Eke out or call it a mandate? I don’t care. I do care that Trump is an inept fool that has no business leading our country. His continuous lying and disregard for our constitution has the potential to harm our country. We survived his first four years. Hopefully we will again, but I have my doubts.
What does Trump’s “decisive” win permit him to do? I think if he behaves himself and follows the law, the constitution and conventions, he may actually get cooperation from democrats. Everyone wants some degree of immigration reform, for example.
But I don’t think Americans will tolerate some of the extreme dubiously legal behavior he’s threatening. Like going after Democrats he doesn’t like. The 2026 midterms are not that far away. And there are vulnerable Republicans Congressmen and women.
But perhaps the biggest danger for Trump is with healthcare, social security, home mortgages and the cost of living. That is a time bomb ready to go off right now. It’s clear that many Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are at their breaking point. Make this worse and there’s likely to be widespread protests. That might escalate.
Trump might be well advised to tackle poverty rather than focusing on the bs he currently spouts everyday at the moment.
And in 4 years there will be another 4 years of crimes the Democratic DOJ will be able to prosecute him for. Trump will be very old by then. The mood of the country though is currently very different than it was in 2016. It feels like a powder keg. Trump, more than likely will trigger that. I think that’s what Democrats are planning for. Trump is like a bull in a China shop.
On the world stage, it’s unlikely that Putin will be around in 4 years either. So Europe and Russia will substantially change too. This will likely take up a considerable amount of Trump’s time. As for China, without a European or US market to trade with if it invaded Taiwan, it too will disintegrate.
Interesting take. And I think you have some good points. Crazy moments we are living in. And I think the very election of Trump is indicative of the powder keg feeling you reference. "Let's go for the full table flip - what have we got to lose?" (To be clear, I personally understand we have a lot to lose!)
A large part if Trumps appeal to voters is to appeal to their (Righteous) indignation at all these changes - At a minimum for older voters (Boomers). The DEI stuff is too much change, too fast.
Though, for me, the Family Discount on pardons is a bridge too far. After voting Dem 3 presidential contests in a row and being diagusted by Trump, SCOTUS, ..., I am finished.
Trashing the idea that 'the rule of law applies to everyone', confirmation of possibility for political prosecutions (like President Trump). Not "But it's his son", but "But it's his oath".
Welcome to the rubbish heap of Presidential legacies, Joe!
Oh no! DEI is too much for their fragile sense of their place in the world. I guess women and minorities should just quiet down and wait until the old white people are more comfortable, or understand the idea that if they really believe that all people are equal and have equal distribution of intelligence, then it would make more sense if women held 50% (or more) of executive jobs, and minorities would be represented in proportion to their percentage of the population. But wait... That isn't even close to the case, so something else must be going on, huh? Only 40 GOP women in the in the next congress, compared to 110 women for Democrats. That is just 28%. The number of black GOP women is zero. In the Senate, we have 9 GOP women out of 53, compared to 15 Dems. In the House it will be 94 Dem women (out of 215), and just 31Rs - out of their 220 House Members. But sure, I am sure that disparity is just the result of choices, and not differences in earlier career opportunities...
As for your assessment of court cases and pardons, it is clear you know literally nothing about the legal system or the pardon system. Hunter was investigated ad infinitum by Congressional Committees and a special prosecutor. That prosecutor chose to file gun charges that are literally never charged without another underlying crime. He paid his tax restitution and penalties, which also generally does not get jail time. He was going to get jail time specifically because he was related to Biden, and because Biden suspected that the Trump DOJ might try and do even more. Further, if your disgust with pardons runs so deep at Biden, I suggest you look at Trump pardoning Jared's father, Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, a bunch of GOP Congressmen convicted of bribery, fraud, and insider trading, a bunch of GOP donors, and a promise to pardon a whole bunch of people for January 6th, including those who assaulted the police. He has discussed pardoning Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. So, if your outrage for Biden's single pardon of his son, in the face of that avalanche of Trump bullshit pardons is the thing that "disgusted you", I suggest you go get a healthy dose of perspective and historical context.
I think democracy is still in trouble and I believe that both parties need to look a the voters that are loyal constitutional patriots in the middle class. We need a political party overhaul.
I think your analysis is one of the dumbest things I have read in a long time, but consistent with how you have been treating it all along. You basically are going with your gut feeling, rather than the numbers. In the run up, you said the election would be close, and it was. You have somehow lowered the bar between "close" and "not close" to fit your current bias. The fact that Trump won was surprising on a gut level, since he is such an absurd figure, so clearly corrupt, criminal, and unfit for the office. So, him winning at all by anything other than the electoral college and not the popular vote, feels like some kind of big win for him. It wasn't.
