2024 Election Results....Here We Go!

[O Really]

The American voter is not as smart as often presented. Votes are based on personal conditions, which a President may or may not have affected; overall perceptions, which may or may not be close to reality; and of course party biases. As a whole, they're totally incapable of saying "I'm not happy with how Biden's done, but Trump isn't the answer. They're all sorta like Auburn football - fire the coach is always the answer, even when that's not necessarily the problem.

[Vrede too]

Provocative:

‘Second Resistance to Trump’ has already begun, but it won’t work so well this time

I checked early on to see if the author is a RWer. He's not. Jonathan Turley is an esteemed academic, practicing lawyer and advocate of civil liberties and constitutional rights.

The single most common principle of recovery programs is that the first step is to admit that you have a problem.

That first step continues to elude the politicians and pundits who unsuccessfully pushed lawfare and panic politics for years. That includes prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James and politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who affirmed this week that they will be redoubling, not reconsidering, their past positions....

It is important to note at the outset that there is no reason Democratic activists should abandon their values just because they lost this election. Our system is strengthened by passionate and active advocacy.

Rather, it is the collective fury and delirium of the post-election protests that was so disconcerting. Pundits lashed out at the majority of voters, insisting that the election established that half of the nation is composed of racists, misogynists or domination addicts who long to submit to tyranny.

Others blamed free speech and the fact that social media allows “disinformation” to be read by ignorant voters. In other words, the problem could not possibly be themselves. It was, rather, the public, which refused to listen.

That does not bode well for the Democratic Party. As someone raised in a liberal politically active family in Chicago, I had hoped for greater introspection after this election blowout....

For months, Democratic leaders denounced Donald Trump and his supporters as fascists and neo-Nazis. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and others suggested that democracy itself was about to die unless Democrats were kept in power.

Just before the election, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called those voting for Trump “anti-American.” By Hochul’s measure, over half of the American electorate is now “anti-American.”

James is the face of lawfare. She may have done more to reelect Trump than anyone other than the president himself. She ran on nailing Trump on something, anything. In New York, she was joined by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in this ill-conceived effort. They fulfilled the narrative of a weaponized legal system. Every new legal action seemed to produce another surge in polling for Trump.

Yet there James was, soon after the election, with another press conference promising again to unleash the powers of her office to stop Trump’s policies.

Then there was Pritzker, doing the community theater version of “The Avengers” and declaring, “You come for my people, you come through me.”

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) added that he too will “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda....

Democrats lost after opposing policies supported by an astonishing share of the public at a time of deep political division. That effort included opposing voter ID laws favored by 84 percent of the public, among other things.

They are now committed to opposing policies central to this election blowout, including deportations of illegal immigrants, which is favored in some polls by two-thirds of Americans....

According to CNN, Trump’s performance was the best among young people (18-29 years old) in 20 years, the best among Black voters in 48 years, and the best among Hispanic voters in more than 50 years.

Harris actually lost a bit of support with women, and Trump won handily among some groups of women.

None of that seems to matter this time. We have an alliance of political media and academic interests wholly untethered to the views of most of the public....

Various Democratic governors are also pledging to thwart Trump’s policies despite the results of the election.

The “second resistance” will try to use state power to oppose the very issues and policies that led to this historic political shift. That means that there will be a legal shift in the focus of litigation to inherent federal powers versus state powers. That battle will favor the Trump administration.

In fairness to these Democratic politicians, they are certainly free to go to the courts, as Republicans did under Biden to argue for limitations on federal powers. But the promise of California Gov. Gavin Newsom to “Trump-proof” the state is easier to make rhetorically than it will be to keep legally....

Congress may even seek to tie the receipt of federal funds to states cooperating with federal mandates. For this reason, Democrats, who campaigned on the promise to end the filibuster for the good of democracy, suddenly became firm believers in that Senate rule right around 2:30 a.m. last Wednesday.

As the majority of the country walks away from the party shaking their heads, many activists are left only with their rage....

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

I'll keep my lefty rage, but I'm okay with pols choosing a more measured path.

[Vrede too]

[GoCubsGo]

Provocative:



I checked early on to see if the author is a RWer. He's not.

Not so much anymore.

