of a system that is indeed rigged against him. Without a biased media (and academia and Hollywood) I think we would have seen an actual blowout.
"An actual blowout" -- in other words, you too believe this was not a blowout.
What's your point?
I'm tired of idiots proclaiming Trump won in a landslide or blowout. Can yee not read? Same as proclaiming Biden won 2020 in a landslide or blowout.
How about you?
Whatever language you prefer, Trump's victory was both decisive and surprising to many people. What do you think his margin might have been without all the overt and covert biases?
No shit. But it wasn't a blowout. You trying to make my complaint about anything else is just you refusing to admit I have a good point; otherwise you'd be arguing it was a blowout.
"No shit. But it wasn't a blowout...."
To brain-dead shits like you.
FOAD, asshole.
You ever see the movie "The Longest Yard"?
You hit the nail on the head! We will know what a real blowout is when and if we can fully expose and challenge this biased "system." And we will do it on the strength of the First Amendment.
It is not good for us downplay our victory. We should set our sights on delivering a real blowout in the midterms. Until then we may only have a hidden mandate...?
Yes, like I said -- wide but shallow. A few hundred thousand votes could have flipped it, just as in 2020 and 2016. Your knee jerk strawmen didn't rebut a single thing I wrote.
A win is a win. Deal with it.
I do deal with it. I'd rather Trump than Harris any day. It's the idiots proclaiming landslide or blowout who aren't dealing with it.
Truth: deal with it. Take your own advice.
You don’t understand. Calling it a blowout or a landslide means there is a mandate to run roughshod over the enemy in good conscience. Blowout deniers like you are making excuses for the enemy and questioning the mandate. You might as well be a leftist.
He has a mandate to do what he promised he would do. While you just have a ‘man date’…….. in the alley behind the dive bar you frequent.
Hey, someone once said "elections have consequences"...
Popular vote, electoral vote, house, senate = "blowout" to anyone with a brain.
Why don't you define for me exactly what a blowout is? What percentage point of the EC counts as a blowout? Why weren't 2020 and 2016 blowouts?
Try these.
Year ... EC ... Popular
2016 ... 77 ... 2.1%
2020 ... 74 ... 4.5%
2024 ... 86 ... 1.6%
Brain cells ...0
You want to argue semantics over whether it meets an imaginary metric of 'blow out' but can't seem to fathom that what people are saying is that Trump did far better than every prediction had him slated for.
It's significant that Trump won the pretend metric of the 'popular vote' as well, which simply cuts the balls off the typical Democrat cope. It's significant because it shows how badly the Democrat rhetoric of 'fall of democracy' failed, and it could (but not necessarily will) signal that some typically taken for granted Democrat base is leaving the party even if slowly over time.
You're not wrong that it wasn't a Reagan landslide, but notably the politics of 1984 are lost along with the cold war. Using elections on the cusp of the fall of the Soviet Union as your metric is honestly a fools errand.
There are also still the many stories of late ballot arrivals in dem led districts. The same shit as 2020. Just the numbers couldn't pass the votes he got.
If you assume, most likely correctly, dems still harvested or generated the ballots suspected, the win is by way more.
Doesn't really matter to me since a win is a win, but I don't much care for sematic arguments that miss the forest for the tree's either.
Debating what the term 'blow out' actually means is pointless and misses what actually happened.
Pretending that a Republican winning the stupid ass popular vote when there isn't a war, cold or otherwise, is retarded to me. The last two times it happened since even 1980 involved conflicts, this one really didn't unless people think the Ukraine issue is somehow comparable to the fall of the Soviet Union or 9/11, which is equally retarded.
Sure, it could kick off WW3 but it hasn't yet and most people aren't paying any attention to the issue anyway since no American troops are really involved.
If defining "blowout" were such a waste, you wouldn't be quibbling and raising strawmen over the definition.
Once again you don't understand strawman arguments. It's up to the reader how to decode your non-sequiturs.
I'm not arguing the definition, I'm telling you that arguing about the definition is a sematic argument that literally does not matter in this context. It's a moot point. A red herring. Nonsense. It doesn't matter if it's the other person using the semantic argument, or you, it's still pointless.
I commented on the misuse of "blowout". You responded with a non sequitor, a strawman, saying the entire debate, of which you are a participant, is pointless.
Can't have it both ways.
I commented on the misuse of "blowout"
So I assume you have a formal definition of the term to support your argument? Weirdly I actually did a search to see if there was any formal agreed upon definition, and came up with nothing besides pundit opinions on the matter. Those are literally valueless.
Look, I'm not the idiot you were commenting with above who first used a fallacious argument. I'm the one telling you that having the argument is stupid. 'Blowout' could mean .01% victory or 50% victory, it's in the eye of the beholder.
Factually speaking, Trump was not considered to be able to win based on polling and certainly not considered to win any fraction of the popular vote, and notably past Republicans in my lifetime only achieved that during a war, hot or cold. Seems notable, yes?
You responded with a non sequitor, a strawman, saying the entire debate, of which you are a participant, is pointless.
I managed to get sucked into your asinine sematic argument after all, but at the end of the day it remains a rhetorical fallacy and you're keeping it going by continually failing to make any kind of argument on what is meant by blowout in the first place. It's garbage.
Continue to debate that, I don't care, but it would be nice if you noticed that Trump won bigger than any modern Republican in times of peace. Reagan had the cold war, Bush had 9/11, Trump has...Ukraine? Yeah, doesn't really make sense does it.
"If defining "blowout" were such a waste, you wouldn't be quibbling and raising strawmen over the definition."
If disputing such was wasn't a waste, you wouldn't be making such as ass of yourself.
No shit sherlock. He did do better and even the lefties admit it. That doesn't make it a blowout, and I never claimed he didn't do better than predicted. That's your strawman.
No shit sherlock. It was a blowout and why you choose to make yourself an asshole claiming otherwise is a mystery.
To quote the great philosopher Dominic toretto "by an inch or a mile, winning is winning"
That's nice. Secratariat had a blowout. Winning by one length is not a blowout.
See above. Blowout.
See above. Define blowout, and why it didn't apply to 2016 and 2020.
It didn't count in 2016 because a Republican didn't win a plurality of the vote during peacetime. 2016 was, simply put, an alley fight between Republicans and Trump punched harder. A Democrat wasn't going to win due to 8 years of Obama, and Democrats didn't really have a dog in that fight since Hillary isn't even popular in Democrat circles and certainly not in Republican circles.
2020 is a fluke in all of American history, so I don't know what to call that. A blowout would be fitting I guess since tens of millions of people voted in that election that had not voted before or since. The only person I've seen arguing that 2020 wasn't a blowout are people saying it was a stolen election and...you.
So it turns out you do know what a strawman argument is, or you are at least capable of making one.
"A blowout would be fitting I guess since tens of millions of people voted in that election that had not voted before or since. "
Or ever existed in the first place.
See above and STFU. Why are you so dedicated to proving yourself to be an asshole?
Year ... EC ... Popular
2016 ... 77 ... 2.1%
2020 ... 74 ... 4.5%
2024 ... 86 ... 1.6%
Now define blowout such that 2020 doesn't qualify.
If we are arbitrarily deciding things. How about number of counties he won?
Dems dominate two huge population centers. Hillary total popular vote excess was California.
SGT is dedicated to being a cherry-picking asshole; that explains things.
SGT is dedicated to being a cherry-picking asshole; that explains things.
He *identifies* as Stupid. Stupid Government Tricks.
Twice impeached. Convicted. Shot. Multiple attempts to remove him from the ballots. Second, non-consecutive term. More counties, "popular votes", EC votes, down-ballot Congressional wins, etc. than his previous term, and in relatively recent history... and tards like Stupid are "It's not a blowout." or shut out because he wouldn't have beaten Washington or Reagan.
It should be further noted that, derivative to what's been pointed out elsewhere; The Deep State and/or DNC doesn't hesitate to declare that a decisive victory, even just a win, or, FFS, even just a pen and a phone gives them a mandate. So, to downplay an actual, decisive victory, about as close to a shut out as any of us are going to see, seems an awful lot like status quo apologetics. Especially given how it neatly aligns with the NYT, Nate Silver, etc., etc., etc. mandates.
Elections have consequences, unless someone we don't like wins and does so in the background of an unprecedented headwind, then it's a wide and thin victory that no one should interpret as any sort of broader social mandate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkUkEvf7Ma4
New York was closer to flipping red than Florida was to flipping blue.
