Great landslides of the American past!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2024

What ever happened to landslides? When all the votes have been counted, how will this year's presidential election look? Ezra Klein offers this in the New York Times:

Where Does This Leave Democrats?

[...]

Donald Trump’s victory was not one of the grand landslides of American political history. As I write this, estimates suggest that [Trump] is on track for a 1.5-percentage-point margin in the popular vote. If that holds—and it may change as California is counted—it is smaller than Barack Obama’s win in 2008 or 2012, Bush’s in 2004 and Bill Clinton’s in 1992 or 1996. It may prove smaller than Hillary Clinton’s margin in 2016.

It won't be "one of the great landslides," Ezra somewhat sardonically says. Indeed, if the margin turns out to be less than two points, it won't be a landslide at all.

Here's what the Times' Nate Cohn says:

How Trump Won, Again

[...]

Despite Jan. 6, the end of Roe v. Wade and a felony conviction, Mr. Trump won a clear victory. He is on track to win all seven battleground states. He made gains in every corner of the country and with nearly every demographic group: If you look at The Times’s map of what has changed since 2020, you’ll see a sea of red.

According to our estimates, Mr. Trump is also on track to become the first Republican to win the national popular vote in 20 years.

At the same time, the scope of his victory shouldn’t be overstated. This was no landslide. A one- or two-percentage-point victory in the national popular vote with roughly 312 electoral votes is not unusual. It’s not as large as Barack Obama’s modest win in 2012, and falls far short of “change” elections like Mr. Obama’s in 2008 or Bill Clinton’s in 1992.

Cohn mentions that felony conviction, the venerated object of Blue America's cable news over the past several years. The outcome constitutes "a clear victory," but it was "no landslide," he says.

Alas! Depending on circumstances, an election can change the world without having been a landslide. 

In 2016, Candidate Trump lost the nationwide vote—but that particular lack of a landslide allowed him to place three people on the Supreme Court. President Obama, who won elections by 7.2 and 4.9 points, only got to name two Justices over his eight years in office. 

(In a sign of what was to come, one Justice was stolen, of course.)

What ever happened to landslides? At one time, there actually were such beings. Let's take a look at the record.

Did the modern political era start in 1960? However you answer that question, that election was very close:

Nationwide vote, 1960
Kennedy 49.7%
Nixon 49.6%
(Turnout: 63.8%)

That was no one's landslide! According to Theodore White, Kennedy learned that he had won when he arose on Wednesday morning.

Four years later, the deluge! By now, President Kennedy had been murdered. We the people said this:

Nationwide vote, 1964
Johnson 61.1%
Goldwater 38.5%
(Turnout: 62.8%)

By American norms, that was a genuine, stone-cold landslide. The others which followed were these:

Nationwide vote, 1972
Nixon: 60.7%
McGovern: 37.5%
(Turnout: 56.2%)
Nationwide vote, 1984
Reagan 58.8
Mondale 40.6
(Turnout: 55.2%)

Turnout was sliding but landslides lived on, though that was the last of the breed.  

In 1988, President Bush the elder won by almost eight points. In 1992 and 1996, President Clinton won by 5.6 and 8.5 points, each time in a three-way field. 

As of 1996, turnout had declined all the way to a bit less than 52%. Since then, only Obama's margin, that one time, has exceeded five points.

Will Trump end up with a two-point win? We don't know at this point. That said, a relatively slender nationwide win could still end up changing the world. In Blue America, we badly need to understand how it ever got this far—though some such belated comprehension may no longer matter.

For the record, Kennedy's very narrow win had been preceded by a landslide. 

In 1952, Eisenhower beat Stevenson by almost eleven points, with a turnout of slightly better than 63%. Four years later, when they did it again, the numbers looked like this:

Nationwide vote, 1956
Eisenhower 57.4%
Stevenson 42.0%
(Turnout: 60.2%)

In 1960, Eleanor Roosevelt—FDR's widow—wanted to nominate the highly erudite Stevenson again!

Out of one of those elections, a famous story emerged. In all likelihood, the story isn't true, but the story goes like this:

Still Madly for Adlai

Like many of the best political stories, this one about Adlai Stevenson, the former two-time Democratic presidential nominee, is probably apocryphal. It was late in a long day on the campaign trail in 1956—or 1952, it varies with the telling—when a voice called out of the crowd: 

“Every thinking person in America will be voting for you!” 

“I’m afraid that won’t do,” Stevenson retorted. “I need a majority.”

