tequila4kapp said:

---

He's currently at @71M, @3M less than 2020.
She's currently at @66M, @15M less than Biden in 2020.

We do not know how many people are still left to be counted.

I think there is usually an increase in numbers simply due to population growth. Curious to see the numbers @18M lower, especially considering this was not a low interest election.

---

2020 was a very high turnout election. This year is more in line with other Presidential years.

"Biden does own the ongoing slaughter in Gaza but it wasn't an election issue outside of Michigan"

actually Hamas owns the ongoing slaughter

NVBear78 said:

---

Our country voted twice for Barack Obama as president but the two women who ran for president were very poor candidates.

---

That's funny, because in evaluating candidates, Trump is Dog 5hit.

philly1121 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

concordtom said:

---

That, and the fact that she has a vagina, breasts, and dark skin.
I mean, let's be real. America is not so deep.

---

While Latino males are attracted to breasts, they are largely sexist and won't vote for a WOMAN.
Let alone a BLACK woman . . . and especially one who is championing women's reproductive rights/abortion.

Yes, welcome to Dumberica!

---

If this is the only lesson liberals take away from this result, then they will continue to lose elections going forward.

---

I dunno what else to conclude. I mean, Trump is an outrageous character, a cultural terrorist, a blatant scofflaw and criminal. He's as horrible a candidate imaginable.

Lessons? You think there are profound lessons here? Give me a break.

---

There absolutely are a million lessons. If you can stomach the fact he's on Fox go find some clips from Harold Ford, Jr. I thought he made some pretty insightful comments about what the election lessons are and where his party needs to go from here.

---

Perhaps there are some complexities involved. But I think its obvious that the US is not ready to elect a woman as President. I think, as Tom describes, there is just a tendancy in this country to want a man to do this job. We can muse about whether Joe should have stepped aside earlier. I don't think he was up to the challenge and probably would have lost anyway. But if she had gone through the primary process and went head-to-head with a Josh Shapiro or Andy Breshear, I don't think she would have won. So I suppose its the Dems fault but what options did we have? We couldn't "redo" the primaries or have a floor fight at the convention.

As for the "why" that so many men, women - both whites and minorities - feel a woman can't do the job. I think its masculinity. Its faith based. Its probably anti-feminism and certainly racism as well. I mean, what it all comes down to is that Trump won with a dip**** campaign. He was fellating a microphone. Held a Nazi type rally at MSG. Has Project 2025 as a map for all to see. No one cared. So, if its ok to be that openly crass - what else is there to turn to except the base instincts of racism and misogyny?

---

Racism and misogyny - I believe that's a key lesson right there. Liberals cling to this view that so many people's daily existence revolves almost exclusively around race, gender and sexual preference. Yes, those are hugely important, but they are not THE determining factor in how someone will vote. People care about the economy, affordability, safety, maintaining their standard of living and almost all distrust career politicians. Say what you will about Trump, but he's managed to position himself as an outsider and a quasi third-party candidate with some of his economic positions that straddle the right and left. Kamala is a career politician who ran for president in 2020 and received no support. She was an unpopular vice president and at one point was even considered a liability for Biden's reelection. She was given the nomination, it wasn't earned, and then proceeded to change her positions in a very stereotypical politician flip-flop. As the original post states, she was a terrible candidate for the Democrats. Biden should have stood by his original intent of being a transitional candidate and let the party go through a proper primary. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's very doubtful she would have won the nomination and if the Democrats let the people choose as opposed to dictating the nominee to them, their candidate would have likely won yesterday.

---

Yeah I ithink that's probably true. Dems spend too much time on race, gender and the god awful trans issue. (which probably is one of the main reasons Latinos voted for Trump, besides them seeing him as a "bro").

You say people care about the economy, safety and affordability. Each of those metrics is good right now. So, with the exception of housing costs, why do you suppose people are concerned about the economy? Because these positive indices are not filtering down to the working and middle class? This is a big point because the tax rate for each of these classes is likely to go up, not down. And if tariffs are in place, you can expect a minimal 3% rise in costs for goods. Imported goods.

