Elections Could Joe have won?

[Mujeriego]

Imagine making 20,000 posts for less than 10,000 likes lmao

What are you doing here other than just screaming into the void? Even the people you are pandering to don't like your posts.

Hes from a different country. His English has gotten better.
You should've seen his post a few years ago.
Almost complete gibberish.

 

[Loiosh]

I don't think they made it very clear actually. I think they didn't mention it, but that's not the same thing as standing against the insanity on the left on some of those issues. Is it?

It isn't enough to avoid a path, you have to capitulate to the other path and bend the knee.

OK, so imagine a world where trans people didn't exist. What insanity should they have stood against?

 

[terrapin]

It isn't enough to avoid a path, you have to capitulate to the other path and bend the knee.

OK, so imagine a world where trans people didn't exist. What insanity should they have stood against?

This makes me think you don't really understand the criticism of the left even coming from the left itself.

You said they did enough to distance themselves from it. Are you now saying that there's nothing to distance themselves from??

What criticism, if any, would you make towards the left on woke issues??

 

[Loiosh]

This makes me think you don't really understand the criticism of the left even coming from the left itself.

You said they did enough to distance themselves from it. Are you now saying that there's nothing to distance themselves from??

What criticism, if any, would you make towards the left on woke issues??

It should be easy for you to list the issues they should have stood against (without talking about trans people).

 

[terrapin]

It should be easy for you to list the issues they should have stood against (without talking about trans people).

I'm asking you what they distanced themselves from and if you think they should have distanced themselves from anything at all.

I don't think that should be too hard of a question to answer... Do you?

This isn't a gotcha man. I'm just genuinely curious what you think about those questions specifically.

 

[Loiosh]

I'm asking you what they distanced themselves from and if you think they should have distanced themselves from anything at all.

I don't think that should be too hard of a question to answer... Do you?

This isn't a gotcha man. I'm just genuinely curious what you think about those questions specifically.

So you can't name anything they should have distanced themselves from, or point a finger at leftist insanity.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

I’m hoping for the best but expecting a dumpster fire.

- It will be a dumpster fire! The size of a super-nova!

 

[terrapin]

So you can't name anything they should have distanced themselves from, or point a finger at leftist insanity.

I asked you first.

But your inability and unwillingness to reply and expose yourself shows the exact kind of conceit and lack of willingness to enter honest discussion on some issues that the right and left rightly complains about.

You can't name a single issue that the Democrats should have backed away from or distanced themselves from verbally yet you can confidently say that they distanced themselves from that amorphous thing enough.

 

[Loiosh]

I asked you first.

But your inability and unwillingness to reply and expose yourself shows the exact kind of conceit and lack of willingness to enter honest discussion on some issues that the right and left rightly complains about.

You can't name a single issue that the Democrats should have backed away from or distanced themselves from verbally yet you can confidently say that they distanced themselves from that amorphous thing enough.

I said it was obvious they steered clear of anything remotely far left, and they did. You are now asking me to prove a negative by pointing out the things they should have condemned.

Things you can't point out for... Reasons.

I'm going to talk about other things now but you aren't off the hook on that question. What insanity should they have condemned? If you can't answer that FULLY, don't other replying to me.

I'm progressive. I wanted more from them, like a condemnation of the the genocide in Palestine. I wanted them to say they would aggressively tax the wealthy, but Cuban told Kamala to stop, and she did. Instead she talked about immigration and toured with a Cheney. She talked about ensuring America would have the strongest, most lethal military in the world.

I know why you can't answer the incredibly simple question you walked into and I asked you, but I'm going to ask you again:

What leftist insanity should she have condemned?

And did she campaign on it? Make any promises?

If you reply to me without compelling answers to those questions, we're done. Everyone knows the only issue you care about.

 

[terrapin]

I said it was obvious they steered clear of anything remotely far left, and they did. You are now asking me to prove a negative by pointing out the things they should have condemned.

Things you can't point out for... Reasons.

I'm going to talk about other things now but you aren't off the hook on that question. What insanity should they have condemned? If you can't answer that FULLY, don't other replying to me.

I'm progressive. I wanted more from them, like a condemnation of the the genocide in Palestine. I wanted them to say they would aggressively tax the wealthy, but Cuban told Kamala to stop, and she did. Instead she talked about immigration and toured with a Cheney. She talked about ensuring America would have the strongest, most lethal military in the world.

I know why you can't answer the incredibly simple question you walked into and I asked you, but I'm going to ask you again:

What leftist insanity should she have condemned?

And did she campaign on it? Make any promises?

If you reply to me without compelling answers to those questions, we're done. Everyone knows the only issue you care about.

So you'll pretend I didn't ask first and that you are not the one ducking the question because it would expose your positions to criticism.

That seems to be one of the things that has been criticized on the left.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

not a chance.