More than half the country did not vote for him. He may have swept the swing states with late breaking voters, but his margin was, as you noted, 229,766 votes across three of those states. The fact that it is "5 times more than Biden's" margin of victory is the stupidest metric I have ever seen. Everyone seemed to agree, that despite Biden winning the popular vote by 4.4% nationally, but only 42,918 votes across three states in 2020 meant that Biden did not have a mandate and just squeaked by. Now, Trump doesn't win a majority of the vote, and still only won by 0.15086408404465% over those 3 states out of all votes cast -- and you are "leaning towards" it being a mandate? Are you drunk?
Oh, but wait... The Senate went Republican in a map that heavily favored the GOP (WV, OH, ND, and PA), and where they lost at least 3 seats that should have been solid pickup opportunities (NV, AZ, WI), and 1 that should have been a live possibility in Maryland? And, out of that mixed bag, and considering the total lack of coattails at the top of the Dem ticket, and your gut is telling you it is a mandate? The GOP lost a seat in the House, and would have lost the House if the NC Supreme Court hadn't allowed an absurd gerrymander, and you are still leaning towards "mandate". Are you on crack?
This is a classic example of lowering the bar and defining success downward. Your gut needs a healthy does of AlkaSeltzer, because it isn't paying any attention to the facts, and it sure as hell isn't paying any attention to them in their actual historical context. Reagan had a mandate. Trump eeking out a popular vote win without a plurality of the vote cheapens actual mandates.
You are just buying a Trump/GOP narrative, because they repeat it enthusiastically and often. It is the "fake it til you make it" mentality they so heartily embrace these days. However, they lack introspection, realistic data analysis, and have a penchant for self-delusion. That doesn't mean you need to fall for it too.
I agree with your general point about lack of mandate. Given extreme gerrymandering and polarization, a solid mandate is hard to achieve these days. The other Senate race that was doomed for Dems was MT, not ND. Trump did get a plurality of the popular vote, which is just more votes than anyone else. He didn't get a majority, which is 50%+1.
Yeah, I meant MT and Tester. I also meant to say he did not win a majority of the popular vote, and only won a plurality, which the context of the post makes pretty clear.
The same voters chose everyone in the White House, the US House, and (one third of) the Senate. That includes those who took the time to go in, voted carefully for Trump, and chose not to vote for anyone else (or who split the ticket, voting Dem for other offices).
The functional result of their choices is that the House is very close to ungovernable because of its narrow margin -- more so, IMO, than if there were that same tiny margin but the House was Democratic, since the House Republicans are also a nest of scorpions. (Though frankly, it would also have been pretty tough for Jeffries with this tiny margin, too. In that hypothetical Dem scenario, who'd play the role (though in the House) of Joe Manchin? Sure bet it would be Seth Moulton, who has a very long history of getting attention that way or however he can.)
Because of the tight House result, and the fact that the "slam dunk" Senate map came through for the Republicans, but not in as big a way as might easily have happened, I just don't see the outcome as a "mandate." A victory, of course, but no "extra" special points beyond that, which is what a mandate apparently means. To me, the crabbed, limited nature of the trifecta that voters chose is almost the opposite of a mandate. Thank goodness, as that may block some small part of the corruption and authoritarianism that Trump openly intends.
Trump won with less than a majority of all votes. He won with the 5th smallest victory in the last 100 years. It was no mandate. It was cerainly no landslide victory, no matter what Trump and his pals say.
But for sure Dems have work to do. Dems can't let this happen again in 2028 when Vance (we assume) runs for POTUS. They can't lose any more Senate seats in 2026. They should take back the House in 2026. But there's work to do.
Not a mandate but the winner take all system we have allows the winner to say whatever they want and do whatever they want (if have congress on same side)... And then if overreach? Penalized in next election.
And house was decided "Fact: in 2024, the House majority was decided by just 7,309 votes across three districts (#IA01, #CO08 and #PA07) out of 148 million votes cast nationwide." Dave Wasserman
No, but I was just curious. It kinda sorta gives me a sense of the country's political landscape with the direct positive or negative impact of Trump candidacy removed, or at least lessened.
Two things. First I never understood Democrats focusing on the popular vote in the 2016 election. It always seemed like some combination of sour grapes and trying to console themselves. The election is decided by the electoral college. You can complain about it but that's the way it is. The Democrats should focus on managing campaigns in such a way as to win the electoral college.
