Lololol you're too old to be so fucking dum
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2971406]Of the 24 or so reliably, historically, traditionally Blue States and Districts, only three of those Blue States flipped to Trump and only by a razor-thin margin. It was where less than a 0. 9 point swing from Harris to Trump in one of those three states, less than a 0. 8 point swing in another and less than a 0. 5 point swing in the third one was enough to do it.
That would be PA, MI and WI, the only 3 states that determined the difference between a President-elect Harris today and a Presidents-elect or is it Presidents-UNelect Musk, Ramaswamy and Bannon.
See screenshot below.
Scroll down to "Results" on this link for the latest numbers and points:
[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election[/URL]
Now, here are a few points about the election in general and those three states in particular that I suspect the "Every Great Depression, Great Recession and Massive Jobs Loss of the past 100 years and none of the historic Economic Recoveries, Expansions and Jobs Gains happening under Repub Presidents and all of the Polar Opposite Results happening under Dem Presidents is just a wild, magical and mystical coincidence" crowd will dismiss as not ringing true. To them.
Nevertheless, the empirical evidence, admissions and acknowledgement by the key participants and beneficiary as well as the final and actual overall numbers and results provides overwhelming proof of the truth of them:
1. They were the three closest states in terms of final Trump vs Harris votes.
2. Related to the above point, they were the three states Harris spent the most time in campaigning and ad expenditures.
3. Even if Biden had been the candidate to the very end he would have only had an additional 90 days or so to campaign than Harris vs the 7 years Trump spent campaiging for it. It turns out, unlike Trump, Biden had an actual job to keep him busy since January 20,2021; recovering the colossal mess on all economic, jobs destruction, national security, health, life, death, crime rate, foreign policy, American Insurrection, Overthrowing of American democracy fronts Trump left behind and doing so in historic, remarkable and unprecedented sucessful fashion.
Ergo, Biden would have had scarcely more free time to focus on campaigning in much more than those same three states as Harris did.
And that is in contrast to Trump who, as far as anyone can tell, his only "work time" as so-called president was the 20 minutes or so it took him to sign that ridiculous, deficit-ballooning waste of tax-dollars Tax Cuts and Jobs Act put together by the Repubs in Congress one day in late December 2017. Other than that, nothing. Just walking and talking and golfing and campaigning for his 2nd term run.
4. By all accounts, those three states are not the only states in the country where demos such as, oh, black men, non college-educated whites, Latinos and yeah, even angry Muslims reside.
5. By all accounts, those three states are not the only states in the country that had access to news feeds and personal opinions and experiences regarding the economy, trannies, pronouns, immigration, Roe v Wade, who referred to who as "Hitler", crime rates, etc etc etc.
6. Yet, none of those 24 or so typically Blue States and Districts flipped to Red in the presidential contest, none of the supposedly critical Dem demos were compelled to shift from Harris to Trump in ANY of those typically Blue States or Districts enough to flip the entire state to Trump if even by a razor-thin margin or swing in votes, except THREE.
7. Those three states also happen to be the only three states where Muslim Community Leaders mobilized to channel the anger of their Community of voters, sizable in all three states, to deny the Biden Administration a presidential win due to their conflating the USA support for Israel in its conflict with Gaza with love and support for Netanyahu, who they hate. Even though almost immediately after they "gave Trump the presidency" in that way and for that reason they have deeply regretted doing so.
8. All the buzz issues Trump and his sucker MAGAs spent at least 7 years conjuring up and carried mostly unchallenged into Americans' homes by obedient pro Repub Mainstream Media and non traditional media along with all those red herrings about Dems "losing their Demos to Trump" did not matter one whit with regard to which candidate won the presidential election.
9. The only thing that mattered was that relative handful of angry Muslim joker in the deck that no one other than them had control over, unfortunately for them as well as the rest of the country, popped up in Trump's hand on that one critical day.
