stevenkesslar

But we're not talking about 76 million people. Or inflation. We're talking about you, and your very special gift for cruelty. Can't get more pro-Genocide than saying the lives of Palestinian women and children don't matter. And we shouldn't even take them seriously. Are you now a bigot about Hitler's generals, too? Trump admires them! They are swell guys. Loyal, too. What's your problem? I'm sure you could sure use more of them in Gaza when Bibi The Baby Killer is unleashed. They'll do whatever you want. Now there's a thought. Maybe Bibi The Baby Killer could be your date. What a couple! Just make sure he doesn't have a layover in Europe. TRUMP2024 MAGA/BIBI THE BABY KILLER STARVATION RACISM APARTHEID GENOCIDE

You poor thing. I thought it would be Adolph. Is it something about you he doesn't like? At least bring one of his generals. Trump admires them. They are damn loyal. If anyone else gets out of line, they'll know what to do.

It is still very hard for me to get my mind around the fact that she used to be Gavin Newsom's wife.

I agree with that completely. That actually fits with my view of their political narcissism. Jared, the son-in-law, used Trump 1.0 to feather his nest with lots of Arab money. And China. And Israel. He does not need, or wish for, a sequel. So they are being just like Daddy. Don Jr. is in it for the money, and the glory. Just like Daddy. To the degree that we are right, it does suggests that JD Vance is an empty vessel. Or a beard, if you will. There still is no real political strategy. Just a strategy to win now, barely. In 2016 it was Pence, SCOTUS justices, and court evangelicals, who will get us just over the top. In 2024 it is court this confused idea of an anti-labor union working class party, that exists to cut taxes for billionaires and help bosses, not workers. Huh? Until I am proven wrong, I think it only worked - narrowly - because Biden and then Harris had a wall of lava coming at them, called inflation. The thing that comes closest to being a real political strategy is that Trump takes all his racism (the Central Park Five) and loathing of immigrants (who are not family members) and projects that out, successfully. Especially in 2024. He gets some Black conservative votes even as he calls Harris a dumb lazy woman, who maybe is Black because she decided to be. No bigotry there whatsoever. But people, including moderate Black and Latino and Asian people, are pissed about The Illegals. Democrats fucked up that one badly. Ask the 2012 version of Barack Obama, Deporter in Chief, who along with Bill Clinton in 1996 is the only President to win over 70 % of the Latino vote. All this does reconfirm the Trumps understand power. They are the best hucksters ever. And they have excelled at fooling some of the people some of the time. But the bill always come due, as it did in 2018 and 2020. If we are correct, their bill comes due in 2026 and 2028. But they have sure had a good long run, with lots of power and money and glory. And as much as I am confident in Democrats' ability to learn lessons, I think the whole JD Vance/Josh Hawley/working class GOP thing will give us a run for our money. Which they will get lots of, from billionaires and corporations, who want tax cuts. And the ability to do whatever the fuck they want.

I WILL NOT READ!!! I WILL NOT READ!!! I WILL NOT READ!!!! Why are about half of younger American Jews openly anti-Semitic, according to the "openly anti-Semitic" Jewish Electorate Institute? Half of younger American Jews believe you are championing racism, and/or apartheid, an/or genocide in Israel. I WILL NOT READ!!! I WILL NOT READ!!! I WILL NOT READ!!!! Why are half of younger American Jews openly anti-Semitic Jew haters? TRUMP2024 MAGA RACISM APARTHEID GENOCIDE

Can't we just be honest? I think it's Make America Rape Again The latest Harris poll asked about Cabinet nominees. Not suprisingly, with most of them the most common answer is "I don't know." Gaetz was the only one who had way more opposition (36 %) than support (28 %). Hegseth has 29 % in favor (mostly Republicans), 30 % opposed (mostly Democrats) and 42 % "I don't know." Is there anything that suggests any woman is going to come forward? I haven't read anything. Cornyn said Gaetz would have been "Kavanaugh on steroids." Including the girl he had sex with saying, "Yes. I was a child and he had sex with me." Doesn't sound like the woman who Hegseth paid off has any plans to speak up, does it? The more fruitful issue to me is that I think Republicans specifically vetted and rejected him for some leadership role at DOD in 2017. So if he was rejected for a small supporting role then, how does studying at Fox U prepare him for the leading role today? That's a good question. Or is Trump just appointing incompetent loyal bomb throwers? In the same general ballpark, Elon Musk has far and away the most people favoring him (38 %) and opposing him (37 %). That could go either way. The idea of making government more efficient is always a winner. But there is a long history of Republican CEOs who come in saying government would be so much better if it were run like their corporation. They fire people and fuck it up, like Musk did at Twitter. So I think that could end badly, too. And at the very top we have Trump, with his long record of bankruptcy and breaking shit. Including why he lost in 2020. So I hope Democrats focus on that. It's the same ballpark as W. in 2008. They fucked up the Iraq War, they fucked up Katrina, and then the mother of all fuck ups, the predatory lending/subprime global economic disaster. I could definitely see Trump 2.0 ending badly. Because he is simply so good at breaking shit.