The establishment impeached him twice on evidence that explicitly exonerated him and implicated his opponents, they lied about Russia and called him a traitor, they mobilized the entire media (including Reason) and entertainment complex against him, they frauded an election, they set up an FBI op on J6 and called him a traitor, they banned him from the internet, they took his name off the ballots, they tried to bankrupt him with crooked judges and insane lawsuits, they used crooked prosecutors to try and imprison him for novel "crimes", and then they shot him.
And what happened?
He took every single swing state and created five more going in his direction, he took the woman's vote, the Native American vote, the Latino vote, the Amish vote (wtf?), the Arab vote, the Hasidic vote and huge gains with secular Jews, huge gains with black men and even gains with black women (wow!), the young male vote (wow!) and gains with young women, the union vote (wow!), Firmly (D) states like New York, California and Minnesota shifted towards (R), in fact every single state in the Union shifted (R), he broke the Democratic supermajority in both houses of the Vermont General Assembly and the New York State Senate, the (R)s gained full control of the Michigan House of Representatives, he took the Senate, he took the House, he took the electoral college, he took the popular vote, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...
The older boomers who watch CNN all day, and white progressive catladies however were not beguiled.
Her campaign was so afraid of articulating anything that might run counter to the dogma of the tiny yet vocal woke nutjobs in the Democrat base that she came across sounding like an imbecile. Of course there was enough video of her kowtowing to their bizarre policies throughout her time in the Senate and as vice president that separating from it would have been impossible for even someone with skill and charisma, two qualities she lacked.
While she came across so inauthentic and wholly manufactured, Trump seemed to voters genuine in comparison, kind of like Bernie to Hillary. Too many people were sick of inauthentic, of being so obviously pandered to and to being gaslit. There was very little legit enthusiasm for Harris and plenty for Trump, and those in between simply wanted prices to come down and someone to pay attention to the border and for children to come through adolescence intact.
She ran a sarcasmic campaign:
She only ever defined herself by the meme of what Trump was. And there was no self awareness about that.
And she was hammered for most of it
Hammered for and by it.
Speaking of hammered, where is Sarckles?
Probably sleeping off his binge from yesterday.
Why Kamala Harris Lost
Because she is a dumbass.
You said it. She’s a fucking retard. And based on what we all saw from that video she dropped at the beginning of the week, a drunk too.
So she's the female version of Sarcasmic.
There are many reasons why Kamala Harris lost misogyny, Joe BIden staying in the race too long are a few of many. I think there are a few key points. First Kamala Harris had been defined as a light weight for many years and it was too short a time to reframe her as a person capable of being President. Second the Biden Administration did not work hard enough to show its successes. The fact is the country and the economy are in pretty good shape, but that never came across. This needed to be better explained. Finally attacking Trump becomes white noise after a while. Most attacks were directed at Trump the person, rather than showing his failures as President.
Fuck off and die, you pathetic excuse for a lying pile of lefty shit.
So why did she do so poorly in 2020 Democrat primaries? Even Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard were trouncing her.
This article could be copy&pasted as her 2024 rationale, too, with a few tiny tweaks (e.g., to include her VP "chops").
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/politics/kamala-harris-2020-campaign/index.html
Kamala Harris fell as quickly as she rose.
The California senator entered the 2020 presidential race in January a top contender for the Democratic nomination, someone whose political chops after ascending from prosecutor to attorney general to senator instantly made her one of the top 2020 candidates. Less than a year later, and exactly two months before the Iowa caucuses, she exits as a candidate who failed to live up to the hype and was unable to raise enough money to keep her campaign going.
Harris’ abrupt decision on Tuesday makes the senator the most high-profile candidate to date to drop out of the race to challenge President Donald Trump, and is the culmination of months of disjointed messaging, contentious infighting among top aides and severe money issues that plagued the campaign.
A host of issues sunk Harris’ campaign, but the final straw, according to a number of Harris aides and advisers, was the California senator could see no path toward the nomination given her inability to gain any traction in the race or raise money to get her message out, leading her to make what she called “one of the hardest decisions of my life” and end her presidential bid.
Harris was the lone black woman to launch a bid in 2020 and aimed to coalesce a diverse coalition of voters that mirrored that of President Barack Obama. But Harris failed to cut into former Vice President Joe Biden’s commanding lead with black voters, particularly in the early voting state of South Carolina, and struggled to break into the top tier of contenders in Iowa, despite polls showing voters viewed her favorably.
Black people probably hated her because she was a literal slaver
And a poser.
The Biden administration had no ‘successes’.
This was the narrative, and I think that the Biden Administration did itself no favor in not pushing back harder on this. The Biden Administration handled the economy very well. They took us from the Trump recession, through the inflation bounce back to a soft landing avoiding a second recession. They did a good job getting the Covid19 vaccine deployed. The administration got an infrastructure bill passed, something Trump talked about for four years and never got done.
Success doesn’t need to be pushed. It’s obvious.
This. You can't self-define success and convince anyone "I'm successful! I swear!"
Others either believe/feel that you are, or they don't. It's not a conversational thing.
LOL. You really believe that? Tell it to Gottfried Leibniz or Rosalind Franklin.
Misogyny... I'm getting vertigo from rolling my eyes whenever I hear misogyny or racism.
"There are many reasons why Kamala Harris lost misogyny"
Misogyny is thinking women would vote for a drunken retarded just because she has a snatch.
Sad, but how many did?
At this point, what difference does your gaslighting make?
"it was too short a time to reframe her as a person capable of being President."
Shouldn't they have done that in 2020 before selecting her as the VP to a frail old man of dubious cognitive ability? A vote for Biden in 2020 or a vote for her in 2024 were NOT votes for Joe or Kamala, but votes for some invisible, unelected cabal that did not and still does not care whether the President is capable of making Presidential decisions, because they'll make the decisions for him or her.
A vote for any Democrat that is not out to remove this cabal is a vote for enemies of America. I only know of 4 Democrats that ever ran for a major office and weren't supporters of that cabal: Joe Manchin, Kristin Sinema, Tulsi Gabbard, and JFK Jr - and this year, the closest I could come to voting for any of them was to vote for Trump! Not that this bothered me...
"Why Kamala Harris Lost"
Wrong question.
"What in the world made anyone imagine that empty pants suit could possibly win?"
Never, in the little time she interacted with voters, did she ever give anyone a single reason to vote for her. Not one.
What about vaginas and Joy?
Yep, not one reason.
Biden won by being “not Trump”. Plenty of voters figured out that being not Trump, but another Obama, was not what they wanted. Just look at economic performance between many red states vs blue states. The Dems want a poorer society and they are largely successful at creating one. Minority blue collar workers are finally figuring out that their economic interests do not differ greatly from their white counterparts’.
Biden won due to the dead voter turnout
It wasn’t racism/sexism. The racists were always going to vote Republican.
It wasn’t the torrid economy. Every economic metric is better now than when Donnie slinked out of town in 2021. I’ve asked many Trump rednecks to provide a metric that proved the Trump economy was better and none can spit out an answer.
The never-ending media obsession with migrants no doubt hurt her. Her and Sleepy Joe flailed around and did nothing on an issue that Americans care about - right or wrong.
Mostly she was just a lousy candidate - completely - unable to communicate or inspire.
Donnie has two years to drag his tarnished reputation out of the shitter. And we’re due for a recession since the last one was in 2020.
He will fail, of course.
The racists voted Democrat. The Democrats have been the party of racism for their entire existence. Slavery, Jim Crow mandated segregation. affirmative action mandated quotas, and most recently more mandated anti-racism and mandated segregation graduation ceremonies and dorms.
Why? Do they truly believe that minorities can't make it without help, or is it wanting to be a saviour?
Both, plus they seem to enjoy having an underclass that serves them. More to the point, there's a couple different groups.
1. You have your Dems who think minorities are stupid and require help to make it as they'll never (in the minds of the Dems) make it on their own. Well-intentioned, but idiotic Dems.
2. There are those Dems who have a savior complex and think minorities need them as a "messiah" to save them from themselves. Again, like the first group, they think that minorities will never make it on their own.
3. Now we get to the group of Dems who seem to want minorities (and illegal aliens) as a permanent underclass to serve them in their mansions, on their golf courses, at their country clubs (the things that Republicans used to be accused of). This group isn't much changed in mentality from the Dems of 1859.
But Buttplug says he was going to vote Republican.
See: "The racists were always going to vote Republican."
There's nobody more racist than Buttplug.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 3 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Uncle Clarence has had his hand out for over 20 years.
GIMME DAT WHITIE MONEY!