10. Could a surge of uncharacteristically intelligent and suddenly roused out of their MSM-assisted, Trump Con-induced hypnotic state MAGAs have rushed in to save themselves and America by voting for Harris instead of Trump in those three states and thereby counteracted the effect of those mobilized angry Muslims on the unfortunate election result, perhaps if she hadn't been a she and the other ethnic minority mix she was?
Sure. Coulda Woulda Shoulda.
But didn't.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/opinion/identity-groups-politics.html[/URL]
Opinion.
David Brooks.
Why We Got It So Wrong.
Nov. 14,2024.
A crowd of people seen from behind, looking into floodlights.
Credit. Jesse Rieser for The New York Times.
Share full article.
2. 4 k.
David Brooks.
By David Brooks.
Opinion Columnist.
Let me ask you a few questions:
If the Democrats nominated a woman to run for president, would you expect her to do better among female voters than the guy who ran in her place four years before?
If the Democrats nominated a Black woman to run for president, would you expect her to do better among Black voters than the white candidate who ran in her place four years before?
If the Republicans nominated a guy who ran on mass deportation and consistently said horrible things about Latino immigrants, would you expect him to do worse among Latino voters over time?
If the Democrats nominated a vibrant Black woman who was the subject of a million brat memes, would you expect her to do better among young voters than the old white guy who ran before her?
Advertisement.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.
If you said yes to any of these questions, as I would have a month ago, you have some major rethinking to do, because all of these expectations were wrong.
In 2024, Kamala Harris did worse among Black voters than Joe Biden did in 2020. She did worse among female voters. She did much worse among Latino voters. She did much worse among young voters.
She did manage to outperform Biden among two groups: affluent people and white voters, especially white men. If there is one sentence that captures the surprising results of this election, it is this one from the sociologist Musa al-Gharbi: "Democrats lost because everyone except for whites moved in the direction of Donald Trump this cycle. ".
Going into this campaign, I did not have that one on my bingo card.
Why were so many of our expectations wrong? Well, we all walk around with mental models of reality in our heads. Our mental models help us make sense of the buzzing, blooming confusion of the world. Our mental models help us anticipate what's about to happen. Our mental models guide us as we make decisions about how to get the results we want.
Many of us are walking around with broken mental models. Many of us go through life with false assumptions about how the world works.
Editors' Picks.
The Writer of the Netflix Hit 'Carry-On' Talks About the 'Trolley Problem' and the T. S. A.
Happy Hunting: Our Favorite Home-Buying Stories of 2024.
The Best Friends They Left Behind.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.
Advertisement.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.
Where did we get our current models? Well, we get models from our experience, our peers, the educational system, the media and popular culture. Over the past few generations, a certain worldview that emphasizes racial, gender and ethnic identity has been prevalent in the circles where highly educated people congregate. This worldview emerged from the wonderful liberation movements that highlighted American life over the past seven decades: the civil rights movement, the women's liberation movement, the gay rights movement, the trans rights movement.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
The crucial assertion of the identitarian mind-set is that all politics and all history can be seen through the lens of liberation movements. Society is divided between the privileged (straight white males) and the marginalized (pretty much everyone else). History and politics are the struggle between oppressors and oppressed groups.
In this model, people are seen as members of a group before they are seen as individuals. When Biden picked his running mate in 2020, he had promised to pick a woman, and when he picked his Supreme Court nominee in 2022, he had promised to pick a Black woman. In both cases her identity grouping came before her individual qualities.
In this model, society is seen as an agglomeration of different communities. Democrats thus produce separate agendas designed to mobilize Black men, women and so on. The goal of Democratic politics is to link all the oppressed and marginalized groups into one majority coalition.
In this model, individual cognition is de-emphasized while collective consciousness is emphasized. Groups are assumed to be relatively homogeneous. People are seen as representatives of their community. Standpoint epistemology reigns. This is the idea that a person's ideas are primarily shaped not by individual preferences but by the experience of the group. It makes sense to say, "Speaking as a gay Hispanic man." because a person's thoughts are assumed to be dispatches from a communal experience.