My point is, if the economy is good. If crime is down. If inflation is lowering. If unemployment is low. There have to be other factors in play here. And its the factors that are perhaps uncomfortable to talk about because we have to look at ourselves when we do it. I think your argument about the nomination process has merit. I doubt she would have won the nomination. But make no mistake as to the main reason why a Gavin Newsom or Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear would have done better. And yes, Newsom would have done better than Harris.

---

Agree with this and with the posts of "HK" and tequila4kapp. There are many different reasons -- different types of reasons -- that Harris didn't beat Trump, who was quite beatable. All the reasons just added up.

The media is playing up the "it's the economy, stupid" reason and that is maybe being overplayed, IMO, except to say that inflation is one aspect of the economy that everybody notices. Note that Ford and Carter were one-term Presidents during our previous bout with inflation, and since then, we've had several two-term Presidents.

Will also note that the assassination attempt, with the "Fight! Fight! Fight!" and the iconic photo made Trump look like a strong leader to some people probably was a key in helping him perform better with a few groups.

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden does own the ongoing slaughter in Gaza but it wasn't an election issue outside of Michigan

---

How does Biden own Gaza?

He doesn't control other countries.
He didn't invade Israel and he can't command the Israeli military.

Plus, Trump would not stop Israelis from obliterating Gaza in retaliation. So I don't know what the H you are talking about.

---

Biden was a weak President. Maybe age. Maybe demeanor.

Someone like Reagan would have said:

"Israel is an important ally in the Middle East and we must continue to ensure their safety while urging them to avoid creating a humanitarian crisis. To that end, I will be sending food, medicine, and other aid to Gaza and I have asked Israel for a full accounting of its activities in civilian-controlled regions in exchange for our support."

"Mr. Putin, the US supports Ukraine's right to sovereignty. If you do not end this senseless slaughter in Ukraine you will be damaging your relationship with the US and the ramifications will be extremely costly to you in every way imaginable."

The US can make threats, too, you know.

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden does own the ongoing slaughter in Gaza but it wasn't an election issue outside of Michigan

---

How does Biden own Gaza?

He doesn't control other countries.
He didn't invade Israel and he can't command the Israeli military.

Plus, Trump would not stop Israelis from obliterating Gaza in retaliation. So I don't know what the H you are talking about.

---

Biden was a weak President. Maybe age. Maybe demeanor.

Someone like Reagan would have said:

"Israel is an important ally in the Middle East and we must continue to ensure their safety while urging them to avoid creating a humanitarian crisis. To that end, I will be sending food, medicine, and other aid to Gaza and I have asked Israel for a full accounting of its activities in civilian-controlled regions in exchange for our support."

"Mr. Putin, the US supports Ukraine's right to sovereignty. If you do not end this senseless slaughter in Ukraine you will be damaging your relationship with the US and the ramifications will be extremely costly to you in every way imaginable."

The US can make threats, too, you know.

---

I'm sure Biden said all of that to the leaders involved. He's experienced and not untalented in dealing with diplomatic / foreign policy issues. His "condition" means he just has to go slower. His general grasp of the situation is fine.

I think Biden has been a pretty good President. I wish, a year ago, he had committed to limiting himself to a single term.

dajo9 said:

---

Lol at the old white men who are so far behind the times

---

Trump was the biggest winner last night. In second place was Joe Biden.

fixed it for you..
> One of the bright sides of Trump getting elected is that Ukraine is going to come to a quicker resolution, something along the lines of a Korean armistice with> Ukraine also demilitarizing slaughtered.

HKBear97! said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

concordtom said:

---

That, and the fact that she has a vagina, breasts, and dark skin.
I mean, let's be real. America is not so deep.

---

While Latino males are attracted to breasts, they are largely sexist and won't vote for a WOMAN.
Let alone a BLACK woman . . . and especially one who is championing women's reproductive rights/abortion.

