Trump has dominated the non college degree white males with identity politics. I would admit your statement would have been valid before Trump.
The Anomalous Voting Patterns in MI, WI, PA, and GA
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Trump has dominated the non college degree white males with identity politics. I would admit your statement would have been valid before Trump.
The Ds are the kings of identity politics, pitting black vs white, women vs men, gay/LTGBQ vs straight, Muslim vs Christian/Jew, young vs old - you name it. They are the kings of segmenting the population for their unwholesome purposes.
Just shows how blindly naive you are. These are all things the Republican do as well. This is nothing new either. Republicans and democrats have been using these issues to divide & conquer for many many years now. The main difference is democrats for the most part are freedom and diversity. Republicans for the most part are for control and uniformity.
You really are a confused guy if you think dems are not for control and uniformity - most notably in keeping blacks on the dem plantation where they belong.
@SDBoiler1 said, “Trump is going to win in 2020 by more than he did in 2016 and there's not a damn thing you'll be able to do about it except bitch, moan, and screech more loudly.”
Just posting this again for all the amazing awesome contained herein.😆😆😆
Just posting this again for all the amazing awesome contained herein.😆😆😆
There is nothing awesome about Biden's apparent win. Do you really believe a guy who ran his campaign out of his basement got 17M MORE votes than Barack Obama did in 2012? Really?
It's interesting though that even with Biden's apparent win, the same idiots still bitch, moan, and screech loudly about Trump. Trump is acting like I somewhat expected him to - he's not taking his apparent loss gracefully. I somewhat hope he doesn't run in 2024 again, but I get the feeling he will.
“...there's not a damn thing you'll be able to do about it except bitch, moan, and screech more loudly.”
😆😅😂🥲
I do. Because there has never been a less qualified and more sociopathic incumbent presidential candidate in history. The silent majority were the people that had enough.
If his behavior in the last month hasn’t made this obvious, I don’t know what to tell you.
Last edited:
Do you really believe a president who was A) Impeached, B) Presided over a global pandemic that killed 200,000+ Americans, and C) Essentially had an approval rating in the mid 40's for the entirety of his term got 11 million MORE votes than in 2016? Really?
You likely don't have one without the other.
Not just swing states but selective cities in those swing states.
The GOP has a problem. If people vote, they will lose. Demographically it is just the case. When Romney lost, they created an autopsy on what they needed to do to fix it. Trump came in and won on the complete opposite approach, so they are stuck.
If the GOP wants to not continue losing elections, they need to figure out how to appeal to a broader group of people. With boomers starting to die, the younger generation isn't going help the numbers either.
I still think the moderate wings of both parties need to figure out how to create a sustainable party that reflects the majority and let the fringe left and right do their thing.
You have a point - to a point. Trump increased the Hispanic vote to 33%. He increased A-A vote, especially with men. Rs added a large number of new registrations in swing states. He did expand the tent way beyond what Romney had. Yes, there were some defections to Biden (never Trumpers, suburban women who hated Trump’s style).
Part of your assumption is that voters/voting patterns are ossified in stone. As if someone who votes D will always vote D. Someone who votes R will always vote R. Just not true.
Demographically, the Rs are at a disadvantage, based on current status. The Ds think they have popular positions. If they were so popular, why did Rs gain state legislatures, 10+ House seats, and will probably hold the Senate?
Face it, this election was more of a referendum on Trump than a referendum on the Rs. It seems R policies are more popular than D policies right now. Socialism doesn’t sell except in certain big cities and NY, CA, OR, HI, etc. The vast majority of the country are against it.
I’ll be curious to see how republicans will do when Trump isn’t on the ticket. He seems to get out the vote in low frequency voters. I was pretty shocked to see the gains in the house republicans made in 2020. Especially after seeing the democrats do so well in the elections leading up to it.
I actually agree with 90% of this post. Both sides keep looking at election wins as a "mandate that the will of the people is to implement the entire platform of the Republican / Democrat platform" when that side wins, but the truth of the matter is that the past six elections have come down to about a 3 to 6% difference. The fact that so many people voted against Trump but for Republicans down-ticket means that they were voting for the issues and not specifically for Trump. Fortunately, enough people think that Trump was just not the right kind of leader to implement those issues.
The only part I disagree with is the last two sentences. One of the biggest "successes" of the Republican far right in the last four years has been to tie the socialism tag to most Democrat policies (regardless of whether it meets the true definition of Socialism or not). At least enough so that most of the right and a good chunk of the independents believe it. Socialism has been this dirty word for almost 100 years now, mostly due to it's loose connection to both Communism and Soviet Russia. True socialism, I agree, is a bad idea and I am totally against the United States becoming a socialist country. And I think that 95% of America agrees with that. I think that of the 100 steps it would take to turn this country into a Socialist country, the current Democrat platform would be about 1.5 to 2 steps down that road. The far right has convinced enough people that those steps are closer to 90 steps.