Advertisement.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.
This identity politics mind-set is psychologically and morally compelling. In an individualistic age, it gives people a sense of membership in a group. It helps them organize their lives around a noble cause, fighting oppression.
But this mind-set has just crashed against the rocks of reality. This model assumes that people are primarily motivated by identity group solidarity. This model assumes that the struggle against oppressive systems and groups is the central subject of politics. This model has no room for what just happened.
It turns out a lot of people don't behave like ambassadors from this or that group. They think for themselves in unexpected ways.
It turns out that many people don't see politics and history through the paradigm of liberation movements. They are concerned with all kinds of issues that don't fit into the good-versus-evil mind-set of oppressor versus oppressed: How do you fix inflation? How can we bring down crime? What should our policy on Ukraine be?
Plenty of people are exhausted by the crude generalizations that are so common today. For example, analysts talk about gender wars and hypermasculine Trump supporters. But in most elections, as in this one, there's not a vast difference between how men and women vote. The differences within the male and female populations are greater than the differences between these populations.
Advertisement.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.
A lot of the group categories that identity politics rely on don't make much sense. For example, the category "Hispanic voter" includes people of Mexican descent whose families have been in Texas for 350 years as well as families from Chile who came to New York a decade ago.
The category "people of color" doesn't make sense, either, as a way to group individuals as a political force. America has been uniquely wretched to Black Americans, practicing structural racism that shows up today, for example, in the horrendous wealth gap between Black and white people. The diverse communities we call Asian and Hispanic Americans came here largely voluntarily. Many of them have been able to prosper and experience educational and income trajectories that are different from those of a community that has suffered hundreds of years of slavery and discrimination.
Even the most solid identity group categories are fluid. As a recent Pew Research Center study found, among people who married in 2022,32 percent of Asian Americans married outside their ethnic group, as did 30 percent of Hispanics, 23 percent of Black people and 15 percent of white people. In one Pew survey 58 percent of Hispanics also identified as white.
The identity politics mind-set has made it harder to deal with nuts-and-bolts issues like how to address the homelessness crisis or reduce opioid deaths and how to run an institution in which people treat one another decently. Have you noticed that the places most rife with this mind-set (progressive cities and elite universities) have experienced one leadership failure after another?
This is a time when we all should be updating our mental models and making our view of society more complex. And I'm seeing a lot of that around me as people try to learn from what just happened.
Advertisement.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.
But I'm also seeing many people who are still victims of conceptual blindness. They are so imprisoned by their mental models, they can interpret these results only in identity politics terms: Harris lost because America is racist (even though she did virtually the same as Biden did among white voters). Harris lost because America is sexist (even though she underperformed among women). Some people blamed white women for abandoning their Black sisters, as if lack of gender solidarity were the main thing going on here.
Identitarian takes are strewn across the media. The New Yorker ran an analysis piece headlined "How America Embraced Gender War. " Slate ran a piece called "Men Got Exactly What They Wanted. " The Guardian ran a piece called "Our Mistake Was to Think We Lived in a Better Country Than We Do. " If the election didn't come out the way we wanted, it must be because of their groups' bigotry against our groups.
As I try to update my own models, a few stray thoughts enter my mind. First, you don't reduce racial, ethnic and gender bigotry by raising the salience of these categories and by exaggerating the differences between groups. Second, integration is better than separatism. Diverse societies prosper when people in different categories cooperate in respectful ways on a day-to-day basis, not when we divide people into supposedly homogeneous enclaves. Third, assimilation is not a dirty word, as long as it's voluntary; it's not a sin to feel that your love for America transcends your love for your ethnic group, and you don't really love America if you despise half its people. Fourth, most of the world's problems are caused by stupidity and human limitation, not because there's some malevolently brilliant group of oppressors keeping everybody else down.