Second, on mandates. The winning party claims they have a mandate after most elections, and this one's no different. I don't think the GOP has a mandate but even if they did it doesn't mean a blanket mandate of every plank in their platform.
I think I’m tired of regurgitating the results of the election. As I always tell my sons, you can only play the cards you have been dealt. Right now there are still five cards left for the flop, the hole and the river. I’ll wait to see what’s in the flop before BEGINNING to evaluate how good my hand is.
My $0.02 - stop looking at numbers. They require you to use logic and experience to explain. There is nothing logical or normal (from an experience side) about people today.
TL;DR - the numbers tell us nothing b/c the way people think is insane.
Chris, I don’t disagree. Just sad that so many Americans sold their values so easily for what they think, hope, will be cheaper bread. But then again, maybe many people’s values aren’t really values at all.
When your party ends up winning back the White House, keeping the House, flipping the Senate, and securing an ideological supermajority on the Supreme Court, thus controlling the executive, legislative and judicial branches, it's hard to argue that's not a mandate. What your party does with that mandate will determine whether it's permanent or not.
That's dominance across all branches, but not a mandate. The Senate map this year was almost certain to go red given our geographical polarization. The House is gerrymandered to a point that there are few truly competitive seats, which means the determinative elections are the primaries, where the turnout is typically low. We can't forget how a minority-elected president was allowed to appoint a third of the federal judiciary, including 3 members of the Supreme Court. None of this reflects a mandate from the American people, but it does mean a consolidation of power in one party led by an openly authoritarian wannabe.
I agree that it was not a landslide or a mandate even though Republicans keep repeating those words in keeping with the big lie theory. However, losing the blue wall states in the Midwest reeks of defeat for the Democratic Party. It reinforces their alienation from the working class of all races. I don't anticipate a huge turn to the left although I would support it. In my opinion, the Democratic Party has to mount a campaign of relentless criticism of Trump's policies in order to be ready for 2026 and 2028.
Eke out or call it a mandate? I don’t care. I do care that Trump is an inept fool that has no business leading our country. His continuous lying and disregard for our constitution has the potential to harm our country. We survived his first four years. Hopefully we will again, but I have my doubts.
What does Trump’s “decisive” win permit him to do? I think if he behaves himself and follows the law, the constitution and conventions, he may actually get cooperation from democrats. Everyone wants some degree of immigration reform, for example.
But I don’t think Americans will tolerate some of the extreme dubiously legal behavior he’s threatening. Like going after Democrats he doesn’t like. The 2026 midterms are not that far away. And there are vulnerable Republicans Congressmen and women.
But perhaps the biggest danger for Trump is with healthcare, social security, home mortgages and the cost of living. That is a time bomb ready to go off right now. It’s clear that many Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are at their breaking point. Make this worse and there’s likely to be widespread protests. That might escalate.
Trump might be well advised to tackle poverty rather than focusing on the bs he currently spouts everyday at the moment.
But he won't. He's not about helping the country. He's about helping himself.
And in 4 years there will be another 4 years of crimes the Democratic DOJ will be able to prosecute him for. Trump will be very old by then. The mood of the country though is currently very different than it was in 2016. It feels like a powder keg. Trump, more than likely will trigger that. I think that’s what Democrats are planning for. Trump is like a bull in a China shop.
On the world stage, it’s unlikely that Putin will be around in 4 years either. So Europe and Russia will substantially change too. This will likely take up a considerable amount of Trump’s time. As for China, without a European or US market to trade with if it invaded Taiwan, it too will disintegrate.
Interesting take. And I think you have some good points. Crazy moments we are living in. And I think the very election of Trump is indicative of the powder keg feeling you reference. "Let's go for the full table flip - what have we got to lose?" (To be clear, I personally understand we have a lot to lose!)
Not a mandate but decisive. Dems should get in the trenches with Republicans on fair meaningful reforms on
Regulations
Spending
Immigration
Give them the DEI stuff
A large part if Trumps appeal to voters is to appeal to their (Righteous) indignation at all these changes - At a minimum for older voters (Boomers). The DEI stuff is too much change, too fast.
Though, for me, the Family Discount on pardons is a bridge too far. After voting Dem 3 presidential contests in a row and being diagusted by Trump, SCOTUS, ..., I am finished.
Trashing the idea that 'the rule of law applies to everyone', confirmation of possibility for political prosecutions (like President Trump). Not "But it's his son", but "But it's his oath".
Welcome to the rubbish heap of Presidential legacies, Joe!
