US Election

Remove this Banner Ad

rocket18 said:
Bloody Hell, just watching MSNBC - they've just declared Trump the winner.

Wisconsin 99% counted and Trump wins there by 30,000 - mathematically pushes him over 270

The female host just delivered a 10 minute monologue on how the world is going to end, "how will I tell my daughter in the morning"

It was like an episode of the View, the tears were delicious.

Aren't they meant to be a news service??
Click to expand...
MSNBC are Democrat Fox News. All in for their sides.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

rocket18 said:
Two for the conspiracy theorists.

1st for the righties: Possible
With Trump winning in 2016 and now looking to get 300+ votes this time, was there indeed some shonky business in 2020?

I think Trump is only the second guy to come back and win after being turfed out, makes a bit more sense if he was meant to win in 2020.

2nd for the lefties: Busted
Trump in his celebration speech said he's done with rallies (said he's done 900) so no more rallies ie he won't run again.
Lefties were claiming he would go around again despite the two term limit.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think Harris was just uninspiring as a candidate, not that there was any shonky business (and there wasn't the anger of COVID and an actual Trump presidency).

If they cheated in 2020 did they just forget how to now?
 
For the past decade, Donald Trump has been the most famous and influential man on the planet. But he had too many failures and too many electoral defeats to his name to be able to claim that he dominated a whole political era. That changed overnight.

Trump is now going to be remembered as both the 45th and the 47th President of the United States. He is very likely to win full control of Congress. He is even likely to win the popular vote—making him only the second Republican to do so in a third of a century. All of this will allow Trump to impose his will on the nation to a much greater extent than he did during his first term in office.

Back in 2016, the whiff of aberration hung over Trump’s success. His opponents could claim that his victory was some strange historical fluke. They could put it down to foreign interference or to Russian hackers. Political scientists confidently pronounced that he represented the final, Pyrrhic victory of a declining electorate—the last, desperate stand of the old, white man.

But aberrations tend not to happen twice, and 2024 puts the last nail in the coffin of that distorted interpretation. Though some cable news hosts may be tempted to replay their old hits in months to come, only a few diehards will believe Trump to be the Manchurian Candidate this time around. Perhaps most interestingly, it is now clear that Trump put into action the advice which Reince Priebus gave Republicans after their second consecutive defeat to Barack Obama, to court minority votes the party had traditionally conceded to Democrats. His victory is not due to old white men but rather due to his success in building a deeply multiethnic coalition—as his crushing victory in Florida, a state that long ago became “majority minority,” attests.

How could this possibly have happened?

It is time to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

I have, at this point, been going around warning the world about the danger posed by authoritarian populists like Donald Trump for about a decade. And I continue to believe that these politicians, from Hugo Chávez in Venezuela to Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and from Narendra Modi in India to Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico, pose a serious threat to democracy.

American institutions are much stronger than many observers have come to believe. But Trump, much more experienced than he was at the outset of his first term in office and emboldened by a much more resounding victory, will test American democracy in a more serious way. Over the next four years, we will, as I argued in these pages in the week before the election, see a clash between an unstoppable force and an immovable object.

And yet, it is time to admit that, in purely electoral terms, the argument that democracy is on the ballot simply does not seem to work. The reason for that is not just that people care more about pocketbook issues like inflation or that incumbents have in general had a bad run of late. It’s that they don’t trust Democrats on the issue of democracy much more than they do Republicans. According to one exit poll in Pennsylvania, three out of four voters in the state believe that democracy in the United States is threatened; among those who do, it was Trump, not Harris, who had the edge.

This hints at the fundamental fact of the past decade, a fact that elite discourse still has not fully confronted: Citizens’ trust in mainstream institutions has been absolutely shattered. Corporations and the military, universities and the courts, all used to enjoy a certain modicum of residual trust. That trust is now gone. It is unlikely to return anytime soon.

The extent to which most people now mistrust mainstream institutions is in many ways disproportionate. Despite Trump’s apocalyptic description of its current state, America remains one of the most affluent and successful societies in the history of humanity. And while ideological excesses have significantly weakened American institutions over the course of the last years, these institutions do remain capable of impressive work: For every ridiculous article about racism in the knitting community that The New York Times publishes, for example, it also puts out several sober reports about important world events.

