2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

Yes, it is a wish or a projection what I wish Republicans would become. I thought that was clear. Maybe they will choose something else and become a party of half-baked doofuses like Trump or Boebert or a party of mummified legacy attitudes and opinions. The eternal Mitch McConnells, never really fading into obscurity, but also never really gaining proper power again.

I was also talking about more long term changes in attitudes, of course things won't change just because Republicans would win one particular election.

The realignment would be tectonic in its effects. The effects of any change in voting or ideological sentiments is magnified by a thousand by the winner-takes-all system. The conventional political wisdom that say the Northeast is liberal and the South is conservative makes it look like everybody in that region is like that. But to be a deep blue/red state or a region means that the part in power habitually wins with about 60/40 ratio. It is very rare for any party to win with a bigger lead than that. Maybe in Wyoming every now and then or something like that. There is a ****TON of conservatives even in New York City, let alone the rest of the New York State. The current Democrat governor was just elected 53/47. The previous won his two elections 60/40 and 55/45. Similarly there is and always has been droves of liberal and progressives in the South. But it kind of doesn't matter, especially in Senate and Presidential elections. But it also means that even a seemingly small shift in the electorate, say 5% points can turn a solid x state into a purple one and a purple one into a solid y.

Republicans don't need to become THE party of the non-Whites, just a little bit more. Latinos and Asians already vote 40% Republican. Republicans can easily bump it up to 45, maybe 50 with Asians with just cosmetic changes. Blacks who vote only 10-15% Republicans will be a tougher nut to crack.

The real problem here is the low level of education in the US, which needs to import skilled workers and Czech socialites for lack of their own.
It's really not. There is enough skilled labor in the US. Immigrants, even skilled ones, are just willing to work for less. Speaking from a very personal experience. From being one of them, from working among other skilled immigrants, from talking to a bunch of HR reps. Because the money is still very nice and an upgrade over what you made in Easter Europe, let alone the third world, so you take it even if you know that you are kind of being underpaid. But it's also still less than what a skilled Yank wants, especially since he is ridden with absurd college debt that he needs to pay off*. Maybe it's different for some STEM jobs, no idea, for stuff like lawyers, accountants, managers, marketing bottom-feeders and other white collar scum, the only solution is to just not let them in.

*Out of control tuition is another thing Republicans need to wake the **** up on and abandon the current pseudo-market position. They are losing young voters in millions in order to gain who? The school administrators who eat all those money are all terminally liberal anyway.

Ultimately, reality is what you make it. Yeah there might be some global connections and consequences and webs etc. So what, everything has an end, nothing is forever. All of Europe was once controlled by an interconnected, intermarrying and entrenched aristocracy. Until it wasn't. Dare to dream, onwards and upwards. Passiveness, resignation and "this is how it's always been" fatalism is sooo Old World, this is America, **** yeah 🤠
________________________________________
Btw CNN exit polls here

Some question that defy conventional wisdom or the more or less 50/50 split or confirm what I wrote above or are just fun:

Only 10% of people support illegal abortion in all cases. 60% support legal abortion in all or most cases.

While Whites with college are more or less split (50/47) and Whites without college strongly favor Republicans (68/32), non-Whites favor Democrats 68/32 regardless of college education.

Democrats are most popular among childless women, Republicans among childless men.

36% of all voters hold a favorable view of Nancy Pelosi. Only 27% of all voters hold a favorable view of Kevin McCarthy, however 20% have no opinion of him, as opposed to 4% of voters with no opinion on Nancy.

25% of all voters are enthusiastic or satisfied with they way things are going. 41% are dissatisfied and 33% are angry.

30% of all voters want Biden to run 2024.

71% of all voters think climate change is a serious problem.

26% of all voters think society's values on gender and orientation is changing for the better. 50% changing for worse. 21% see no change.

32% of voters decided on who to vote in the last 30 days or fewer.