That fucking cop lover.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Taking on Katanji Brown Jackson for lowest IQ affirmative action hire
Uncle Clarence a candidate.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 19 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Sandy, I had a genuine fear that a Senator Walker would be shucking and jiving us good liberty-loving Georgians every day.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Many have asked for an update to the Buttplug Horse Race:
Tim Scott 400-1 Whuffo Bro? Whuffo is you in dis race fo, bro?
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Dude, I am from the South. You can’t troll me on race.
Do you remember Spermin’ Herman Cain? He sounded like a slave extra from Song of the South.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
No, you’re a fucking snowflake who only gets offended when one of your Lawn Jockeys is criticized.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 28 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Groveling like a shoe-shine boy, Tim Scott humiliates himself for Fatass Donnie.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 38 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
SE Cupp is a conservative commentator who is ashamed of Tim Scott’s groveling ‘Happy slave” act concerning Donnie.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Tim Scott’s Vice Presidential Debasement Is Almost Complete
Debasement? Are you for real? This smacks of racism.
Tim Scott’s twerking and jiving is just him feeling that ole-timey religion.
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 7 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Fact checking Tim Scott – Trump’s black friend/shine boy:
Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
How many little lawn jockeys are in your yard? I bet it looks like a scene from a Tarzan movie out there.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
"...He will fail, of course..."
Tell us again how Harris won, oh lying pile of TDS-addled steaming shit.
Do you really think that Democrats offered superior ideas, values, and visions, and that if not for a lackluster Harris, voters would have rallied around that vision?
It's ENB the dems love abortions and pedos, so ENB thinks they are dreamy
Well, abortion and pedophilia, er, Minor-attracted Persons, do represent the libertine wing of the Democrats.
He tried to give credit to Biden just last week for energy policy despite all Bidens actions. He is a leftist moron.
Do you plan to have Fauci release another pandemic from Wuhan?
How much money did your Tesla short make, retarded child porn spreader?
Doesn’t matter. He blew it all on kiddie porn, and an actual kid, when he talk a sex tourism vacation to Thailand.
Lol.
It is amazing watching racist bushpigs like you continue to put covid on Trump. That's how desperate and dishonest you are. Utterly amazing.
Fucking retard. You keep claiming that economic changes leading up to and after Jan 2021 were "natural" and based on discretionary policies of Trump and Biden. Do you think you are fooling anyone?
Kill yourself.
Cuntsorvaturds making friends, gathering votes, and influencing people by... PEDDLING KOOL-AID AND SUICIDE!!! How's it workin' for ya, servant and serpent of the Evil One?
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
He’s truly, completely a necrophiliac,
His brain, squirming toad-like, is REALY, really whack!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
Unread
Unread
Shit is NO sluprise twatsoever, that Murderer's Lament (Suicide Farmer) would turn a PervFectly Blind Ear to ANY criticism of PervFected Death-Lusting Necrophilia, ass She so PervFectly adheres to!
(Shit's OK though, since She PervFectly ADORES the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells!!! Till they get much older, and THEN She wishes DEATH upon the politically ImpervFected ones!!!)
Evil is ass Evil does!!!
Utter dreck. F-, Sqrlsy.
Utter dreck. F- - - - - to those who worshit suicide and the Evil One and DEATH!!!!
Not even worth the 0/5 stars I'm going to give this shitty rant.
Evil One worshitters GOTTA worshit the Evil One!!! Twat else can I say, other that... WAKE THE FUCK UP, Evil One worshitter!!!! Twat has the Evil One done for YOU lately anyway?
>Every economic metric is better now than when Donnie slinked out of town in 2021.
Are they better than they were in February 2020?
>And we’re due for a recession since the last one was in 2020.
Do recessions happen on a 5 year cycle? Seems kinda fast.
That's one interpretation. Maybe even a compelling one. But the data could also be explained by biases in polling. In that scenario, she and Trump were never "locked in a very tight race".
Given the rather dismal performance of pollsters over the last several election cycles, I do not think the 'tight race was an illusion' hypothesis can be completely rejected.
Internal polling for both campaigns never had her ahead.
What was handed out for publication (excepting Rasmussen) had them close.
But a look at the crowds gave your lying eyes all the evidence they needed. The length of his coattails was really the only question.
"Given the rather dismal performance of pollsters over the last several election cycles"
Most of the polls were within the margin of error. You can't expect them to be any more accurate than that.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?
I really do. I just wasn't clear. I should have written that the end results were within the margin of error of most of the opinion polls I saw. And I was thinking specifically about the election of last month, rather than 'the last several elections.'
Mtrueman, you at least have enough clues to know that no humans (including pollsters) have, or can get, Perfect Knowledge. For that I commend you.
Those who THINK that THEY can get, or more like shit, already have, Perfect Knowledge? Or that the pollsters should be able to get it? They can't get SHIT, because THEY are Already PervFected! You can't put diddly squat into a vessel that's already full of itself! I know that, because I have tried, tried, and tried yet again... And ALWAYS failed!
(Bystanders ass opposed to the target will sometimes learn, so it's not always a total waste of time, to try to teach the unteachable.)
Given the rather dismal performance of pollsters over the last several election cycles, I do not think the 'tight race was an illusion' hypothesis can be completely rejected.
Especially given all the selective cheerleading. Polling is an iffy predictor in an relatively unbiased year. In a year where, suddenly, a previously-and-since-unknown, "single-person" pollster predicts a 12-point jump a week out, polling should be by-and-large regarded as garbage, at best. Even, potentially, as overt desperation projection or psy-ops.
It is/was a bit of a bizarre oxymoron how people who will screech about "Voting is foundational to democracy!" and "A 50.1% popular vote victory is not a mandate!" will Trumpet "Obscure poll shows preferred candidate with a 5 pt. lead." without any concern or awareness of how the poll was conducted, by whom, or what, if anything, it means.
AFAICT, the informal "yard signs and bumper stickers" polling is, if not more accurate, at least more honest and/or regionally informative.
> and "A 50.1% popular vote victory..."
That needs to be rephrased.
65% voter participation.
50% of participating voters voted for Trump.
48%+ voted for Harris.
35% of eligible voters abstained.
Do the math. 2/3 of eligible voters voted participated and, of those, 50% voted for Trump. 50% of 2/3 is... 1/3.
Roughly 35% of eligible voters voted for Trump. That is not, in any way, a majority vote.
The break down is 1/3~ish of eligible voters voted for Trump. 1/3~ish voted for Harris. And 1/3~ish did not participate. Thus, 2/3 of eligible voters did not vote for Trump (1/3 for Harris + 1/3 non-participants). That math is the same for Harris, 2/3 of eligible voters did not vote for her either.
Thanks for affirming my point, dumbfuck. When it's an *actual election* with people showing up to voting centers run by various states and electoral oversight, you'll parse any shit possible to deny *any* sort of mandate no matter how decisive the victory, but when you get any sort of whiff of a completely bogus, unverified, and meaningless narrative that favors you, you can't suck the State agent's genitals hard enough.
Trump had a higher vote turnout and more votes than Obama in either term and thus, should have as much if not more of a mandate than the epic and historic "pen and phone" and "you have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill" President, but you wouldn't agree to that on principle. Because it's been obvious that when you say "Elections have consequences." you don't mean fair elections have fair consequences both ways, you mean "Elections (can only) have consequences (for the opposition)."
> Thanks for affirming my point, dumbfuck.
Hey dickhead -- see, I can name-call too =P -- I'm not parsing shit. I'm mathematically demonstrating the fallacy of "the majority vote" fallacy / lie, just like I do every voting cycle regardless of which team wins.
The simple fact is, American presidential elections are not democratic. The president is regularly elected by about 1/3, give or take, of the eligible voters. One-third is not majority vote.
Oh, and while I'm at it, democracy is logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.
This "loyalty to Biden" shibboleth has to end. Kamala threatened to 25th Amendment Biden, that is why she was anointed.
Knowing this, the actual outcome is simply delicious.
Sad Trombone.
I'm of the opinion that Trump's decisive win on election night might have come with a few benefits to Democrats: over the last two weeks, the Democratic party has won a few house seats that they were losing the entire time due to very very late vote counts. I think they may be benefiting from not having as many eyes on them as they otherwise would have. I also think that this was Bob Casey's plan, but that senate seat was too important for Republicans to take their eye off.
We've got to do something about this ridiculous late voting stuff. Even if every vote would turn out to be legit (which I doubt), until we know for sure the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Alternative reading: Democrats keep counting votes until the results work in their favor. It was largely elections in California that were not decided on election day or the next. California is STILL COUNTING VOTES. Unsurprisingly, all the elections in California that had small Republican leads have seen all those leads eroded as California strives to count every vote, even the illegally cast ones.
Well, maybe not every vote. They don't want any of those icky (R) votes counted.