 

[nostradumbass]

No, 0 chance. Are we forgetting their internal polling that leaked and showed why they had a coup in the first place? He was down in every swing state before the debate and they were already losing control of their "cheap fakes" narrative to cover up his crippling dementia, then after the debate he was down 5-10 points in the swing states, and was even losing VA, NH, and NM, and tied in MN.

Imagine making 20,000 posts for less than 10,000 likes lmao

What are you doing here other than just screaming into the void? Even the people you are pandering to don't like your posts.

 

[Loiosh]

So you'll pretend I didn't ask first and that you are not the one ducking the question because it would expose your positions to criticism.

That seems to be one of the things that has been criticized on the left.

Thanks for proving my point.

You barged in saying they should have said something, but you can't say what.

We're done.

And I did say, in my last post, why it was obvious. I pointed out the things they SHOULD have done, and what they did instead. I gave you the opportunity to back up your statement, but you couldn't do it.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

He would have been trounced. People don't have a very good handle on how close Trump came to pulling off 2020. That was mid pandemic, which he handled like a buffoon, and even still, he probably wins that election if he doesn't discourage the mail-in and early voting in his own voter base. The Dems were voting for weeks, and Trump set himself up so that he had to overcome that head start and beat them in a day. All so that he could claim "fix" if he lost... talk about an idiot strategy. In 2024 he didn't repeat that mistake, and learning that lesson paid off.

But, look, even setting all of that aside, Biden picked up historic vote totals in 2020, and yet had he run and managed to pick up identical totals in 2024 he still loses to Trump's 2024 vote totals in all 7 swing states and with the same electoral college margin that defeated Harris. Here are the numbers (as of November 14, when I originally posted this info elsewhere; since then some of Trump's totals have no doubt increased even further as late vote counts have come in):

In 2020 Biden took Arizona 1,672,143 votes to Trump's 1,661,686; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 1,747,059, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Georgia 2,473,633 votes to Trump's 2,461,854; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 2,662,971, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Michigan 2,804,040 votes to Trump's 2,648,852; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 2,814,251, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Nevada 703,486 votes to Trump's 669,890; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 750,101, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Pennsylvania 3,459,923 votes to Trump's 3,378,263; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 3,529,983, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

In 2020 Biden took Wisconsin 1,630,866 votes to Trump's 1,610,184; in 2024 Trump has (as of November 14) received 1,697,769, which flipped the state for him, but also would have been enough to take it in 2020.

Agree, great points. Yes, Trump handled the pandemic terribly.

 

[BFoe]

Trump's situation was unique with regards to presidential polling, specifically because of covid.

To an extent that’s true, but he didn’t just poll badly because of how bad he handled that, but because of Jan 6 and subsequent impeachment.
We could discuss and debate all sorts of factors, but in and of itself it’s pretty remarkable—I mean remarkable in a bad way—that Trump could not only overcome those things, but do so without changing a thing about himself and being charged with crime after crime after crime. The amount of “negotiating,” for lack of a better term, that Americans have had to do in order to justify voting for this guy is unlike anything I’ve seen in American politics.

The argument that men won't vote for a woman is off base, I think. Hillary and Kamala were two of the worst candidates in US history. Hillary is extremely unlikable and is the personification of the establishment, and Kamala Harris was never a serious candidate. She polled at under 1% in the 2020 primary and dropped out after being destroyed by Tulsi Gabbard, who wasn't some powerhouse herself.

I don't really think much of Michelle Obama, but if she would have ran, she would have been a big favorite to beat Trump. Harris was already a terrible candidate and she was joined at the hip with a increasingly unpopular Biden administration.

I know you won’t agree with me on what I’m about to say, but after his term in office Trump was voted by historians as the worst POTUS ever—and that was before we knew about the extent of his various crimes for which he was later charged. It’s curious to me to hear people say Kamala isn’t a “serious candidate,” when there’s probably never been a worse candidate—and only 2 or 3 worse presidents—than Trump. Aside from prisoners and parolees, he’s one of the worst human beings in America.

Before the election, I agreed with you about Michelle Obama—but now I’m not so sure. I want to be clear that I think there’s multiple reasons why Trump won, not just Kamala being a woman/woman of color. But that glass ceiling is very real, and I’m beginning to wonder if it’s made out of more than just glass.

Hillary did better though and nearly won. I think it was the wrong woman. But your other points are valid. Biden likely would have lost at this point in his life.

Could’ve been the wrong woman, sure. Hillary definitely did better in the popular vote. Electoral college was similar, although a bit weird because both candidates had some faithless electors.
In the end, I honestly don’t think anyone should be the “wrong person” when running against Trump FFS. We should’ve been able to draw any American’s name out of a hat, practically.

 

[Kingz]

No

His own internals had him losing New Jersey, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, and Virginia as well as being uncompetitive in the swing states. He was in bad shape before the debate as well.