And yet, we must admit that the wound is to a significant degree self-inflicted. A small cadre of extreme activists obsessed with an identitarian vision of the world—a vision that pretends to be left-wing but in many ways parallels the tribalist worldview that has historically characterized the far-right—has gained tremendous influence over the last years. And even those institutional insiders who were able to keep this influence at bay through clever rearguard actions were rarely willing to oppose them in explicit terms.

This was one of the most consequential vulnerabilities of Kamala Harris’ campaign. While running for the Democratic primaries in 2019, she wedded herself to a slew of identitarian positions that happened to be deeply unpopular. Sensing that the political winds had shifted, she did not reprise her flirtations with the idea of defunding the police or decriminalizing illegal border crossings. But neither did she have the courage to explicitly call out the ideological foundations for these deeply unpopular positions—or to reassure millions of swing voters that she would be willing to stand up for common sense when doing so might risk inspiring a little pushback within her coalition.

Donald Trump is far outside the American cultural mainstream. (Yes, I believe that to be true even after reckoning with his unexpectedly strong showing tonight.) But the problem is that Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party, and the wider world of establishment institutions with which they are widely associated are also far outside the American cultural mainstream.

Harris’ campaign had many opportunities to address that problem. She could have asked her supporters not to self-segregate by race and gender the moment she became the official nominee. She could have defended a woman’s right to choose without condoning late-term abortions and stood up for the value of vaccines while acknowledging pandemic-era overreach by public health authorities. She could have chosen to make her case to the millions of swing voters who listen to the most popular podcast in the country. But she did not do any of that.

I don’t know whether Harris’ failure to mitigate Democrats’ glaring political weaknesses was due to fear and indecision or due to ideological conviction and a distorted perception of reality. But I do know that the price that she—and the rest of the world—is paying for that failure goes by the name of Donald J. Trump.

Trump has, since his entry into politics, been the spearhead of a populist international. And so his ability to come back from the political dead, likely reconquering the White House even after his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election had seemingly rendered him radioactive, should serve as a loud warning to moderate forces in other parts of the world.

Brazilians recently managed to oust Jair Bolsonaro. Poles last year managed to send Law and Justice to the opposition benches. It would be tempting to conclude that this closes the chapter on those political forces. But from the Peronists in Argentina to the Fujimoris in Peru, populists have, again and again, proven to be much more adept at returning to power than contemporaries assumed.

This makes it all the more important for citizens of other countries to resist the temptation to sit in judgment of Americans over the coming days. I can already observe in international media, especially in Europe, a tendency to blame Trump’s likely reelection on every conceivable stereotype about Americans. It is, hundreds of commentators around the continent will likely write, because Americans are racist and sexist and bigoted that Trump looks set to take office again.

But while each populist incarnates some of the particular qualities of their specific national context, it should by now be amply evident that every country is vulnerable to this form of political appeal. French and German elites have done a somewhat better job of protecting their countries’ institutions from the ideological capture that has contributed to the profound breakdown in trust in the American establishment. But many of the same trends are well underway in those countries as well. And sooner or later, voters who deeply distrust their own institutions are likely to vote for an anti-establishment bullfighter of their own.

Until yesterday, it was still possible to hope that Trump would be remembered as a historical blip, an outsider who somehow managed to turn a few elections into a contest over his ideas and his personality, before finally exiting the political scene in disgrace. Today, it seems much more likely that he has cemented his standing as the figurehead of a political movement that will lastingly transform the politics of the United States—and, perhaps, much of the democratic world.

Trump will almost certainly attack some of the constitutional checks on his power over the course of the next four years. He may very well sell out key American allies in Central Europe and the Far East. Democrats should absolutely stand up to him when he does. Protecting the system of checks and balances that has allowed America to weather previous periods of deep partisan polarization must be a particular priority. And if Trump should overplay his hand, as well he may, he could quickly lose the support of those swing voters who just gave him such a resounding showing.

But Democrats would be making a big mistake if they simply reverted to the #resistance playbook which has failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Donald Trump or his movement in the past. What they need to do if they want to ensure that the Trump era lasts fifteen rather than thirty or even fifty years is much harder than that: They need to build a political coalition that is broad enough to win durable and sizable majorities against Trump as well as other politicians of his ilk. And that will prove impossible without a serious reckoning with the ways in which they, and the wider ecosystem for which they stand, have lost the trust of most Americans.
Click to expand...