Fifth, seeing groups in all their complexity requires seeing individuals in all their complexity. To see people well, you have to see what makes them unique. You also have to see which groups they belong to. You also have to see their social location — where they fit in the economic, social and status hierarchies. When you're able to see people at all three levels of reality, you're beginning to see them holistically.
Finally, we need a social vision that doesn't rely on zero-sum us / them thinking. During his first term, Trump unleashed a cultural assault based on his version of identity politics. The left responded by doubling down on its identitarian mind-set. We have to do better this time.
Advertisement.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT.
In 1959 the British jurist Patrick Devlin made a point that should haunt us: "Without shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics, no society can exist. " he added, "If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil, they will fail; if having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate. ".
We need a social vision that is as morally compelling as identity politics but does a better job of describing reality. We need a national narrative that points us to some ideal and gives each of us a noble role in pursuing it. That's the gigantic cultural task that lies ahead.
This is so precious coming from someone living in the 3rd world
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2971331]I have been so preoccupied with enjoying the Winter Wonderland Christmas festivities here in the Land of Smiles, the delicious buffets, live entertainment, fireworks, good times and fun I had completely missed the opening shots of the Civil War between the MAGAs and the Con Artists who suckered them into voting for Trump.
It seems the short hand version of this so far is that Ramaswamy, Musk, Boomer, Bannon, everybody who is important and calling the shots in the upcoming Trump's Pandemic and Economic Disaster Part 2 are locked, loaded and taking aim at the MAGAs Trump suckered and each other, admitting the Big Con was that dumb, lazy MAGAs, unworthy of being hired to work at real jobs have only themselves to blame for why those who suckered them must still bring in lots of Immigrants to take their jobs, that the Bull Shit Department of Government Efficiency was set up by Con Man Trump only to make MAGA suckers think they are saving money for them when in fact it is meant to take money from them and make him and his billionaire buddies wealthier. Lololol. Fun stuff.
So I did a search on the topic to catch up a bit more and discovered this very interesting overview of what is going on by Steve Schmidt, a former Repub Party campaign strategist and advisor who knows the Big Repub Con very, very well.
An 8:56 minute video well worth the time:
[URL]https://youtu.be/QQttuiH8gfY?si=hV50vLhOtItPb6mC[/URL][/QUOTE]"MAGAs unworthy of being hired to work at real jobs have only themselves to blame for why those who suckered them must still bring in lots of Immigrants to take their jobs".
Sounds like quintessential sour grapes, I live in a bad ass Penthouse and I don't know anyone that needs to move to the third world just to get by LOLOLOLOL.
Stop projecting so much its a really bad look LOLOLOLOL.
Since 1946? You mean the Southern now Red State MAGAs?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2971611]I think it's a whole lot simpler. Just look at the numbers. The Democrats have done a much better job of gerrymandering House districts than Republicans. I addressed that before:[/QUOTE]From 1946 until at least 1968 the districts you're referring to as "Democrat" were the same regional voters who vote for MAGA Repubs now. The Democratic Party lost them when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If they were cheating as Dems then they are cheating as Repubs now and since at least 1968.
Aside from that, any assertion of which Party gets the most House votes is utterly and totally irrelevant until and unless gerrymandering is outlawed.
Where there is no gerrymandering, such as Senate and Presidential elections, Dem candidates have proven to get far more votes than Repub candidates more often than not for decades and decades.
Let's see what happens when there is no gerrymandering of any districts. Until then, any claim to anything regarding "more votes across the country" is meaningless blather.
And you and anyone else has zero or less than zero argument that Dem voters get THEIR fair share of Senate representation as long as every state only gers 2 Senators regardless of the number of votes for Dem vs Repub candidates or THEIR fair share of Presidential representation as long as the vote counts for the 2000 and 2016 have not been wiped from the record books on President-UNelect Musk's order.
We already have a 6 Seat MAGA Repub SCOTUS Majority put there either by Repub so-called presidents who were awarded the presidency despite getting FEWER votes than the Dem candidate or by Repub Moscow Mitch cheating like burning hell to put them there.