Yes, welcome to Dumberica!

---

If this is the only lesson liberals take away from this result, then they will continue to lose elections going forward.

---

I dunno what else to conclude. I mean, Trump is an outrageous character, a cultural terrorist, a blatant scofflaw and criminal. He's as horrible a candidate imaginable.

Lessons? You think there are profound lessons here? Give me a break.

---

There absolutely are a million lessons. If you can stomach the fact he's on Fox go find some clips from Harold Ford, Jr. I thought he made some pretty insightful comments about what the election lessons are and where his party needs to go from here.

---

Perhaps there are some complexities involved. But I think its obvious that the US is not ready to elect a woman as President. I think, as Tom describes, there is just a tendancy in this country to want a man to do this job. We can muse about whether Joe should have stepped aside earlier. I don't think he was up to the challenge and probably would have lost anyway. But if she had gone through the primary process and went head-to-head with a Josh Shapiro or Andy Breshear, I don't think she would have won. So I suppose its the Dems fault but what options did we have? We couldn't "redo" the primaries or have a floor fight at the convention.

As for the "why" that so many men, women - both whites and minorities - feel a woman can't do the job. I think its masculinity. Its faith based. Its probably anti-feminism and certainly racism as well. I mean, what it all comes down to is that Trump won with a dip**** campaign. He was fellating a microphone. Held a Nazi type rally at MSG. Has Project 2025 as a map for all to see. No one cared. So, if its ok to be that openly crass - what else is there to turn to except the base instincts of racism and misogyny?

---

Racism and misogyny - I believe that's a key lesson right there. Liberals cling to this view that so many people's daily existence revolves almost exclusively around race, gender and sexual preference. Yes, those are hugely important, but they are not THE determining factor in how someone will vote. People care about the economy, affordability, safety, maintaining their standard of living and almost all distrust career politicians. Say what you will about Trump, but he's managed to position himself as an outsider and a quasi third-party candidate with some of his economic positions that straddle the right and left. Kamala is a career politician who ran for president in 2020 and received no support. She was an unpopular vice president and at one point was even considered a liability for Biden's reelection. She was given the nomination, it wasn't earned, and then proceeded to change her positions in a very stereotypical politician flip-flop. As the original post states, she was a terrible candidate for the Democrats. Biden should have stood by his original intent of being a transitional candidate and let the party go through a proper primary. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's very doubtful she would have won the nomination and if the Democrats let the people choose as opposed to dictating the nominee to them, their candidate would have likely won yesterday.

---

Yeah I ithink that's probably true. Dems spend too much time on race, gender and the god awful trans issue. (which probably is one of the main reasons Latinos voted for Trump, besides them seeing him as a "bro").

You say people care about the economy, safety and affordability. Each of those metrics is good right now. So, with the exception of housing costs, why do you suppose people are concerned about the economy? Because these positive indices are not filtering down to the working and middle class? This is a big point because the tax rate for each of these classes is likely to go up, not down. And if tariffs are in place, you can expect a minimal 3% rise in costs for goods. Imported goods.

My point is, if the economy is good. If crime is down. If inflation is lowering. If unemployment is low. There have to be other factors in play here. And its the factors that are perhaps uncomfortable to talk about because we have to look at ourselves when we do it. I think your argument about the nomination process has merit. I doubt she would have won the nomination. But make no mistake as to the main reason why a Gavin Newsom or Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear would have done better. And yes, Newsom would have done better than Harris.

---

Actually, the metrics are not great. Inflation increased by over 20% during Biden's presidency with significant increases in food, gas and utilities. Yes, the most recent CPI numbers show the year-over-year increase at around the target of 2%, but that is just 2% above prices that increased significantly since 2020. A huge part of the inflation was caused by the $1.9 trillion stimulus passed shortly after taking office - way too much fiscal stimulus when it wasn't needed. Crime is also up - most recent FBI statistics show a 4.5% increase in violent crime in 2022. Look no further than here in California where voters just passed Proposition 36 with a 70% yes vote. And no one on the left wants. to admit that the influx of immigrants, along with restrictive building policies, are important contributors to increased housing prices. The rising cost of everything is a constant topic.