I think it comes down to how much control you and other Americans are willing to give to the government. Under GWB’s Patriot Act, Americans gave up some civil liberties under the guise of “safety”. Under this Covid epidemic, many D governors especially are being heavy-handed on lockdowns, travel restrictions, etc. What is going on right now is a kind of social engineering experiment, and in many states it’s not going well. Some People are “rebelling” against the heavy-handed measures or using the courts to challenge edicts.
I personally don’t want the government having as much control over my life as they seem to want to have. I want lower taxes because I’d rather spend my money as I see fit - not bureaucrats. The government often does a poor job of managing itself.
I’d rather be able to choose the healthcare I get and use, rather than the government mandating what I must use and have.
I am with you on most of what you say. The far left and Trumpism aren’t sustainable for either party.
Trumpism may not be sustainable but no R politician could have gotten folks out to vote like Trump. None. And that really helped R's accross the board. The only problem is as many people are as passionate about Trump, many more completely despise the man. For republicans, Trump giveth, Trump taketh.
I think R's picking up seats in the house and state legislatures is mostly explained by Trump and gerrymandering, not the popularity of the R's policies, or even the slightly effective tagging of Ds as socialists. If Trump is not on the ticket, R's suffer way more losses.
We agree to disagree. It’s not the popularity of R policies as much as the unpopularity of D policies in vast swaths of the country.
Hold on boys and girls, the state of Texas just filed a suit against Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin regarding the unconstitutionality of the election in those states. Suit goes straight to the Supreme Court and circumvents the lower courts.
Potentially, but the fact a state is now bringing a suit is pretty significant and much harder to ignore. Guess we will find out
Not really. It’s just more political theatre filed by the AG in TX (and remember AG usually means Aspiring Governor).
Is this what OAN is telling you? Trump and his supporters continue to make a mockery of the legal process to raise money from their idiot lemmings.
I know you will all be shocked, but the Texas AG was already being investigated by the FBI. I smell a pardon coming .... good boy!!
www.texastribune.org
FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general's office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
www.texastribune.org
gr8, you make me want to dump YoutubeTV so that I can get OAN. 🙀🤣👏
Last edited:
No, that’s what common sense tells me. If you can’t understand that concept then not sure what to tell you. At the end of the day, it may prove to be nothing, but to disregard a state filing a lawsuit against another state as nothing seems somewhat ignorant to me.
Try getting your news from somewhere other than Newsmax for a day or two. The only state the above is even remotely true regarding is Pennsylvania. In each of the other states in which regular (i.e. non-military) ballots can arrive after election day it is pursuant to duly adopted legislation. In Pennsylvania, yes, the change was made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but the late arriving ballots have been segregated pending resolution of the court case. Further, it is not like Trump has not had due process with respect to such ballots. It is the only substantive matter in this election that has been ruled on by the United States Supreme Court on the merits, and it concluded that the PA Supreme Court likely had the power to make the change, but remanded the matter for further proceedings to develop the record. The number of ballots that arrived after election day in PA would not have been sufficient to change the result even if they had been included in the vote totals so the issue is academic. Period. Full stop.
Further, this may be the dumbest of the arguments the Trump sycophants have come up with. First, the ballots have to be postmarked on or before election day. Unless you are also going to claim that the Dems have a time machine that allowed them to go forward in time find out what the election totals would be and then travel back in time to submit just the right number of ballots to squeak out wins in swing states that is a pretty big issue to overcome--kind of strange how Hugo Chavez (the guy who has been dead for 7 years but helped mastermind this fraud), Putin and other despots the world over who engage in routine ballot stuffing always win elections by huge amounts but the Dems decided to just barely squeak out wins. But wait, the post office was working with the dems to illegally postmark ballots submitted after the election date, right? Sure, let's for the sake of argument assume that is accurate. Last time I checked the Postal Service was under the purview of the federal government. Who is the chief executive officer of the federal government? That would be Donald Trump. Ergo, he has the power to cause an investigation of the post office. It would not be a state issue. It is kind of like his banging on about California not doing enough to stop wildfires this spring when ~70% of the land that burned was land owned and/or managed by the federal government. If you have not figured out by now, nothing is ever his issue he just blames others regardless of whether the underlying iss ue is squarely within his power to control. Second, this is hardly a new phenomenon. You clearly must have not had internet installed under your rock in 2000, but one of the potential issues in the 2000 recount in Florida was how to handle ballots that arrived after election day but in compliance with Florida law. I guess the Dems were really playing the long game by getting Florida to allow for ballots to arrive after election day 20 years in advance--it was that darn time machine wasn't it?