What Happened to Jonathan Turley, Really?
Some years ago, academics and legal and political commentators began joining in a lament that eventually became a kind of trope: “What the heck has happened to Jonathan Turley?” The sad refrain recalled that George Washington University law professor Turley was once a serious and respected legal scholar—a civil libertarian who often constructively criticized liberal cant –and then observed that he had turned his energy into appearing all over the media, but especially welcomed the chance to be on Fox News. Turley, who acknowledges that he is a paid Fox News contributor, began to regularly pop up on the Fox shows that purport to be journalistic, but also the clownishly right-wing Fox & Friends in the morning and then the demagogic right-wing propaganda evening programming. He presented himself as a kind of Alan Dershowitz with table manners—his stance was that of one of the last remaining “principled liberals” speaking truth to leftist power.

[O Really]

Turley's essay is interesting, but is like one of those things that sound reasonable on the surface until you look a little deeper.

F'rinstance: "Democrats lost after opposing policies supported by an astonishing share of the public at a time of deep political division. That effort included opposing voter ID laws favored by 84 percent of the public, among other things." Nevermind that as far as I know, all states already have voter ID, except it's to register. So presenting an ID to vote seems OK, except that there is no demonstrable voting problem that would be solved by that, so one asks "why"? and the answer comes up "to inconvenience people and suppress the vote of likely Dem voters. Maybe if they asked "are you in favor of suppressing the vote by requiring an additional and unnecessary ID presented upon voting?" you might not get 84 percent.


And, "They are now committed to opposing policies central to this election blowout, including deportations of illegal immigrants, which is favored in some polls by two-thirds of Americans...." Well sure "deportations of illegal immigrants" sounds good. But there's a lot of that going on and most of the people repugs point at aren't illegals. They're taking advantage of the ridiculous asylum laws that repugs refuse to change. And would those "two thirds" favour the question if asked "do you approve of requiring all non-caucasians to carry and show "their papers" even if they're citizens or legal residents?" "Do you approve of legal agricultural and industrial operations being closed or disrupted while searching for some deportees"? "Do you approve of severe food shortages and shortages in construction, landscaping, and service industries?" I'm thinking the poll would have a different result.


And finally: "Just before the election, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called those voting for Trump “anti-American.” By Hochul’s measure, over half of the American electorate is now “anti-American.”

Let's think about that. If being "American" requires a loyalty to the US Constitution, to the rule of law, to respect for American principles, values, and at least an understanding that the country was built by and on the backs of immigrants and that some or many of those were "...your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore," then Trump voters are anti-American.

If being "American" requires at least a passive belief in "liberty and justice for all," then Trump voters are anti-American.

If being "American" requires supporting and defending all parts of the First Amendment, then Trump voters are anti-American.

If being "American" requires supporting the principles of government checks and balances, then Trump voters are anti-American.

I could go on, but clearly Hochul was right. Which is why we're doomed.

[GoCubsGo]

Well worded lipstick on a pig.

[Vrede too]

Turley's essay is interesting, but is like one of those things that sound reasonable on the surface until you look a little deeper.

I said that it's provocative.

I didn't read Turley as discussing whether Dem positions are objectively correct or not, but rather discussing how these issues are perceived by large portions of the public. The conclusion is that Dems either need to change their positions or explain them so well that popular opinion shifts. One or the other has to happen on a wide range of issues or the Dems keep losing.

As for Hochul, many of these MAGAts believe they and TRE45QN are defending the US Constitution, the rule of law, American principles and values, our history of legal immigration, "liberty and justice for all," the First Amendment and the principles of government checks and balances. They don't wake up and say, "I'm going to be anti-American today." They think we're the anti-American ones. It's no surprise that their educational achievement, on average, is inferior to Dem voters.

So, we have to persuade them that they're wrong, which they are, recruit new voters who agree with us, or cede government to them. It sucks.

Turley says, "It is important to note at the outset that there is no reason Democratic activists should abandon their values just because they lost this election." He seems to be arguing for a change in our tactics, not our beliefs. You know me, I'm not listening. I enjoy my "rage", thank you, including trashing MAGAts at every opportunity. However, Dem leaders may wish to be more introspective. We may not survive last Tuesday, we certainly won't survive more of them.

[O Really]

As for Hochul, many of these MAGAts believe they and TRE45QN are defending the US Constitution, the rule of law, American principles and values, our history of legal immigration, "liberty and justice for all," the First Amendment and the principles of government checks and balances. They don't wake up and say, "I'm going to be anti-American today." They think we're the anti-American ones. It's no surprise that their educational achievement, on average, is inferior to Dem voters.

.

Yeah, and many of those same people believe they can talk to some bearded guy in a robe up in the sky somewhere and ask him to help their team to win its games. Doesn't make it true.