Isn't that enough cheating, rigging and stealing your unfair share of American governance? Now you want NC to steal the House Majority for your beloved Repubs without anyone mentioning or objecting to it too?
4 photos
Next POTUS-Assistant Trump loves Immigrants taking YOUR jobs too!
Ah, that's better.
Now it is almost unanimous among the Presidents-UNelect and their Assistant, Trump; you MAGA Repubs who think Immigrants are taking YOUR jobs and were suckered into voting for the Assistant on the premise that either he or his bosses would do a damn thing about it are retarded, too dumb to be trained and simply unworthy of being hired for those good, well-paying AMERICAN jobs with a real future.
President-UNelect Bannon is the lone holdout on that conclusion. But his Chinese billionaire buddy who has been supporting him for several years will probably bring him around to that prevailing Musk / Ramaswamy Administration sentiment too fairly soon.
[B]Trump says H-1 B visa program is 'great' amid MAGA feud over tech workers.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/28/trump-says-h-1b-visa-program-is-great-amid-maga-feud-over-tech-workers.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]
1 photos
I felt so sorry for House Repubs not getting their fair share.
With all this talk about lying, cheating, stealing, election-rigging House Repubs never getting their fair share of House seats considering the utterly irrelevant total national vote count in a world of extreme Repub gerrymandering showed them with a minor utterly irrelevant edge, I suddenly remembered that, by golly, there has been Congressional legislation proposed and put up for a vote in the House and the Senate meant to make it so wonderfully fair the Repubs could count on riding that now utterly irrelevant national vote count edge to a permanent Repub Majority!
Therefore, that legislation banning partisan gerrymandering MUST have been proposed by Repubs, overwhelmingly supported and voted for by Repubs and rejected and blocked by Dems, right?
Uh. No.
[B]For the People Act/The Freedom to Vote Act[/B]
[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act[/URL]
[QUOTE][b]The Freedom to Vote Act[/b] (formerly known as the [b]For the People Act[/b]), introduced as H.R. 1, is a bill in the United States Congress intended to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, [b]ban partisan gerrymandering[/b], and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders.
The act was [b]originally introduced by John Sarbanes in 2019, on behalf of the newly elected Democratic majority in the United States House of Representatives as the first official legislation of the 116th United States Congress.[/b] The House passed the bill on March 8, by a [b]party-line vote of 234193[/b]. The bill was viewed as a "signature piece of legislation" from the [b]Democratic House majority.[/b] After the House passed the bill, it was [b]blocked from receiving a vote by the then Republican-controlled Senate, under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.[/b]
In 2021, in the 117th Congress, [b]congressional Democrats reintroduced the act as H.R. 1 and S. 1. On March 3, 2021, the bill passed the House of Representatives on a near party-line vote of 220210,[/b] advancing to the Senate, which was split 5050 between Democrats and Republicans (with Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris holding the tie-breaking vote), and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed to bring it to the floor for a vote. On June 22, 2021, a vote on the bill was held in the Senate. [B]It received unified support from the Democratic caucus, but Senate Republicans blocked the bill with a filibuster, as it lacked the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture after a party-line vote.[/b][/QUOTE]TO RECAP:
The legislation was introduced by a Democrat, in a Democratic Party House Majority, multiple times. It was originally introduced by the Dems as their FIRST official legislation after winning the Majority in the House. It was that important to them even AFTER just winning the Majority under the then current gerrymandering conditions!
It was voted on BY Democrats on a party-line or near party-line vote every time but, also every time, BLOCKED by Repubs in the Senate.
Now, that is a puzzlement, isn't it?
What in the world were the Repubs thinking?
Don't Congressional Repubs know they have almost always gotten more national votes than Dems in this world of extreme gerrymandering but not getting their "fair share" of House Seats?
Hmm. From the part-line voting pattern on that bill and the consistent effort to BLOCK it by their Repub brothers in the Senate, I might conclude any talk about poor put-upon lying, cheating, stealing election-rigging Repubs not getting their "fair share" of House Seats is just so much partisan Repub BS.