So I will take this in a few directions you may not agree with. Basically to compliment some of the things Trump's kids have done. But I will end by pointing out just how hollow it is, if the goal is to build a working class Republican Party. Back in the day, guys like Trump had press handlers who worked the networks to position their candidates well. And they still do, of course. Like Harris and her Fox News interview. But there is something open and democratic about the idea that Trump asked his 18 year old son who he should talk to to win an election. I'm sure that is mostly hyped bullshit, like most things Trumpian. But it is partly real. I like what Charlemagne Tha God said. We don't need a Democratic Joe Rogan. Democrats need to talk to Joe Rogan. Bernie actually did, and Rogan endorsed him. So part of this is just about how the "Bro vote" wants the respect it deserves. When the deeper analysis of this election comes out, I'm really interested in finding out who these younger people who voted for Trump are, and why. And who did they listen to? In particular, who did Latinos listen to? I suspect the answer is that they listened to each other, and Trump. But they also listened to Ruben Gallego. Who organized a boxing match and used the culture he grew up in and exudes to sell himself. The exit polls say that Harris won about the same percentage of the White vote, and the same percentage of the senior vote, as Biden in 2020. I think that is because if you are a White senior who owns a home and a nice stock-based retirement account, it really is the best economy ever. If you are a young Latino who wants to buy a home, or a young Black man struggling to pay rent in a blue state, not so much. The younger and less White voters were, the more they seemed attracted to Trump in 2024. It had to be the economy, stupid. We'll know more soon. I think it's premature to say that being pissed at Biden in 2024 is the same as embracing a working class Republican coalition. What is that, anyway? Tax cuts for billionaires? I also give credit to Donald Trump, Jr. If there is an heir to the throne, he is it. And it rarely works that way. Americans may watch Dynasty, but we are not a dynastic power. The big exception is George W. Bush. But I don't think there is any reason to think MAGA would settle on Don Jr. to fill his Dad's shoes. But Don Jr. has spoken. As much as anyone, he was the one who talked his Dad into JD Vance. Plus some rich donors. He obviously sees in Vance a future for MAGA. And he may be right. I think the verdict is out. It must be interesting being a Trump kid. They are obviously loyal. But Jared was the one who used Alice In Wonderland to describe Trump. "If you don't know where you are going, there are endless ways to get there." So far, the destinations have included numerous bankruptcies, and big election defeats in 2018 and 2020. Trump does not have a strategy. So I think JD Vance is in part an attempt, including by Don Jr., to put a working class/MAGA strategy around Trump that might survive the man himself. Our beloved @EmmetKruelty champions two things above all others: ignorance, and cruelty. So I WILL NOT READ I WILL NOT READ I WILL NOT READ anything that does not fit in my purist ideology, @EmmetKruelty says. Regardless, here is an interesting piece written by some fanatic who thinks Trump = Hitler, written in one of the worst left wing pieces of shit ever printed, The Guardian. The author is named JD Vance. How Donald Trump seduced America’s white working class I think that headline is well written. The answer is, "It really didn't take much." Trump basically had to sound like them, and play to their cultural norms. Policy? Let's cut taxes for the rich, and cut Obamacare. That sure helps the working class, right? The glass half full way to view this election is that it sets up - or just continues - a great fight. Which is good for America, good for non-Whites, and ultimately maybe good for Democrats. If we are smart, and listen. Maybe JD Vance will persuade Trump to do immigration reform, rather than mass deportation. Maybe he will persuade Trump to raise taxes on billionaires, to help Latino families with child tax credits or forgivable loans to start small businesses. Maybe he will come out firmly behind labor unions, and labor union priorities. Vance did sponsor a few piecemeal progressive bills with Elizabeth Warren, to show off his working class cred. So we'll see. But I ain't holding my breath. Michael Steele, former head of the RNC, just called the Republicans a "zombie" party. I think he is right. They won a narrow victory. But I don't think there is an heir. Or an idea of what a working class Republican Party even is Trump is old, and getting older. As Steele said, if Democrats are not able to defeat a party that is hollow on the inside for the working class, especially when we no longer have the weight of inflation on our backs, it is our own damn fault. That said, Trump and Ruben Gallego both like boxing as a working class guy thing. Maybe we should just throw Barron in the ring, and see how he does. https://x.com/ChuckRocha/status/1835330173190729903

I agree with the overall picture you paint. Especially that Trump is despicable, but he understands the use of power. There is a riff going around in Black America now, at least as I can see it online, that applies: "This is who America is. Now we know." Which essentially means, "We had a chance to be our best selves. And we chose to be our worst selves." It reflects disappointment, and also anger. The polite version I can see online is that many Blacks feel racism and sexism played a role in this at the margins. That's obviously a biased opinion, which my full-on MAGA niece would not agree with. Either way, the idea that we have now done this twice, and the second time with a not really a mandate 49.9 % of the vote, says something. As it applies to Ukraine, or anything with foreign policy, the Theory of Kamala was that she is, at core, a cop and enforcer who believes in standards. So she would have been particularly good at reaching out to the world to say, "Let's have standards. Let's enforce norms together." That was certainly my hope. Then there was the argument that she would have just been seen as weak. With Trump, there is no question about weakness. The assassination attempt was probably a marginal factor in his victory. It did make him look tough as shit. So with Trump we will for sure get "America First." Which in a sense means "America Last" when it comes to whether China or the US wins the energy race. We made our bed. As Black America is saying, this is who America is. Let the Chinese figure out how to help Africa build clean energy. Putin got one thing right. A divided America is more likely to focus internally. Hence, "America First." That said, I do blame it on Republicans. Over a few decades, they went from one extreme - let's invade Iraq! - to another - let's be wobbly about NATO, which has been at the core of why we have not had World War III since 1945. I don't think I, or Democrats, have changed. I was against the Iraq War, which was an act of US aggression that backfired. I am one of those people who believe we need to defend Ukraine, which was an act of Russian aggression. I think the Democrats can build back - this was a narrow loss, not a landslide - and we will probably end up somewhere in the middle. There's a new Gallup poll that says a little more than half of Ukrainians want a quick peace deal. Including the idea of ceding territory to Russia. They must see the handwriting on the wall with Trump's win. And there also has to be a lot of war fatigue. So if this lays the groundwork for a ceasefire, that's a blessing for lots of Ukrainians and Russians. The only part of what you said that I'm not sure I agree with is the idea that Biden could have done anything that would have actually allowed Ukraine to win. Other than World War III, and bringing the US and NATO in. The political and military goal was always to help Ukraine defend itself, not join the fight. Especially with 20/20 hindsight, the US general who said in Fall 2022 that now is the time to negotiate peace, when Russia is humiliated and on its back foot, was probably right. But, even then, Russia occupied most of the parts of Ukraine they occupy now. So, in the real world, while the general may have been right, I doubt Ukrainians themselves would have wanted to make that kind of peace deal then. in other words, I think this is about the best outcome the US and Europe could hope for. Putin finally put his foot down, and said, "Enough." Again, you can blame this, too, on George W. Bush. He was the one who insisted Ukraine should be in NATO, which Merkel predicted could lead to war. She was right. How likely is it that Russia could have completely taken over Ukraine? Who knows. How likely is it that Russia came close to using a nuclear weapon? Who knows. But I don't blame Biden for exercising caution to not drive Putin to extremes. There is a lot of reporting that says when the chips were down for Russia going nuclear was under serious debate. But, taking my Democrat hat off, I see this aspect of Trump's election as kind of a blessing for Ukraine, Russia, and the world. The war seriously crippled the economy of both Russia and Ukraine. Russia is even more of a corrupt mess than it was, with a backward economy that isn't even in the global game. They had some growth by building a war machine that essentially was fueled by massive Russian death. Who wants to build that economy? Smart Russians who could fled. The world, in every poll, looks at Russia unfavorably. There is probably a reason it seems like everybody in the world wants to get into the United States illegally. What does that say about us? So this is not some big Russian military victory. It is a stalemate. NATO is stronger. If Trump wants to play Big Man Politics and cut a deal with Vlad that cements a stalemate for years or decades to come, that's mostly a blessing. I still think all the futurists who say that in 10 or 20 years the Russian Federation will collapse of its own rot, just like the Soviet Union did, are correct. None of this involves any mandate on Trump's part. The polls more or less say Americans are split on whether to help Ukraine more or less. That said, Democrats are solid about helping Ukraine defend itself. Republicans want to help Ukraine less. "America First." So if there is some ceasefire that locks in stalemate, that will make Trump more popular. Assuming he can get a deal, and make it stick. Like when Bush 41 won a spectacular military victory in the first Iraq War, it won't play much of a role in what happens to Trump in the 2026 or 2028 elections. The other sort of blessing is that it makes even clearer to Europe that the US is wobbly. And they should look to themselves for their own defense. Some diplomat who was arguing for a stronger NATO and EU defense policy pointed out that Europeans should not really have to give a shit about what people in Wisconsin do every four years. I think that is a wise attitude.