Oh no! DEI is too much for their fragile sense of their place in the world. I guess women and minorities should just quiet down and wait until the old white people are more comfortable, or understand the idea that if they really believe that all people are equal and have equal distribution of intelligence, then it would make more sense if women held 50% (or more) of executive jobs, and minorities would be represented in proportion to their percentage of the population. But wait... That isn't even close to the case, so something else must be going on, huh? Only 40 GOP women in the in the next congress, compared to 110 women for Democrats. That is just 28%. The number of black GOP women is zero. In the Senate, we have 9 GOP women out of 53, compared to 15 Dems. In the House it will be 94 Dem women (out of 215), and just 31Rs - out of their 220 House Members. But sure, I am sure that disparity is just the result of choices, and not differences in earlier career opportunities...
As for your assessment of court cases and pardons, it is clear you know literally nothing about the legal system or the pardon system. Hunter was investigated ad infinitum by Congressional Committees and a special prosecutor. That prosecutor chose to file gun charges that are literally never charged without another underlying crime. He paid his tax restitution and penalties, which also generally does not get jail time. He was going to get jail time specifically because he was related to Biden, and because Biden suspected that the Trump DOJ might try and do even more. Further, if your disgust with pardons runs so deep at Biden, I suggest you look at Trump pardoning Jared's father, Mike Flynn, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, a bunch of GOP Congressmen convicted of bribery, fraud, and insider trading, a bunch of GOP donors, and a promise to pardon a whole bunch of people for January 6th, including those who assaulted the police. He has discussed pardoning Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. So, if your outrage for Biden's single pardon of his son, in the face of that avalanche of Trump bullshit pardons is the thing that "disgusted you", I suggest you go get a healthy dose of perspective and historical context.
I think democracy is still in trouble and I believe that both parties need to look a the voters that are loyal constitutional patriots in the middle class. We need a political party overhaul.
I think your analysis is one of the dumbest things I have read in a long time, but consistent with how you have been treating it all along. You basically are going with your gut feeling, rather than the numbers. In the run up, you said the election would be close, and it was. You have somehow lowered the bar between "close" and "not close" to fit your current bias. The fact that Trump won was surprising on a gut level, since he is such an absurd figure, so clearly corrupt, criminal, and unfit for the office. So, him winning at all by anything other than the electoral college and not the popular vote, feels like some kind of big win for him. It wasn't.
More than half the country did not vote for him. He may have swept the swing states with late breaking voters, but his margin was, as you noted, 229,766 votes across three of those states. The fact that it is "5 times more than Biden's" margin of victory is the stupidest metric I have ever seen. Everyone seemed to agree, that despite Biden winning the popular vote by 4.4% nationally, but only 42,918 votes across three states in 2020 meant that Biden did not have a mandate and just squeaked by. Now, Trump doesn't win a majority of the vote, and still only won by 0.15086408404465% over those 3 states out of all votes cast -- and you are "leaning towards" it being a mandate? Are you drunk?
Oh, but wait... The Senate went Republican in a map that heavily favored the GOP (WV, OH, ND, and PA), and where they lost at least 3 seats that should have been solid pickup opportunities (NV, AZ, WI), and 1 that should have been a live possibility in Maryland? And, out of that mixed bag, and considering the total lack of coattails at the top of the Dem ticket, and your gut is telling you it is a mandate? The GOP lost a seat in the House, and would have lost the House if the NC Supreme Court hadn't allowed an absurd gerrymander, and you are still leaning towards "mandate". Are you on crack?
This is a classic example of lowering the bar and defining success downward. Your gut needs a healthy does of AlkaSeltzer, because it isn't paying any attention to the facts, and it sure as hell isn't paying any attention to them in their actual historical context. Reagan had a mandate. Trump eeking out a popular vote win without a plurality of the vote cheapens actual mandates.
You are just buying a Trump/GOP narrative, because they repeat it enthusiastically and often. It is the "fake it til you make it" mentality they so heartily embrace these days. However, they lack introspection, realistic data analysis, and have a penchant for self-delusion. That doesn't mean you need to fall for it too.
You are generally smarter than this.
I agree with your general point about lack of mandate. Given extreme gerrymandering and polarization, a solid mandate is hard to achieve these days. The other Senate race that was doomed for Dems was MT, not ND. Trump did get a plurality of the popular vote, which is just more votes than anyone else. He didn't get a majority, which is 50%+1.
Yeah, I meant MT and Tester. I also meant to say he did not win a majority of the popular vote, and only won a plurality, which the context of the post makes pretty clear.
The same voters chose everyone in the White House, the US House, and (one third of) the Senate. That includes those who took the time to go in, voted carefully for Trump, and chose not to vote for anyone else (or who split the ticket, voting Dem for other offices).