Even if every vote would turn out to be legit (which I doubt), until we know for sure the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Even at legitimate, it gets to a point of violating "one man, one vote" and/or "separate but equal".
It's one thing for a poorer state on the East Coast to take time to pluck ballots out of hurricane-ravaged parts of the state. It's quite another for, in some of the most nominally-modern and 'prosperous' West Coast states, for it to take *weeks* because... uh... counting ballots is hard.
'Being "not Trump" wasn't enough for voters who wanted "not Biden."'
Nope.
Being "not Trump" wasn't enough for voters who wanted "not Democrats." The pseudo entity called Harris, like the pseudo entity called Biden, did not matter to most people who voted (D) or (R). What mattered was rejection of the Democratic agenda and vision. Enough voters finally had enough Woke, enough Neo-socialism, and enough of the amped-up security state.
When the democrats show themselves to be competing with the republicans to be the most libertarian, THEN I will consider voting for a democrat. They have a long, long way to go to disown the statist bullshit they've been getting away with for decades now. Until they do I will continue to vote "NOT DEMOCRAT."
It wasn't a "blowout". That's just feeding the R's spin. All seven of the swing states were very close, and Trump didn't get a majority of the popular vote. That doesn't excuse Harris being a lousy candidate. I do, though, heap extra blame on LP National who didn't stand behind Chase Oliver, the best candidate we've had in decades.
Did you know Chase is gay?
What? Really?
Did Sarcasmic and Jeff know?
This is why I oppose mail in voting. Some of us had no idea that Chase was gay until after our ballots were in the hands of the USPS. Ever try to retrieve a piece of mail from the maw of the Postal Service? Good luck with that. It's like Hunter's laptop all over again. If only we had known.
Not gay enough. Or he would have won. Some politicians have to kiss babies. Chase needed to ream male rectums. And he obviously wasn’t doing enough of that.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out he did it with a woman. Hardly a libertarian at all.
Also not Mexican as far as I know. He was doomed from the start.
0.5 percent is better than GayJay?
You need to stop settling for shitty progressives disguised as libertarians.
Yeah, Gary wasn't perfect but he at least came across as sincere even if he was afraid to really articulate a libertarian path forward.
Oliver was a straight up joke that doesn't seem to understand a single brand of libertarian thought, let alone a cohesive one.
Saying 'he's the best we've had in decades' is just obviously wrong on it's face.
Johnson might have been a good president. My biggest concerns were his squishiness on some social issues ( baking gay cakes) and his resolve against the far left and the uniparty establishment. Trump may be somewhat of an asshole, but he has endured more than any successful presidential candidate accept for Lincoln. I just don’t see GayJay being that guy.
I just don’t see GayJay being that guy.
Yeah, agree on that point. If he was afraid to articulate a libertarian path forward to voters, there's little reason to think he wouldn't have been afraid of Congress and the Senate let alone the permanent bureaucratic state.
If Chase took a bullet to an ear at a huge Libertarian rally would he raise a limp wrist and yell "fight, fight, fight"?
Hmm. I googled "huge Libertarian rally". On the first page, one snippet said: "Shortly before he appeared, one Libertarian Party member shouted: 'Donald Trump should have taken a bullet!'" I guess Trump gave them what they wanted, then?
Well it's kind of accepted that most of the big Ls voted Trump although I don't think we'll ever know for sure.
Chase Oliver, the best candidate we've had in decades.
L O fucking L.
That explains his massive vote count.
0.5%, the hero.
He would have gotten 0.6% if he could explain what a libertarian position was instead of yelling bumper stickers then flailing in all interviews when pressed past that point.
Platitudes straight off the magnets on ENBs fridge.
Gary Johnson: "We just want to legalize MJ. Not those icky hard drugs".
Chase Oliver: "We just want the state to chemically castrate your kid. Not those icky surgical castrations".
Ron Paul lead a new generation to embrace libertarian thought and created a surge of libertarian sympathies in the Republican party. Johnson made lots of mistakes, but was decent enough to draw the L party's best electoral performance.
Jorgensen and Oliver barely ran campaigns and failed to connect with libertarians or lure anyone from the main parties. They have both lost votes for what was (until this election) the biggest 3rd party in America.
I was disgusted to find he wasn't on the ballot in Illinois. I have voted Libertarian Party since I was first eligible, voting for Ed Clark in 1980.
Not a blowout? Trump got almost 30.1% of eligible voters to support him! That’s like almost a third, which is almost a half, which is almost 100%! It was a total blowout!
Even I, who hates the term blowout, knows you haven't got a clue how it's being misused and abused. Nobartium is right; she ran a sarcasmic Not Trump campaign.
Blowout denier.
I thought a blowout was what you did to a case of Colt 45 on the weekend.
"blow·out
/ˈblōˌout/
noun
1.
a sudden rupture or malfunction of a part or an apparatus due to pressure, in particular the bursting of an automobile tire."
I am willing to stipulate that this is the correct definition of the word and declare without reservation that Trump's victory was not in fact a blowout.
Trump’s LANDSLIDE VICTORY s just killing you, isn’t it Drunky?
Seethe harder.
Clearly satire. You had me going until Chase Oliver was described as the best candidate in decades. He was the worst I’ve ever seen.
Worse than HARRIS, which is hard to believe!
"...It wasn't a "blowout"..."
This is a steaming pile of TDS-addled lefty shit whistling past the graveyard.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Hey shrike. Hillary never got a majority either but you always claimed she won the popular vote. Odd.
Funny how democrats, like Shrike, obsess over a contest that doesn’t exist. The popular vote is as relevant as a titty twisting contest
She lost because Democrats didn’t cheat this time. How do we know they didn’t cheat? Trump won.
Have you got an explanation for this yet, Sarckles? Did CNN tell you anything that you can share with everyone else?
No bitch, they cheated their asses off. The difference is that this time the RNC was run by wartime leaders who had ten times as many attorneys on the ground ready to stop their bullshit whenever they tried it. Although you democrats still did tentatively steal the Arizona senate race for Kari Lake. Which is hopefully litigated until Lake is declared the rightful victor.
Kari Lake is a dumpkof and the voters in her state ditched her. Only the truly deluded think she won.
https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/elections/arizona-election-2024-kari-lake-loses-senate-race-to-ruben-gallego/article_8ed3624a-a23a-11ef-bba3-47a073bf6638.html
So, all those votes for Trump and against Kari Lake on the same ballots should be thrown out? There were tons of ballots like that.
Sure Nick, it's just about pronouns. Can we please stop fighting kultur war hurrdurr.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/ontario-human-rights-tribunal-fines-emo-township-for-refusing-pride-proclamation-1.7390134
You will be made to care.
2008 - Love is love
2012 - We just want to get married like everyone else
2018 - Use my pronouns bigot
2020 - What kind of transphobe won't let me strip for their kids?
2024 - Human Rights Tribunal fines Emo Township for refusing Pride proclamation. The township and mayor are ordered to pay 15-thousand dollars to Borderland Pride
I don't think even the most regressive religious bigot predicted this in their worst case scenarios. This is reason #1375 why the right is ascendant across the West.
2008...
2012...
2018...
2020...
2024...
The true meaning of "PROGRESSIVE" in a nutshell.
Even at that:
2007 - Firefighters will participate in our Pride Parades so we can accost them and waive our junk in their face in the name of equality or they will be fired.
The obvious reason why it's so difficult to separate the "What is a woman?" movement from the "2 men = 1 man + 1 woman" movement is because they are the same movement. To the point that Arabs, Jews, Latinos, black women, etc., had to tell them, "All I see is differences without distinctions that, at second glance, makes the sexist, racist white dude look legit."
Instead of outing up a pride flag, they should instead burn Trudeau in effigy.
Every day until he’s out of office/violently overthrown.
ML may wish to opine on this subject. If he’s not too busy leading the resistance.
LGPTQ grifter: "Let's just run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it,"
Town official: "Um sir or madam. We don't actually have a flagpole."
Red Green: "Here's a roll of duct tape. We'll just tape it to a telephone pole".
Wait, Elizabeth "abortion is the issue that will drive the election" Nolan Brown is gonna give us her analysis? This is gonna be good.
Turns out that for all the lecturing about "long arcs of history", "long-held status quo"s, and "superprecedents", federally-guaranteed abortion on demand at any point before crowning wasn't it.
If only there had been something written down or documented somewhere to inform people of this.
There are a number of reasons why Harris lost but most of those lies within the reaction to the gaslighting, the lies, the pandering to a small special interest activist group and the LGBTQ trans ideology that infected education.
This election is as much a revolution as it is draining the swamp.