Does Trump have a mandate? It's kind of a stupid question. Because a mandate is in the eyes of the beholder. The more interesting crystal ball question to me is this: now that Trump has won, can he consolidate the win into a coalition that holds for more than one election? We know he failed to do that in 2016. What I find most interesting is that when Biden won by 7 million votes in 2020, with 51.3 % of the popular vote, Republicans said it was a stolen election. Trump will win by something like 49.8 % of the popular vote, and something like a 2.5 million vote margin, when the last votes in California are counted. On the electoral college side, it is a repeat of both 2016 and 2020. Change 200,000 votes or so in the blue wall states and it changes who the winner is. So my answer, until further notice, is that the Republican Party is just deeply unprincipled. Politicians lie and flip flop every day of the week. Voters expect it. But when they say Biden stole the 2020 election, and they have a Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating and try to steal the election themselves, that just doesn't get swept under the rug. Even if Trump just won the popular vote, narrowly, thanks to inflation. These are deeply unprincipled people. And I don't believe a word they say about their mandate. This way of thinking actually connects very will with what VOTERS seem to have said, in terms of a Trump mandate. In a new Harris poll by Mark Penn, who was very close to correctly predicting the vote outcome, 68 % of all voters said their biggest hope for Trump 2.0 is "end inflation and price increases." Whatever mandate Trump won is focused on working class affordability. If Trump does his tariff thing, which I doubt he will, it will raise prices on Americans. If he deports every low paid farm worker, the same. Oops! Of course, Matt Gaetz is looking for a job now. Picking cherries, Matt? 😨 Most Democrats, and half of Independents, said in the latest Harris poll that their worst fear is that Trump acts like a dictator. I take that as confirming that the message got through loud and clear, and is still felt by many voters in the middle. Including many who voted for Trump, because of the economy, stupid. One other little hint in the Harris poll is that 53 % of all voters, and 55 % of Independents, want Trump's trials to continue. So you can argue that voters did give Trump a mandate to be tried by a jury of his peers, as POTUS. It won't happen, of course. I suspect this may help explain why Gaetz imploded. Senate Republicans can read polls, and know there is no mandate for lawlessness. Or sex with children. So if we are very lucky they nipped that idea of a mandate in the bud. Pod Save America: The Biden campaign had internal polling showing that Trump was going to win 400 electoral votes at the same time that they were insisting he was a strong candidate. This is the part I am most interested to learn more about, when the books are written. Because there are lots of reasons to believe that Trump may have been on his way to a much more significant electoral blowout. Many Democrats and Republicans were saying this in the Summer, around when Trump was coronated at the RNC. What did Biden know? What did Pelosi do? Is it true, as I have read repeatedly, that Obama wanted Mark Kelly to be the nominee? How could that ever have happened, legitimately, without a Democratic primary? I do think the history books are going to blame this more on Biden, and his ego, then on Harris, and her politics of joy and caution. The thing that might have worked better is if Biden had not run, and Harris fought her way through a Democratic primary. Or if they had been selfless, and choreographed a show where Harris threw Biden under the bus on immigration, and some other things. But any idea premised on Biden not having an ego was always going to fail. And it might have just made Harris look like a disloyal flip flopper. The simple explanation I keep coming back to is that Biden and Harris both had a massive wall of lava coming at them. As did every leader who presided over COVID-era inflation. So it isn't a shock that neither could outrun it. But I also buy the idea that if Biden had been on the ballot, it would be a whole lot worse. The other question I hope lots of strategists write about is: why did Mexico dodge the bullet, and elect a woman from the left-wing incumbent party in a landslide? I think the simple answer is Mexican voters felt they had a working class party that fought for the working class, and won for the working class. In the eyes of the US White working class, Biden and Harris failed to do that. 41 % approval - Bush 41 in 1992 - Incumbent party (Bush 41) loses by - 5.6 % 39 % approval - Biden in 2024 - Incumbent party (Harris) loses by -1.7 % 37 % approval - Carter in 1980 - Incumbent party (Carter) loses by -9.7 % I posted that whole list of 19 elections since Truman on a different thread. What is surprising is how incredibly simple this is. There are 19 races. In 18 out of 19, the incumbent party won the popular vote if the incumbent President had an approval rating of 50 % or higher. The one exception was Nixon in 1960, who lost the popular vote by - 0.2 % The other two caveats are that Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016 also won the popular vote, on the tailwinds of an incumbent with over 50 % approval, but also lost the electoral college. So Presidents with 50 % approval or higher will always see their party win, with the one big caveat being "the third term curse." A sitting President with a 50%+ approval rating is a proven ticket to victory, so far. Unless it is a popular President who can't run again. Then all bets are off. In all 8 examples where the incumbent President had an approval rating under 50 %, the incumbent party lost. The highest approval rating of these 8 was Gerald Ford in 1975, with 44 % approval. So all eight incumbents in these losing elections were well below 50 % approval. And it is clear that the degree of unpopularity influenced the vote outcome. Ford lost by -1.9 %. Stevenson, carrying the baggage of Truman's 30 % approval rating, lost by - 10.9 % The two candidates who outperformed in relative terms were Humphrey in 1968, and Harris in 2024. Humphrey lost by -0.7 %, and Harris by -1.7 %. Of the four incumbents with approval ratings under 40 %, three of four led to wipeouts: Truman had 30 % approval, and Stevenson in 1952 lost by -10.9 %. Carter had 37 % approval, and Carter in 1980 lost by -9.7 %. W. had an epic low approval of 26 %, and McCain lost in 2008 by - 7.2 %. Biden had 39 % approval, but Harris did way better than the other three, losing by "only" -1.7 % What the numbers suggest is that incumbency helps. But only when the incumbent is popular, and only when they are the ballot themselves. Incumbency hurts when they are unpopular. And in 1968 and 2024 Democrats very likely cut their losses by switching out unpopular incumbents. I think the two examples on either side of Biden 2024 help answer the question of whether Trump has a mandate. And how this is likely to play out. Reagan 1980 had as big a mandate as you can get. In addition to a crushing national victory, Republicans won 12 Senate seats, 34 House seats, and 4 Governorships. That all got translated into a legislative agenda that had liberalism and Big Government on the ropes for decades. Clinton 1992 was an election quite like 2024, in this sense. It was the original "it's the economy, stupid" election, thanks to Jim Carville. Like in 2024, voters took an unpopular incumbent out. But in 1992 Democrats won no Senate seats. And Republicans, the losing party, won 9 House seats. Clinton had a rocky first two years, with lots of big failures, like Hillarycare and Gays In The Military. Mandate? Not so much. The fact that the down ballot results in 1992 actually favored Republicans, slightly, could be taken as a harbinger of the 1994 Republican blowout that was to come. That said, Clinton licked his wounds and moved to the center and did manage to consolidate his 1992 victory. This time Democrats lost 4 Senate seats, they will likely gain 1 or 2 House seats (the final two uncalled California races), and they lost no Governor races. That's much more like 1992 than 1980. It's bad news that Democrats had no chance to hold 3 Senate seats in red states, as it turned out. It's good news that Democrats won 4 of 5 Senate seats in swing states that voted for Trump. It's also good news if Democrats learn lessons from winners like Ruben Gallego, among others. About how to appeal to the working class by being like them, and promising economic populism. The scariest news to Democrats is this. Of the 8 out of 19 Presidential elections since Truman that incumbent parties lost due to unpopular incumbent Presidents, the winning party was able to consolidate their victory in 5 out of those 8 elections: Eisenhower in 1952, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1992, Obama in 2008. The two times the winning party failed to consolidate were Carter in 1976, and Biden in 2020. In both cases, inflation was the big nail in the coffin. So unless inflation comes roaring back, history does suggest that Republicans, now that they are in power, have a very good chance of consolidating their victory. That said, we have seen this movie before. Trump won in 2016 despite the fact that Obama had a 52 % approval rating, and Clinton won the popular vote by a 2.2 % margin. Given that Biden's approval rating in 2024 was 13 % lower than Obama's in 2016, it certainly makes sense that Trump would do better in 2024 than 2016. Many Republicans have said that if they had a nominee with fewer liabilities, they really would have won in a landslide. We'll never know. The other close example to Trump on a mandate is George W. Bush in 2004. He claimed a 50.7 % win gave him a mandate. He did more unpopular things, as his Iraq War became more and more unpopular as well. That "mandate" did not end well. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Trump will again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and fuck it up. He really doesn't seem to have a strategy, other than retribution and rage. Tax cuts for billionaires, tariffs that raise prices at Walmart, and cutting programs that help the working class may be what Elon Musk wants. But it was not Trump's mandate. I think Democrats who are popular Governors who want to be President in 2028 - and there are many of them - are smart to sit back and give Trump enough rope to hang himself with his own mandate.

