Too bad they got to her before she had a chance to debate Biden & Sanders alone.
Last edited:
UPDATE: Donald Trump Takes Office as the 47th US President
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
Too bad they got to her before she had a chance to debate Biden & Sanders alone.
Hell yeah!!! I know bout going to Murray's and picking up those massive blueberry muffins to go with the meat.
Always felt if she ran against Hillary she would've been president. Unless her name was earl she would've loss also.
wha....?
Historically, authoritarian movements and their leaders ALWAYS identify an enemy for intolerant people to direct their existing bias fueled outrage.
Hitler identified homosexuals before he began the marginalization of Jews. It doesn't matter WHO the target is, as long as hatred can be sufficiently directed at a particular group. This give cover for outrages behavior, not sanctioned by the constitution.
In other words, people who already dislike anybody not white are happy to see migrants disappeared and sent to concentration camps. After all, they are brown and Black, and therefore deserving of harsh treatment in their minds. That said, they are happy to turn a blind eye to the desecration of the rights of those people. After all, they are brown and Black.
Problem is, authoritarians ALWAYS end up adding to the list of personas non gratis: they go after intellectuals, including teachers and artists, because these people are the gatekeepers to knowledge and the gift of effective communication. They usually go after people already marginalized by social norms, homosexuals for example. The list grows at the whim of whomever is established as "dear leader" It is a tactic they ALWAYS use.
In essence, it seems you might be confused about the true motives of people who vote maga. They don't necessarily believe the bullshit they are fed. Rather, they use said bullshit as cover to do what they always wanted to do in the first place, hang a negro, rape a latina, burn a Jew, without fear of repercussion due to there status as white Americans.
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who DO study history are doomed to stand by helplessly and watch the uninformed repeat it.
Just sayin'.
If Everyone Had Voted, Harris Still Would Have Lost
New data, based on authoritative voter records, suggests that Donald Trump would have done even better in 2024 with higher turnout.
By Nate Cohn
June 26, 2025Updated 11:59 a.m. ET
Image
A voting line in Phoenix in November. Credit...Jon Cherry for The New York Times
In the wake of last November’s election, many Democrats blamed low turnout for Kamala Harris’s defeat.It wasn’t entirely without reason, as turnout dropped in Democratic areas, but many months later it is clear the blame was misplaced. Newly available data, based on authoritative voter turnout records, suggests that if anything, President Trump would have done even better if everyone had voted.The new data, including a new study from Pew Research released Thursday, instead offers a more dispiriting explanation for Democrats: Young, nonwhite and irregular voters defected by the millions to Mr. Trump, costing Ms. Harris both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
The findings suggest that Mr. Trump’s brand of conservative populism once again turned politics-as-usual upside down, as his gains among disengaged voters deprived Democrats of their traditional advantage with this group, who are disproportionately young and nonwhite.
For a generation, the assumption that Democrats benefit from high turnout has underpinned the hopes and machinations of both parties, from Republican support for restrictive voting laws to Democratic hopes of mobilizing a new progressive coalition of young and nonwhite voters. It’s not clear whether Democrats will struggle with irregular voters in the future, but the data nonetheless essentially ends the debate about whether Ms. Harris lost because she alienated swing voters or because she failed to energize her base. In the end, Democrats alienated voters whose longtime support they might have taken for granted.
The 2024 election may feel like old news, especially in the wake of Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York City on Tuesday, but the best data on the outcome has only recently become available. Over the last two months, the last few states updated their official records of who did or did not vote in the election. These records unlock the most authoritative studies of the electorate, which link voter turnout records to high-quality surveys.
The post-election studies aren’t perfect, but they all tell the same story: Nonvoters preferred Mr. Trump, even if only narrowly. None show Ms. Harris winning nonvoters by the wide margin she would have needed to overcome her deficit among those who turned out.
Six estimates of whom 2024 nonvoters preferred
[td]American National Election Study[/td] [td]AP Votecast[/td] [td]Blue Rose Research[/td] [td]Cooperative Election Study[/td] [td]New York Times[/td] [td]Pew Research[/td]
Trump +2043 - 23 Trump +647 - 41 Trump +1156 - 44 Trump <137 - 37 Trump +653 - 47 Trump +444 - 40
Figures from Blue Rose Research and The New York Times represent major party vote share. Figures from all studies except Pew Research’s are limited to registered voters. Figures from Blue Rose Research, The New York Times and Pew Research are based on matched data from voter records; the rest use self-reported voter status.