Anecdotally, I was listening to KNX1070 this morning and they interviewed two Latino men in Los Angeles that voted for Trump. When asked why they didn't vote for Harris, one responded that she was in office for four years already and didn't do anything about prices then, so why would you think another four years would be different? The other complained about rising grocery prices. Those outside the upper middle class and above certainly do not believe all is well.

---

I'm not sure why I'm bothering but, here goes. You're wrong on alot of counts here.

Stimulus

Are you forgetting the two stimulus packages totaling $3.1 trillion dollars that Trump enacted? Yeah. No, that had no effect on inflation. lol But let's move on.

Economists from Brookings, Cato, Reserve Bank have studied this and there is no one conclusion that the stimulus caused inflation. What is generally agreed upon is that it did contribute to inflation but the scope of it and how long it contributed are debated What is clear is this:. #1 reason was the pandemic. The shutdown. And the quick attempt at a restart. Productivity declines, prices increase. #2 Consumer spending. Since we couldn't go out and spend, we saved. Couple those savings with the Cares Act enacted in March 2020. that was $1200 to people making under $75k. At the end of 2020, your hero enacted another stimulus measure. $600 to most Americans. With money in their pockets, demand exploded on goods. Production couldn't keep up. #3 - Ukraine war. Supply and demand repercussions from this war and the associated banning of Russian oil. #4 Timing. People spent their money fast. This contributed to white hot demand which the supply chain could not keep up with. Add into int'l events (that ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal), climate events, and aging supply chain infrastructure. It couldn't keep up.

The numbers that are generally accepted is that the stimulus packages (all 4 of them) contributed between1-4% inflation, with most economists arriving at 1-2%. The length of that contribution is also a question. Many conclude that these packages were immediately felt in 2020-21 but then the effects tapered off. But, what is your counterargument? That we should have done nothing? If that were the case we would have had rabid unemployment. is that your solution?

Crime

This one comes up and up and up all the time. For the last time, violent crime is down. This is from the FBI:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2024-quarterly-crime-report-and-use-of-force-data-update-q2#:~:text=A%20comparison%20of%20data%20from,aggravated%20assault%20decreased%20by%208.1%25.

It basically says that between comparative months January to June in the years 2023 and 2024, violent crime decreased by 10.3%. Murder decreased by 22.7%, rape decreased by 17.7%, robbery decreased by 13.6%, and aggravated assault decreased by 8.1%. Reported property crime also decreased by 13.1%. Give this a rest.

Prop 36 does not address violent crime. It addresses shoplifting and drug use. Theft/larceny is also down. The only metric that has increased is auto theft.

immigration and restrictive building policies. Hmm...in our beautiful central valley, houses are being built at an incredible clip. Bay Area folks are buying it all up. So, how would an immigrant afford homes like these? Apartments? Theyre not being built. And few communities want them. And the ones that are being built by builders like RH Community Builders here - well they only let out a certain percentage for low income housing. So I'd like to know who you blame for that since most of this is market based? Puhleez.

As for the Latinos on KNX (I'm assuming you live in LA). Perhaps they would want to know that grocery corporations had a hand and admitted so to purposefully rising egg and milk prices. See link below:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2024/02/07/why-your-groceries-are-still-so-expensive/

Look especially at the header - Workers Get Disproportionately Blamed for High Prices

Low education/informed voters. Trump loves the uneducated. Cheers.

philly1121 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

concordtom said:

---

That, and the fact that she has a vagina, breasts, and dark skin.
I mean, let's be real. America is not so deep.

---

While Latino males are attracted to breasts, they are largely sexist and won't vote for a WOMAN.
Let alone a BLACK woman . . . and especially one who is championing women's reproductive rights/abortion.