The most important issue was inflation (31% of voters, 71% of whom voted Republicans), followed abortion (27% of voters, 76% of whom voted Democrats, i.e. pro choice), followed by crime, guns and immigration (each about 10%). Once again shows that overturning Roe basically cost Republicans their red wave.
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I don't particularly like Mitt Romney nor Liz Cheney. But they at least made a show of sticking to their principles by opposing Trump, and they really didn't have much to gain for it when the rest of their party was sucking up to the old psycho.

Mike Pence on the other hand was completely spineless, and the fact that he stopped one step short of turning traitor to his own country doesn't really redeem him in my eyes. And of course now he is going and promoting his book about it, why shouldn't he. January 6 wouldn't even have happened if people like him had not enabled Trump to get to that point.

All of this before we get into the reports that this wasn't even something he definitely did without thinking a moment about it. Quite the contrary in fact.



(I deliberately chose the source that paints him in the best light while reporting this among those I found)
 
To be clear, I don't particularly like Mitt Romney nor Liz Cheney. But they at least made a show of sticking to their principles by opposing Trump, and they really didn't have much to gain for it when the rest of their party was sucking up to the old psycho.

Mike Pence on the other hand was completely spineless, and the fact that he stopped one step short of turning traitor to his own country doesn't really redeem him in my eyes. And of course now he is going and promoting his book about it, why shouldn't he. January 6 wouldn't even have happened if people like him had not enabled Trump to get to that point.

All of this before we get into the reports that this wasn't even something he definitely did without thinking a moment about it. Quite the contrary in fact.



(I deliberately chose the source that paints him in the best light while reporting this among those I found)
As my grand-uncle the school master said, praise is needed the most where it is deserved the least.
 
So Donald announced his run and the Reps are going into a slow civil war.
This is one of those moments when you pull your popcorn when you are a leftie or just a reasonable person. The other one is following Musk's adventures on Twitter melting his net worth because he needs to show his incel followers how to be a memelord.
 
So Donald announced his run and the Reps are going into a slow civil war.
This is one of those moments when you pull your popcorn when you are a leftie or just a reasonable person. The other one is following Musk's adventures on Twitter melting his net worth because he needs to show his incel followers how to be a memelord.
Isn't that what happened the first time around too, though?
 
Isn't that what happened the first time around too, though?
The main difference this time around is that Trump has a proven track record of loss. Also, I think that his win last time had a lot to do with who he was running against.

So, you know, the democratic party will probably have Michelle Obama run as president and figure out a way to lose this time too, as one does.
 
Isn't that what happened the first time around too, though?
This time he is a known quantity (no Hope posters for him) and as eddie says, a loser. He also runs against his smarter clone, not mainstream low energy establishment.
So, you know, the democratic party will probably have Michelle Obama run as president and figure out a way to lose this time too, as one does.
Good idea, though I have no clue who are the other electable candidates when Biden abdicates.
 
Last edited:
Day 9 of the elections 🙃 we still don't know who won the House, although it's almost certainly Republicans at this point.

Biden will probably be re-nominated, because the DNC are corrupt cowards and he is still the sitting president which is statistically a huge plus.

AOC would be a fun choice. Go big or go home. I don't believe being a woman or non-White is a major issue in electability. Or even an issue. America elected a Black man twice with comfortable margins. It would elect a good looking light skinned Latina too if they liked the rest of the package. She should pick a young guy as a VP too, don't make the same mistake as Hillary who picked some bland 55 yo moderate Southern Democrat. Playing your strengths is imo a better strategy than trying to compensate for weaknesses and ending up with some shapeless, flavorless blob of a ticket. Pick a young (<45) guy and just message clearly - young, bold, new, future.

Plus a Trump v AOC campaign would be all the cool adjectives.
 
Running AOC would be a great way to throw the election. She's much too polarizing with republicans of all stripes because conservative media loves hounding her every step and spinning everything she does (or doesn't) do. It's an odd obsession they have with her, and it colors the perception every non-Trumper republican has of her. Since those are the only republican votes with a chance of being purple voters, running AOC would be forfeiting any chance at flipping any republican voters.
 