The leftist ideologies of the past four years are being tossed out along with the failed policies of the Biden/ Obama administration.
With the economy in tatters and recession looming on the horizon, the people have spoken, loud and clear: "the policies of the past four year have nearly destroyed the nation and it's time to remove the failed policies that caused it.
...she and Trump appeared to be locked in a very tight race.
Might be important to ask yourself why it appeared that way when, after reality set in, it wasn't close at all really.
She had an especially hard time articulating how her administration would be different from Biden's not-terribly-popular presidency or how she would turn things like inflation around.
It included an incoherent "Medicare at Home" benefit, national rent-control policies, tax hikes on businesses, giving $25,000 to first-time homebuyers, giving "1 million loans that are fully forgivable" to "Black entrepreneurs and others" who want to start businesses, and some form of federal price controls for groceries—or, at least, a federal clampdown on price gouging, whatever that would have turned out to mean. And a continuation of Biden-era foreign policy, hostility toward mergers, intrusion into health care (including forcing insurance companies to cover over-the-counter contraception, and perhaps all sorts of over-the-counter products, with no cost sharing), and a weird fixation on so-called junk fees.
So, she didn't have a hard time articulating what she would do in the arena of things like inflation: she would make it worse intentionally.
Then you dare to ask something as stupid as 'how did she lose' while pretending she didn't put anything out to answer the questions of the electorate. Her response, writ large, was 'fuck you, prole'.
"she would make it worse intentionally."
I doubt that's a reason. Trump also promised to make things worse by tariffs on the rest of the world. At least with inflation workers can expect increased wages. Not so with tariffs.
What will you do if Trump doesn't actually do any tariffs and was just using the threat as a bargaining chip?
Also, are you pretending that Kamala wouldn't extend the tariffs that Biden had quadrupled.
"What will you do if Trump doesn't actually do any tariffs and was just using the threat as a bargaining chip?"
I will buy even more goods from Canada, Mexico, China and Europe. Just like you and everyone else.
"Also, are you pretending that Kamala wouldn't extend the tariffs that Biden had quadrupled."
She will do worse than that. But so will Trump. They both are anxious to see that relations with China continue to worsen.
We should definitely uncouple our economy from China’s. Like Russia, their global militant belligerence is predicated on a generous war chest. starving those war chest is in the our best interest, and the interest of most of the globe.
"We should definitely uncouple our economy from China’s"
I take it you're not an American farmer whose livelihood depends on exports to China.
"their global militant belligerence is predicated on a generous war chest."
Generous? It's peanuts compared to the American war chest. The difference is they make their spending count. The Pentagon doesn't know where the money goes. It hasn't passed an audit for decades and nobody is held to account. And outspending rivals in military worked well enough under Reagan, but today seems more likely to have the opposite of the intended effect.
"and the interest of most of the globe."
The West is still in thrall to the US, the rest, no. Your thinking seems to be unduly influenced by neocons and their faith in American supremacy in all things.
No, it’s just that I, correct and what you said is basically bullshit. You always do that. You even believe Israel are the bad guys and support the enemy.
So are you an American farmer or not? I assume not, as the policies you are promoting would devastate your livelihood and I believe you are smart enough not to want that for yourself. That you don't mind ruining the lives of American farmers is another matter. Lack of compassion rather than lack of brains.
You really want to cut all ties with China? You'll have to cut off ties with the rest of the world. Good luck with that.
The problem with Russia and China is not the size of their military or their military budget, which is significantly smaller than that of America. It's that what they do spend actually goes into producing weapons that often outperform America's. You haven't shed your cold war neocon beliefs so all this is new to you, I imagine. Welcome to the future.
"You even believe Israel are the bad guys and support the enemy."
I believe Israel is a colonial outpost and I oppose colonialism. It shouldn't be hard for you, an American, to grasp. Why do you want to erase or rewrite your history?
"Bargaining tactics" are only useful if there's the will to follow through. If everyone knows that he's not actually going to do it, then it is not going to actually convince Mexico and Canada into anything. Which means it has to be something he's willing to do, making it more than just a bargaining position. And the tariffs he's proposing are terrible; the Smoot-Hawley Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed and he's threatening to do the same thing by executive fiat.
You can be on Trump's side and still admit that he's terrible on some issues.
Leaders of both Mexico and Canada have already approached Trump on bended knee. They need us far more than we need them.
Like you, they’re the little spoon in the relationship.
The Premier of Alberta is moving heaven and earth trying to get a phone call with Donald, she doesn't want to pay the price for Justin's sins.
The Alberta Sheriffs are watching the Alberta-Montana border like hawks. Not like the desolate empty prairie they share on their respective borders is a big migration point, but it's the thought that counts.
It’s a start.
"Bargaining tactics" are only useful if there's the will to follow through.
Absolutely true, and in Trumps case it seems he does have the will to follow through even if it's a bad idea to follow through. It might not work, but it won't be because he didn't try.
That, in a nutshell, is why it's an effective bargaining chip for him. He's just crazy enough to do it.
^ This guy gets it.
I think Yuval Levin's analysis of this election on the Just Asking Questions podcast was pretty good. Basically, in the 21st century, every election has been basically a 51/49 election, with the exception of 2008 when the economy really was in the shitter and we had Black Jesus running. And because each team knows they won only very narrowly, and they could very easily lose the next election, they spend their time in power trying to satisfy as much of their activist base's demands as they can. And because the activist base of either team really only comprises a small fraction of the electorate that is not representative of the whole, trying to satisfy their narrow demands leads to backlash and outrage and that team getting thrown out of power the next election. And so the government ping-pongs back and forth between the two teams in this way. This cycle will end, according to Levin, when one team realizes that when they win the election, they should spend their time not trying to cater to their vocal narrow minority in the base, but instead trying to build a broad durable coalition that can sustain them through many elections. That is what happened in 1900 when Teddy Roosevelt fused a Progressive agenda onto the Republican platform and created a Republican coalition that lasted for about 20 years. That is what happened in 1932 with FDR and the New Deal that built a Democrat coalition that lasted for over 50 years. I doubt that will happen with Trump since he seems more focused on revenge than on building a coalition. But whichever team does it first, wins the grand prize.
Can you imagine how much more of a blowout it would have been without democrat cheating and democrat control of the media?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, uh, your opinion, man.
Something like 7 million people who voted for Biden in 2020 either stayed at home and some voted for Trump. That's a failure to inspire and mobilize the base. Trump gained 3 million votes, and his share of the vote less than 2% over Harris.
Why? Some of the reasons, Harris had no control over: Biden's reluctance to step down. Worldwide anti-incumbency sentiment. Worldwide failure or Liberalism to address public concerns. And some poor campaign decisions on the part of Harris: Snubbing Sanders and embracing Cheney. War mongering and genocide abetting. The notion that 'I'm not Trump' would be enough.
Something like 7 million people who voted for Biden in 2020 either stayed at home and some voted for Trump. That's a failure to inspire and mobilize the base.
You're really close to catching on to something, Misconstrueman. Let's see if you can think real hard and apply Occam's razor to those millions of mysterious voters who suddenly appeared for the first time in 2020 and then disappeared again.
I don't see anything mysterious about the voters. Voters turn out for various reasons and stay at home for other reasons. I've already tried to explain why the Democrats who voted for Biden in 2020 stayed home in November. Read my comment again if you need clarification.
Meanwhile, in late 2020 there was something going on that caused most people to be less socially engaged than ever before in their lives, right? Why would voting be the one thing they decided to amp up?
"Why would voting be the one thing they decided to amp up?"
Biden encouraged his supporters to vote for him by mail. Trump discouraged this. 2020 wasn't all that long ago. Have you really forgotten? Still mystified?
So then, the total of votes should not have changed. Are you mystified?
" Are you mystified?"
No. I gave my reasons for Harris' loss. In case you missed it:
Something like 7 million people who voted for Biden in 2020 either stayed at home and some voted for Trump. That's a failure to inspire and mobilize the base. Trump gained 3 million votes, and his share of the vote less than 2% over Harris.
Why? Some of the reasons, Harris had no control over: Biden's reluctance to step down. Worldwide anti-incumbency sentiment. Worldwide failure or Liberalism to address public concerns. And some poor campaign decisions on the part of Harris: Snubbing Sanders and embracing Cheney. War mongering and genocide abetting. The notion that 'I'm not Trump' would be enough.
Anything else?
Your seven million never existed. You were fooled. It's beyond obvious to you now.
The question is do you want to start looking into it yourself, or do you want to continue to pretend it was legit so you don't have to face some awful truths?