I WILL NOT READ! I WILL NOT READ! MANY AMERICAN JEWS ARE JEW HATERS! IF ALMOST HALF OF AMERICAN JEWS THINK MY POSITIONS ARE RACIST, OR SUPPORTING GENOCIDE, OR SUPPORTING APARTHED, JUST BECAUSE I THINK PALESTINIANS HAVE NO RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE MASS SLAUGHTER OF THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THAT IS BECAUSE JEWS ARE ANTI-SEMITIC. You sure do have a twisted idea of facts, don't ya honey? Meanwhile, fact still is that Bibi The Baby Killer is now a war criminal in 120 countries. Give genocide a chance! It does seem like that is the idea. Mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing now, and we'll see where we get later. At least we'll have fewer Palestinians. Majority support for Bibi The Baby Killer's woman and child killing genocide machine is gradually falling apart, most slowly among Republicans. But you must be thrilled @EmmetKruely. More reinforcements are on the way, thanks to Trump, to kill Palestinian women and children. Woo hoo! Let's celebrate. How many women and children can we kill without trying to kill them, do ya think? 41 % of Democrats, a plurality, now want to decrease military aid to Israel. 35 % of Independents, a plurality, want to decrease military aid to Israel. So the debate as of today among Democrats, had Harris won (she will lose by about 1.5 %, a narrow loss), would be do we cut military aid, or keep it the same? Republicans are all over the map. 30 % want to increase military aid, 30 % want to keep it the same, 24 % want to cut it. What we know for a fact is that, across the board, support for military aid to Israel keeps going down among Democrats, and Independents, and Republicans. Nobody likes genocide. Especially when we are paying for it. A very good round of genocide should get Democrats to 50 % support for cutting military aid to Israel. Frankly, I am happy to let this be Trump's problem. It is clear that Israel keeps electing their Baby Killer, who wants his genocide. Trump doesn't, But he can't tell Bibi The Baby Killer what to do. Saudi Arabia and all the others can't and won't make peace with Bibi The Baby Killer's woman and child killing genocide machine. So Trump can spin his wheels for four years, as Bibi The Baby Killer gets his way and quietly continues with his ethnic cleansing while he buys time. At some point he will die, and be replaced by someone worse. The sad and pathetic thing about you is you really have no idea that Hamas is winning. You are so short-sighted and close-minded and bigoted that you just can not grasp what they are doing. But facts are facts. They have figured out how to gradually transform the global perception of Israel into Genocide Jewland. All over the word, the leader of Genocide Jewland is seen as a murderous war criminal, who starves innocent woman and children to death. Yes, Hamas is a sadistic terrorist organization willing to see countless more innocent Palestinians and Jews die. Duh! But you are so bigoted that you really can't see how they are winning. That's how small and distorting your hatreds are. You are letting Hamas win the war, and you can't even see it. They have not been rooted out, as they were supposed to be in a month or a year of whatever. And they won't be rooted out. Their ideology of hate is growing, thanks to Genocide Jewland. All over the world, people look at Israel and now see Genocide Jewland, and Bibi The Baby Killer. You are so caught up in your enthusiasm for Bibi The Baby Killer that you just don't see it. Ehud Barak does. He's a man of peace. But he is also the personification of the Israeli military. His motivation is he is smart enough to see what Hamas is gradually doing. You don't. Poor hateful thing! After four more years of genocide and unrelenting ethnic cleansing and torture and starvation, we'll see where we are. For now, I am happy to let it be Trump's problem. Enjoy your genocide while it lasts.

You always manage to think of something that trashes The Gays, and endorses the rapey, slimey, "just put your dick in the bitch and shut her the fuck up" gross underbelly of Trump and Trumpism. Why are you so cruel? Hey, at least you are not a war criminal, though.

Sadly, yes. I took it as an encouraging sign that there are still adults in the room. Or, more precisely, in the Republican caucus in the US Senate. Sen. Cornyn said it would be "Kavanaugh on steroids." Ya think? Thanks, Republicans, for sparing us of that.

And as of now Democrat Derek Tram is leading by 400 votes in CA-41, which would be a Democratic pickup. Incumbent Republican John Duarte is leading by 350 votes in the other uncalled race, CA-13. But his winning margin went from 3000 votes one day to 2000 votes the next day 350 votes yesterday. At least so far the trend with the final ballots being counted is they favor Democrats. There are an estimated 5000 votes left to count. The outcome in 2022 was 222 Republicans, 213 Democrats. At the time, the idea was that Democrats escaped a red wave. At the very least, even if Democrats lose both of these California races, we did no worse than in 2022. We might pick up a few seats. Some Republican landslide! It's still a very big defeat. But as it has sunk in, I hope that is good in the long run. Either Democrats have to embrace economic populism and the multi-ethnic working class, or they continue losing. It is not really a difficult choice. What I think we know for sure is that in 2026 and 2028 Democrats won't have a massive wall of lava coming at them, called inflation and higher costs.

