We lost the battle for the democrat party's soul long ago

[MICHHAWK]

my 94 year old mother was able to maneuver the system rather effortlessly.

if you knew my mother, you would not be on the social medias bragging that your nephew was confounded by the system.

[JKLivin]

My bad. Yes, that's what I meant.

The stupidity continues, however. I just saw a Newsweek poll that says that Dim voters are overwhelmingly saying she should run again in 2028. You know, cuz landslide losses are usually anomalies.

This was one of the ten closest Presidential elections in history vote-wise and was nothing even remotely close to a landslide but cool story.

312 to 226 is not close, not matter how you try to rationalize. It was a clear mandate from the people, and the Dims will continue to ignore it to their own detriment.

[JKLivin]

Almost 50 million young people, defined here as ages 18 to 29, were eligible to vote in the 2024 election; according to the exit poll data, about 42% of them did. That percentage was on par with CIRCLE’s initial turnout estimate for 2016 (42%-44%) but lower than the historic turnout seen in 2020, which CIRCLE estimated at 52%-55%. In the key battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the average turnout was much higher: 50% on aggregate.

It's the nonsense misinformation that we see Ousdahl repeat over and over (and over and over) here that pushed that voter turnout number down as low as it was.

If today's youth want to bitch about how hard life is for them then they should participate in the things necessary to make their lives easier by voting. If you don't vote then STFU and deal with the consequences.

Gosh, that sounds a lot like victim blaming, Two. Believe all potential voters!

[KUTradition]

giggles

[twocoach]

Almost 50 million young people, defined here as ages 18 to 29, were eligible to vote in the 2024 election; according to the exit poll data, about 42% of them did. That percentage was on par with CIRCLE’s initial turnout estimate for 2016 (42%-44%) but lower than the historic turnout seen in 2020, which CIRCLE estimated at 52%-55%. In the key battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the average turnout was much higher: 50% on aggregate.

It's the nonsense misinformation that we see Ousdahl repeat over and over (and over and over) here that pushed that voter turnout number down as low as it was.

If today's youth want to bitch about how hard life is for them then they should participate in the things necessary to make their lives easier by voting. If you don't vote then STFU and deal with the consequences.

Gosh, that sounds a lot like victim blaming, Two. Believe all potential voters!

"If you believe it to be true then it must be true" seems to be the new mantra for the GOP.

[JKLivin]

Almost 50 million young people, defined here as ages 18 to 29, were eligible to vote in the 2024 election; according to the exit poll data, about 42% of them did. That percentage was on par with CIRCLE’s initial turnout estimate for 2016 (42%-44%) but lower than the historic turnout seen in 2020, which CIRCLE estimated at 52%-55%. In the key battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the average turnout was much higher: 50% on aggregate.

It's the nonsense misinformation that we see Ousdahl repeat over and over (and over and over) here that pushed that voter turnout number down as low as it was.

If today's youth want to bitch about how hard life is for them then they should participate in the things necessary to make their lives easier by voting. If you don't vote then STFU and deal with the consequences.

Gosh, that sounds a lot like victim blaming, Two. Believe all potential voters!

"If you believe it to be true then it must be true" seems to be the new mantra for the GOP.

It might be time to come to terms with two important facts: 1) your party nominated a mentally deficient, inarticulate imbecile who had no understanding of the platform she was supposedly running on, and 2) your party was concerned with DEI and trans rights when the electorate was concerned the price of gas, eggs, milk, and electricity and the illegal immigrant crisis. It's pretty hard to get excited about getting out to vote for someone who is selling you something that's about fifteen spots down your list of priorities.

[twocoach]

Gosh, that sounds a lot like victim blaming, Two. Believe all potential voters!

"If you believe it to be true then it must be true" seems to be the new mantra for the GOP.

It might be time to come to terms with two important facts: 1) your party nominated a mentally deficient, inarticulate imbecile who had no understanding of the platform she was supposedly running on, and 2) your party was concerned with DEI and trans rights when the electorate was concerned the price of gas, eggs, milk, and electricity and the illegal immigrant crisis. It's pretty hard to get excited about getting out to vote for someone who is selling you something that's about fifteen spots down your list of priorities.

I heard virtually nothing from Harris about DEI or trans rights (except in Trump ads) when she was campaigning and I heard nothing now that makes me think that Trump is going to do anything but increase the cost of gas (which I [aid less than $2.50 a gallon for last weekend), eggs, milk and electricity. I hope you're not still under the mistaken notion that Drill Baby Drill is going to lower your electric bill any time soon. What might lower it is when Trump removes all regulatory items around coal plants and allows Big Oil to spew toxic chemicals into our air, land and water and that is most definitely not a win.

But yes, Dems would be wise to realize that there are a lot more people who vote solely for their own best interests and not for the best interests of our nation and all of its citizens. Not enough people in this country give a shit about such things as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Fuck women, fuck anyone who isn't heterosexual. They simply do not matter to enough people to make them a campaign talking point. Sad but true.

[dolomite]

Hey Twocoach, when are you and others on here going to stop worrying about what might or might not happen. It’s been said that a person should only worry about what they can control. Not sure about how much control you might have.

[KUTradition]

Hey Twocoach, when are you and others on here going to stop worrying about what might or might not happen. It’s been said that a person should only worry about what they can control. Not sure about how much control you might have.

why are you worrying about twocoach? you can’t control him?

me personally? i was always taught to hope for the best, but plan for the worst

[dolomite]

Hey Twocoach, when are you and others on here going to stop worrying about what might or might not happen. It’s been said that a person should only worry about what they can control. Not sure about how much control you might have.

why are you worrying about twocoach? you can’t control him?

me personally? i was always taught to hope for the best, but plan for the worst

Read my thoughts on “hope”.