[Vrede too]

Yeah, and many of those same people believe they can talk to some bearded guy in a robe up in the sky somewhere and ask him to help their team to win its games. Doesn't make it true.

Not even Notre Dame?

It's true that they have the right to vote their beliefs, whether rational of not, and that's what the Dems have to contend with.

... The conclusion is that Dems either need to change their (own) positions or explain them so well that popular opinion shifts. One or the other has to happen on a wide range of issues or the Dems keep losing....

So, we have to persuade them that they're wrong, which they are, recruit new voters who agree with us, or cede government to them. It sucks....

[Vrede too]

I am pleased and grateful that NC voted Dem for Gov, AG and SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. However, I'm still dismayed and frightened by:
Misogynist Asshole Mark Robinson got 2,226,780 (40.16%) votes for Gov.
Dan Bishop, anti-choice extremist, got 2,697,503 (48.65%) votes for AG.
Michele Morrow, homeschooling christofascist, got 2,688,877 (48.89%) votes for schools boss.

Robinson "only" got 45.41% in Henderson County, but the RepuQs won the other races. More than half my neighbors are hateful idiots.

[Vrede too]

Fingers crossed, but I'm not holding my breath:

Why DDHQ hasn’t called the Pennsylvania Senate race

... Three-term incumbent Sen. Bob Casey (D) currently trails Republican David McCormick by about 35,000 votes, or 0.5 percent of the vote, just within the threshold required for an automatic statewide recount. But while McCormick has declared victory and The Associated Press has projected him as the winner, Casey hasn’t yet conceded, and The Hill’s partner DDHQ and other networks have not issued a race call.

David McCormick GOP 3,379,962 (48.9%)
Bob Casey Jr. * DEM 3,350,690 (48.5%)

... While more than 95 percent of votes cast are estimated to have been counted, Tranter said DDHQ believes somewhere between 80,000 and 115,000 provisional, military and overseas and domestic absentee ballots could be outstanding. The exact number is uncertain because of how counties report their votes, but these votes could heavily favor Casey, giving the Democrat a chance at pulling off a win.

“With McCormick’s margin less than 40,000 votes and the potential for these ballots to break towards Casey in a significant way, DDHQ needs to see more of these votes counted before a projection can be made,” Tranter said....

“My priority has always been standing up for the people of Pennsylvania. Across our Commonwealth, close to 7 million people cast their votes in a free and fair election,” Casey said in a statement Tuesday. “Our county election officials will finish counting those votes, just like they do in every election. The American democratic process was born in Pennsylvania and that process will play out.”...

Count every vote!

[Vrede too]

NPR (AP) has called 218 for the House GQP, a majority. 8 or 9 races are not called yet, red leads in 4.

[Vrede too]

Dick Van Dyke Has Hilariously Dark Response To Trump's Election Win
The legendary entertainer found a silver lining — sort of.

Supercalifragilistic-our-future-looks-atrocious — and Dick Van Dyke is not helping!

But he might just make you laugh.

The Daily Mail recently spotted the “Mary Poppins” star, 98, in a parking garage and asked him if he thinks President-elect Donald Trump is actually “capable of making America great again?”

In response, the “The Dick Van Dyke Show” alum dryly responded: “Fortunately, I won’t be around to experience the four years.”

The “Bye Bye Birdie” star’s blunt response shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

The day before the election, Van Dyke endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris by referencing a speech he gave at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum with Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964....

VOTE!! ‪@kamalaharris‬
Dick Van Dyke
44.9K subscribers
28K views 9 days ago

x 98

[Vrede too]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-ax ... 7e9a38/amp

David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Barack Obama during his presidency, on Thursday said Democrats have “become a smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated party” ― and that led to Kamala Harris’ defeat in the White House race.

Many pundits have been upping their blame game in the aftermath of the 2024 election. But analysis from Axelrod, a strategist who successfully helped engineer both of Obama’s national campaigns, merits attention.

“I do have concerns about the way the Democratic Party relates to working-class voters in this country,” Axelrod told broadcaster Anderson Cooper on CNN. “The only group that Democrats gained with in the election on Tuesday was white college graduates. And among working-class voters, there was a significant decline.”

He continued to hammer home a point about the more affluent income bracket that Harris appealed to.

“The only group ... Democrats won among were people who make more than $100,000 a year,” Axelrod said. “You can’t win national elections that way, and it certainly shouldn’t be that way for a party that fashions itself as the party of working people.”

