That’s not accurate. It’s also inaccurate to imply that Republicans have a mandate. They were elected because of racism, misogyny, a screwed up value system and inability to process relevant information. It’s embarrassing.
Congressional Democrats did well. Better than Harris. House Democrats very well. Senate Democrats as well as they cou…
That’s not accurate. It’s also inaccurate to imply that Republicans have a mandate. They were elected because of racism, misogyny, a screwed up value system and inability to process relevant information. It’s embarrassing.
Congressional Democrats did well. Better than Harris. House Democrats very well. Senate Democrats as well as they could given the number they had up for election this cycle. The three main issue were that 1. Harris was a black woman and they wouldn’t vote for that. 2. Cognitive Dissonance, they simply ignored Trump’s crimes as a value they cared about 3. Third grade level awareness. The biggest Google search after the election was “did Biden drop out?”.
You are trying to argue that the numbers point to a failure of the democratic brand when congressional democrats were still winning or doing better in states and counties where Harris was losing. That’s the part which is inaccurate. Misogyny and racism easily accounts for the difference.
If you take a look at the business world and compare the number of black women CEOs vs white men, the difference is more than 1.5% nationally. It’s 2024. Why does this inequality still exist? Is that a brand problem too? I don’t think so.
“The numbers are the numbers” is not the most valuable analysis you’ve ever given. “There are lies, damn lies and statistics” too. What we need to do is look a little harder at what this data is really telling us. Or at least engage in a little Hegelian critique to tease out the more sophisticated story that’s really underneath.
The 1.6% victory for Trump is the 5th smallest in the last 100 years. He got less than 50% of the total vote. Therefore he does not have a mandate, though of course he will claim it.
There is one uncalled House race, in CA where the Dem is leading with 99% of the vote in. If he wins, the GOP will have a one vote majority in the House for awhile. The Dems only lost one Senate seat in a swing state, and that was by a recount vote.
Dems for sure have work to do, but it wasn't as bad an overall loss as some people claim. I have faith they will figure it out.
Exactly. And as Republicans continue to propose sub par candidates dogged by sex crimes, alcoholism and deceptive behavior for Trump’s cabinet, they don’t come across as a team superior to Biden’s. It’s hard for Republicans to say that they are better than democrats with these people.
Putting incompetent and failed humans in positions of power to run the government will ensure that Democrats will big in 2026. So the Trump administration may only exist for 2 years.
Again bro you are very confused. I did not accuse Democrats of being racist. Instead, I refuted an accusation of 2024 racism by pointing out her 2024 problems were identical to her poor performance with Dems in 2020. If she did worse than 6th by popular vote, please let me know? Dropping out prematurely due to a lack of support and funds is doing poorly.
Oh, where did she rank in the DNC primaries? If we are blaming race and sex amongst the electorate in 2024 why did Harris bomb in the the 2020 Democratic primaries?
She dropped her campaign before the primaries began, because there were like 12 other well qualified candidates and she could not raise enough campaign funds.
She was not on a single primary ballot. Look it up.
So you are saying the 12 other candidates were well qualified but she wasn’t? Again, I am asking someone who believes sexism and racism is to blame for her 2024 outcome whether she faced the same discrimination by democrats in 2020?
No. I am not saying that, and I never said any such thing.
Politics 101. When there are over a dozen other well qualified candidates, the lesser known candidate has trouble raising necessary campaign funds, unless they are a billionaire and can finance their own campaign.
You all like to claim dems practice identity politics, well if that were true, she would have raised the most money in 2020 over all the other candidates! But, since she was not well known nationally , at that time, dems wanted to elect someone who was more certain to beat djt than an unknown candidate!
She did get onto the ticket as VP in 2020 and that ticket won!
Prior to you jumping in, I responded to a post which asserted that the reason why Harris lost was because she was a black woman. I logically asked if this was the same reason why she did so poorly in 2020?
And I explained to you that in 2020 she was not well known nationally, that is not the same as "doing poorly" especially since after she dropped out of the primaries she was selected to run as VP and they won, which is the opposite of "doing poorly."
Being forced to terminate her campaign for lack of support and funds is not doing well. So I am back to my question…if commenters suggest racism and sexism was blame, was it to blame in 2020?
If she had been well known nationally in 2020 and was a front runner or favorite to win, not raising enough funds and dropping out would have been doing poorly. But, that is not what happened. And the reason she had to drop out had zero to do with her gender or skin color. And the fact that she ran on the ticket in 2020 as VP and won, is not "doing poorly."
In 2024 She was known nationally and raised 1.4 BILLION dollars in just over a month, that is not "doing poorly."
I never said she lost in 2024 because of racism or gender. I responded to your completely false comment that she did not get dem votes, and came in 6th, in the 2020 primaries--when SHE WAS NOT EVEN ON A SINGLE PRIMARY BALLOT.
That you can not see the difference between being an unknown candidate and not raising enough campaign funds for a primary run, and a national presidential general campaign, with a completely different set of voters who have completely different prioritoes, is either sad, or you are just trolling.
Hey Dan - not trying to argue, just understand what you mean with Biden not having a mandate in 2020. Trump won the EC and popular vote this year, but had less than 50% so a plurality. In 2020, Biden won the EC and over 51% of the popular vote, so a majority. What would it take to be considered a mandate? I thought that was typically considered if winning both EC and popular vote of more than 50%. Can you please help me understand what you mean?
You could say a mandate is in the eye of the president-elect. By some definitions just getting elected confers a mandate. It looks like in the popular vote in 2020 Biden beat Trump more than Trump beat Harris in 2024. On the other hand in 2024 Trump's Electoral College margin of victory is larger than Biden's was in 2020. Obama's 2008 win was considerably more convincing, but the last landslide was Reagan in 1984.