I like this guys writing, would probably call himself a moderate too
 
Crow till I die said:
I wonder what could have possibly caused that to happen????...rhetorical question

Click to expand...


It hasn't happened though.

Those figures are based off 80% counted and a lot of what is still to be counted are the western blue states.

Given that California is only at 45% counted there's most probably still around 10 million + Democrat votes still be counted in that remaining 20%

Trump will definitely win the popular vote and is going to end up getting more votes then 2020.

My prediction on the popular vote will be Trump 78-79million vs Harris 74-75 million.
 
MarcusP2 said:
MSNBC are Democrat Fox News. All in for their sides.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched them either.

I don't think these lefties/Democrats realise when the play the racist and sexist cards they are actually calling out their fellow Democrats as racist and sexist.

Trumps numbers are pretty similar to his previous elections, its the Democrats vote for Harris that has plummeted from Bidens vote.

So in the lefties/Democrats minds:
The same number of Republicans vote for Trump vs Biden as they did Trump vs Harris = Those Republicans are racist and sexist for not voting for Harris. Were they racist and sexist when they didn't vote Biden??

20 million more Democrats voted for Biden than Harris = Those Republicans are racist and sexist.
How you may ask. They should've picked up those 20 million Democrats (that couldn't be bothered voting for Harris) and taken them to a polling place.
 
MarcusP2 said:
Yeah I think Harris was just uninspiring as a candidate, not that there was any shonky business (and there wasn't the anger of COVID and an actual Trump presidency).

If they cheated in 2020 did they just forget how to now?
Click to expand...

The whole thing was a cluster f*

The cardinal mistake was allowing Biden to run again.

Had that not happened and they actually run a primary and selected a half decent candidate they more than likely would have won.

The last minute hail mary where they replaced Biden with Harris ended up being nothing more than a house of cards.
 
Slippery Pete said:
Or… Trump is simply a strong candidate whose foreign and domestic policy positions appeal to the normal, sane majority.
Click to expand...
The democrats are seen as a far left extremist group of out of touch rulers that happily trashed America. They need to go away and scrub themselves clean of their open border, rampant crime, authoritarian and debt bulging ways and move right back to the sane centre or they might be out of power for some time to come
 
MarcusP2 said:
MSNBC are Democrat Fox News. All in for their sides.
Click to expand...
Fox regularly has Dem leaning guests and panelists. Right leaning but invites opposite views. Some top Dem panelist. Its viewing audience is mixed as well as its content is mainstream.
MSNBC would noy even entertain that unless they are RINO's like Cheney or Kissinger.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Slippery Pete said:
Or… Trump is simply a strong candidate whose foreign and domestic policy positions appeal to the normal, sane majority.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you've chosen to use the term "sane majority".

From what I've had to endure in these political threads, I say maybe 15% of the discussion would fall into the category of sane discourse while the other 85% from both the left and the right sits firmly within the lunatic fringe subset.

I'd hardly be taking anyone's advice on here about what constitutes sanity 🤣🤣🤣
 
Last edited:
Eagleboy2011 said:
Fox regularly has Dem leaning guests and panelists. Right leaning but invites opposite views. Some top Dem panelist. Its viewing audience is mixed as well as its content is mainstream.
MSNBC would noy even entertain that unless they are RINO's like Cheney or Kissinger.
Click to expand...
Did you see the look of anguish on their hosts faces after they pulled that SNL skit with Harris saturday night and realised under the law they had to offer equal time to trump or risk their license. Trump got to air a campaign add on sunday night for 1 minute 30 and it was right in the middle of the NASCAR which had a far greater audience than SNL. What a backfire for their underhanded trick to try and help harris...lol
 
El Doederino said:
I still think the Dems dragging out celebs to talk down to US citizens, reading off autocue, achieves nothing but good feels for political staffers.

