RihRihGirrrl Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago 4 minutes ago, Vermillion said: Shocker.....I wonder if Ana/TYT will cover this lol
Communion Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago 22 minutes ago, GhostBox said: You obviously are posting this as some intended attempt at a dunk and now I'm even more pissed off cause my nosy ass: 1) Remembers his profile picture from the 2016 era of Bernie, and thus: 2) His twitter profile literally has no tweets from November 2020 to December 2024 and now my nosy ass wants to know WTF happened even more? kjndfdnkf
FameFatale Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago I randomly came across Rep Anna Paulina Luna runs a North Pole Elf on the Shelf Instagram page saying it's the representative from the North Pole in Congress. It's cute but girl, get to work it's called repnutmeg if anyone is curious 1
Communion Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago Democrats becoming so un-cool that they even lost the first-gen effeminate six-foot Somali Midwest male rural vote. (Him saying his brother got killed in an Obama drone strike?? ) Apparently though dddd his last campaign he managed (for a ward race), the guy freaked out and rushed the convention stage and got banned from the Minnesota Dems kjnnnk: 1
ClashAndBurn Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago 4 hours ago, Bears01 said: You've made several good points in your last several comments (especially about democrats and their disdain for working class people). But I'm in disagreement that if the economy collapses, in say, 2026/27, there's no messaging out of that by republicans. I do agree, the American public is hella reactionary. Id argue to say that the only reason Trump lost in 2020 was because of the short term effects of the economy because of Covid. And that was literally the most temporary recession in this country's history. Democrats however, already had the perfect storm for that in 2008. Obama is/was one of the most characteristic, inspiring candidates (not presidents, candidates) in this country's history. On top of the economic destruction following bush's 8 year term. There's no Obama level candidate waiting in the wings of the Democratic Party currently, unless someone makes a massive rise in the next 2-3 years I'd also argue that Democrats were more punished for their COVID recovery and the efforts made to provide a soft landing for the economy than Trump was punished for COVID. Trump only barely lost the Electoral College by a margin of 43k votes over 3 states. Kamala lost every single swing state, and it wasn't even close. Winning the popular vote was unheard of for a non-incumbent Republican, and hasn't been done in nearly four decades. This election was far more embarrassing for the Dems than even Hillary losing in 2016 was. And frankly, I don't see how they recover from this. Mainly because I don't see them doing what they'd need to to actually achieve that. 3 hours ago, Communion said: My dread is not doomerism but knowing that evil doesn't just die and progressives must continue to be annoying and loud and inconvenient. Just like how MAGA wasn't the first movement to emerge from the ashes of the GOP's 2008 death, many other movements will try to co-opt this moment of embarrassment for their own interests even if they're doomed to keep us losing just like Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan were for the GOP pre-MAGA. Progressives must be to Dems what MAGA came to be for the GOP. The Democratic establishment is a lot more resilient and resistant to populist tides. The fact that they can coordinate a massive dropout and consolidation of moderate candidates in their primaries to stop an ascendant Bernie Sanders is proof of that. That and... the progressive landscape post-Sanders actually looks pretty dire. There's no politician on the left that has Bernie's broad appeal, politics, and notoriety. AOC would qualify for a very, very distant second place, but her appeal is a lot more similar to Elizabeth Warren than Sanders, which doesn't seem at all promising for electability, imo. Hard to see anyone other than wonky academics actually giving a damn about her. 1
Mike91 Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 9 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said: This election was pretty easy to predict actually. Only the ones with Democrat Brain couldn't foresee the obvious result that was right in front of their faces. I literally said Trump was poised to win the popular vote due to Joe Biden's deep unpopularity. I was ridiculed in this very thread and told that was the dumbest thing ever written. Turns out, I was right actually! And in the end, the Democrats will refuse to course-correct. I feel extremely confident in that prediction. Especially seeing as one of their most trusted talking heads is literally a former chair of the RNC I agree that this election was easier to predict in hindsight than people (myself including) initially thought. I remember