stevenkesslar

I give you credit. You tried. You really tried. You are very reliable about bringing two things to this forum: cruelty, and untruthfulness. On this post, though, it seems like you actually tried to be truthful. American voters are definitely not stupid. And your general point is that all these concerns about Trump being extreme and authoritarian went nowhere. I don't recall anyone saying Trump killed his Grandma. But generally you're right that people said most of those things. Mostly people who were Trump's Chief of Staff, or Cabinet members, or generals who worked with him. Your point is: nuthin to see here. Didn't work. Move on and STFU. I mean, honest guys who have sex with children and brag about it like Matt Gaetz will tell you the truth. Nuthin to worry about here. Several Jewish friends were put off by the notion that Trump wants loyal generals like Hitler had. But they're not a pro-Genocide Jew like you are. So what do they know? Nuthin to worry about at all. But back to those smart voters. I know you don't think right wing media like Fox News and their partnership with Votecast is reliable. But here is what they say: It turns out a majority of people were concerned about the future of democracy, and Trump's specific and stated goal to lead the US in an authoritarian direction. (He said "dictator", but who takes that literally?) The interesting question is this. For people who were somewhat concerned about democracy and Trump's authoritarian ambitions, but didn't see it as the most important factor, what was more important? Not that Fox News can be trusted, but here is what they say: Count on the American voter, who is not stupid. For a lot of working class and low-income people, including many Latinos and some Blacks, the price of gas and groceries came first. Never Trump Republican Mike Murphy was right. There was a "wall of lava" coming hard at old Joe Biden. Getting him out of the way helped. Thanks, Nancy! Harris almost outran it. But being the cruel guy you are, isn't is just glorious and joyful that all those Black women who wanted a role model got Trump instead? That is surely something to celebrate! We just can never be cruel enough! Let's celebrate! The smart American voter wanted lower grocery prices, and instead got Matt Gaetz. Isn't it glorious? Isn't it fun? Every Mom wants an AG who brags about having sex with her daughter! Rejoice! On board the Trump Train! Woo hoo! Those two poll questions are from the CNN exit poll. I find them a little more suspect than Fox/Votecast, in part because the Votecast results on the same question are slightly different. But the CNN poll matches with the RCP poll averages, which turned out to be very close to the actual result. What RCP showed is that Harris climbed into a 2 point lead against Trump in late September. Her biggest jump was in the week after the debate where she decimated Trump for being the felon, rapist, and wannabe dictator he is. Several smart Republican consultants have said the strategic error Harris made is that stopped doing what worked well - attacking Trump - and shifted to selling her view of the economy. Which they argue was doomed to fail because of how people felt about high prices. What we also know is that in late October Trump closed the gap. So something shifted. And in a race where Trump will get less than 50 % of the vote, that shift was probably decisive. So this may be less about the "smart" American voter, and more about the low information first time voter. Those CNN exit polls would certainly help explain why there was a shift in the last few weeks of the election in the RCP polls. It also makes sense that attacking Trump for what he did in his first term might not have resonated for young men and women who were 12 when Trump was elected in 2016. We'll know more when the more sophisticated voter file analysis emerges. But it makes perfect sense that low information voters, many of whom were likely young and/or Latino, and who don't own stocks and homes, voted their pocketbook and gave Trump a chance. I'm sure what they were most hoping for was Matt Gaetz. An AG that had sex with children. And a moral worm of a House Speaker who now wants to cover it up. There is a good alternative theory. Which is that what Harris lacked after taking Trump down in September was a second act, in which she convinced voters she was a working class gal with a working class agenda. Whether that is true or not, I'm hoping Democrats will act like it is true. The job at hand is figuring out how to deliver a working class agenda in a working class voice in 2026 and 2028. Not that voters care about that, of course. What they are really hoping for is that Trump will be an authoritarian who trashes democracy. And, as a bonus, does a recess appointment of an AG who has sex with children. All on board the Trump Train! Ain't it glorious! Choo Choo!

,,,,,,,,,,,,,, beating the shit out of cops, right? Is that what you think they voted for? I guess I was confused. I didn't realize we were talking about the self-proclaimed @EmmetKruelty mandate. The cruelty mandate starts with two very important mandates: 1) the right to steal an election, and 2) the right to beat the shit out of cops. So in 2020, when Biden won by 81 million votes, the @EmmetK ruelty mandate demanded a Day Of Love, to beat the shit out of cops and steal an election. And patriotism! The Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating was a day of love and great patriotism, when everybody got to draw blood from cops. That's the cruelty mandate! Everybody who understands the @EmmetKruelty mandate knows that when Trump is elected by 5 million votes less, it's a landslide. And the cruelty mandate gives you the right to do whatever the fuck cruel things we want. Top of the list: 1) deport millions of people, and especially kids. 2) Kill tens of thousands more Palestinian women and children while we try hard not to kill them. A majority of Republicans have gone back to opposing same-sex marriage. Is repealing that also part of the @EmmetKruelty campaign? Stay tuned. You can never have enough cruelty and homophobia. In terms of your left wing hit list - sex change surgeries, men in girls bathrooms - I already weighed in that I am glad a narrow loss will probably force Democrats to moderate away from some of their more extreme views. I am serious when I say that. And you are serious when you say you deeply want to see Trump leverage a narrow victory to do many extreme and cruel things. Maybe even with a side of dictatorial behavior. You express your cruelty openly. You're proud of it. Deport, deport, deport. Slaughter, slaughter, slaughter. Of course given the chance to pick on some transgender kid, there is absolutely no question what you will do. Attack the shit out of them! I mean, duh! Some innocent and vulnerable kid? Of course MAGA is going to pile on with cruelty. Why are you so cruel? It's barely been a week, and we already have a freak show starting with Gaetz, Kennedy, and Hegseth. Keep up the @EmmetKruelty. You're doing great!

Please keep posting this stuff. I can cut and paste and remind you when you are wrong, too. Although I hope your vision of a cruel and unhinged Trump 2.0 does not come to pass. People did not vote for it. And they don't want it. But if it turns out he does the things you want him to do, it will collapse quickly just like in 2017. Then we'll see how right you are about tax cuts for billionaires, mass deportations, and Trump making himself King. Enjoy your cruelty while it lasts. Please, post more. How many millions of Latinos do you want to deport? How many millions of Palestinians do you want to slaughter, while the IDF tries hard not to kill them? Maybe if you vent all your cruelty here it actually won't come to pass in reality. More @EmmetKruelty! Post away! Deport, deport, deport. Slaughter, slaughter, slaughter.

The meaning of sovereignty: Ukrainian and European views of Russia’s war on Ukraine Trump threatens to be good for Ukraine, actually Those two articles do a good job of laying out the options. It is of course incredibly complicated. That said, in many ways it is incredibly simple. Before Putin started his genocide, it's possible that the best option for real peace would have been Kissinger's idea: make Ukraine a permanently neutral country between Russia and the EU. That certainly was something Ukrainians would have agreed with before Putin invaded Crimea, based on the polls above. Maybe Obama or Trump or even Biden could have negotiated such a peace agreement between 2015 and 2021. But none of them wanted to be the POTUS who gave away Ukraine to Genocide Man. Now, the idea of Ukraine as a permanently neutral nation is dead for as long as any of us are alive. Ukrainians hate Genocide Man and want nothing todo with Genocide World. Other than to kill as many Russians as needed to defend themselves from genocide. The best Trump can hope for is a deal that gives some of Ukraine to Putin, puts the rest in NATO, and arms it to the teeth. Maybe with nukes, too. But Putin will never agree to that. The best Putin can hope for is Trump forces Ukraine to concede territory, and agree to never be part of NATO. Trump might be willing to try that, since he seems to have a weak will when it comes to Genocide Man. But I doubt he thinks he could get away with it. If anything, choosing Rubio is a clear sign that he understands that he can't just ignore the Republican defense and military establishment. Putin no doubt understands that, too. Meanwhile, as the polls in that second article outline, every leader in Europe has to deal with voters with war fatigue. They are all for supporting Ukraine. But mostly in the hopes that they can negotiate some deal. So what all of this seems to make likely is a stalemate peace. At best. If I had to bet, I'd bet on a ceasefire. It's hard to believe Ukrainians will agree to cede territory to Genocide Man. Unless Trump shoves it down their throat, which I don't think he can do. There are way too many Republicans and generals who will be all over the media about how Trump is weak, and is the selling Ukraine out to Genocide Man. And Genocide Man will never agree to Ukraine joining NATO. For now, whatever can be negotiated will allow Trump to say the fighting stopped. It will relieve European leaders of the growing war fatigue. Fewer Ukrainians will be slaughtered, and fewer Russians will need to be processed into meat. The Russian economy will be spared from sinking deeper into a hole for now. This won't be resolved until the Russian Federation collapses at some point no one guess. What we do know is that Genocide World is an economic and political mess, even compared to the Soviet Union in the years before it collapsed. So just like all those countries that used to be under the Iron Curtain and are now very committed to being in NATO, Ukraine will have to wait for as long as it takes for the Russian Federation to collapse.

I think we both viewed that as the key line in what Rubio said. Since you come here to deny genocide and rationalize away Genocide Man's mass slaughter, I am sure you wish people would perceive it as the choice between a stalemate war, and peace. In fact, it is the choice between a stalemate war, and stalemate peace. I'm not even sure what the difference is. Stalemate peace might look like what existed in Ukraine after Genocide Man invaded Crimea, but before his mass genocide of Ukrainians and mass slaughter of Russians began. Views of Ukrainians on relations with Russia: THEY HATE YOU. They really hate you. I guess I can understand why most Russians don't want to admit what the impact of Genocide Man's mass slaughter has been on how Ukrainians view you. People don't like being killed. People don't like seeing their women and children slaughtered by Genocide Man. What part of that is hard for you to grasp, Genocide Freak? Now, we both know that Trump's election is a big battle Putin won. It gives the failing Russian war economy a break, probably. Maybe fewer hundreds of thousands of Russians will have to be processed into meat by Genocide Man. But if you think Ukraine will surrender because of genocide, you might want to get in your head that they HATE you, and they HATE Genocide Man and Genocide World. Now, Trump can say this: "Go ahead Bibi. Kill them all. Kill all the women and children in Gaza. Wipe them out. Bombs away." Of course, he won't say the quiet part out loud. But my bet is that he'll be quiet as genocide in Gaza escalates. He can not say the following, even quietly: "Go ahead, Genocide Man, my good pal. Thanks for bailing my ass out, repeatedly. Kill all the women and children in Ukraine. Take them, rape them, whatever you want." Instead, he'll talk about peace. But he can't force Ukraine to accept Genocide Man, or Genocide World, after what was done to them. So now what we will see is what the terms are for something between a stalemate war and a stalemate peace. Again, congratulations. Genocide Man won an important battle. Check back with me in a few years as to whether he has won the war.