Yes, welcome to Dumberica!

---

If this is the only lesson liberals take away from this result, then they will continue to lose elections going forward.

---

I dunno what else to conclude. I mean, Trump is an outrageous character, a cultural terrorist, a blatant scofflaw and criminal. He's as horrible a candidate imaginable.

Lessons? You think there are profound lessons here? Give me a break.

---

There absolutely are a million lessons. If you can stomach the fact he's on Fox go find some clips from Harold Ford, Jr. I thought he made some pretty insightful comments about what the election lessons are and where his party needs to go from here.

---

Perhaps there are some complexities involved. But I think its obvious that the US is not ready to elect a woman as President. I think, as Tom describes, there is just a tendancy in this country to want a man to do this job. We can muse about whether Joe should have stepped aside earlier. I don't think he was up to the challenge and probably would have lost anyway. But if she had gone through the primary process and went head-to-head with a Josh Shapiro or Andy Breshear, I don't think she would have won. So I suppose its the Dems fault but what options did we have? We couldn't "redo" the primaries or have a floor fight at the convention.

As for the "why" that so many men, women - both whites and minorities - feel a woman can't do the job. I think its masculinity. Its faith based. Its probably anti-feminism and certainly racism as well. I mean, what it all comes down to is that Trump won with a dip**** campaign. He was fellating a microphone. Held a Nazi type rally at MSG. Has Project 2025 as a map for all to see. No one cared. So, if its ok to be that openly crass - what else is there to turn to except the base instincts of racism and misogyny?

---

Racism and misogyny - I believe that's a key lesson right there. Liberals cling to this view that so many people's daily existence revolves almost exclusively around race, gender and sexual preference. Yes, those are hugely important, but they are not THE determining factor in how someone will vote. People care about the economy, affordability, safety, maintaining their standard of living and almost all distrust career politicians. Say what you will about Trump, but he's managed to position himself as an outsider and a quasi third-party candidate with some of his economic positions that straddle the right and left. Kamala is a career politician who ran for president in 2020 and received no support. She was an unpopular vice president and at one point was even considered a liability for Biden's reelection. She was given the nomination, it wasn't earned, and then proceeded to change her positions in a very stereotypical politician flip-flop. As the original post states, she was a terrible candidate for the Democrats. Biden should have stood by his original intent of being a transitional candidate and let the party go through a proper primary. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's very doubtful she would have won the nomination and if the Democrats let the people choose as opposed to dictating the nominee to them, their candidate would have likely won yesterday.

---

Yeah I ithink that's probably true. Dems spend too much time on race, gender and the god awful trans issue. (which probably is one of the main reasons Latinos voted for Trump, besides them seeing him as a "bro").

You say people care about the economy, safety and affordability. Each of those metrics is good right now. So, with the exception of housing costs, why do you suppose people are concerned about the economy? Because these positive indices are not filtering down to the working and middle class? This is a big point because the tax rate for each of these classes is likely to go up, not down. And if tariffs are in place, you can expect a minimal 3% rise in costs for goods. Imported goods.

My point is, if the economy is good. If crime is down. If inflation is lowering. If unemployment is low. There have to be other factors in play here. And its the factors that are perhaps uncomfortable to talk about because we have to look at ourselves when we do it. I think your argument about the nomination process has merit. I doubt she would have won the nomination. But make no mistake as to the main reason why a Gavin Newsom or Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear would have done better. And yes, Newsom would have done better than Harris.

---

Actually, the metrics are not great. Inflation increased by over 20% during Biden's presidency with significant increases in food, gas and utilities. Yes, the most recent CPI numbers show the year-over-year increase at around the target of 2%, but that is just 2% above prices that increased significantly since 2020. A huge part of the inflation was caused by the $1.9 trillion stimulus passed shortly after taking office - way too much fiscal stimulus when it wasn't needed. Crime is also up - most recent FBI statistics show a 4.5% increase in violent crime in 2022. Look no further than here in California where voters just passed Proposition 36 with a 70% yes vote. And no one on the left wants. to admit that the influx of immigrants, along with restrictive building policies, are important contributors to increased housing prices. The rising cost of everything is a constant topic.