It’s worth remembering that the actual election results appeared to suggest something very different. Ms. Harris received millions of fewer votes than Joe Biden did, and turnout plunged in many heavily Democratic areas. Similarly, a prominent post-election survey implied that millions of Biden voters stayed home. Together, it suggested that low turnout may have cost Ms. Harris the election, an argument echoed even by Tim Walz, her vice-presidential nominee.
In a sense, the voter turnout records confirm the post-election conventional wisdom: The voters who stayed home really were relatively “Democratic” — or at least they appeared to be Democrats. They were more Democratic by party registration or primary vote history than voters who turned out, with 26 percent Democrats and 17 percent Republicans (most nonvoters don’t participate in primaries or register with a major party). They were disproportionately young and nonwhite. On average, the new studies estimate that the voters who turned out in 2020 but not 2024 backed Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump by a double-digit margin.The same studies nonetheless find that nonvoters wouldn’t have backed Ms. Harris if they had turned out to vote in 2024. At some point over the last few years, many of them soured on Democrats and stayed home as a result. If they had voted, many would have backed Mr. Trump.The decline in Democratic support among young and nonwhite voters and the decline in Democratic turnout can be understood as part of a single phenomenon: As traditionally Democratic voters soured on their party, some decided to show up and vote for Mr. Trump and others simply decided to stay home. But if they did show up, polling data suggests they would have voted for Mr. Trump in surprising numbers.
Ms. Harris would have won only 72 percent of the registered Democrats who stayed home, according to estimates based on New York Times/Siena College data, compared with 89 percent of the registered Democrats who showed up. There’s no equivalent pattern of a drop in support for Mr. Trump among Republicans who stayed home.Another factor helping to reconcile the new studies with the election tallies is that Ms. Harris may have been somewhat stronger among the narrower group of nonvoters who voted in 2020 but stayed home in 2024. On average across the studies, Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump were essentially tied among this group, with several studies showing Ms. Harris with an edge.Nonetheless, Ms. Harris greatly underperformed how the same studies found Mr. Biden fared with the 2020-but-not-2024 group. She did not fare nearly well enough to prevail, even if these voters had returned to the electorate.The voters the Democrats lost in 2024 may not be lost for good. Still, their willingness to support Mr. Trump may throw a wrench in Democratic strategies. Until now, Democrats mostly assumed that irregular young and nonwhite voters were so-called mobilization targets — voters who would back Democrats if they voted, but needed to be lured to the polls with more door knocks, more liberal voting laws or a more progressive candidate. At least for now, this assumption can’t be sustained.
This assumption had important implications in a decade-long debate about whether Democrats should win by mobilizing new voters or persuading swing voters. While this debate was seemingly about arcane electoral tactics, it was really a proxy for whether the party should move toward the left or the center, with progressives arguing that a bold agenda could motivate new voters and moderates saying the party needed to pivot toward the center to win swing voters.This debate still goes on, but it does not make nearly as much sense as it did a few years ago. In the last election, the usual “mobilization” targets — the disengaged, the young, and low-turnout voters or nonvoters — became the swing voters. And they swung to a candidate who stood against everything Democrats imagined that these voters represented.This badly hurts the case for the usual mobilization argument, but it doesn’t as easily argue for a centrist candidate, either. The usual argument for “persuasion” imagined a very different group — predominantly suburban, moderate, white swing voters — who would more clearly be receptive to a moderate candidate. While the young and nonwhite voters are clearly not doctrinaire progressives, they are still deeply dissatisfied with the status quo and seek fundamental changes to America’s economic and political system. The case for a moderate like Mr. Biden in 2020 took Democratic support among young and nonwhite voters for granted, just as progressives did.Either way, there isn’t such a clear distinction between persuasion and mobilization, if there ever was. Both wings of the party will need to go back to the drawing board.
Nate Cohn is The Times’s chief political analyst. He covers elections, public opinion, demographics and polling.
See more on: 2024 Elections: News, Polls and Analysis, U.S. Politics, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris
I am not aware of any statistic that can reasonably estimate how someone who stayed home PROBABLY would have voted had they voted.