In fact, I have come to that conclusion.
Congressional Repubs don't even want to come CLOSE to banning their precious and necessary extreme gerrymandering. They already know they need that and any lying, cheating, stealing election-rigging they can pull like they did in NC this time around in order to squeak out a Pink Tinkle or less majority every now and then.
Your opinion of wasteful depends upon who is spending the money and on what!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2971608]There you go. Trump misspent around $700 billion. And Obama and Biden around a trillion dollars! Nobody knows what a lot of that was even spent on. And you and the other Bernie Bros still believe we should keep shoveling more and more money to an inefficient and wasteful federal government?[/QUOTE][B]Are you down with spending 86 million USD for mass deportations[/B]?
1 photos
And, oh those poor Repub Senators and their poor underrepresented constituents. LOL.
After I dried my eyes from weeping over the poor House Repubs being either too stupid to support or not block the Dems' repeated attempts to ban partisan gerrymandering and thereby allow their utterly irrelevant minor edge in total national House votes provide them with their "fair share" of House Seats or too addicted to the extreme gerrymandering and election-rigging they employ and risk losing the House Majority far into the future, I decided to do a little research to see just how unfairly poor put-upon Repub Senators and their constituents are treated by the current misapportionment rigged in Repubs' favor:
[B]The 20232024 U.S. Senate Is Exceedingly Unrepresentative in Multiple Ways[/B]
[URL]https://mettlinger.medium.com/the-2023-senate-will-be-exceedingly-unrepresentative-72d39f83847a[/URL]
[QUOTE]For starters, [b]the population of states represented by Democratic senators sum to 36% more people than the population of states represented by Republican senators 204 million compared to 150 million[/b] but the Democrats only have the slimmest possible Senate majority at 51/49. Those in states that voted for Democratic senators are underrepresented.[/QUOTE][B]Democratic senators represent 43 million more people than their Republican counterparts.[/B]
[URL]https://www.vox.com/2021/12/20/22846504/senate-joe-manchin-build-back-better-democrats-republicans-43-million[/URL]
[QUOTE]Because smaller states tend to be whiter and more conservative than larger states, the constitutional design of the Senate, which gives each state two senators regardless of its population, offers Republicans an enormous advantage in the fight for control of the Senate. [B]Indeed, if the Senate were anything that could fairly be described as a democratic institution, Democrats would control closer to 56 or 57 seats[/b], rather than only holding 50 seats in the Senate.[/QUOTE]Well.
Needless to say but I suspect I better say it anyway just to clear up any confusion; I will not be weeping for mythical poor put-upon and unfairly underseated Senate Repubs and even more mythical underrepresented Repub State constituents any more that I or anyone else should have ever shed a single tear for poor put-upon mythical underseated House Repubs and their even more mythical underrepresented Repub constituents.
And don't anybody even think about expecting me to shed a tear for the poor put-upon Repub MAGA 6 Majority in the Supreme Court, virtually all of whom were placed there by Repub so-called potuses who didn't win more votes than their Dem opponent or who were shoe-horned into it via outrageous Repub Senate lying, cheating, stealing and rigging.
NEXT UP:
Now that I have regained my composure after all the weeping and tears shed over poor put-upon House, Senate and SCOTUS Members not getting their "fair share" of seats and voice in this overwhelmingly rigged-in-favor-of-Repubs representative democracy, perhaps I will do a little research and keep an eye out for when and which Party boldly and fairly promotes and supports vs which Party opposes abolishing the demonstrably undemocratic Electoral College system even when the supporting Party lost the popular vote to its opposition by a pussy hair in order to make sure every vote counts the same as every other vote regardless where you live.
Oh look! Here it is already:
[B]Senate Democrats push plan to abolish Electoral College.
12/16/2024[/B]
[URL]https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5043206-senate-democrats-abolish-electoral-college/[/URL]