[JKLivin]

"If you believe it to be true then it must be true" seems to be the new mantra for the GOP.

It might be time to come to terms with two important facts: 1) your party nominated a mentally deficient, inarticulate imbecile who had no understanding of the platform she was supposedly running on, and 2) your party was concerned with DEI and trans rights when the electorate was concerned the price of gas, eggs, milk, and electricity and the illegal immigrant crisis. It's pretty hard to get excited about getting out to vote for someone who is selling you something that's about fifteen spots down your list of priorities.

I heard virtually nothing from Harris about DEI or trans rights (except in Trump ads) when she was campaigning and I heard nothing now that makes me think that Trump is going to do anything but increase the cost of gas (which I [aid less than $2.50 a gallon for last weekend), eggs, milk and electricity. I hope you're not still under the mistaken notion that Drill Baby Drill is going to lower your electric bill any time soon. What might lower it is when Trump removes all regulatory items around coal plants and allows Big Oil to spew toxic chemicals into our air, land and water and that is most definitely not a win.

But yes, Dems would be wise to realize that there are a lot more people who vote solely for their own best interests and not for the best interests of our nation and all of its citizens. Not enough people in this country give a shit about such things as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Fuck women, fuck anyone who isn't heterosexual. They simply do not matter to enough people to make them a campaign talking point. Sad but true.

I unapologetically vote for my own best interests. It’s not like anyone is going to do it for me.

[jfish26]

The stupidity continues, however. I just saw a Newsweek poll that says that Dim voters are overwhelmingly saying she should run again in 2028. You know, cuz landslide losses are usually anomalies.

This was one of the ten closest Presidential elections in history vote-wise and was nothing even remotely close to a landslide but cool story.

312 to 226 is not close, not matter how you try to rationalize. It was a clear mandate from the people, and the Dims will continue to ignore it to their own detriment.

More people voted for not-Trump than Trump.

Congratulations on the plurality victory. Sounds like something KSU paints banners for.

[JKLivin]

This was one of the ten closest Presidential elections in history vote-wise and was nothing even remotely close to a landslide but cool story.

312 to 226 is not close, not matter how you try to rationalize. It was a clear mandate from the people, and the Dims will continue to ignore it to their own detriment.

More people voted for not-Trump than Trump.

Congratulations on the plurality victory. Sounds like something KSU paints banners for.

Games are played according to rules. Games are won according to rules. Games are lost according to rules. If you don't like the rules, you shouldn't play the game.

[jfish26]

Not disputing that.

But what you are doing is sort of like describing a soccer team that won 4-2 in penalty kicks as having blown out its opponent.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

We can slice and dice and cut up and serve the results how ever we choose.
To me, every vote should count equally, and if that's the case, the election was pretty damn close.
To the USA voting system to elect the President, it was not so damn close.
The Electoral College sucks. I would say that no matter who is/was elected President.

As far as saying more people voted for "not Trump" than Trump, that is a great example of how and why I feel our system is flawed - the person the majority of voters did NOT want to be our President was elected our President.

I'm only going to go back to 1884 but since then (and including then) people who were elected President who did not get 50% or more of the popular vote. If I am not mistaken.
1844 - Polk
1848 - Taylor
1856 - Buchanan
1860 - Lincoln (39.9%)
1876 - Hayes
1880 - Garfield
1884 - Cleveland
1888 - Harrison
1892 - Cleveland
1912 - Wilson
1916 - Wilson
1948 - Truman
1960 - Kennedy
1968 - Nixon
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
2000 - GW Bush
2016 - Trump
2024 - Trump

[jfish26]

In some nations that are more democratic than ours, an election that results in no popular winner goes to a runoff.

Our system is what it is, and it is so for a reason. At this point in our country’s history, that means the system strongly favors one of our two major parties. So be it.

However, describing Trump as having anything like a “mandate” (bonus points for marshmallow adjectives like “sweeping” or “broad” or, lol, “historic”) betrays an insecurity in the strength of his popular support, and is purposefully done as preemptive cover for an inevitable popular blowback to the coming horrors.

It’s gaslighty-wishcasting, in other words.

[JKLivin]

Not disputing that.

But what you are doing is sort of like describing a soccer team that won 4-2 in penalty kicks as having blown out its opponent.

I’m an American. I don’t attention to soccer, nor do I resonate with soccer analogies.

But, I will say that a win is a win. You can or play with numbers or demand a new system - which Dims do every time they lose - but the reality is that Trump won and won resoundingly.

[jfish26]

Not disputing that.

But what you are doing is sort of like describing a soccer team that won 4-2 in penalty kicks as having blown out its opponent.

I’m an American. I don’t attention to soccer, nor do I resonate with soccer analogies.

But, I will say that a win is a win. You can or play with numbers or demand a new system - which Dims do every time they lose - but the reality is that Trump won and won resoundingly.

It is fantasy to say that a candidate who did not win even half of the votes cast won "resoundingly."

Of course, it was also fantasy to describe Trump's defeat in 2020 as the result of fraud, or to describe (for example) Russia's contributions to Trump's 2016 victory as a hoax.

But we could do this about nearly anything MAGA - it is a highly elaborate exercise in fantasy, and we will see what happens now that the dog has caught the car.