Considering the source of the data, the Times and Siena college, one has to wonder about the objectivity of the author, who is apparently employed by the Times. One also has to wonder what the sample size was, and whether surveys were conducted randomly.
Without this information, those are simply a lot of words with little meaning...
UNLESS ...
one considers the fact that neither racism, conservatism nor sexism were mentioned in the article. One cannot live to adulthood in this country and have an i.q. above 12 without realizing that racism and sexism significantly influence voter turn out in this country, and for whom they decide to vote (even among Black folk: many people didn't think Kamala was Black enough, and many so-called brothas WILL NOT vote for a woman of any color).
Last edited:
They polled people who didn't vote and 6 different polls (only one conducted by the NY times) had trump ahead among non-voters. So had the non-voters voted they probably would have voted for Trump. Therefore voter turnout wasn't the problem for Kamala.
But to your point America may be more sexist than racist. Black men got the right to vote before women so this country was kind of built on keeping women out of politics.
And I know this cuz I listen to Stephanie Miller in the morning on SiriusXm.
She is a Lesbian and has a co-host who is gay.
They routinely point out how MAGA uses LGBT norms in crazy rhetoric.
Considering how things are going now, I'm only surprised that he didn't win.
The real reason behind that IMMEDIATE Ceasefire after only 12-Days later:
NEW: War With Iran Is Bleeding Israel’s Economy
Israel’s 12-day war with Iran has cost billions according to a report by Anadolu Agency. They report the war’s first week alone cost $5 billion, with daily expenses reaching $725 million.
➤ Most of that—$593 million—was used for offensive strikes, while $132 million went to air defenses and military mobilization.
➤ The Wall Street Journal reported that daily costs of missile defense systems ranged from $10M to $200M.
➤ Had the conflict lasted a month, the total cost could have topped $12 billion, the Aaron Institute estimated.
➤ Palestinian finance expert Naser Abdelkarim warns that indirect costs could raise the total to $20 billion, factoring in lost productivity and evacuations.
➤ Iran’s strikes shut down Israel’s largest oil refinery, halted flights at Ben Gurion Airport, and disrupted the diamond sector—triggering investor panic and fueling instability in Israel’s financial markets.
➤ The Israeli Ministry of Finance has requested an additional $857 million for the Ministry of Defense to fund war-related expenses (like reservist pay and mobilization).
➤ At the same time, it proposed cutting $200 million from health, education, and social services to help fund the deficit.
Video: An Iranian missile struck the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange building on Thursday, June 19
You know this can’t be enforced, right? He should inform his audience that the law cannot be enforced on federal agents. Instead of spreading disinformation for clicks and views.
Right on time for PRIDE Month
That was reportedly among the concessions for Iran to stop pummeling TF out of Israel's infrastructure and economy. Israel was looking more like Gaza, the longer that missile exchange continues. Iran can keep that up for months and YEARS.
It was never about "deporting criminals". It's the wet dream of the rabid MAGA base to have a President deporting what they feel is the cause of the changing demographics ("too much browning") that they don't like, regardless of legal status. Those ICE Agents and ICE IMPERSONATORS would never roll up on actual armed gangs collectively. It's easier to fuck with regular Brown and Black productive members of society for photo-op appearances and perceived as less dangerous than walking up on the turf of gangs who shoot. It's perceived to be the less dangerous option.
It's also a wet fantasy of an ICE IMPERSONATOR to to get their RAPE rocks off in slapping cuffs on, fondling to check for "papers", and tossing unsuspecting women in a random vehicle to drive to a more secluded area for coerced sex: "You're a pretty Latina. Tell ya what, I can cut you a break if we make some ongoing special arrangements".
Yep, Trump bombed three nuclear facilities that were already evacuated, with uranian stockpiles and other equipment transferred to unclosed, deep underground nuclear facility locations. The bombs didn't even penetrate deep underground to "completely obliterate" the facilities. Minimal damage. And Iran received more concessions, Including $30B in exchange for Iran to agree to the Ceasefire after 12-Days of Israel taking a pummeling of missiles.
The difference here is that Obama gave Iran $400M of their own unfrozen profits without bombing their nation at the whim of Israel. Anyone saying Kamala Harris would have bombed Iran too is a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT.
Last edited:
Similar threads