It would’ve been a blood bath and democrats so demoralized that they would’ve likely been hammered in the senate races in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona as well.

They were wise to replace him but they probably should’ve done as Obama wanted. An open convention.

It took Obama close to a week to endorse Harris.
Biden’s immediate endorsement of her was his final fuck you to Obama.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Eh. Kamala got trounced as well and she was just as awful in her debate with Trump. It's hard for most people to get a read on how bad Kamala was at that debate because the media was in such a high level of spin mode after it. There are people who actually think she did well at the debate.

I, personally, think Trump did pretty poorly in the Harris debate, but you can argue about and assess the Trump v Harris debate from countless different angles.

That's kind of the point, though. The Trump v Biden debate was a bloodbath, and there was no way to spin it as anything but.

 

[Simple Southerner]

 

[jeremyemilio]

To an extent that’s true, but he didn’t just poll badly because of how bad he handled that, but because of Jan 6 and subsequent impeachment.
We could discuss and debate all sorts of factors, but in and of itself it’s pretty remarkable—I mean remarkable in a bad way—that Trump could not only overcome those things, but do so without changing a thing about himself and being charged with crime after crime after crime. The amount of “negotiating,” for lack of a better term, that Americans have had to do in order to justify voting for this guy is unlike anything I’ve seen in American politics.




I know you won’t agree with me on what I’m about to say, but after his term in office Trump was voted by historians as the worst POTUS ever—and that was before we knew about the extent of his various crimes for which he was later charged. It’s curious to me to hear people say Kamala isn’t a “serious candidate,” when there’s probably never been a worse candidate—and only 2 or 3 worse presidents—than Trump. Aside from prisoners and parolees, he’s one of the worst human beings in America.

Before the election, I agreed with you about Michelle Obama—but now I’m not so sure. I want to be clear that I think there’s multiple reasons why Trump won, not just Kamala being a woman/woman of color. But that glass ceiling is very real, and I’m beginning to wonder if it’s made out of more than just glass.


Could’ve been the wrong woman, sure. Hillary definitely did better in the popular vote. Electoral college was similar, although a bit weird because both candidates had some faithless electors.
In the end, I honestly don’t think anyone should be the “wrong person” when running against Trump FFS. We should’ve been able to draw any American’s name out of a hat, practically.

I don't think there's any question that Hillary and Harris being women is a factor in who will and will not vote for them, but it's tough to measure that stuff because as much as there are definitely people who wouldn't vote for them because they are women (just as there are definitely people who would not vote for Obama because he's black), there are undeniably people who voted for all of the above specifically because they were women and/or people of colour.

It's probably still more of a hinderance than a help... probably? But that's not really an answer to why they lost. It was probably (almost certainly) more of a hindrance to JFK than a help that he was Catholic, too. There are sooooo many things at play.

In the end, Hilary lost a very close race via the electoral college, and Biden won a very close race via the electoral college, and both of those races could have easily gone the other way with the same candidates under different circumstances that have nothing to do with gender (Hillary probably wins if not for the email scandal, and Biden probably loses if Trump embraces early voting and mail-in ballots, among a host of other smallish factors that probably tilted some tight races in key swing states).

Harris was soundly rejected by Democrats in the primary four years earlier (despite having been celebrated early as the winner of the first debate), hadn't picked up any sort of popularity in her time as VP, and was appointed captain of a sinking ship. Everything was stacked against her.

You and I are both on the same page in wondering how so many people could bring themselves to vote for Trump, but I don't think there's much evidence that it's because he was running against a woman. The vast majority of people who would be so dead set against a woman president that they would vote for the likes of Trump are hard core conservative sorts, already. I can't imagine there's a big group of swing voters in that camp.

More likely, the loss can be credited to the mess created by the Biden fiasco, combined with the rise in the cost of living, combined with the very sort of energy behind covid measures and left leaning cultural movements (from MeToo to BLM to some of the more militant Trans activism) that helped propel them to a win in 2020, swinging back in 2024.

As I've said before, odds are that Trump delivers a Trumpy presidency, and the sentiment swings back Democrat by 2028. I hope that this will not prevent the Democrats from learning any lessons... or worse still, will have them learning the (I think misguided) lesson that their big mistake in 2016 and 2024 was to nominate women.

 

[terrapin]

Thanks for proving my point.

You barged in saying they should have said something, but you can't say what.

We're done.

And I did say, in my last post, why it was obvious. I pointed out the things they SHOULD have done, and what they did instead. I gave you the opportunity to back up your statement, but you couldn't do it.

We're done because you're a coward and could not control the narrative since I asked you first if there were any places at all that you could specifically identify where the left should have backed off.


From then on, you've been running and hiding and lying about what our conversation is.

You demonstrate an unwillingness to have a good faith discussion and I wasn't even trying to get you in a gotcha moment.