"Your seven million never existed. "
Whether they existed or not is irrelevant. They were counted in 2020. They weren't counted in 2024. I tried to make this clear a couple of times now when I wrote:
"Something like 7 million people who voted for Biden in 2020 either stayed at home and some voted for Trump. That's a failure to inspire and mobilize the base."
"you don't have to face some awful truths"
What awful truth? That Biden was better at winning/rigging elections than Harris or Trump? It's not something that concerns me.
Laugh about it
Shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.'
This asshole needs to fuck off and die.
I think it's at least plausible that millions of people were cooped up at home and watching the news more than they had before and as a result were rage-goaded into voting for the first and probably last time in their lives.
I'm not saying that's the case, but it's at least possible.
I'm saying that millions of extra mail-in ballots with no chain of custody being fiddled with is a far more likely scenario than the nation's apathetic suddenly finding interest after years of not having any, only to abandon it again.
Even though that the "fiddling" of several million mail-in ballots would have required a conspiracy of a rather large size, and to this date no one has come forth to brag or spill the beans about the success of this conspiracy, you find that this is far more likely than a bunch of voters voting conveniently for the first time in a while.
Pretending none of this been explained to you dozens of times.
It also didn’t help that her and Biden’s administration was a complete failure on every significant issue important to American citizens.
>> For most of Harris' relatively brief candidacy, she and Trump appeared to be locked in a very tight race.
What made it "appear" that way? The official narrative from establishment mouthpieces? The poll numbers from the very same pollsters who underestimated Trump in both 2016 and 2020?
>> Some people are chalking Harris' loss up to sexism, misogyny, and racism.
An "explanation" that, in fact, is of entirely negative value.
Let's look at the results from Starr County, Texas:
2008: 85-15 Obama v. McCain
2012: 86-13 Barak Obama v. Mitt Romney
2016: 79-19 Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump
2024: 58-42 Donald Trump v. Kamala Harris
Starr's "racists" are apparently had no problem voting for the black Obama by landslide numbers twice, and Starr's "sexists" apparently had no problem voting for the woman Clinton by landslide numbers.
Of course, we might have a bit more understanding if we look at the item from the series I omitted:
2020: 52-47 Biden v. Trump
That's right. A 97.7% Hispanic county that was won by a 3-to-1 margin by the Democrats in every election 1976-2012 only voted Democrat in 2020 by the same margin as the national popular vote. Trump's surprise showing in Texas border counties was noted in 2020 . . . but nobody actually stopped and tried to draw any lessons from it, because Trump lost the election.
If you try to analyze this year's election purely by what changed from 2020, you will, of course, miss the lesson of what changed 2016-2020. Which is that four years of actual Trump government convinced many minorities that, in fact, Trump was not the avatar of racism that the establishment had hysterically declared him, but a perfectly reasonable president. The 2020-2024 swing by minorities in favor of Trump was entirely prefigured in a similar 2016-2020 swing.
See https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Frixfbuklam3b1.jpg for that earlier swing -- not just in the massive red shift of the Texas border counties, but the pink coloring you'll see when zoomed in on LA, Chicago, Detroit, or NYC.
Trump's a political earthquake. The only question is whether, when it's passed, things will settle down pretty much where they were, or if we're seeing a real realignment.
"Trump's a political earthquake. "
Trump is just a symptom of the worldwide trend to anti-Liberalism.
"Trump was not the avatar of racism that the establishment had hysterically declared him"
Or he was and the voters didn't care.
It was always a ruse. There was no time when they didn't think Trump was going to win.
The Harris campaign’s internal polling apparently never had her ahead of Trump.
I don't remember any of the polls I regularly saw showing a significant and lasting lead of Harris over Trump. She made a remarkable improvement over Biden's numbers in the first week or so of her candidacy, but never really got any momentum out of it.
"I'm not Biden" was enough to get her within striking distance of the presidency. "I'm not Trump" wasn't enough to finish the job.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
FOAD, steaming pile of smug lefty shit.
And for some reason they thought pouring out money on stupid things would fix that.
These are guys who think pouring gasoline on a fire will put out the fire because it's a liquid.
Like HO2?
Actually, it will. You can extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline on it because it's a liquid. You just have to do it in a way that doesn't let the gasoline vapor around the edge catch fire.
I saw that demonstrated once in my late teens and it blew my mind.
Harris received 8 million fewer votes than Biden. Obviously Democrats are misogynist racists who didn't vote for the black woman.
Actually racist and misogynist describes the Democratic party pretty accurately.
she and Trump appeared to be locked in a very tight race.
It only appeared that way. Because you and the rest of the mainstream/state media constantly lie to everyone's face. Take it away HuffPo:
Plouffe said the campaign’s internal polling never had Harris ahead of Trump. “We didn’t get the breaks we needed on Election Day,” he said. “I think it surprised people, because there was these public polls that came out in late September, early October, showing us with leads that we never saw.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-campaign-polls_n_67462013e4b0fffc5a469baf
The polls? Gaslighting. The media fawning? Gaslighting. The attempt to prove that woman had a lick of sense or competency? Insulting our intelligence. The fluff interviews? Insulting our intelligence. "But Trump?" Nobody cared.
In the weeks leading up to the election, candidate Harris struggled to define herself as polls repeatedly showed little daylight between her and Trump.
On the contrary, Liz - she defined herself as exactly what we've come to expect from the Democrat Party. A mindless automaton that will follow its programming without question. An NPC that recites party doctrine and dogma, but can't ever justify it even slightly if it's questioned even a little bit. A braindead woke liberal moron whose entire marxist ideology can't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. An empty suit who believes that intersectionality and partisanship is all one needs for success.
And everyone who supported her - including all you BS "Chase Oliver supporters" - are no different.
That's why it's a month later, and you're STILL racking your brains trying to figure it out, or coming up with some rationalization for it, or convincing yourself that it was all for some reason you don't understand (LOL), or just screaming incoherently into your social media feeds.
She lost because the Democrat Party went full crazy. Everyone knows it, nobody will put up with them anymore, and they're incapable of course correction. Watching them slowly burn to death in the prideful fires of their own setting is just *chefs kiss*.
Get woke, go broke - in the most extreme example of it EVER.
Meanwhile, let's check in with Trump's cabinet picks to see if we can spot the Libertarian that he said he was going to select...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-might-be-in-donald-trump-cabinet/
Huh, don't really see a Libertarian there. But I do see a whole bunch of identity politics...
Black guy? Check
Gay guy? Check
Hispanic guy and gal? Check and check
Oh, and just a little bit of nepotism: Check out the US Ambassador to France
Pretty sure the libertarian guy is also the gay one.
How many fags did you beat up when gay bashing was cool?
What makes you think it's not still cool? If anything, the LGBT Pedos have been straight up begging to keep it happening what with their targeting, grooming, abusing, transing, and raping children.
You realize that when you invented terms like "chestfeeding" to describe literally stripping newborn babies from their mothers and forcing their participation in your cosplaying sex kink that was the LGBT's open invitation to skip right past "gay bashing" and go straight "it's not if they kill you all, it's when."
Take it up with them, not me. I tried to warn you.
What makes you think it's not still cool?
Among non-bigoted psychopaths, it's not cool.
"Among non-bigoted psychopaths, it's not cool"
Did you just call yourself a psycho?
Anyway, what about authoritarian kiddie fiddlers? Because I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram for them and your "non-bigoted psychopaths" is a perfect circle.
No, instead, why don't you explain to us why you decided to deflect away from my criticism of AT who explicitly endorsed gay-bashing. Is it because you also support gay-bashing?
You weren't criticizing me, you were trying (failing) to demonize me.
It was an ad hominem. This is Democrat 101. When you have an indefensible position, you just try to make the other person defend their character instead. Shift the narrative away from the merit of the discussion, and on to the opponent themselves.
But since I'm smarter and more physically attractive than you (and because I'm 100% immune to ad hominem attacks) now, for your trouble, it's now on you to explain why anyone should be on the side of child raping cosplaying pederasts. Instead of acknowledging/admitting that they're asking for a bashing by virtue of being child raping cosplaying pederasts.
Have fun with that. Maybe call up Kamalamadingdong and ask how she made that her winning issue.
Oh, wait.
*smirk*
You demonize yourself when you advocate for physical violence against gays just for being gay. I'm just here to point it out.
I've never once advocated it. Just advised how to avoid it.
(Hint: stop abusing children.)
You and sarcasmic are the primary gay-bashers here.
That's not even a little bit true. Go find me a single post where I've ever suggested anyone do such a thing, or defended it in any way.