That’s not accurate. It’s also inaccurate to imply that Republicans have a mandate. They were elected because of racism, misogyny, a screwed up value system and inability to process relevant information. It’s embarrassing.
Congressional Democrats did well. Better than Harris. House Democrats very well. Senate Democrats as well as they could given the number they had up for election this cycle. The three main issue were that 1. Harris was a black woman and they wouldn’t vote for that. 2. Cognitive Dissonance, they simply ignored Trump’s crimes as a value they cared about 3. Third grade level awareness. The biggest Google search after the election was “did Biden drop out?”.
What's not accurate? The numbers are the numbers.
You are trying to argue that the numbers point to a failure of the democratic brand when congressional democrats were still winning or doing better in states and counties where Harris was losing. That’s the part which is inaccurate. Misogyny and racism easily accounts for the difference.
If you take a look at the business world and compare the number of black women CEOs vs white men, the difference is more than 1.5% nationally. It’s 2024. Why does this inequality still exist? Is that a brand problem too? I don’t think so.
“The numbers are the numbers” is not the most valuable analysis you’ve ever given. “There are lies, damn lies and statistics” too. What we need to do is look a little harder at what this data is really telling us. Or at least engage in a little Hegelian critique to tease out the more sophisticated story that’s really underneath.
The 1.6% victory for Trump is the 5th smallest in the last 100 years. He got less than 50% of the total vote. Therefore he does not have a mandate, though of course he will claim it.
There is one uncalled House race, in CA where the Dem is leading with 99% of the vote in. If he wins, the GOP will have a one vote majority in the House for awhile. The Dems only lost one Senate seat in a swing state, and that was by a recount vote.
Dems for sure have work to do, but it wasn't as bad an overall loss as some people claim. I have faith they will figure it out.
Exactly. And as Republicans continue to propose sub par candidates dogged by sex crimes, alcoholism and deceptive behavior for Trump’s cabinet, they don’t come across as a team superior to Biden’s. It’s hard for Republicans to say that they are better than democrats with these people.
Putting incompetent and failed humans in positions of power to run the government will ensure that Democrats will big in 2026. So the Trump administration may only exist for 2 years.
Again bro you are very confused. I did not accuse Democrats of being racist. Instead, I refuted an accusation of 2024 racism by pointing out her 2024 problems were identical to her poor performance with Dems in 2020. If she did worse than 6th by popular vote, please let me know? Dropping out prematurely due to a lack of support and funds is doing poorly.
Are you saying that DEMs were worse in 2020 because she placed 6th in DNC?
Lol. She did not place 6th. You are simply making that up, why?
Oh, where did she rank in the DNC primaries? If we are blaming race and sex amongst the electorate in 2024 why did Harris bomb in the the 2020 Democratic primaries?
She dropped her campaign before the primaries began, because there were like 12 other well qualified candidates and she could not raise enough campaign funds.
She was not on a single primary ballot. Look it up.
So you are saying the 12 other candidates were well qualified but she wasn’t? Again, I am asking someone who believes sexism and racism is to blame for her 2024 outcome whether she faced the same discrimination by democrats in 2020?
No. I am not saying that, and I never said any such thing.
Politics 101. When there are over a dozen other well qualified candidates, the lesser known candidate has trouble raising necessary campaign funds, unless they are a billionaire and can finance their own campaign.
You all like to claim dems practice identity politics, well if that were true, she would have raised the most money in 2020 over all the other candidates! But, since she was not well known nationally , at that time, dems wanted to elect someone who was more certain to beat djt than an unknown candidate!
She did get onto the ticket as VP in 2020 and that ticket won!
What part of that don't you get?
Prior to you jumping in, I responded to a post which asserted that the reason why Harris lost was because she was a black woman. I logically asked if this was the same reason why she did so poorly in 2020?
And I explained to you that in 2020 she was not well known nationally, that is not the same as "doing poorly" especially since after she dropped out of the primaries she was selected to run as VP and they won, which is the opposite of "doing poorly."
Being forced to terminate her campaign for lack of support and funds is not doing well. So I am back to my question…if commenters suggest racism and sexism was blame, was it to blame in 2020?
If she had been well known nationally in 2020 and was a front runner or favorite to win, not raising enough funds and dropping out would have been doing poorly. But, that is not what happened. And the reason she had to drop out had zero to do with her gender or skin color. And the fact that she ran on the ticket in 2020 as VP and won, is not "doing poorly."
In 2024 She was known nationally and raised 1.4 BILLION dollars in just over a month, that is not "doing poorly."
I never said she lost in 2024 because of racism or gender. I responded to your completely false comment that she did not get dem votes, and came in 6th, in the 2020 primaries--when SHE WAS NOT EVEN ON A SINGLE PRIMARY BALLOT.
That you can not see the difference between being an unknown candidate and not raising enough campaign funds for a primary run, and a national presidential general campaign, with a completely different set of voters who have completely different prioritoes, is either sad, or you are just trolling.
What's not accurate? Trump certainly does not have a mandate and niether did Biden in 2020.
Hey Dan - not trying to argue, just understand what you mean with Biden not having a mandate in 2020. Trump won the EC and popular vote this year, but had less than 50% so a plurality. In 2020, Biden won the EC and over 51% of the popular vote, so a majority. What would it take to be considered a mandate? I thought that was typically considered if winning both EC and popular vote of more than 50%. Can you please help me understand what you mean?
You could say a mandate is in the eye of the president-elect. By some definitions just getting elected confers a mandate. It looks like in the popular vote in 2020 Biden beat Trump more than Trump beat Harris in 2024. On the other hand in 2024 Trump's Electoral College margin of victory is larger than Biden's was in 2020. Obama's 2008 win was considerably more convincing, but the last landslide was Reagan in 1984.