The functional result of their choices is that the House is very close to ungovernable because of its narrow margin -- more so, IMO, than if there were that same tiny margin but the House was Democratic, since the House Republicans are also a nest of scorpions. (Though frankly, it would also have been pretty tough for Jeffries with this tiny margin, too. In that hypothetical Dem scenario, who'd play the role (though in the House) of Joe Manchin? Sure bet it would be Seth Moulton, who has a very long history of getting attention that way or however he can.)
Because of the tight House result, and the fact that the "slam dunk" Senate map came through for the Republicans, but not in as big a way as might easily have happened, I just don't see the outcome as a "mandate." A victory, of course, but no "extra" special points beyond that, which is what a mandate apparently means. To me, the crabbed, limited nature of the trifecta that voters chose is almost the opposite of a mandate. Thank goodness, as that may block some small part of the corruption and authoritarianism that Trump openly intends.
Trump won with less than a majority of all votes. He won with the 5th smallest victory in the last 100 years. It was no mandate. It was cerainly no landslide victory, no matter what Trump and his pals say.
But for sure Dems have work to do. Dems can't let this happen again in 2028 when Vance (we assume) runs for POTUS. They can't lose any more Senate seats in 2026. They should take back the House in 2026. But there's work to do.
It’s wild it comes down to ~ 200,0000 (or ~50.000 😳) votes that decides who the next President of over 350 million people will be.
Broken system.
Not a mandate but the winner take all system we have allows the winner to say whatever they want and do whatever they want (if have congress on same side)... And then if overreach? Penalized in next election.
And house was decided "Fact: in 2024, the House majority was decided by just 7,309 votes across three districts (#IA01, #CO08 and #PA07) out of 148 million votes cast nationwide." Dave Wasserman
That's kind of cherry picking the data. Do we know what the total, nationwide vote was for the Republicans and Democrats in the House elections?
Respectfully, does that matter? The House majority is based on members from districts.
No, but I was just curious. It kinda sorta gives me a sense of the country's political landscape with the direct positive or negative impact of Trump candidacy removed, or at least lessened.
Two things. First I never understood Democrats focusing on the popular vote in the 2016 election. It always seemed like some combination of sour grapes and trying to console themselves. The election is decided by the electoral college. You can complain about it but that's the way it is. The Democrats should focus on managing campaigns in such a way as to win the electoral college.
Second, on mandates. The winning party claims they have a mandate after most elections, and this one's no different. I don't think the GOP has a mandate but even if they did it doesn't mean a blanket mandate of every plank in their platform.
I think I’m tired of regurgitating the results of the election. As I always tell my sons, you can only play the cards you have been dealt. Right now there are still five cards left for the flop, the hole and the river. I’ll wait to see what’s in the flop before BEGINNING to evaluate how good my hand is.
My $0.02 - stop looking at numbers. They require you to use logic and experience to explain. There is nothing logical or normal (from an experience side) about people today.
TL;DR - the numbers tell us nothing b/c the way people think is insane.
Chris, I don’t disagree. Just sad that so many Americans sold their values so easily for what they think, hope, will be cheaper bread. But then again, maybe many people’s values aren’t really values at all.
Agreed. I would say it was a Trump thing rather than a Republican thing.
When your party ends up winning back the White House, keeping the House, flipping the Senate, and securing an ideological supermajority on the Supreme Court, thus controlling the executive, legislative and judicial branches, it's hard to argue that's not a mandate. What your party does with that mandate will determine whether it's permanent or not.
That's dominance across all branches, but not a mandate. The Senate map this year was almost certain to go red given our geographical polarization. The House is gerrymandered to a point that there are few truly competitive seats, which means the determinative elections are the primaries, where the turnout is typically low. We can't forget how a minority-elected president was allowed to appoint a third of the federal judiciary, including 3 members of the Supreme Court. None of this reflects a mandate from the American people, but it does mean a consolidation of power in one party led by an openly authoritarian wannabe.
A major problem is what SCOTUS does with this majority? Who can change the votes of the majority? Not anytime soon.
I agree that it was not a landslide or a mandate even though Republicans keep repeating those words in keeping with the big lie theory. However, losing the blue wall states in the Midwest reeks of defeat for the Democratic Party. It reinforces their alienation from the working class of all races. I don't anticipate a huge turn to the left although I would support it. In my opinion, the Democratic Party has to mount a campaign of relentless criticism of Trump's policies in order to be ready for 2026 and 2028.
I think that the Dems need to emphasize economic issues and minimize, as much as possible, the cultural stuff.