Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
The demographic shift has been happening slowly. But I believe that it is the main reason Trump lost in 2020.
Other things do matter, of course. The candidate matters. Voter enthusiasm matters. Voter restrictions matter. Gerrymandering matters. Etc.
If changing demographics mean you start an election with less possible voters on your side than you had last time, you are less likely to win.
If changing demographics mean you start an election with more possible voters on your side than you had last time, you are more likely to win.
Four years is enough time to shift the demographics enough that a Trump victory will be nearly impossible.
1. Trump lost because he did a terrible job with COVID and had no agenda. Most people don't follow politics enough to care about his general performance, and had he actually put together some coherent messaging for his next 4 years and not fumbled so badly on COVID I believed he would have easily won the EC vote count. Trump really tried hard to lose, and he lost badly in the end. He was the incumbent and started campaigning from day 1 of his first term. He also abused his seat to market himself. That is a massive advantage - you have to be pretty terrible to lose.
2. The demographic shift has been long countered by the generally low voter participation and by ongoing efforts by GQP to limit voting. That's how you keep the minority rule. Stacey slightly tapped into a dormant group of disinterested eligible voters and in a few years managed to deliver GA to the Ds. The potential is giant, but they need to be motivated to vote and to be able to vote. The GQP is straight up an anti-democratic operation.
I agree.
And like I said, those other things do matter. But they only slow down the inevitable. As long as the Republicans remain the party of old white people, they are doomed because the old white people die off. And they aren't being replaced with new Republican voters.
Incidentally, Trump didn't just lose because people "thought" he did a terrible job with COVID. He also lost as a direct result of his terrible job. A lot more of Trump's voters died of COVID than Biden's voters. That wasn't enough to make up the whole difference, but it definitely helped Biden.
And the trend will continue because so many Trump voters won't take the vaccine. They will die faster and accelerate the demographic shift.
Fat hurts wrote:
Ha mbo wrote:
What did these moron libs think? That crime would go down if they defunded the police? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
If the money is redirected to programs that prevent crime, then yes, crime can go down.
"Defund the police" means different things to different people. It generally doesn't mean "abolish the police". It means redirect some of those funds to things that improve the community in a way that makes crime less prevalent.
I don't think we yet know whether these initiatives work or not. But in many communities, policing is not working well. So new approaches are worth a try.
As usual, no rebuttal. 🙈🙈🙈🙈
Fat hurts wrote:
Ha mbo wrote:
Chicken Little has proven himself on this thread to not consider any facts that don’t align with his preconceptions. Closed minded as they get. Very Christian-like. 👎👎👎👎👎🦤🦤🦤
Open your mind to reality chicken little.
If you make an argument, I'll consider facts that support your argument.
If you just post some random links without any context, I won't read them.
If you can't put the argument in your own words, you don't know what you are talking about
Don’t open your mind to anything that doesn’t confirm your bias. 😂😂😂😂 You might not like what you find. 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Btw, How did that uncomfortable talk with your pastor go? 🙈🙈🙈
Fat hurts wrote:
And like I said, those other things do matter. But they only slow down the inevitable. As long as the Republicans remain the party of old white people, they are doomed because the old white people die off. And they aren't being replaced with new Republican voters.
The problem is the number of "white" people is actually increasing. The increasing Hispanic support for Trump was what WaPo and NPR columnists call "multi-racial whiteness." Just like Jews and Italians didn't used to be "white" but now they are.
Fat hurts wrote:
nonequals wrote:
We've been hearing for decades about how demographic changes were going to doom the Rs. Pre-Trump, my conservative (though non-R) self was worried about this. And those demographic projections assumed, I'M SURE (and very importantly), reasonably sane and decent R candidates. But a Republican as CLEARLY horrible as Trump winning once and coming reasonably close a second time suggests that the impact of these demographic shifts were - and I assume still are - being (badly?) overestimated.
And the idea that it's "finally going to happen" between now and 2024 seems absolutely absurd. As much as I now wish that it could be the case.
The demographic shift has been happening slowly. But I believe that it is the main reason Trump lost in 2020.
Other things do matter, of course. The candidate matters. Voter enthusiasm matters. Voter restrictions matter. Gerrymandering matters. Etc.
If changing demographics mean you start an election with less possible voters on your side than you had last time, you are less likely to win.
If changing demographics mean you start an election with more possible voters on your side than you had last time, you are more likely to win.
Four years is enough time to shift the demographics enough that a Trump victory will be nearly impossible.
I have little doubt that the experts were and are right about fundamental demographic changes. But the "sky is falling...and soon" election implications of this appear to have been significantly overstated. And again, these dire predictions were being made when there were R national candidates who were certain WEREN'T the anti-Christ. I guess it's just another reminder that, as much as we enjoy -and hopefully learn from - "experts and pundits," they can be pretty far off on some things.
One thing about this is potentially interesting/depressing, though. My previous argument could probably be summed up as, "Geez, if Apocalypse Trump (apologies to AHS) could still win in freakin' 2024, how much longer would the "demographics" have to shift before a reasonable R candidate like Bush Sr. or McCain or Romney simply couldn't win? Would seem to be an awfully long time. UNLESS, the loss of reasonable voters can actually be outweighed by the gain in "excited" folks who come out JUST FOR a wanna-be autocrat ??? Is that what we've seen, at least to some extent? I suppose maybe. Silly me thought that America was (a lot) better than that. Clearly not.
Fat hurts wrote:
Ha mbo wrote:
Chicken Little has proven himself on this thread to not consider any facts that don’t align with his preconceptions. Closed minded as they get. Very Christian-like. 👎👎👎👎👎🦤🦤🦤
Open your mind to reality chicken little.
If you make an argument, I'll consider facts that support your argument.
If you just post some random links without any context, I won't read them.
If you can't put the argument in your own words, you don't know what you are talking about
So for this you say you need facts to believe. Why not just have faith? 😂😂😂😂😂
Look at the fraud in Fat hurts' state. specifically in Fulton county.
"at least 36 batches of mail-in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton Co. audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson."
"But it is not simply a case of errors. The VoterGA team found 7 falsified audit tally sheets containing fabricated vote totals for their respective batches."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6M-xMkXMAI4F9a?format=jpg&name=small
"a batch containing 59 actual ballot images for Joe Biden, 42 for Donald Trump and 0 for Jo Jorgenson was reported as 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump."
No chain of custody for these ballots, either.
Way to go dementia joe!!! 🤡🤡🤡🥊
Wow, I've never really paid much attention to the complaints about moderation on this board. But my last post, referring to the types of people who vote for Trump, was held up because a moderator said, "Please stop posting [the 4-letter red hat acronym starting with "M"] in all of your posts. It's not the point of the boards."
On the off chance that this post gets through.....Are you freakin' serious ???
If topics were kept to athletics, got it. And maybe they should be. But they're not, obviously. And that acronym represents the voting will of roughly one half of the American electorate, and the entire political will of one of only 2 meaningful parties in this country. While it fully deserves to be used pejoratively (fully earned), it's also a very descriptive and concise term. "Banning" it would make no more sense than banning "Republican" or "Trump."
Fat hurts wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
1. Trump lost because he did a terrible job with COVID and had no agenda. Most people don't follow politics enough to care about his general performance, and had he actually put together some coherent messaging for his next 4 years and not fumbled so badly on COVID I believed he would have easily won the EC vote count. Trump really tried hard to lose, and he lost badly in the end. He was the incumbent and started campaigning from day 1 of his first term. He also abused his seat to market himself. That is a massive advantage - you have to be pretty terrible to lose.
2. The demographic shift has been long countered by the generally low voter participation and by ongoing efforts by GQP to limit voting. That's how you keep the minority rule. Stacey slightly tapped into a dormant group of disinterested eligible voters and in a few years managed to deliver GA to the Ds. The potential is giant, but they need to be motivated to vote and to be able to vote. The GQP is straight up an anti-democratic operation.
I agree.
And like I said, those other things do matter. But they only slow down the inevitable. As long as the Republicans remain the party of old white people, they are doomed because the old white people die off. And they aren't being replaced with new Republican voters.
.
You don't know old people. We voted for Biden.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/10/28/older-voters-may-secure-a-biden-victory-in-2020s-swing-states/Ha mbo wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
If the money is redirected to programs that prevent crime, then yes, crime can go down.
"Defund the police" means different things to different people. It generally doesn't mean "abolish the police". It means redirect some of those funds to things that improve the community in a way that makes crime less prevalent.
I don't think we yet know whether these initiatives work or not. But in many communities, policing is not working well. So new approaches are worth a try.
As usual, no rebuttal. 🙈🙈🙈🙈
I answered your question decisively.
But as usual, you can only grunt and post emoticons like some caveman drawing on the walls.
Ha mbo wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
If you make an argument, I'll consider facts that support your argument.
If you just post some random links without any context, I won't read them.
If you can't put the argument in your own words, you don't know what you are talking about
So for this you say you need facts to believe. Why not just have faith? 😂😂😂😂😂
Because faith without reason is merely a superstition. I'm not superstitious like the Trumpers.