Running AOC would be a great way to throw the election. She's much too polarizing with republicans of all stripes because conservative media loves hounding her every step and spinning everything she does (or doesn't) do. It's an odd obsession they have with her, and it colors the perception every non-Trumper republican has of her. Since those are the only republican votes with a chance of being purple voters, running AOC would be forfeiting any chance at flipping any republican voters.
That is the conventional wisdom but I am not sure that I agree with that. This is why:

1) There's a surprising number of Sanders-Trump voters. I feel that AOC might actually be able to sway a decent number of votes away from that group.

2) Trump's thing (really the only way that he was ever able to be successful) is that he is the "bastion against corrupt Washington politicians". It's going to be a hell of a lot more difficult to try to play that card now, but even more so against someone like AOC.

3) Ultimately, Democrats are an objective failure because they don't have the courage to take decisive action when it is needed. And a lot of people who are frustrated with them feel that way because there's a perception that they talk, talk, talk without actually accomplishing anything (which is partially true, partially caused by poor communication of the good results that they do have and mostly by the republicans stonewalling shamelessly). Having AOC run would send a strong message that there's change coming, and while some voters might be scared of what that means I feel that for a lot of people it would have a "Trumpy" galvanizing effect (but in the opposite direction).

Also, the conventional wisdom isn't working. Like, midterms were good, but we still have millions of people voting for deranged lunatics and snake oil salesmen. This is not normal and honestly it bothers me that most people are like "oh yeah that went well this is so great". It really isn't. It's great that a lot of them were not elected but it's insane that it was a somewhat viable strategy for them to try.

Of course AOC would never go past the DNC so there's not much to consider here.
 
Conservative media will go after any Democrat candidate, that's preaching to the choir. Same way it makes no difference what MSNBC says about the Republican candidate.

My instinct is that the way to victory is in picking up apathetic, disillusioned or angry non-voters or rare voters, not flipping the most of the lukewarm purple centrists. And that's true for both parties. Drain the swamp, however you package it, is the easiest path to victory for either side.

Biden won because Obama nostalgia and Not-Trump. However, the Not-Trump effect will be weaker after a 4 year break from the Orange God. I am not sure how much Obama nostalgia there will still be around in two years, but probably still a non zero value. If Dems run some bland corporate centrist like Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Newsom, it will not work. Throwing the election would be a Harris-Newsom ticket, what a perfect storm of soul-sucking anti-charisma and pretentiousness. That would be the Democrat equivalnt of Romney-Cheyney.
 
1) There's a surprising number of Sanders-Trump voters. I feel that AOC might actually be able to sway a decent number of votes away from that group.
They are not that many either, but it's roughly the same group of white working class that Labour in the UK lost and is trying to woo back with less identity politics and more free candy. AOC is a woman, young and Latina, and all of that counts against her with that group of voters - they need a populist Biden (and they overwhelmingly voted for the regular Biden).

An Italian, a Czech and an American walk in an American bar. The bartender says "no politics here". The Italian tries politely to explain why this is wrong with a long speech with big words, the Czech shouts "censor this!" and goes for a kick in the balls, and the American says "okay, but now you have one remaining infraction before I shoot you in the head twice". The bartender quits while he's ahead.
 
The main difference this time around is that Trump has a proven track record of loss. Also, I think that his win last time had a lot to do with who he was running against.

So, you know, the democratic party will probably have Michelle Obama run as president and figure out a way to lose this time too, as one does.
One can always point to how things were different. But there's one thing that's the same: everybody underestimated Trump. There were all sorts of perfectly valid reasons why Trump couldn't possibly win in 2016, too. I wouldn't count my chickens just yet.
 
It was unlikely for him to win last time too. Sometimes unlikely things do happen, unlikely is not the same thing as impossible. I also suggest watching his last speech if you haven't yet, it honestly looks like he's just gone extremely senile.
 
Back
Top Bottom