Does it not bother you just a little bit that the defenders of the republic that Rudy has found so far have included a registered sex offender who cannot even prove he lived in Philadelphia but supposedly voted there, a former stripper serving probation for sending her fiance's ex-wife pornography (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Michigan-used-strip-club-named-Bada-Bing.html), someone who claims there was fraud because people of different races cannot identify people of races other than their own (admittedly there is some research around eyewitness identifications to support this concept in part but not when comparing to a photo id of the same person standing in front of the person), etc. or that Rudy held a press conference in which he appeared to be melting or that while testifying before the Michigan legislature he passed gas on multiple occasions loudly enough for it to be picked up by the microphones? This is hardly a group that inspires confidence. The complete inability of some people to exercise a scintilla of critical thinking that has been on display since the election is a damning indictment on our educational system.
Only because it is a dispute among the states, which is within the USSC's constitutional jurisdiction. I'd put significant money on cert being denied on the basis that Texas does not have standing to bring the case. The USSC has ducked everything other than the PA dispute which arose prior to the election on standing grounds.
I have never watched Newsmax.
The Texas Ag agrees with me.
I won't even bother to respond to the rest of your post. A bunch of baseless insults and innuendoes.
An extremely partisan guy that's under FBI investigation is willing to make a bad faith argument that will go absolutely nowhere. Do you really think that helps your argument?
You continue to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks.
Did the Texas AG sue the mayors as well?
I'll happily disregard the state filing. That state is disregarding its own filing by not interesting its own solicitor general.
Yes because most people that can think for themselves and don't rely on MSM to tell them what to believe know that, 1) the impeachment was a sham and 2) Trump is not to blame for all the deaths of Covid.
The rally's and public support you saw of Trump in the form of parades by boat and vehicle were massive. Honestly, I don't trust the approval ratings one once now that we know how terrible polling is these days.
Last edited:
You realize the WWE can draw big crowds in many cities ... does that mean a majority of the people who live there are WWE fans? Just because he attracted a fanatical base doesn’t mean that represented a majority of the population.
I think those rallies did more harm than good. The people who were going to those rallies were already voting for them, but they probably offended more middle of the road people than it attracted.
In the US right now ... 40 to 45% of the population is going to vote for whoever represents the GOP and the same for the Dems. It’s swaying that 10 to 20% in the middle that wins. Trump did that in 2016, but lost a lot of that in 2020.
That's one of the most terrible analogies I've ever read... I'm not just talking about the rally's. Have you seen pictures of the boat parades? Car parades? I read that one car parade stretched 80 miles. I find that somewhat hard to believe, but I remember thinking the source that I read it from was typically credible.
I am disappointed that you don't want to double down on the crazy and say that it was not a time machine but that they had a seance with Miss Cleo to determine the votes necessary to hatch their dastardly plot or maybe the alien federation that Israel's former head of space defense disclosed exists this week provided advanced alien technology that allowed the Dems to control peoples' minds and force them to vote for Trump against their will--whose crazy now, right? That tin foil hat you wear to bed paid off because you were impervious to such technology. That makes about as much sense as your argument, which I note you don't bother to actually defend--BTW weren't you the guy who claimed there were 500k votes received after election day in PA when it was only about 490k less than that? I'd probably avoid defending my position too with your track record of not having even the most tenuous grasp on the facts.
Clearly you don't have any friends who are attorneys if you believe that an elected attorney general would be above grand standing for attention or is necessarily a superior legal mind. There is a reason that lawyers have the joke "What do you call an attorney who could not make partner?" Answer, an elected judge. The same logic applies to an elected AG. Plus, if Conrad Black has taught us nothing else, prostrating yourself to Trump's crazy is a sure fire way to get a pardon. Not like the TX AG is currently under federal investigation and might benefit from such a pardon . . . . The fact that none of the other 25 republican attorneys general signed on to his specious and meritless complaint tells you all you need to know. You will probably soil yourself with excitement when the My Pillow Guy submits an amicus brief, because it is incontrovertible proof that it is a meritorious action.
LOL at this thread...
SCOTUS just shot down the PA lawsuit seeking to block certification of the vote claiming voting rules implemented in 2019 were unconstitutional. Zero dissents, which includes THREE Trump appointees on the court.
Will this be enough for you dumbasses? Or do we need to wait for them to laugh the Texas lawsuit out of the court as well?
SCOTUS just shot down the PA lawsuit seeking to block certification of the vote claiming voting rules implemented in 2019 were unconstitutional. Zero dissents, which includes THREE Trump appointees on the court.
Will this be enough for you dumbasses? Or do we need to wait for them to laugh the Texas lawsuit out of the court as well?
Last edited:
