IBDaMann
Well-known member
goat finally gets it.
Dems "Massively Vulnerable" to shift....
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.Apparently.After all, they have to get the real number in order to cheat enough to beat it.
In an election in which Donald Trump, a man whose rallies oversold by double every venue in which he spoke, garnered an avalanche record US Presidential vote tally ... prior to the polls closing ... ended up losing to sleepy Joe Biden, a man who could only get double digit attendance at his rallies if eight people were bused in, only after he somehow miraculously garnered an even higher avalanche record US Presidential vote tally to just barely eclipse Donald Trump's tally after Trump's tally somehow dropped sufficiently after the polls closed.
So in the 2020 election, both Trump and Biden each beat the US record number of votes garnered, but Biden's record was just a few votes higher.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Bingo.
For instance, regardless of whether or not an election occurs in November, I would gladly walk over broken glass to make sure that I get to the town hall first thing in the morning to cast my vote for Donald Trump.
However, I will NOT be bothered to fill in the down-ballot circle for Eric Hovde (the only "major" Republican candidate running against Tammy Baldwin for the senate seat atm). He's already getting and accepting endorsements from all of the wrong people, including Scott Walker, Americans For Prosperity, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. That makes him a Uniparty "establishment" candidate in my book without even listening to him speak. Listening to him speak will likely only solidify that position.
However, if former Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke were to also enter the senate race and win the primary, then I'd make damn sure to also fill in the down-ballot circle for him over Baldwin.
I'm done with the Uniparty shitshow. It's "MAGA (America First) or bust" from here on out. And yes, I support this nation's farmers and truckers and will support any future protests of theirs.
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
I agree with the bolded. To have this conversation involves dropping our partisan pretenses. (and we'll use Party A and Party B as references)
People can vote how they choose but, and I think this is what you are referring to, the idea that culturally one can only vote for one of the party's isn't a positive overall. The more voters both party's have to compete over the better. Otherwise you end up with Party A (whoever that is) taking their voters for granted and Party B not giving a sh*t about them (for lack of a better term). That isn't a positive for the country.
Not only that, but when one race votes for 'party a' almost exclusively it shows them as a one issue group that is seperated from others. If they voted at the same percentage we would say that the groups are better integrated.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Did you support the truckers when they had their insurrection? Do you defend Martin Luther King's insurrections?
cawacko
Well-known member
As a thought experiment it really would be interesting to see how each party 'presented' itself if all races were within say a 45 - 55 or even 40 - 60 split in their voting patterns.
And Elvis was spotted in Vegas last week having lunch with Sasquatch
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
We could also post stories about lifelong conservative voters who are turning away from the (R) party in droves. I won't believe either side is switching until the votes are counted in Nov.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Love 'em! Insurrection is my middle name.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Which count will you accept? The Trump winning count on election night ... or the vote-stuffed count a couple of days afterwards?
There is a close to 50/50 split in every national election, so both sides are "massively vulnerable" to any type of shift. I am not just talking about the Presidential election, but also the House elections and Senate election in aggregate. No one really knows why all the elections are so close, but they are. A tiny change in support, or even turnout, is all it takes to win or lose national elections.
So why am I not worried? The RNC is quitting minority outreach. They are literally cancelling all the national programs, and trying to only convince whites to vote Republican. This might be because Republicans see no hope in these programs, trump sees no hope in these programs, or maybe just trump has decided he personally needs the money in question. By definition, there is no constituency that will cry out if new outreach is cancelled.
Supporters of Republican outreach are forced to generate fake pictures of Blacks who support Republicans. They do not even have enough Blacks, out of 50 million of Black Americans, to take a photo of them.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rnc-white-again-minority-outreach-135145920.html
cawacko
Well-known member
The article comes from Axios, a left leaning site, and the author is LatinX. He was also showed polling regarding Blacks, Latinos and Asians - not just black voters only.
Voters and political parties aren't static. Just as this polling shows more BIPOC people leaning Republican more white people are now leaning Democratic. But neither party has a God given right to receive the vote of anyone, even if some act that way.
The facts are that the RNC is scrapping all national minority outreach, and that supporters of minority outreach are forced to use AI fakes to even get pictures of Blacks willing to support Republicans.
Maybe the trump will win minorities, but those are still the facts.
cawacko
Well-known member
Did you read the article? It's not just the Presidential election.
I suppose any party that can spend less on outreach and still get more voters would consider that a success.
I already remarked on that. In all national contests, for the last 25 years, the results have been nearly 50/50. That is weird because the Senate is divided by states which are very unrepresentative of the popular vote. But it keeps happening. There is some explanation, it could not happen for so long by random chance, but no one has proven a cause. There are a lot of theories.
Anyway, that means that any shift, even tiny shifts, will sway the entire government. We are not talking about far less than a 1% shift. More like a 0.1% shift will change everything.
That is not just a shift in who people vote for, but whether people vote. A tiny turnout drop for Clinton allowed trump to be elected.
So we are all sitting here trying to predict absolute tiny moves in the electorate. We are trying to predict the figurative flapping of a butterfly wing.
I point out that the Republicans have completely given up on minority outreach, and are using fake images of Blacks, because they cannot even find enough Black supporters to take pictures of. There are literally 50 million Blacks in America, so I would think they should be able to find a few dozen to take photos of.
You are free to point to polls, but I will say that this far out, and for a minority of the voters, are practically meaningless at this point. Let me say the Republicans are seeing the same, and even more accurate polls, and do not think it is worth spending any money on minority outreach.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I wonder if they'll truly be happier under President-for-Life Trump?
Polling is just a sport now. It has no real meaning. When you see a claim like this one, you ask yourself if it hit on something. Who knows. Minorities know that any program that helps them,is passed by Dems over the downvotes of Reds. They know who is on their side, and it is not Trump and the rightys.
cawacko
Well-known member
Wow. So all BIPOC people are essentially one monolithic group reliant upon government programs for their survival/success in this country to which they all owe their gratitude to white liberals for giving it to them. And as such, it is their duty to reward white liberals by voting exclusively for Democrats and therefore inconceivable that they would have any issues with the Democratic Party. And even though the article is by left leaning Axios and references polling by the New York Times and Financial Times the data isn't real or accurate because you don't like what it says.
We're all familiar with what blatant racism looks like. But there is a far more subtle bias/racism that exists and is often far more insidious in its affects. This statement is an example of it.