Axelrod suggested snobbery played a part in Democrats’ failed messaging after President Joe Biden had helped working people.

“You can’t approach working people like missionaries and say, ‘We’re here to help you become more like us.’ There’s a kind of unspoken disdain, unintended disdain in that,” he said.

“I think Biden has done programmatically some good things for working people. But the party itself has increasingly become a smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated party, and it lends itself to the kind of backlash that we’ve seen.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), a Harris campaign co-chair, somewhat echoed Axelrod’s point in a separate conversation on CNN.

“There’s a lot of work to do to ensure that we communicate to folks that the Democratic Party is the party of working people, is the party that supports immigrants, is the party that supports the social safety net,” Garcia said.

"smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated" mostly applies to we BRDistas, with O Really being rural part of the year and neoplacebo being urban. Idk anything about Jasmine.

[O Really]

Is "smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated" a bad thing? Aren't we also "elite" anymore?

Actually, I know Axelrod (not as a close acquaintance, but he was friends with some people in our firm and I had enough encounters that he remembered my name). Axelrod is a decent guy, but as snooty smarty-pants urban as they come.

I don't know that northwest WA or southern BC qualifies for "rural" in the sense it's usually used for demographics, but if we need a "rural" rep, I'll give it my best shot. Everywhere from Olympia on up to Bellingham is nicely solid blue.

[Vrede too]

Is "smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated" a bad thing? Aren't we also "elite" anymore?

Actually, I know Axelrod (not as a close acquaintance, but he was friends with some people in our firm and I had enough encounters that he remembered my name). Axelrod is a decent guy, but as snooty smarty-pants urban as they come.

I don't know that northwest WA or southern BC qualifies for "rural" in the sense it's usually used for demographics, but if we need a "rural" rep, I'll give it my best shot. Everywhere from Olympia on up to Bellingham is nicely solid blue.

I guess it's a bad thing if it's all you've got, and if it's resented by the working class. That said, I've pretty much been a smarty-pants my whole life and I am college-educated. I've mostly avoided suburbs since childhood, but you can make the case that all of Hendersonville is a suburb of Asheville. So, objectively not a bad thing to me, except for how it might affect elections.

I think you and GoCubsGo are "elite". neoplacebo and I aren't, not sure about Whack9, banni and Jasmine.

I don't think Axelrod would deny being part of the problem as far as the demographics go.

I guessed that you mostly park outside of cities and suburbs, hence "rural". I wasn't trying to cast you as a rural representative. I was just trying to make the description accurate since you're not always suburban.

[O Really]

I guessed that you mostly park outside of cities and suburbs, hence "rural". I wasn't trying to cast you as a rural representative. I was just trying to make the description accurate since you're not always suburban.

During actual travel time, we do park it away from the madding crowd, but for extended stay, we like our conveniences in places where you don't hear banjos in the distance. Anyway, in my job I often represented companies that I thought acted against their own interests, so I should be ok for the forum rural guy.

[Whack9]

Is "smarty-pants, suburban, college-educated" a bad thing? Aren't we also "elite" anymore?

Actually, I know Axelrod (not as a close acquaintance, but he was friends with some people in our firm and I had enough encounters that he remembered my name). Axelrod is a decent guy, but as snooty smarty-pants urban as they come.

I don't know that northwest WA or southern BC qualifies for "rural" in the sense it's usually used for demographics, but if we need a "rural" rep, I'll give it my best shot. Everywhere from Olympia on up to Bellingham is nicely solid blue.

I guess it's a bad thing if it's all you've got, and if it's resented by the working class. That said, I've pretty much been a smarty-pants my whole life and I am college-educated. I've mostly avoided suburbs since childhood, but you can make the case that all of Hendersonville is a suburb of Asheville. So, objectively not a bad thing to me, except for how it might affect elections.

I think you and GoCubsGo are "elite". neoplacebo and I aren't, not sure about Whack9, banni and Jasmine.

I don't think Axelrod would deny being part of the problem as far as the demographics go.

I guessed that you mostly park outside of cities and suburbs, hence "rural". I wasn't trying to cast you as a rural representative. I was just trying to make the description accurate since you're not always suburban.

I am an elite at being a hater.

[Vrede too]

I am an elite at being a hater.

?

[Whack9]

I am an elite at being a hater.

?

A hater of recent events.

But on a more serious note, what makes someone elite?