Anecdotally, I was listening to KNX1070 this morning and they interviewed two Latino men in Los Angeles that voted for Trump. When asked why they didn't vote for Harris, one responded that she was in office for four years already and didn't do anything about prices then, so why would you think another four years would be different? The other complained about rising grocery prices. Those outside the upper middle class and above certainly do not believe all is well.

---

I'm not sure why I'm bothering but, here goes. You're wrong on alot of counts here.

Stimulus

Are you forgetting the two stimulus packages totaling $3.1 trillion dollars that Trump enacted? Yeah. No, that had no effect on inflation. lol But let's move on.

Economists from Brookings, Cato, Reserve Bank have studied this and there is no one conclusion that the stimulus caused inflation. What is generally agreed upon is that it did contribute to inflation but the scope of it and how long it contributed are debated What is clear is this:. #1 reason was the pandemic. The shutdown. And the quick attempt at a restart. Productivity declines, prices increase. #2 Consumer spending. Since we couldn't go out and spend, we saved. Couple those savings with the Cares Act enacted in March 2020. that was $1200 to people making under $75k. At the end of 2020, your hero enacted another stimulus measure. $600 to most Americans. With money in their pockets, demand exploded on goods. Production couldn't keep up. #3 - Ukraine war. Supply and demand repercussions from this war and the associated banning of Russian oil. #4 Timing. People spent their money fast. This contributed to white hot demand which the supply chain could not keep up with. Add into int'l events (that ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal), climate events, and aging supply chain infrastructure. It couldn't keep up.

The numbers that are generally accepted is that the stimulus packages (all 4 of them) contributed between1-4% inflation, with most economists arriving at 1-2%. The length of that contribution is also a question. Many conclude that these packages were immediately felt in 2020-21 but then the effects tapered off. But, what is your counterargument? That we should have done nothing? If that were the case we would have had rabid unemployment. is that your solution?

Crime

This one comes up and up and up all the time. For the last time, violent crime is down. This is from the FBI:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2024-quarterly-crime-report-and-use-of-force-data-update-q2#:~:text=A%20comparison%20of%20data%20from,aggravated%20assault%20decreased%20by%208.1%25.

It basically says that between comparative months January to June in the years 2023 and 2024, violent crime decreased by 10.3%. Murder decreased by 22.7%, rape decreased by 17.7%, robbery decreased by 13.6%, and aggravated assault decreased by 8.1%. Reported property crime also decreased by 13.1%. Give this a rest.

Prop 36 does not address violent crime. It addresses shoplifting and drug use. Theft/larceny is also down. The only metric that has increased is auto theft.

immigration and restrictive building policies. Hmm...in our beautiful central valley, houses are being built at an incredible clip. Bay Area folks are buying it all up. So, how would an immigrant afford homes like these? Apartments? Theyre not being built. And few communities want them. And the ones that are being built by builders like RH Community Builders here - well they only let out a certain percentage for low income housing. So I'd like to know who you blame for that since most of this is market based? Puhleez.

As for the Latinos on KNX (I'm assuming you live in LA). Perhaps they would want to know that grocery corporations had a hand and admitted so to purposefully rising egg and milk prices. See link below:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2024/02/07/why-your-groceries-are-still-so-expensive/

Look especially at the header - Workers Get Disproportionately Blamed for High Prices

Low education/informed voters. Trump loves the uneducated. Cheers.

---

1) Trump's stimulus occurred while the economy was shut down. Biden's occurred after the economy reopened and there was already an immense demand for goods. It was stupid and insane.

2) Yes, the districts that voluntarily reported their violent crime data showed decreases. A lot of districts are excluded from this study, such as those that didn't voluntarily participate.

3) Yes, the main issue is property crime. It explodes under democratic "leadership."