You won't find one. I am trying to help stop that inevitable future for the LGBT pedos. The normies, though they took awhile, were content with the whole "privacy of their bedroom" thing. By the late 90s, they were on board with the "so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses" approach to it.
But, as pride comes before the fall - quite literally here - the LGBT pedos kept pushing and pushing. And now the normies are done. America is done.
The best thing the gay community can do for themselves now is get back in the closet. Revert the pride to the shame it always was. Go back to your trench coats and gloryholes and high risk of HIV on skid row. Because your "closet" was always a pandora's box. And now everyone knows the perverts and sickos and predators that were always lurking right behind you in it.
We can't shut it for you, Bert. And the time you have to shut it yourself is quickly ticking away.
Some threats are implicit. When the gangster tells you how nice your place is and voices concern over 'something happening to it.' you can take that as a threat.
I think Bert’s referring to Jeffy and Sarc as the gay bashers, not you, based on the comment nesting.
Yep, my comment was directed at the radical individualist.
Some threats are implicit.
Maybe, but when one says, "You shouldn't poke the bear, it might wake up and eat you," that's not me threatening you, overtly or implicitly.
That's a warning that you're doing something foolish and dangerous that is going to piss off something you really don't want to mess with.
Did you know Chase is gay?
So now you are complaining that the picks are diverse?
Of course Jeffy the racist would whine about the picks being diverse.
"Huh, don't really see a Libertarian there."
They're almost all libertarians to some degree, you totalitarian sot.
They're almost all libertarians to some degree
You could say the same about Biden's cabinet then - "to some degree".
Anyway, Trump promised he would appoint a libertarian to the Cabinet, not some vague "to some degree" person. Are you telling us that Pam Bondi the Drug Warrior is that libertarian? Maybe it is Marco Rubio the war hawk and the natalist? Oh wait I know, I bet it's Mike Huckabee, right?
So you admit you hate people of color. Finally.
Watching a short interview with Thomas Sowell. Quote: "Stupid people can cause problems but sometimes brilliant people cause catastrophes." On balance we're probably lucky that Biden and Harris are stupid people.
Oh and by the way. When Team Blue throws everything including the kitchen sink at Trump, spends $2 billion dollars in the process, and they couldn't stop Literal Hitler, then it can't really be said that they control the levers of institutional power anymore in this country (if they ever did). Either that, or the institutions that they do control don't really matter anymore.
Team Blue controls the media? Well okay, but that's not where most people get their news from anyway. As you all are quite fond of pointing out, more people get their news from Joe Rogan than they get it from ABC or CNN. So who cares if a bunch of lefties run the New York Times. It doesn't matter anymore.
Team Blue controls education? Well okay but education in this country has been so watered down that it barely educates anyone about anything. Due in no small measure from complaints from Team Red who are 'working the refs'. School administrators are not a bunch of wild-eyed ideologues, they are guided mostly by risk aversion.
Team Blue controls the arts and entertainment? Well okay, but mainstream entertainment is lowest-common-denominator dreck, not high falutin' masterpieces. Because that is what the market demands. And the moment a company like Disney dares to produce some product for mass consumption that violates some conservative social norm, Team Red makes sure they give them an earful and they don't repeat that mistake again. And the 'high society art' that is created, again, no one cares outside of a few coastal snobs.
So congratulations Team Red, your own version of the Long March is bearing fruit. Team Blue's Long March through the Institutions captured them and turned them towards left-wing goals. Team Red's Long March served instead to either neutralize or side-step those same institutions so that they no longer mattered.
Of course, the new problem that emerges is that those institutions were all created to serve some purpose, and if those institutions are now irrelevant, how will those purposes be met? Will American entertainment ever again be anything other than CGI robots and monsters fighting each other? Will American education ever again be anything other than daycare factories? Will American news ever again be anything other than rumors put forth by Youtube hucksters? How do we get quality education and quality news so that Americans as a whole are well educated and well informed? Do we even care? And if not, how is this Republic to be sustained if the voters themselves are uninformed?
It doesn't matter anymore.
That’s what happens when you lose.
Jeffy, what you've just said was one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this comment section is now dumber for having read it.
Whew, I was working my way up from the bottom and almost did. He's nattering on about his team narratives right? I saw Red and Blue for a second.
At least he broke his bullshit into paragraphs this time.
Just end universal suffrage, your problem goes away.
Then how are leaders chosen?
Elections, the same as it was in the US pre civil war.
Absolutely glorious.
Lurch Fetterman is right...pace yourself, chemjeff.
In which ML and AT both cream their pants
Russian police raid Moscow nightclubs over 'LGBT propaganda'
https://www.dw.com/en/russian-police-raid-moscow-nightclubs-over-lgbt-propaganda/a-70929093
The raids came on the one-year anniversary of Russia's Supreme Court outlawing the "international LGBT movement"
lol.
Isn't it dreamy?
Hey Nazi, are you actually equating shit going on in Russia with a kangaroo court in my country fining a fucking village because they didn't celebrate your alphabet cult?
Fuck you, goose-stepper.
Hey Nazi, are you trying to bring up a false equivalence in order to deflect from the fact that yes, you would absolutely support an anti-gay pogrom in Canada?
Cite?
an anti-gay pogrom in Canada
This may be the single dumbest and most ignorant thing you've ever said.
Canada. LMAO.
Hey man, you were the one who advocated for using physical violence against gays. In Russia, the government is actually rounding up the gays at nightclubs. I mean, you think that gays are all "child raping cosplaying pederasts", right? Why should scum like that be allowed to breathe air, amirite?
I mean, you think that gays are all "child raping cosplaying pederasts", right?
Well, that or enablers. Lotta heterosexuals in that camp too. The more global, encapsulating term for them all is "progressive."
Again, let's go back to what we're talking about:
A grown man, pretending to be a woman, who takes a newborn baby from its natural mother, and then delights in forcing it to try and suck his nipples for nourishment - all under the color and pretense of the rainbow flag. Which they equate with pride.
Now, who will you defend over the other - that child raping cosplaying pederast, or the folks like me saying he (and anyone making ANY excuses for him) had better knock that sicko crap off before some other folks with a whole lot less patience and a whole lot more rage take matters into their own hands to stop him and those like him and flying his colors?
You decide.
I mean, you can't really back out of the positions you've taken now at this point.
You think gays are "child raping cosplaying pedophiles", and you presumably favor capital punishment. Since raping a child is one of the worst crimes that a person could possibly commit, why would you NOT be in favor of a pogrom against gays?
Maybe the government should just go to San Francisco and New York and just "straighten the place out" (IYKWIM). For the sake of the children. You don't want child rapists out on the loose, do you?
and you presumably favor
There it is. That's the ad hominem, the straw man, and the false dilemma all in one!
You win the idiot trophy, jeff! Congrats!
You really are desperate to smear them, aren't you, jack?
Who cares?
Other peoples oppression elsewhere isn't the problem of the free.
Yes we know. Freedom is a luxury for the elect. Isn't that right?
Unless the free are willing to lay down their lives to free those elsewhere (good luck getting anyone but neo-cons to agree), their suffering is beyond the free.
Why worry about it?
Gee I don't know, does human life have intrinsic value?
Are they worth your life or not?
Far more importantly, are they worth the lives of a voluntary or conscripted armed force?
But that is a separate question - the question of whether human life has value, and the question of the proper means to preserve the value of human life.
I feel like you are arguing that if a thief holds me up at gunpoint and steals my wallet, that because in that moment I am powerless to keep possession over my wallet, that it means that I must believe my wallet has no value.
So no, then. Then you have your answer on how much free people value the un-free.
No, we have your answer as to how much YOU value the un-free.
Oh my mistake, you are indeed willing to give up your life to free teh gays in Russike.
Good luck.
Again, two separate issues - the issue of the principle of the matter, and the issue of the pragmatic implementation.
Tell me, do you think starving orphans deserve to starve? No? Then why haven't you donated all of your time and labor to helping starving orphans????
I've already given you my answer: those beyond the free's ability to affect aren't worth the worry.
So it is with all things.
Lying Jeffy once felt good about himself after he got an ‘ataboy from his Philosophy 100 professor, so now he’s emotionally stuck in that situation and thinks it’s real life.
Since your kind lost in a massive landslide, you’ve gotten increasingly shrill and desperate. So seethe harder, you fat bitch.
Breaking: Biden will pardon Hunter. Nobody fucks with a Biden.
Might as well go full banana republic.
Well, neither unexpected nor unanticipated. It's about par for the course for this, the most corrupt administration we've seen.
This is going to go over well with the tens of thousands of black men his crime bills locked away for doing the same stuff as Hunter.