Ha mbo wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/13/economy/june-consumer-price-inflation/index.htmlWay to go dementia joe!!! 🤡🤡🤡🥊
It's not Joe's fault. It's your fault for driving a gas guzzler.
nonequals wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
The demographic shift has been happening slowly. But I believe that it is the main reason Trump lost in 2020.
Other things do matter, of course. The candidate matters. Voter enthusiasm matters. Voter restrictions matter. Gerrymandering matters. Etc.
If changing demographics mean you start an election with less possible voters on your side than you had last time, you are less likely to win.
If changing demographics mean you start an election with more possible voters on your side than you had last time, you are more likely to win.
Four years is enough time to shift the demographics enough that a Trump victory will be nearly impossible.
I have little doubt that the experts were and are right about fundamental demographic changes. But the "sky is falling...and soon" election implications of this appear to have been significantly overstated. And again, these dire predictions were being made when there were R national candidates who were certain WEREN'T the anti-Christ. I guess it's just another reminder that, as much as we enjoy -and hopefully learn from - "experts and pundits," they can be pretty far off on some things.
One thing about this is potentially interesting/depressing, though. My previous argument could probably be summed up as, "Geez, if Apocalypse Trump (apologies to AHS) could still win in freakin' 2024, how much longer would the "demographics" have to shift before a reasonable R candidate like Bush Sr. or McCain or Romney simply couldn't win? Would seem to be an awfully long time. UNLESS, the loss of reasonable voters can actually be outweighed by the gain in "excited" folks who come out JUST FOR a wanna-be autocrat ??? Is that what we've seen, at least to some extent? I suppose maybe. Silly me thought that America was (a lot) better than that. Clearly not.
Trump was an underdog in 2016. He got lucky.
Trump was an even bigger underdog in 2020. He lost pretty badly, even losing Georgia.
Trump will be an even bigger underdog in 2024. He as almost no chance at all.
nonequals wrote:
Wow, I've never really paid much attention to the complaints about moderation on this board. But my last post, referring to the types of people who vote for Trump, was held up because a moderator said, "Please stop posting [the 4-letter red hat acronym starting with "M"] in all of your posts. It's not the point of the boards."
On the off chance that this post gets through.....Are you freakin' serious ???
If topics were kept to athletics, got it. And maybe they should be. But they're not, obviously. And that acronym represents the voting will of roughly one half of the American electorate, and the entire political will of one of only 2 meaningful parties in this country. While it fully deserves to be used pejoratively (fully earned), it's also a very descriptive and concise term. "Banning" it would make no more sense than banning "Republican" or "Trump."
Just call them the "Trump Terrorists". They've earned that moniker.
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Look at the fraud in Fat hurts' state. specifically in Fulton county.
"at least 36 batches of mail-in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton Co. audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson."
"But it is not simply a case of errors. The VoterGA team found 7 falsified audit tally sheets containing fabricated vote totals for their respective batches."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6M-xMkXMAI4F9a?format=jpg&name=small"a batch containing 59 actual ballot images for Joe Biden, 42 for Donald Trump and 0 for Jo Jorgenson was reported as 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump."
No chain of custody for these ballots, either.
https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Press-Release-New-Evidence-Reveals-Georgia-Audit-Fraud-and-Massive-Errors.pdf
I'm not sure what this proves, but it's a long way from proving fraud. Good luck with that.
Fat hurts wrote:
Ha mbo wrote:
As usual, no rebuttal. 🙈🙈🙈🙈
I answered your question decisively.
But as usual, you can only grunt and post emoticons like some caveman drawing on the walls.
No rebuttal, as usual.🙈🙈🙈🙈
Fat hurts wrote:
Trump was an underdog in 2016. He got lucky.
Trump was an even bigger underdog in 2020. He lost pretty badly, even losing Georgia.
Trump will be an even bigger underdog in 2024. He as almost no chance at all.
But for fewer than 43,000 votes in key states, DJT would have won in the Electoral College again.
ANY Republican presidential candidate has a very good chance of winning.
nonequals wrote:
Wow, I've never really paid much attention to the complaints about moderation on this board. But my last post, referring to the types of people who vote for Trump, was held up because a moderator said, "Please stop posting [the 4-letter red hat acronym starting with "M"] in all of your posts. It's not the point of the boards."
On the off chance that this post gets through.....Are you freakin' serious ???
If topics were kept to athletics, got it. And maybe they should be. But they're not, obviously. And that acronym represents the voting will of roughly one half of the American electorate, and the entire political will of one of only 2 meaningful parties in this country. While it fully deserves to be used pejoratively (fully earned), it's also a very descriptive and concise term. "Banning" it would make no more sense than banning "Republican" or "Trump."
You know, you sound frighteningly like an adult. Not really welcome around here.
:-)