before Kamala became the nominee saying she could never win a general election. I didn't even consider her as Biden's replacement until Biden endorsed her and it became obvious she was going to be the nominee. After the better-than-expected result for the 2022 midterms though, I don't think it was unfair to assume that Dobbs might have hurt republicans chances for 2024. Dems completely swept MI, PA, and WI and Trump-like candidates were rejected. You could argue that the New York democratic party is the only reason they lost the House. I admit that I thought what happened this year is what would happen to dems in 2028 after 8 years of upholding an increasingly failing status quo. It's obvious the only way we'll see any change is through a Trump-like takeover of the democratic party. Let's remember that the GOP resisted Trump at first. However, that doesn't mean it won't happen. Don't get me wrong though, I'd still put money on someone like Shapiro getting the nomination in 2028 and dems losing again. Unless someone gains a bigger profile before the midterms, or an established figure reinvents themselves, whoever becomes the left, anti-establishment candidate will have to start from zero and face a **** ton of pushback from the establishment. 9 hours ago, Armani? said: They're talking about dominating the "moderate" vote in podcasts so I'm not particularly optimistic on their campaign strategy changing. Expect more right wing populist vs the moderate. I mean after the 2008 election, the feeling was that republicans would need to become more moderate to win again and instead, they doubled-down on the crazy to great success (mostly in the midterms, but still). After 2012, the narrative was that republicans needed to change their tone on Latino voters in order for the party to survive. Trump doubled-down on the racist rhetoric and won a lot of them over. After 2020, they were told they needed to move on from Trumpism and Trump just had his best performance in an election. The question is whether there's enough democratic voters who are tired of the establishment. Again, in 2016 a lot of republican voters didn't want Trump at first and Bernie did better than expected in the primary. Those voters are out there to capture. 1
Communion Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago I may have lost everything, but at least I still had my bedazzl- erm, my Matt Yglesias' dunks. 1
ClashAndBurn Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 6 hours ago, Mike91 said: I agree that this election was easier to predict in hindsight than people (myself including) initially thought. I remember before Kamala became the nominee saying she could never win a general election. I didn't even consider her as Biden's replacement until Biden endorsed her and it became obvious she was going to be the nominee. After the better-than-expected result for the 2022 midterms though, I don't think it was unfair to assume that Dobbs might have hurt republicans chances for 2024. Dems completely swept MI, PA, and WI and Trump-like candidates were rejected. You could argue that the New York democratic party is the only reason they lost the House. I admit that I thought what happened this year is what would happen to dems in 2028 after 8 years of upholding an increasingly failing status quo. It's obvious the only way we'll see any change is through a Trump-like takeover of the democratic party. Let's remember that the GOP resisted Trump at first. However, that doesn't mean it won't happen. Don't get me wrong though, I'd still put money on someone like Shapiro getting the nomination in 2028 and dems losing again. Unless someone gains a bigger profile before the midterms, or an established figure reinvents themselves, whoever becomes the left, anti-establishment candidate will have to start from zero and face a **** ton of pushback from the establishment. I mean after the 2008 election, the feeling was that republicans would need to become more moderate to win again and instead, they doubled-down on the crazy to great success (mostly in the midterms, but still). After 2012, the narrative was that republicans needed to change their tone on Latino voters in order for the party to survive. Trump doubled-down on the racist rhetoric and won a lot of them over. After 2020, they were told they needed to move on from Trumpism and Trump just had his best performance in an election. The question is whether there's enough democratic voters who are tired of the establishment. Again, in 2016 a lot of republican voters didn't want Trump at first and Bernie did better than expected in the primary. Those voters are out there to capture. Arguably, the reason they lost in 2012 is because they went with a moderate and didn't go racist and crazy enough. If they'd gone with someone who would have called Obama the n word on the debate stage, they probably would have won in a landslide. And I'm being 100% serious with that. Morgan Wallen is proof that society won't punish you for saying bad words. 1
Recommended Posts