Now that he is pardoned he can't hide behind the 5th amendment. Time to get him in front of committees and some tell alls to Kash.
Most amazing part is Joe pardoned him for a full 11 year for any and all crimes, even ones not admitted to. Utterly amazing.
That was the same type of pardon given to Nixon.
Why would you want to get Hunter Biden in front of congressional committees? For a fishing expedition?
Lying Jeffy’s not even pretending anymore.
R Mac comes out in favor of fishing expeditions against political rivals.
Just what do you think has been going on for the past four years, dipshit?
Gotta protect your elite masters, right Fatfuck?
Reps did it first, sarcjeff?
X: @Caesar_Pounce gives his take.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1862233194143023591.html
Why should I care about @Caesar_Pounce?
And yet you made a screed about it.
Lmao, just spiraling.
Fat desperate bitch.
Well I will say, this is about the only interesting thing that he had to say:
That's right. Because both tribes view the other as tribes. Not as individual people. This isn't surprising at all to anyone who has any ability at all to see outside of the two tribes. To each tribe, the other tribe isn't composed of individual people, it is composed of just blobs of evil.
Whoosh.
Yes we know. THEIR tribe is the one who marches in lockstep. But not YOUR tribe. Oh no no. YOUR tribe is full of diverse individuals. We understand.
There are no fucking tribes. It's your new lie to replace the outdated 'right' and 'left' idea.
There are the people who want to be free and the people who want to farm them. That's it.
That's why Glen Greenwald and Tucker Carlson are on the same side and why Liz Cheney and AOC are on the same side. And no, freedom doesn't mean the right to rape children and murder babies.
There are no fucking tribes. It's your new lie to replace the outdated 'right' and 'left' idea.
There are the people who want to be free and the people who want to farm them. That's it.
Should we call them Eloi and Morlocks? Even in your retarded characterization, you've described tribes. This is you trying to derail the conversation by arguing over the pettiest of things.
By the way:
There are the people who want to be free and the people who want to farm them.
Guess what, each tribe says the same thing about the other tribe. Neither one however is particularly interested in freedom for its own sake.
You mean for freedom to rape kids.
We all know that's what you're here for, Jeff. We all know what the + means.
"Oh yeah? For you, 'freedom' means 'freedom to rape kids'!"
"Oh yeah? For you, 'freedom' means 'freedom to control women!"
It's amazing how you take two positions of brutality against the most vulnerable humans on the planet at the exact same time.
pedo Jeffy is pure evil. A sick, vicious pit viper.
I doubt anybody knows what you refer to but... let's make it 3
Mom Who Quit ACLU over Transgender Bathroom: 'My Children Were Visibly Frightened'
Maya Dillard Smith, the ACLU executive who resigned over the transgender bathroom issue, has created a website called "Finding Middle Ground-A Safe Space To Communicate About Civil Rights for All."
Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the ACLU, quit the organization because of its position that men who identify as women should be allowed to use womens' restrooms.
Agree to disagree. Making Kamala the scapegoat would be like me blaming my off-leash dog when she bites someone. Kamala was an empty vessel they chose to shove in front of the American people. Again, when Kamala rambles and spews words and syllables that literally make no sense, you are watching her on her best day, as opposed to Biden, whom you're watching on his worst.
My previous analysis was correct: The Biden/Harris lineup in 2020 was the biggest political blunder in modern history.
For most of Harris' relatively brief candidacy, she and Trump appeared to be locked in a very tight race. So Harris' incredibly dismal showing was also somewhat unexpected.
Like the Ontario Trucker protest, it was "unexpected" if you watched the news.
Do you believe your Youtube feed gives you a fair and accurate account of the news?
^This from the guy who believed Joe was sharp as a tack until the debate, and anyone who could see the plainly obvious was a conspiracy theorist.
Never change, jeff.
Never underestimate the depths of Jeffy’s ability to lie and be fully retarded at the same time.
What the article should have said.....
"'Election integrity' wasn't expected in 2024."
Ya know; Where the In-Person vote actually somewhat resembled the Mail-in vote in the same district instead of going 80-20 in contrast to each other.
ENB, I am disappointed. You used to do research.
Why don't you look at the actual demographic data by county and precinct? An average can have quite a lot of variation.
You were given an example of Starr County, TX as an example. There are so many others. Why aren't you looking at the data?
Because the data doesn’t fit the narrative being presented.
You had this months ago but you lost track
https://cbn.com/news/us/aclu-leader-resigns-after-daughters-experience-public-bathroom
Mom Who Quit ACLU over Transgender Bathroom: 'My Children Were Visibly Frightened'
Don't any of you have daughters !!!!
You can go whole hog on rights and 'do your own thing" but do you sacrifice your child to your regressive 60's Hippie mentality
Voters are voting for a change from the unmitigated disaster of a government we have and voters will continue to vacillate between the parties until one of the political parties actually follow through with seismic level changes.
Kamala Harris's problem is that she was part of the Biden regime and could not think of a single thing that she would do different. This means that she was not the change candidate, but the status quo candidate. She had numerous other serious flaws which didn't help and 1.5 billion dollars and tons of free positive media coverage could not overcome.
Donald Trump, didn't win the election, but rather he didn't lose the election. Kamala Harris lost the election regardless of the huge advantage he had.
FJB and the Dems abandoned "My Body My Choice".
That undercut abortion messaging.
Absolute rubbish!
Donald Trump clearly won this election by a landslide against an ignorant, whore who is clearly controlled by Obama.
Trump won because Americans have had enough of this liberal bullshit being shoved down their throats daily.
Americans are fed up with gender ideology and the so called "victims". They are fed up with being gas lit by government stooges and the hacks in the legacy media.
Americans are fed up with high food bills, high energy prices and overpriced housing.
In short, Americans have had enough of the failed, short sighted and ignorant policies the Biden administration implements.
Another four years of this and the nation would have collapsed.
> Donald Trump clearly won this election by a landslide ...
Perspective.
65% of eligible voters participated.
50% of those voted for Trump.
65% is just under 2/3. Half of 2/3 is 1/3. Trump was elected by 1/3 of eligible voters. That is not a majority.
One-third consented by not voting.
> One-third consented by not voting.
That's not how consent works. Not saying "no" is not the same thing as saying "yes".
Fuck off.
We're not talking about fucking at Antioch College; we're talking about how democracy works. Those who don't vote are consenting to be governed by whoever wins. Fuck off yourself.
> Those who don't vote are consenting to be governed by whoever wins.
Bullshit. Consent is affirmative. Period. It can neither be implied nor affirmed. Remaining silent on election day is not an affirmation of consent to any damned thing. Not saying "no" is not the same as saying "yes" no matter how loudly and shrilly you insist otherwise.
The process is simply not democratic when 1/3 of the electorate selects the winning candidate, and the intent of the silent (non)voters simply cannot be inferred.
Guess it's a good thing the USA is a *Constitutional* Republic and NOT a 'democracy' where [WE] majority gangs get to rule minorities absolutely then isn't it.
It's so funny to listen to Democrats pander to 'minorities' when their very platform principle is to completely destroy minority rights / representation. The party of nothing but self-projection and [WE] gang RULES narcissism.
It's really no puzzle at-all why almost 3/4 of the prison population register as Democrats.
'Not saying "no" is not the same as saying "yes"'
We voters did not get to say "no". All we could do was say "yes" to someone else.
It included an incoherent "Medicare at Home" benefit, national rent-control policies, tax hikes on businesses, giving $25,000 to first-time homebuyers, giving "1 million loans that are fully forgivable" to "Black entrepreneurs and others" who want to start businesses, and some form of federal price controls for groceries
And you didnt even mention the worst one of all, literally the worse policy proposal of any candidate in history, the tax on unrealized capital gains.
The black and hispanic guys who voted for Trump in 2024 after voting for Biden in 20204 don't care about tax on unrealized capital gains. The people who cared about tax on unrealized capital gains were already voting for Trump because Trump promised to extend corporate tax cuts.
People who voted for Trump don't like [WE] 'armed-theft' gangs???
"Why Kamala Harris Lost."
Could it be because she has shit for brains, defends Biden's insane domestic and foreign policies, and panders to the rich elitist snobs in Hollywood, Big Tech and academia instead of having sane new policies that would help the working class of America?
This delusional article and its delusional author perfectly encapsulate why the democrats were curb stomped. The real beauty is that they have learned nothing, it's a gift that keeps on giving.
+100000
"they have learned nothing" from the history of [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
The answer is simple -- Americans hate Wokeism
https://bit.ly/3TsGezw December 14, 2023, CityWatch, Biden Fails to Realize that Americans Hate Wokeism, by Richard Lee Abrams