You're just wrong. Latinos are clamoring for tax cuts for billionaires. That's just a fact. Latinos are bloodthirsty. Throw all that illegal vermin in camps! The lucky ones will get out alive, maybe. It's time for some @EmmetKruelty. America wants cruelty! America wants tax cuts for billionaires! Cut Obamacare! Tariffs on everything sold at Walmart! Raise prices more! This is the agenda that America voted for. Anyone who gets in the way of King Trump is a fascist. People who oppose democracy under King Trump should think about what it is like to have guns trained on their faces. Not that anyone should shoot them, of course. I'm just saying. This is the agenda America voted for. Everyone wants King Trump and @EmmetKruelty. But if I am wrong again, and people instead held their nose and gave Trump a narrow victory - half of what Biden won by in 2020 - because they are pissed about higher prices and higher rent, check back with me later. For now, let the @EmmetKruelty and overreach begin.

Yes, and you forgot to mention the commanding 241 to 194 MAGA House majority. Clearly there was a red wave! Oh, wait. That was in 2016. Republicans in 2024 will win the barest of majorities. If the candidates leading right now win, there will be ZERO change. Some mandate. If Michelle Steel loses her 50/50 race, which she is hanging on to with a few hundred votes, Democrats may actually gain a House seat from the 2022 midterms, going from 222-213 to 221-214. Some red wave! Orange County, California was the heart and soul of landslide Reagan Republicanism in the 1980s. Now maybe a Republican can barely hold on to a House seat. But Democrats sure got shellacked at the gubernatorial level. In 2016, there were 34 Republican Guvs and 16 Democratic ones. Now there are 27 Republican Guvs and 23 Democratic ones. Again, ZERO change from before the 2024 election. Trump is holding on to a 50.1 % popular vote lead. Which will disappear most likely when several million more votes from blue states are all counted. Enjoy your illusory MAGA majority and your @EmmetKruelty while it lasts. The Democratic Guvs, who run 5 out of 7 swing states, are being cautious and smart. They're saying we will work with Trump where we can, and oppose him where we need to. If this is like 2016, he just gets less popular from here. Maybe Susie Wiles can control her pit bull. Or maybe he says and does a hurricane of dumb and cruel shit like in 2017. We'll see. We certainly know that, like Joe Biden, Trump's cognitive ability improves with age. I'm sure that won't be an issue at all. The more incoherent Trump gets, the more Latinos will yearn for him to be their dictator on day one .................. and every day! We will have the Catalyst voter analysis not too long from now. But what is apparent is that the decisive shifts happened among Latinos, young voters, and to a lesser degree Blacks. All three of those groups were a smaller part of the electorate than in 2020, which hurt Democrats. Maybe it was because in 2020 it was marginally easier to vote. But what seems most likely is some of those voters didn't want to vote for either Trump or Harris. And some of them shifted to Trump because they were pissed about higher prices and higher rent, and they wanted change. So what will Trump do? So far his @EmmetKruelty agenda looks like this: 1. Tax cuts for billionaires like Trump and Musk, and empower his billionaire donors. Just what Latinos and Blacks and young voters were hoping for. 2. Mass deportation and family separation, which a majority of voters told Fox News they DO NOT want, and which is wildly unpopular with most Latinos. 3. Possibly try to repeal Obamacare yet again, or at least reduce health care premium assistance. It's what mostly White billionaire donors of Trump want, and what will particularly hurt working class White, Latino, and Black working class families. 4. Maybe undo some of the job-creating infrastructure bipartisan gains won under Biden. Did I miss anything? Good news is with Matt Gaetz running law enforcement and a Fox News blowhard running our national defense, at least we know we are in good hands.

I think you just nailed it. I will give you one piece of pushback. Neither you nor I have a crystal ball. So we have a view of Trump that is based pretty much on 1000 % of what he actually said and and did as POTUS. That said, we can not foresee the future. So we have to let it play out. But what you are saying does match very well with 1000 % of what Trump says and does. Around this time in 2016, there were a lot of thoughtful articles from Democrats worrying that Trump was a secret moderate. We know he was a Democrat for much of his life. So the fear of Democrats in 2016 was that maybe he will go right down the center. And create a centrist majority. Maybe he'll be for infrastructure. Maybe he'll embrace Joe Manchin, and disavow the right wing culture extremists. Democrats were actually worried about this right after he won in 2016. His inaugural address pretty much ended those worries. So he embraced tax cuts for billionaires like himself, trashing Obamacare, and gutting some of his working class supporters. Because it is what his donors and right wing extremists wanted. And it makes sense. Trump is a political whore, with absolutely no principles. So of course he was going to go with the MAGA extremes and Elon Musk billionaires that brought him to power. If you run as a wrecking ball, and are elected as a wrecking ball, you have to actually be a wrecking ball. Trump is like a feral animal, only into ME ME ME. So he does get it. And he is willing to absolutely fuck over anyone, or any NATO, he needs to. So he will probably be a wrecking ball to NATO. But NATO, like the majority of Americans, will resist and survive if this is the Trump that actually shows up for Trump 2.0. But, again, we don't have a crystal ball. I really hope we are wrong. America, Ukraine, democracy, and the world deserve better. The interesting thing that is already playing out is this. If our worst fears about Trump come to pass, it won't be transgender prisoners that are complaining. It will be John Bolton, Liz Cheney, and right of center generals. Can't say they didn't warn us.

It's funny. In 2010 Rubio represented the Tea Party "fringe". Those were the days. Now Rubio seems like the adult in the room, compared to some of the others. What's been clear for a long time is that it is either a stalemate war, or a stalemate peace. Ultimately Ukraine will decide. I'm not holding my breath for this to be resolved in 24 hours, though. It will be interesting to see. Rubio has been a consistently strong supporter of NATO. Which I am sure Trump was aware of when he picked him.

Do I get free bleach if I board early?

That poll also says 44 % of voters think Trump will do a better job than Harris on immigration. That sounds about right. But for inflation and a reaction against immigration, Harris would have won. Trump doesn't have a majority or mandate for ................... anything. Lots of people voted for him because they are pissed, and he was the only bad alternative. Right now Trump has 50.1 % of the national vote. He is losing in my state, California, by about 3 million votes. With 10 % left to count. My guess is he'll end up with less than 50 % of the vote, but pretend he was elected King. Or dictator. The stunning red wave gained Republicans 63 US House seats. Oh, wait. That was 2010. The stunning red wave gained Republicans ZERO net House seats as of now. What is this a mandate for? There is definitely a majority of voters against Gay pedophiles for genocide. Are you a Gay pedophile for genocide? 😨 Seriously, have you ever had sex with a child? Do we need to add a dash of pedophilia to your genocidal fantasies? My point is it's in the genes of reactionary Republicans to stir up fear and loathing among conservatives about The Gays or The Illegals. Or The Terrorist Palestinian Women and Children Who We Try Hard Not To Kill Before We Kill Them. Why do you like genocidal lies? So on immigration we did see several red states overwhelmingly pass laws saying The Illegals can not vote. Which is about as big a proven problem as The Gays wantonly raping every boy they get near. It's fear and loathing. I mean, sure. I'd vote for a law saying you can't do things that are illegal. I'd vote for a law saying Matt Gaetz can't have sex with children, which is already against the law. But that is the MAGA movement you love, with anticipation for all the cruelty you can get. More, more, more! Fear and loathing. Why are you so cruel? In terms of immigration, let's wait and see. I mean, you are definitely right that that news station that is all blowhard propaganda and lies is spreading fake news. What's the name of that station? Oh, yeah. Fox News. I mean, there is definitely a strong @EmmetKruelty faction in MAGA that wants as much Kruelty as it can get. You are one of them. I am sure you would delight at children in cages, deporting legally American children, and all other such joyous MAGA things. Why are you so cruel? Can we add some cop beating to the festivities? Maybe try to avoid killing 10,000 more Palestinian children by killing them? The same Fox News poll says a majority of Americans want to make it harder to get asylum. Which is one of the items the conservative immigration reform bill Trump trashed included. So much for good governance. I'm just surprised Trump didn't choose MTG to run our immigration policy. If we could only clone Matt Gatez, he could run everything. He'd be great on sex trafficking. Homan is media savvy and actually sounds good, out of the gate. Equally savvy Governors like Newsom, who runs the fifth largest economy in the world that Trump lost by 3 million or so votes, will say, "Sure. Let's round up the rapists and murderers! Glad to be of assistance." Then again, when Homan talks about "saving" 300,000 children who are "missing" (the paperwork is missing, not the children) what people will learn quickly is that he wants to take kids away from their families and kick them out. We'll see how that goes. You are the perfect spokesperson for the heart of MAGA. You can't get enough cruelty. You will over reach. Trump is already showing he will do that. That's the huge mystery of this election. 52 % of Americans never approved of Trump when he was POTUS. Maybe it's young men who watch Tik Tok and have no clue what Trump actually did as POTUS. But now he is going to remind people of why they fired him, it seems. Or maybe not. Certainly appointing Fox News celebrities to run our national defense and Matt Gaetz to DOJ is a good sign, showing Trump favors competence absolute unquestioning loyalty to absolute unquestioning loyalty competence. Time will tell.

Republicans have reverted to being anti-same sex marriage. The polls showed that around 2021 we finally had a tiny Republican majority in favor of it. Now it has slipped back, to less than a majority among Republicans. Because the door is seemingly open for trashing The Gays and "extreme" things like The Gays wanting to marry. And please .........don't say Gay. Never say Gay. We might be fortunate enough to now have a national Don't Say Gay bill. The Gays earned it, with their extreme behavior. Republicans Turn Against Same-Sex Marriage Today on TAP: Their panic about the evils of woke turns their previous semi-support for same-sex relationships into flat-out rejection. Of course, Republicans would never try to make same sex marriage or abortion illegal. Never!

I'm really disappointed in Gaetz for AG. I mean, come on. There are plenty of convicted sex felons out there. It's weak to choose some one who is simply under investigation for illicit sex. We could have at least had a real felon, to double down on that whole macho felon POTUS theme. Nobody cares about crime anymore, as long as Trump or his cronies do it. Especially sex crimes. So WTF? Why not a true criminal?

Do you deny the Holocaust, too? 😨 You just lie and defend genocide. You and @Moses make such a delicious pair. Death, death, death. Slaughter, slaughter, slaughter. How about this? It is an act of love for Bibi The Baby Killer to slaughter innocent Palestinian women and children terrorists. Bibi The Baby Killer loves Palestinian children by slaughtering them. Mass slaughter is an act of love. Focus group that and test if that rationalization for genocide works. Why are you so cruel?

That's like saying Trump is not a felon. And January 6th was a day of love. Every time the IDF kills women and children, they say something very predictable. "We try very hard not to kill the women and children we just killed. When we kill more women and children soon, we will try very hard not to kill them." Somehow, Bibi The Baby Killer has managed to kill at least 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. I guess he could have killed 400,000 Palestinian women and children, but he tried hard not to. Now, if Trump unleashes Bibi The Baby Killer, the real genocide begins. How many Palestinian women and children do you want killed, @EmmetK? Hundreds of thousands of dead women and children? Millions? @Moses is right. Bibi The Baby Killer, unleashed, will definitely give Genocide Man a run for his mass slaughter. Will all the Muslim nations around Israel say, "Hey, let's celebrate genocide against Muslims."? Nope. They will continue to get closer to Iran. Because for some strange reason the Muslim street doesn't like Muslim genocide. This is a strategy for war, not peace. Who knew?

MARK PENN: 8 lessons for Democrats and Donald Trump I'm going to add this as a bit of a rebuttal to myself. 😨 The polls actually were relatively close this time. At least within the margin of error. Mark Penn said he thought Trump had an edge. And he turned out to be right. I don't agree with all his points. But I think he makes his points well. And they are all points that should be debated. His second point is the obvious one: middle class economics matters. It was interesting he did not use the words WORKING CLASS. But, either way, it was the economy, stupid. That connects to his last point: Joe Biden never should have run. His first point is the one that I think is worded particularly well, and why I am posting this to push back on what I wrote above. I think Penn is right that it was predictable that moderates and conservatives would want to get their country back. And they did. I think it is a better and clearer way to think about the culture wars. I don't think America is too racist or sexist to elect a Black woman - or man. I don't Harris ran a campaign in which she weaponized her race or gender. Although some Blacks will decide America is racist. And some Whites will decide Kamala was just a racist bitch. What is more salient to Penn's point is that Harris is a California liberal, like me. Biden often voted as a moderate, but his Presidency definitely leaned left. Most notably on immigration, which we now know made a huge difference. Even among Latinos. I'm at least two things that make me a minority: Gay, and a liberal. Add being an escort for many years, which is something I was reserved about telling people about. Plus I've spent much my life in politics, which is a game of addition. So I am constantly aware of what Penn says: liberals are about 1 in 4 Americans. We can only win when moderates are on our side. Which they actually are, more often than not. But for Trump in 2024 and W in 2004, Democrats won a plurality or majority of votes for President every election in this century. Democrats are pretty good at building coalitions. And it works more often than not. The best example of how this works in practice to me is same sex marriage. The Gays tried hard for years to figure out how to win moderates over. We did one thing consistently: failed. At least when we used liberal arguments about "basic rights". Then we shifted to what was essentially a more conservative approach: "We value marriage. We value love. We just want to be part of THAT." Then we won. There are many conservatives who would gladly ban same sex marriage if they had a majority against it. Which they no longer do. So I am glad Penn made this point first. It is probably the most important thing Democrats need to understand, and change. "Woke" is out. Moderation is in. First, conservatives and moderates took their country back

That's a thoughtful list. There will no doubt be a lot of debate about the role race and gender played in this election. I'll push back on those two points above. If we go by what Harris actually said, it seems like she tried to do the exact opposite. She could have attacked Trump during the debate for being White, which is the wrong race. She could have called him a racist. She could have said you are a male, which is the wrong gender. She could have said that she was Hillary, and the really important thing is to vote for a woman. Because if you don't vote for a woman, you are a sexist. She didn't get within a mile of any such statement. Instead, when she attacked Trump hard she quoted Republican leaders - White men, mostly - who have said very negative, and correct, things about Trump. I don't think she made her race or gender an issue. Because I think her campaign correctly perceived that being Black and female wasn't ever going to be a plus. Example: in 2008, it is not like Obama won because he was a Black man, and any white would have lost. Hillary Clinton would have won in the environment of 2008, had she beat Obama in the primary. Harris made little mention of the fact that she is a woman. She did not use it in the way Hillary "I'm With Her" did. She did focus on abortion, for sure. But that's her focusing on the issues. She did talk a lot about child tax credits, which are particularly popular among Black and Latino parents with children. But that is her focusing on the issues. She also kept saying specifically that she planned to earn the vote of everyone, including Blacks. The strongest piece of evidence for your claim is that Obama did try, and fail, to tell Black men they should vote based on race. Which they did in 2008 and 2012, for sure. That didn't work as well in 2024. The other huge piece of evidence for your claim is that all over the globe there is a growing gender gap between men and women. Women voted for Harris. Men voted for Trump. That's a global reality which is a very big deal. Not something that evolved based on anything Harris or Trump said. I'm reacting to your comments in part because I view 2024 as a victory for America's growing multi-racial democracy. Latinos and Blacks said we can, and will, vote as we damn well please. We are a better country than we were when Republicans were the party trying to STOP Blacks from voting. The unfortunate thing about this election is that some people will interpret this to mean America is too sexist and racist to elect a Black woman. (That would be you, Joy Reid). You seem to be doing the opposite, suggesting that Harris weaponized her race and gender to "attack". The salient fact that I think is quickly becoming the consensus is that it was the economy, stupid. Obama, a Black man, won twice. In the first race he had a huge wind at his back because of the wrecked Bush economy. His second election was taken by many to be a sign that America is less racist than we feared. Because Obama had to defend a sluggish economy. And he did. If you want to talk about "attack", Obama attacked Romney hard and decisively as a fat cat who did not understand the working class, and was on the side of venture capitalists moving factories to China. Harris mostly "attacked" Trump using the words of his own Chief of Staff and generals. Not because he was a White man. We'll never know. But I think if Democrats had nominated Gavin Newsom, a White man, he probably would have lost, too. His skill at defending California liberalism (we're the fifth largest economy in the world) would not necessarily have been an asset, either. The more interesting counterfactual would be a moderate White man like Andy Beshear. Trump would not have run transsexual prisoner ads against him. And he did win twice in Kentucky. That said, now that we know how working class Whites and Blacks and Latinos voted, I think Republican Mike Murphy was right. Thanks to high prices and interest rates, there was a "wall of lava" coming at Biden, or anyone who took his place. I think Newsom or Beshear probably would have faced the same outcome. It was the economy, stupid. Not race or gender.

I agree with you. That is excellent analysis from Fareed. It is now almost a consensus starting point. Meaning that not everyone will agree with every point. But that provides a framework for debate. So I'll debate some points. The statement I disagree with most is Frum at the end. Democrats are not going to turn on each other. They are going to resist the worst impulses of Trump, as we should. Examples: tax cuts for billionaires, genocide against Palestinians, tax cuts for billionaires, cutting Medicaid if they try, tax cuts for billionaires, mass deportations separating parents and children, anti-democratic actions, tax cuts for billionaires. When these things start to happen it will quickly unite Democrats. How do I know this? Name a year between 2015 and 2024. I like Ezra Klein's phrase "incumbency penalty." That is a hard fact screaming to be heard. And he is right that Democrats almost won. As of right now, there is almost ZERO shift in the House. Republicans maybe pick up a few seats. We lost one Senate seat in a swing state, and won four in states Trump barely won. We lost three Senate seats in red states. That is a huge problem Democrats will have to spend many years fixing. We lost the Presidency by a few points at most, much smaller than Trump lost by in 2020. So basically Democrats are deeply unpopular in red states, but winners or viable in blue and purple states. And this is in a year when, to quote Klein, most incumbent parties were "annihilated." This should be embarrassing to Democrats. We won the affluent, and lost the poor. By comparison, in 2016 when Trump won he only carried the group from 50k to 100k. In 2020 when he lost he only carried the group from 100k up. In 2016, Clinton won voters under 50k by 53/41. In 2020, Biden won the same group 55/44. If lower income voters had chosen Harris by the same margins as Clinton or Biden, she probably would have won the narrowest of victories in the blue wall states. Why the shift? I'm guessing it's not because these voters want more tax cuts for billionaires, fewer health care premium subsidies, and elimination of all child tax credits. Fareed is right that the US economy is booming, and the envy of the world. Stanley Druckenmiller is not struggling to buy milk or gas. So Democrats don't need to, and won't, move back to welfare state politics. But what this period proved is that you can have a booming economy, and Druckenmiller can be making money hand over fist on a tech boom. But the working class still feels left behind. Meanwhile, seniors shifted a little bit toward Harris. I suspect that may reflect the fact that they tend to own homes or stocks or both. So they are big winners of soaring stock market and housing valuations. Working class people who pay rent are the big losers. I think it is a good thing that Democrats are going to have to think long and hard about this. You seem like you are not a fan of the expanded child tax credits, @KYTOP. But they were wildly popular with the working class voters, especially Latinos, who got them. So if Democrats want to actually do something to fix this problem, those tax credits will go down much better than tax cuts for billionaires. Of course, a strong economy is the most important thing. But we have had that, and the working class still feels left behind. Like Ron Brownstein, I am not sure the culture war issues are as salient as some people think. If they were, it was a side dish to the main plate of It's The Economy, Stupid. I think the main way they hurt in 2024 is Harris is a California liberal. So it made it easier to define her as such. Are Democrats in general persona non grata? I don't think so. If Andy Beshear had run, I don't think moderates would have turned against him because he is a Democrat. Again, Harris won the vote of moderates, but by less than Biden did in 2020. So this will be a painful debate. But not too painful. I think what just happened buries ideas like "LatinX" for all time. I posted this in another thread. But it is worth really absorbing. That is not the portrait of a political party in collapse. Unless we are talking about Republicans. Democrats are doing a lot of things right. Just ask Andy Beshear. The one thing I disagree with Fareed about is "lawfare". I think it was a tactical mistake to lead with Bragg, which in relative terms was a petty crime. I agree with the analysis that Merrick Garland should have come out swinging early in 2021. And we should have had a trial on Jan. 6th, which polls said voters wanted. In fact, we had lots of trials. And lots of those felons went to jail. To me, Biden was weak for waiting years. He should have said Jan. 6th is a serious crime that needs to be prosecuted ASAP. If anyone thinks that this election somehow voids out all those polls that showed that the vast majority of Americans were disgusted with Trump's actions on Jan. 6th, we'll learn soon enough. Trump will probably over reach. Because he just can't help himself. What seems very likely is that low income voters who supported Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 were just pissed. Biden and Harris paid the incumbency penalty. But there is no particular reason to think Trump will suddenly become the President of low income voters. He will cut taxes for billionaires and his rich donors. And probably try to cut safety nets vital to these low income voters. If Democrats almost won in 2024, what is likely to happen in 2026 if Trump follows the course he has promised to? Democrats need to dump some positions that made us look extreme. But we need to double down on a lot of positions and policies that have been, and still are, at our core. If we can almost win in a year when incumbents were annihilated in most places, like the UK and France and Germany, we should be able to win in 2026 if we focus on these problems. It is sad but also funny that if Democrats need a model of how you attract the working class Latino vote, we have an incredibly clear and relevant example right next door, in Mexico. The working class party there just beat the incumbency penalty. And elected a woman the Latino working class loves. We should dump LatinX and adopt Aprende X, Y, and Z.

And there is no genocide in Ukraine, either. When you kill vermin, it is not genocide, right? Has anyone ever told you that you and @Moses make a very attractive couple? You are wrong about most Democrats, just like you are wrong about most American Jews voting for Harris, Genocide Jew. But I understand your cruelty distorts your ability to recognize facts. You are surely not alone in MAGA-land. Something like 1 in 3 Republicans now say that America is too one-sided in favor of Israel. Of course, that means the vast majority feel the opposite. So what will be tragic to observe is how deeply genocide splits the GOP. We know there is a minority of MAGA Republicans who are for suspending the Constitution, and for violence to steal elections like in 2020. Democrats have now made clear we don't do those things. In the long run, I think that helps Democrats. in the long run, this solidifies a Democratic majority that oppose Bibi The Baby Killer and his genocide fever dreams. But the verdict is out on how much Republicans support genocide against Palestinians. It all depends on what Bibi The Baby Killer does, and how people react. But you are very clearly proud to be a Genocide Jew. God bless you! Why are you so cruel?

Exactly, Genocide Jew. We agree that is probably what it means. Bibi The Baby Killer is unleashed. Your blood is almost dripping. He can have his genocide. Why does genocide turn you on? How many Palestinian women and children do you want to see killed? 100,000? A million? All of them? Gas chambers? Bullets? Bombs? Why are you so cruel?

Pretty well, actually. Again, you are making it 1000 % clear to us. You are a cruel person, and you want as much cruelty and fascism as you can get. So of course you actually get excited thinking maybe your fascist dictator wannabe will suspend The Constitution as promised. Why are you so cruel? Harris lost a close race - 2 million votes, rather than Trump's 5 million in 2020 - because of the economy, stupid. If you somehow take that as a mandate for cruelty and dictatorship, all you are doing is revealing to us what a cruel person you are. It's not really necessary. Your cruelty has been obvious for a long time. Every poll I've read makes it crystal clear that a key bloc of voters held their nose and elected Trump despite their deep misgivings about his extreme and anti-democratic views, based on the words coming out of his own mouth. And his actions on Jan. 6th. And his crimes. These are facts. If Susie Wiles can't keep her pit bull on a leash and he does more cruel shit, and sends his supporters to go beat the shit out of more cops, it is very clear how Americans see that. Some Republican winning streak. What pisses me off is that Democrats like Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester lose in states that ought to give us a Senate majority. That is a huge problem. Democrats now have been beaten with a 2 x 4 and told we need to reground ourselves in the struggle of the US working class. I think this is great news. Some day, maybe, if we are very lucky, Democrats can even win in Oregon, or Minnesota. Do you think that is possible? That Democrats could actually win a Senate seat in Oregon or Minnesota? I'm speaking truth. In the 1980's it looked like Republicans had a lock on two Minnesota Senate seats. Then Paul Wellstone came along. A little later it looked like Oregon was locked into Hatfield/Packwood/Smith Republican moderation permanently. Then Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley came along. In each case it was economic populism and fighting for the little guy and girl that turned the tide. Democrats need to reconnect to that in rural-ish states. It won't be easy. But look at that list above. In the current swing states, Democrats beat Republicans almost every time. You think 2024 is a mandate for dictatorship and cruelty? Why are you so cruel? It was a mandate for moderation. The good news to me is Democrats now have to moderate on some culture war issues and refocus on what the Latino, Black, and White working class wants. If I assume Trump follows your lead, @EmmetK, you will make that much easier for Democrats with your orgy of cruelty and genocide.

Why are you such a bad liar? Bottom line, you are for genocide against Palestinians. You and Genocide Freak @Moses are a handsome couple. Enjoy your genocide fantasies. You are an awful liar. But who said cruel liars could never be elected President? Maybe Trump will surprise us, and stop Bibi The Baby Killer from his genocide. But I doubt it. How many Jews voted for Donald Trump? How many for Kamala Harris? 79% of Jews voted for Harris, according to the largest exit poll, defying a red wave that some had predicted. Most Jews just don't agree with cruel lairs like you. They do not want genocide against Palestinians. Why are you so cruel? Why are you for genocide?

I agree with you on this, mostly. Democrats did not legislate COVID into existence. They did not legislate to have global supply chain shocks and inflation. So I view COVID as one big win for Democrats in 2020 and one big loss for Democrats in 2024. But pandemics are outside our control. Immigration is a whole different story. The easy comparison is Obama to Biden. Obama was Deporter In Chief, and he did well with Hispanics. Biden went too far the other direction, and even Blacks and Latinos revolted. Democrats asked for it. At every point along the way elected Democrats in swing states were warning that the reaction was building. Trump Border Czar Tom Homan To Blue States: If You're Not Going To Help Us, Get Out Of The Way I'm actually really glad the Democrats lost the House. What makes sense is let 50 % of America have what they voted for. We know for sure fascist wannabes like you will want as much cruelty as you can get. But don't count on that teeny tiny majority holding. If the 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % Trump majority were a penis, it would be invisible and useless. When Trump gives his hog feed tax cuts to billionaires, Democrats will go nuts. And hopefully demand he give the budget-busting money to Latinos as child tax credits instead. Eliminate Hispanic child poverty, and raise taxes on billionaires. But you guys are greedy and people just won't like it. When Homan deports rapists and murderers, it will be popular. And for the most part I think the blue states - where most of these "illegals" live - will go along. If we are talking about rapists and murderers. When he tries to "find" 300,000 "missing" children, it will be the opposite. What's missing is not the children. What's missing is the paperwork. Most Latino children are not rapists and murderers, as far as I am aware. These children, and many others, chose to cross into the US and are likely mostly living with relatives. So when Homan starts to round them up, separate the "missing" children from the families they came to be with, and say this somehow ends "sex trafficking" or whatever it ain't gonna go down well. ESPECIALLY WITH LATINOS. But you don't care. You can't get enough cruelty. Why are you so cruel?

Sweetie. That ain't nothin. Finland hates the United States. They had a special election in 2024 in which they voted for Genocide Man to take then over and slaughter their women and children. Sweden hates the United States. They had a special election in 2024 in which they voted for Genocide Man to take then over and slaughter their women and children. Oh, wait. No. I'm wrong. Sweden and Finland joined NATO because they despise Genocide Man and his slaughter of women and children. I mean, Genocide Man won an important battle. But it doesn't change the inevitable collapse of the rotten and weak Russian Federation, where citizens are processed into meat. Enjoy it while it lasts.

You know, this is the real head scratcher. Why vote for genocide? There is a huge list of things that are sad about this election. But the thing I find impossible to grasp is why Arab Americans voted for Palestinian genocide. Bibi the Baby Killer will now compete with Murderous Vlad to see whether Israel or Russia deserve the title Genocide World. There was a Politico article about how lots of Arab Americans in cities like Dearborn voted for Trump as a protest vote against Biden and Harris having blood on their hands. And they are of course right that many of those weapons being used to kill Palestinian women and children are provided to Israel by the US. I mean, it's nice they got to make a statement and what not. But it comes at the cost of electing someone who will do nothing while Bibi The Baby Killer levels Gaza. It's not just "peace through strength." It's "peace through genocide," which has never actually worked. What it also means, sadly, is that any shred of credibility Israel has left will be gone after Bibi's genocide plays out, in all its blood and glory. In a survey from the Arab American Institute, 53 % of Harris voters said US policy is too one-sided toward Israel. 34 % of Trump voters feel that way. So increasingly Democrats will see Israel as an apartheid nation, at best. And a country that practices genocide, at worst. And as the genocide plays out, if Bibi The Baby Killer does what he seems to want to do, Republicans will also be increasingly divided over supporting Israeli's genocide policy toward Palestinians. Granted, the American Jews I know well are all Democrats. But this is not the Israel or America any American Jew I know wants.