The Beyoncé stunt would have lost them a few votes.
Click to expand...
Thst beyonce bait and switch was hilarious, it nearly caused a riot at her rally when they realised she wasn't singing
 
MarcusP2 said:
Lol so the Democrats cheated last time to get into office, so incredibly well that nobody was ever prosecuted, then when they were actually in office lost the ability to do so and got thrashed?
Click to expand...
Yep. No judge would take the cases after because of lashes and the entire media and government machine went after anyone trying to litigate fraud and either tried to jail or bankrupt them.

Good news...it seems like there is an appetite within sections of the incoming regime to revisit that election and properly investigate it to see how dirty it was. Hey, here is steve bannon and he certanly has Trumps ear. Dance with the devil and you might end up getting burned at some point and maybe the dems are going to find that out...here's hoping

 
Slippery Pete said:
Or… Trump is simply a strong candidate whose foreign and domestic policy positions appeal to the normal, sane majority.
Click to expand...
Come on maaan.

When did the world think that having zero integrity was okay? Do people think Elon musk (or his other self interested supporters) is gonna come in and bat for the average Joe? How is that going to be any better for the common person than the system that currently exists?
 
rocket18 said:
I've never watched MSNBC before, is it meant to be satire. This cannot be a serious news station, it really can't.

The panel are 'digesting' the result, they started off with poor old Kamala couldn't overcome the economic woes, or the immigration 'issue' - nothing she could do.

So they recognise the economy and immigration were pivotal issues and with her as the VP for the last 4 years didn't reflect well on her very well.

The very next breath after discussing the above they started with was it racism, a woman of colour in a mixed marriage. Now moved onto to sexism blah blah blah.

**** me, they literally talked about why she lost yet they couldn't help themselves to bring race and sex into it.

Nothing to do with race or sex, just competency.

Both sides can't seem to pick a good candidate Hillary, Biden, Harris vs Trump. What an inept lineup.

Their political system is broken, needing to raise $100's of millions to enter the primary race is not the way to get the best candidate.
Click to expand...

All of it is a fair discussion. Remember, the right want uncomfortable conversations like racism, sexism and misogyny and I agree whole heartedly, im against wokeness and think all discussions should be held. So what, now the right dont want racism and misogyny discussions around the election?

Twice we have had more than qualified women as candidates for POTUS and both times they have lost. I do think all points are up for discussion on this. Its part of reflection. Whether you like it or not, some people did vote against Harris because of race, others because she is a women and others because she is both.

Mistakes the democrats made:

I didnt think much of it at the time in terms of its affect on the elections but it was noticeable now I do think this is something the democrats didnt do well and it did cost them the election.

Firstly Harris didnt attack Trump on the economy enough. They had at their disposal the trillions of dollars he added to the national debt which would have absolutely dictated the inflationary measures that skyrocketed the cost of living that so many claimed to be the reason they voted Trump. So that was a complete oversight and really they fumbled the ball on this one. They also failed to mention inflation is going down. Whether we like it or not, over 50% of people are politically ignorant and they are just workers and families just struggling to pay their bills and give their kids opportunity. So I can understand why so many were disenchanted. Harris needed to address this and I acknowledge she didnt which I would be interested to understand why her strategists didnt mention this.

Secondly, Harris and the democrats never really addressed his sexual predator past. This was a screw up. I mean of monumental proportions. From the moment Biden took to the stage in the first debate, the first thing out of his mouth should have been this guy is a sexual predator and a danger to women. Then listed off all his connections to Epstein, his sexual assault history with all the hush money he has paid and his infidelity. Instead they seemed intent on running on the abortion issue and the threat to democracy. So basically the first two issues I mentioned here is the reason she lost. She tried to play nice to create the difference with Trump but all people saw was weakness.

Thirdly, his age. Yes they used attack adds by the middle of the campaign but attack adds are meaningless in a society obsessed with streaming services, gaming and apps. Of all the screw ups, Harris should have walked on stage in the debate and absolutely torched his age and compared him to Biden at the same age. But she didnt. Again, merely sat idol.

Overall I think while Harris ran a good campaign, but in hindsight it was lazy and never really laid a punch. I think they thought they were the favourites, its an easy win, we just focus on womens rights, abortion and mix in a few other policies and we will win. But the curious thing is still the polls. This was a disaster for the polling companies. Everyone was blisteringly off.

PS: At what point should Harris say the election was stolen? She was up in the polls and all but one of the swing states.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

US Election

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top