BLAH BLAH BLAH I WILL NOT READ! I WILL NOT READ! IT CAN NOT BE TRUE THAT ALMOST HALF OF YOUNGER AMERICAN JEWS THINK I SUPPORT RACISM, APARTHEID, AND GENOCIDE. I WILL NOT READ THAT! MY MIND IS CLOSED IT CAN NOT BE TRUE THAT FOMER IDF HEAD AND PM BARAK SAYS BIBI THE BABY KILLER NEEDS TO CONTINUE THE WAR AND SLAUGHTER BECAUSE HE IS EMPOWEWRED BY RACIST ALLIES! I WILL NOT READ THAT. PALESTINIAN LIFE HAS NO VALUE. IT IS ANTi-SEMITIC TO WHINE ABOUT HOW BIBI THE BABY KILLER SLAUGHETERED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE BELIEVED WHEN THEY COMPAIN ABOUT BEING KILLED. AND EVEN IF THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED, WE TRIED VERY HARD NOT TO KILL THEM. MY MIND IS CLOSED. I WILL NOT READ! ANYONE WHO DOES NOT SUPPORT BIBI THE BABY KILLER IS ANTI-SEMITIC. ICC issues arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes in Gaza BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN 120 COUNTRIES BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN UNITED KINGDOM BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN THE NETHERLANDS BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN BRAZIL BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN NIGERIA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN FINLAND BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN AUSTRALIA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN COSTA RICA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN KOREA ALL OVER THE WORLD, BIBI THE BABY KILLER IS A WAR CRIMINAL THE WHOLE WORLD IS ANTI-SEMITIC! HOW SMART TO HAVE A MURDEROUS LEADER THAT THE WHOLE WORLD SEES AS WAR CRIMINAL! I WILL NOT READ! I WILL NOT READ! TRUMP2024 MAGA STARVE WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN ETHNIC CLEANSING FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

BLAH BLAH BLAH I WILL NOT READ! I WILL NOT READ! IT CAN NOT BE TRUE THAT ALMOST HALF OF YOUNGER AMERICAN JEWS THINK I SUPPORT RACISM, APARTHEID, AND GENOCIDE. I WILL NOT READ THAT! MY MIND IS CLOSED IT CAN NOT BE TRUE THAT FOMER IDF HEAD AND PM BARAK SAYS BIBI THE BABY KILLER NEEDS TO CONTINUE THE WAR AND SLAUGHTER BECAUSE HE IS EMPOWEWRED BY RACIST ALLIES! I WILL NOT READ THAT. PALESTINIAN LIFE HAS NO VALUE. IT IS ANTi-SEMITIC TO WHINE ABOUT HOW BIBI THE BABY KILLER SLAUGHETERED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE BELIEVED WHEN THEY COMPAIN ABOUT BEING KILLED. AND EVEN IF THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED, WE TRIED VERY HARD NOT TO KILL THEM. MY MIND IS CLOSED. I WILL NOT READ! ANYONE WHO DOES NOT SUPPORT BIBI THE BABY KILLER IS ANTI-SEMITIC. ICC issues arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes in Gaza BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN 120 COUNTRIES BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN UNITED KINGDOM BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN THE NETHERLANDS BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN BRAZIL BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN NIGERIA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN FINLAND BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN AUSTRALIA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN COSTA RICA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN KOREA ALL OVER THE WORLD, BIBI THE BABY KILLER IS A WAR CRIMINAL THE WHOLE WORLD IS ANTI-SEMITIC! HOW SMART TO HAVE A MURDEROUS LEADER THAT THE WHOLE WORLD SEES AS WAR CRIMINAL! I WILL NOT READ! I WILL NOT READ! TRUMP2024 MAGA STARVE WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN ETHNIC CLEANSING FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

BLAH BLAH BLAH I WILL NOT READ! I WILL NOT READ! IT CAN NOT BE TRUE THAT ALMOST HALF OF YOUNGER AMERICAN JEWS THINK I SUPPORT RACISM, APARTHEID, AND GENOCIDE. I WILL NOT READ THAT! MY MIND IS CLOSED IT CAN NOT BE TRUE THAT FOMER IDF HEAD AND PM BARAK SAYS BIBI THE BABY KILLER NEEDS TO CONTINUE THE WAR AND SLAUGHTER BECAUSE HE IS EMPOWEWRED BY RACIST ALLIES! I WILL NOT READ THAT. PALESTINIAN LIFE HAS NO VALUE. IT IS ANTi-SEMITIC TO WHINE ABOUT HOW BIBI THE BABY KILLER SLAUGHETERED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE BELIEVED WHEN THEY COMPAIN ABOUT BEING KILLED. AND EVEN IF THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED, WE TRIED VERY HARD NOT TO KILL THEM. MY MIND IS CLOSED. I WILL NOT READ! ANYONE WHO DOES NOT SUPPORT BIBI THE BABY KILLER IS ANTI-SEMITIC. ICC issues arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes in Gaza BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN 120 COUNTRIES BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN UNITED KINGDOM BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN THE NETHERLANDS BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN BRAZIL BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN NIGERIA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN FINLAND BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN AUSTRALIA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN COSTA RICA BIBI THE BABY KILLER: WAR CRIMINAL IN KOREA ALL OVER THE WORLD, BIBI THE BABY KILLER IS A WAR CRIMINAL THE WHOLE WORLD IS ANTI-SEMITIC! HOW SMART TO HAVE A MURDEROUS LEADER THAT THE WHOLE WORLD SEES AS WAR CRIMINAL! I WILL NOT READ! I WILL NOT READ! TRUMP2024 MAGA STARVE WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN ETHNIC CLEANSING FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Rand Paul breaks with Trump on using military for mass deportations: ‘Huge mistake’ GLOBALLY BELOVED CLOWN EMMA CRUELTY DECRIES MARXIST EXTREMIST FOR DEFYING MANDATE TO ROUND UP THE VERMIN FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: 202-IAM-BOZO Today universally beloved clown Emma Cruelty denounced "vermin lover" Rand Paul for defying the biggest mandate in human civilization. "After having the 2020 election stolen from him, President Trump fought back and won the biggest mandate since God gave Israel to the Jews," Emma Cruelty said. "America voted overwhelmingly to round up the vermin and get rid of it. Immediately." The pro-cruelty clown dismisses Paul's statement that Trump's plan to have armed soldiers round up housekeepers, farm workers, construction workers, and children to bring to armed camps is extreme. "These are extremists who want to protect vermin and defy Trump's overwhelming mandate. No one in this great country has ever won by 49.9 % of the vote," the clown said. "Even George W. Bush, the last Republican President who used his mandate to do really unpopular shit and lose, could only win 50.7 % of the popular vote. Trump left that loser in the dust," Emma Cruelty stated. The Cruelest Clown Ever also called out "MAGA fucker" Rand Paul for extremist and Communist ideas like "compromise" and "moderation." "This is treason, pure and simple. And we need purity right now. Pure American blood," stressed Clown Cruelty. "Paul is sticking up for vermin. He should be thrown in the camp as well." Emma Clown also warned patriots. "Don't be fooled by so-called "polls" by un-American so-called "news" organizations, like Fox News," the most beloved clown in all human history warned. "These people hate President Trump, and hate losing," Cruelty said. "He could win 99.9 % of the vote, like he did in 2020. And they would still cheat, and say he doesn't have a mandate to sweep up the vermin and get rid of it. We should deport these extremist Americans, too. Let's send them to Gaza, where justice will soon be unleashed!" Emma Cruelty also stated that she will not comment on the rumor that President Trump will nominate the globally revered clown for Attorney General if Rep. Matt Gaetz's nomination fails. "Frankly, no one is a bigger clown than Matt Gaetz," she said. "Plus, he plays well with children." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Note: Emma Cruelty is a fictional character. Any resemblance to asshole blowhards on any website is purely coincidental.)

You still refuse to say whether you think half of younger American Jews are "anti-Semitic" or Jew haters. About half of younger (under 40) American Jews say your positions are racist, and/or pro-apartheid, and/or committing genocide. Are half of younger American Jews "Jew haters"? Are they correct that you are a pro-Genocide Jew? TRUMP2024 MAGA NO! NO! NO! I WILL NOT READ FACTS! UNLEASH BIBI THE BABY KILLER JEW HATER! IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT GENOCIDE AND RACISM YOU HATE JEWS.

Trump lost the majority of the vote. Right now he is at 49.9 %. And it is going down. His mandate? In the new Harris poll 68 % of Americans say their top priority is they want him to "end inflation and price increases. Inflation had pretty much ended. Even conservative economists agree his tariffs plan will RAISE prices on the working class. Most Democrats and half of Independents say their worst fear is "Trump behaving like a dictator". 53 % of all voters and 55 % of Independents still want to see Trump tried on criminal charges. Trump does not have a mandate for lawlessness and dictatorial behavior. But he doesn't care. Just ask Matt Gaetz TRUMP2024 MAGA NO! NO! NO! I WILL NOT READ FACTS NO! NO! NO! TRUMP HAS A MANDATE FOR CRUELTY NO! NO! NO! TRUMP HAS A MANDATE FOR LAWLESSNESS

There is another answer, to give the devil his due - so to speak. Policy. Poll after poll reveals that they like Trump's conservative policies. They would love a national abortion ban. When asked whether they are voting for the person, or the policies, they usually answer the policies. If we are talking evangelicals, these are also the people who would like to repeal same sex marriage, if they can. They are happy to make a deal with the devil, so to speak. We could care less about Trump's crimes and infidelities. We just want our conservative policies. And judges. And they got them.

Sweetie. That was 2016. Get with the times. Trump has moved on from scapegoating Muslims. Now he is scapegoating The Illegals and some of the The Gays. And the proper word for them is "vermin".

Thanks for your expert advice. People all over the world look to Russia for advice on how to make democracy genocide work. Your point is both 100 % right, and 100 % wrong. Here's where you are 100 % wrong. This election was a referendum first and foremost on inflation and immigration, as it turned out. The polls of actual voters were incredibly clear about that. Had there been zero inflation after COVID, Harris would have won. Biden would have won if he did not drop out, probably. I've read at least a dozen conservative pieces saying the Democrats "blew it" because of inflation. Not one of them is realistic, or even vaguely logical, about how the world was supposed to stop either COVID, or the inflation that followed. One reasonable estimate I read is that Biden's liberal, and popular, pro-working class legislation - like stimulus checks and child tax credits - added something like 0.3 % to the inflation rate experienced in the US and all over the world, anyway. So in practical terms it works out this way for a Latino working class family. Their grocery bill is $300 more a month, due to inflation. And maybe $15 of that is the stimulus effect of Biden's working class programs. You get a $300 a month child tax credit to offset it. If that's the deal, the Latino working class family is way better off having 9 % inflation, rather than 8.7 % inflation, and a $300 tax credit. Even when inflation goes away, as it has, the child tax credit stays. That was the plan. The problem is Democrats did not have the votes. The expanded tax credits died after one year of cutting child poverty in half. And lots of other things - like child care promises - did not get close to being met. Again, Democrats did not have the votes. There is a word for this: democracy. I can personally relate, since all my tenants - nine in total - are working class families, almost all with kids or grandkids. And they are about half White families and half Black or Brown families. The expanded child tax credits helped them. Not a lot, but a little. When they went away, after one year, it made their lives a little harder. If Joe Biden was fighting like hell for them, they did not get the memo. In Genocide World, the solution is simple. Genocide Man can kill his opponents, send them to jail, or send them to be processed into meat in Ukraine. Even in Genocide World Putin has to spend the nation's wealth paying off poor families to send their men to be processed into meat. We don't do that here. The child tax credits paid poor children to not be poor, basically. Which leads us to the flip side, where you are 100 % right. Many Democrats wanted to ignore Democrats like Ruy Teixeira, saying you need to focus on the moderate, patriotic and diverse working class. Now they no longer can. Our coalition problems with the working class are now obvious. So Democrats will need to figure that out. More than anything, what Latino men - and all men and women - want to do is work hard and get ahead. That said, ideas like Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Medicaid, child tax credits, and government help for schools and child care are wildly popular. As are tax increases on billionaires to pay for it. So either Democrats fight like hell to win working class votes, or they don't. A lot of my more affluent Gay friends don't care about most of these pocketbook issues, except for Social Security. So they will have to decide whether they want to be part of a coalition that absolutely needs Latino working class men, who are mostly quite tolerant of LGBTQ rights. Or whether we would rather have them vote for Trump. This should not be hard. First, inflation will not be the issue in 2026 or 2028. Hopefully. Maybe it will be, if Trump tries the crazier versions of his tariffs. Which will punish the working class he says he wants to help. Unless Trump gets more graceful rather than more senile as he ages, the issue in 2026 and 2028 will be Trump. And he has basically promised tax cuts for billionaires. Oh, and maybe he won't tax tips. As this plays out, I am more and more pleased that Trump won a narrow trifecta and will barely have the votes to get what he wants. That way, whatever happens is on him. Maybe peace will break out in Israel. Maybe Trump will decide child tax credits and child care for working class Latino parents trumps tax cuts for his billionaire donors. And himself. And Elon Musk. But probably not. He'll unleash tax cuts for billionaires, and Bibi The Baby Killer's genocide, more likely. We'll see. I hope I am wrong again.

Do you have any proof of that? All the proof suggests the exact opposite. I post a lot of facts, because I care about facts. So here is one. Republicans have been comparing Joe Biden to Jimmy Carter for years. And they have a point. Carter had a 37 % approval rating when he lost in a massive landslide in 1980. Democrats lost 12 Senate seats and 34 House seats. That landslide defined a political generation, and also led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Peace through strength. Joe Biden's party just lost in a close race. Democrats lost no House seats. We may still gain one. We lost no Governor races. We won four Senate seats in states Trump just won, narrowly. Which breaks the pattern that Democrats can't win in states that vote for Trump. So, yes, it was a bitter defeat for Harris. People, including me, are feeling the pain. But the idea that it was a landslide is ridiculous. Carter's losing margin was 9.7 %. Harris lost (so far) by 1.7 %. If Trump's win is a landslide, then Joe Biden's win in 2020, when he won by 7 million votes, was the biggest landslide in human history. Instead, the lying and anti-democratic core of MAGA is still saying the 2020 election was stolen. They are deeply unprincipled. I have a niece who feels this way, who I love going to nice places with. She is wrong, and unprincipled. But I still love her. All the polls taken of voters - CNN, Fox/Votecast, Edison - show that people very concerned with US democracy and Trump's authoritarianism voted overwhelmingly for Harris. There was another group - about 10 % of voters - who said democracy and authoritarianism were big concerns, but the economy was a bigger concern. They leaned to Trump, hoping he will "fix" the economy. Whether it makes sense that tax cuts for billionaire Trump donors will "fix" the economy is irrelevant. They voted based on the economy, stupid. That group, which we know has lots of Latinos and/or younger voters, handed Trump his narrow win. Was it a realignment? Give me a fucking break! It was one election. This is also clear in a brand new Harris poll by Mark Penn, taken after the election. (Penn, by the way, was exactly right in his polling: it was a close election that Trump won.) 68 % of voters say their greatest hope for Trump 2.0 is "end inflation and price increases." That is why he won. When asked to name their top fear of Trump 2.0, 78% of Democrats and 49 % of Independents fear "Trump acting like a dictator." Trump won the Independent vote. So that means many Independents had to vote for him based on the economy, stupid. Despite their fear of his dictatorial tendencies. 53 % of all voters and 55 % of Independents say Trump's criminal trials should continue. They won't, of course. But there was no mandate for lawlessness and dictatorship in this election. There is a mandate to make things more affordable. So it's impossible to prove that all the campaigning about democracy and dictatorship moved the dial with 100 % certainty. But there is already a Mount Everest of facts suggesting it did. We now know polls taken right before Biden dropped out suggested he was so unpopular he would lose in a landslide, with Trump getting 400+ electoral votes. That is not quite as horrific as what happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980, who also had high inflation and a very low approval rating. Democrats were on track to a brutal shellacking that never happened. I think it was because Harris did a good job making the case against Trump. The fact that the argument against Trump did not work quite enough is not the same as saying it did not work at all. There is unlimited data coming in that lots of people voted for Trump despite their fears of what he will do. And he still could not get a majority. He is now at 49.9 % of the vote. Again, I know this thread is about @EmmetKruelty. He is a symbol for the hate, the cruelty, and the over reach of Trump. He wants to be as cruel as possible to Palestinians, to The Illegals, to The Gays who are transgender, and to anyone else that he wishes to be close-minded and cruel to. He could give a flying fuck that the polls say this is NOT what Americans voted for. And it is not what they want. He is happily ignorant. He says this clearly. "NO! NO! NO! I WILL NOT READ A THING! JEW HATER!" He is happily and gloriously spewing division and cruelty.

Yeah. Kind of like how Genocide Man is paying Ukraine back. And showing how Putin loves Ukrainian women and children. But speaking of genocidal monsters, let's talk about Bibi The Baby Killer. It's the best window into the soul of our pro-genocide Jew @EmmetKruelty. @EmmetKruelty openly and proudly says he does not care about facts about Israel's genocide. He will not read facts about Israel's genocide. And he could give a flying fuck what young American Jews think. He wants Bibi The Baby Killer unleashed. He says this openly, and proudly. If Palestinians don't like the slaughter of their women and children, who cares? They're Palestinians! We try very hard not to kill people who have no right to object to us killing them. And if Jews don't like Bibi's mass slaughter, that is anti-Semitic Jew-hating propaganda. Anything that does not support Bibi The Baby Killer unleashing his genocide is Jew-hating propaganda. Anyone who does not support Bibi The Baby Killer unleashing genocide is a Jew hater. Sure makes Judaism sound like a great religion, doesn't it? It's Roy Cohn. It's Goebbels. It's Putin. Surely, coming from Genocide World, these all must sound like familiar arguments. Anyway, this is what somebody @EmmetKruelty must think of us a total Jew hater thinks This dude actually calls Bibi The Baby Killer and his extremist supporters "racist". Ugh! How anti-Semitic is that? So who is this anti-Semitic and Jew hating asshole, who @EmmetKruelty in all his close-minded lust for genocide could give a flying fuck about? Ehud Barak, former Israeli Prime Minister, Chief of Staff of the IDF, and Defense Minister. Jew hater! Anti-Semite! The makings of a grand Trump deal in the Middle East Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak says it’s possible the new U.S. administration may enter into interconnected talks with Putin about Ukraine, Iran and the Middle East. Since this thread is about @EmmetKruelty, I will only say things about that article that help shine a light into @EmmetKruelty's dark, cruel heart. First, Barak is a man of peace. He and Clinton came close to delivering peace decades ago. I will always blame Arafat for rejecting that peace deal, which would have left Palestinians immensely better off than they are today. That said, rejecting peace is not the same as asking Israel to elect a genocidal monster, and keep him in power. Second, if what that article lays out is even possible, it is certainly worth a try. The Russian Federation will eventually collapse of its own rot and weakness and corruption, anyway. Just like the Soviet Union, which was a far stronger and better nation than Genocide World. I am a pragmatic whore. If we could call a truce and stop the slaughter in two parts of the world, most pragmatic and humane people would like that. Third, there is always this view of Trump that he is going to be the opposite of what he always is. It's true that Trump and Jared Kushner are always happy to enrich themselves by getting into bed with rich and autocratic Arab leaders. No questions asked. Putin of course asks no questions, either. And Bibi The Baby Killer and Trump share pollsters, and rich right wing Jewish donors. But the idea that Trump can force Bibi The Baby Killer to make peace with the targets of his genocide is kind of ridiculous. I have deep admiration for Ehud Barak. But this sounds let desperate people saying desperate things. I sure hope I am wrong, like I was about Harris winning the election. The main reason I don't think I am wrong, as the article notes, is Bibi The Baby Killer is absolutely committed to his genocide. And for political reasons he has to be. That is why his racist team of haters keeps him in power. It's a bit like Genocide Man, although there is no democracy in Russia. How could Putin run Genocide World if he were not Genocide Man? Indeed. Where does @EmmetKruelty fit into this mess? Duh! BRING ON GENOCIDE! UNLEASH BIBI THE BABY KILLER! FACTS DO NOT MATTER! ANYONE WHO OPPOSES BIBI THE BABY KILLER IS A JEW HATER! EVEN JEWS! EVEN THE FORMER HEAD OF THE IDF! It's deeply sick, cruel, and genocidal. But coming from Genocide World, surely you can understand, @Moses.

So here's my inner data geek at work. One of the best criticisms against Lichtman for a long time has been that you could do just as well predicting who will win the Presidency by simply looking at the horse race polls. That's kind of true. But only if we are talking about the final horse race poll average right before the election. There were cycles - Obama in 2008, Reagan in 1984 - where we knew they were going to win a week before people voted. The problem with this approach is we also knew Clinton was going to win a week before the election in 2016. Except Lichtman predicted Trump would win in September 2016. My one line on Lichtman moving forward is that he got one key badly wrong: the short term economy. And I don't blame him, since the entire Democratic Party got that wrong. We mostly all thought that Kamala Harris could outrun the "wall of lava" which was spewed out by the economy, stupid. Turns out we were mostly all wrong. Or were we? Another truism about polling that is stated a lot is that no President, or incumbent party, has ever been re-elected with approval ratings like Joe Biden had in the year of the election. That's absolutely true, as I will show below. We kind of lost track of that when Biden stepped aside. Turns out that that there is a simple rule you can use to predict who will win. In 16 out of 16 cases, the incumbent party won when the incumbent President's approval rating was 50 % or higher, and lost when the incumbent party's approval rating was under 50 %. But in a total of 19 races, there are three exceptions. And all 3 of 3 cases involved a very specific situation: when the person running on the incumbent party ticket is not the sitting President, and is going for a third incumbent term (Nixon in 1960, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 2020). Biden’s polling said Trump would win at least 400 electoral votes before president quit the race, Obama’s aide claims Harris actually did way better than the historical math would suggest, based on Biden's 39 % approval rating. I have no idea what Team Biden knew right before he stepped aside. But what lots of Republicans and Democrats were saying at that moment sounded like the headline above. There was a belief on both sides that Trump could win in a Reaganesque landslide. Instead, as of now we lost ZERO House seats, and narrowly held on to 4 of 5 Senate seats in swing states that voted narrowly for Trump. I think one reasonable take away is that the "wall of lava" was mostly aimed at one person: Kamala Harris. She was running on behalf of Biden, and made a point of not even trying to distance herself from him. It now seems obvious she was going to be the one held accountable. As Ron Brownstein argued, there has never been an example where an unpopular President was able to keep his party in power by not running again. There are now several examples where it was tried, and almost worked. Harris and Humphrey both came close. Here are every President since Truman, ranked by their approval rating when the election was held, followed by the margin of victory or defeat of the incumbent party candidate. There are 19 races, and the three exceptions to the rule are in boldface. 75 % approval - LBJ in 1964 - Incumbent party (LBJ) wins by 32.5 % 69 % approval - Ike in 1956 - Incumbent party (Ike) wins by 15.4 % 62 % approval - Ike in 1960 - Incumbent party (Nixon) loses by - 0.2 % 61 % approval - Nixon in 1972 - Incumbent party (Nixon) wins by 23.2 % 60 % approval - Reagan in 1984 - Incumbent party (Reagan) wins by 18.2 % 60 % approval - Clinton in 2000 - Incumbent party (Gore) wins by 0.5 % but loses electoral college. 59 % approval - Clinton in 1996 - Incumbent party (Clinton) wins by 8.5 % 55 % approval - Reagan in 1988 - Incumbent party (Bush 41) wins by 7.8 % 54 % approval - Obama in 2012 - Incumbent party (Obama) wins by3.9 % 52 % approval - Obama in 2016 - Incumbent party (Clinton) wins by 2.2 % but loses electoral college. 50 % approval - W. in 2004 - Incumbent party (W) wins by 2.4 % 44 % approval - Ford in 1876 - Incumbent party (Ford) loses by - 1.9 % 42 % approval - LBJ in 1968 - Incumbent party (Humphrey) loses by -0.7 % 42 % approval - Trump in 2020 - Incumbent party (Trump) loses by -4.8 % 41 % approval - Bush 41 in 1992 - Incumbent party (Bush 41) loses by - 5.6 % 39 % approval - Biden in 2024 - Incumbent party (Harris) loses by -1.7 % 37 % approval - Carter in 1980 - Incumbent party (Carter) loses by -9.7 % 30 % approval - Truman in 1952 - Incumbent party (Stevenson) loses by -10.9 % 26 % approval - W. in 2008 - Incumbent party (McCain) loses by -7.2 % That is a remarkably clean list. In 16 out of 19 races, you could predict the winner of the election based on whether the incumbent President had an approval rating of 50 % or higher. In 18 out of 19 races, you could predict the winner of the popular vote based on the incumbent's approval rating. The only exception - Nixon in 1960 - was 0.2 % away from winning the popular vote. This is an example of why I still think Lichtman's Keys make lots of sense. What these three exceptions strongly suggest is that, most of the time, incumbency helps. The incumbent party probably would have won in all three exceptions if Ike, Bill Clinton, and Obama could have run for a third term. And that is how Lichtman's keys work. He doesn't argue one variable is right all the time. He argues that if you take these 13 variables and blend them, they give you the right answer even if one variable is off. Again, I think the variable that was way off in 2024 was the short-term economy. That is what did Harris in. Period. This way of looking at it strongly suggests that Democrats helped themselves in 1968 and 2024 by getting an unpopular incumbent out of the way. Had Biden resigned earlier, like LBJ did, and Harris had more time to win a primary and stage a campaign, things might have worked better. We'll never know. But we do know for a fact that Biden in 2024 was close to being as unpopular as Carter was in 1980. In 1980, Reagan won 489 electoral votes, 12 Senate seats, 34 House seats, and 4 Governor seats. If this were 1980, we would have lost every Democrat that won in a swing state. Plus perhaps a few other "shockers" as well. Like Tim Kaine in Virginia, or Martin Heinrich in New Mexico. Given how unpopular Biden was, mostly due to inflation and immigration, Harris did no worse than we should have expected, and arguably way better. Republicans are having fun trashing the $1 billion boondoggle. As one of an army of small grassroots donors, I'm proud of the fact that we held the line. Zero losses in the House and Governor races. Those Governor seats will be the foundation of the resistance to the craziest things Trump will try to. It sucks that we lost 4 Senate seats. But 4 losses are better than 12. And given that Democrats are going to be uncompetitive in red states until we fix our White working class problem, we now should simply understand that states like Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia are out of reach for the time being.