We Blues! We've never quite stopped thinking that way. Our human wiring inspires us to truly believe that such thinking is plainly correct.

We Blues have never stopped thinking that way. In our view, it doesn't help. 

123 comments:


  1. "...1.5-percentage-point margin in the popular vote"

    Apparently Ezra Klein thinks that popular vote has something to do with presidential elections in America. Ezra Klein is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you have your own private definition of what constitutes a landslide election.

      Delete
    2. @2:46 is most likely referring to the fact that our elections depend on the electoral college, not the popular vote. We cannot have a popular vote landslide without the candidate winning in the electoral college -- Hillary and Biden both had huge popular vote margins over Trump and Hillary lost while Biden won, because of electoral college results.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, @4:58. I understand how the electoral process works. However, the subject of Klein's remarks (and today's post by Our Host) is landslide elections. Commenter @2:46 forgot or chose to pretend so.

      It is theoretically possible for a candidate to amass less than a thir.d of the popular vote and yet win in the electoral college

      Delete
    4. My point was that you cannot have a landslide election without taking the electoral college. That is no one's private definition.

      Delete
    5. If elections keep occurring where the loser wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, that suggests there is something deeply wrong with the process and suggests that the electoral college system should be revised.

      "Landslide" has no specific definition, it is relative, for example, in modern context, 2020 was a near popular vote landslide, but the electoral college was relatively close.

      It is easy to imagine a circumstance where a popular vote landslide does not equate to an electoral win; over the last 40 years populations in America have concentrated in the cities in blue states, is one way, fucking with votes is another way (gerrymandering, voter suppression, kicking voters off the rolls, using foreign interference, bomb threats to polling stations, etc).

      DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    6. "you cannot have a landslide election without taking the electoral college"

      That's simply not correct. It is possible for a candidate to take more than 60 percent of the popular vote--a landslide share by any definition--yet fail to take the Electoral College.

      Delete

    7. American presidential elections, whether landslide or narrow, have nothing whatsoever to do with nation-wide calculations of the votes.
      Nothing at all.

      Had nation-wide calculations made any significance whatsoever, presidential campaigns would be run in a completely different way.

      Winning 270 electoral votes is a narrow win. What minimum number of electoral votes is "landslide" I have no idea.

      Delete
  2. To achieve a future landslide, Dems must show their commitment to DEI. They should preempt any primaries for 2028 and designate Kamala Harris as their nominee now. That way the party will have a clear leader and she can function as a joyful shadow President. A person who identifies as Black and a Woman shall not be denied. It is time to imagine what she can be, unburdened by what she has been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A person who identifies as Black and a Woman shall not be denied."

      If she ain't transgendered, she's shit.

      Delete
    2. America, such a welcoming place.

      Delete
    3. No one cares about a landslide. A victory would have been sufficient. If the Republicans get control of the House too, a lot of things we now take for granted will be in jeopardy.

      Delete
  3. Studying old election results yields no insights into our current election.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My personal theory is that no one was helped when the Democrats split into two factions, one supporting Biden's continuation on the ticket and the other trying to push him off in favor of someone else, and winding up with Harris because she had already earned the nomination as Biden's running mate. She seems to have been unable to unite Democrats around her ticket and I believe those angry over Biden's mistreatment may have stayed home, especially when the word was that Harris was winning in the polls. Democrats seem to have underestimated the anger generated by those internal maneuverings, especially when the NY Times and billionaire donors seemed to have engineered it.

    The second split in the party was over Gaza/Israel and the approach seems to have been to ignore it. Tlaib's refusal to endorse Harris is one symptom of that rift. This was deliberately engineered by Putin to benefit Trump and it seems to have worked to some extent. I believe that group of Democrats also stayed home.

    Finally, the attack on woke, although a Republican phenomenon, may have encouraged male Democrats to avoid voting for Harris with the perception that she is a DEI candidate (a ridiculous concept, but not all Democrats are immune to right wing propaganda). I think that's where racism/sexism intersected to damage Harris, despite her obvious accomplishments and talent as a politician. Some men just aren't prepared to see women as competent, which may explain some observed inroads into the Hispanic/black Democratic constituency. With more time that might have been overcome, but Harris wasn't allowed that time by the circumstances of her nomination.

    Somerby is an idiot and he seems to have no capacity to deal with the discussions happening elsewhere, so he posts a few pieces of nostalgia and pretends he has ideas. It would be sad if he weren't an example of the kind of help that torpedoed Harris. I wouldn't be surprised if he made himself a medical excuse and stayed home watching Fox instead of voting. Note that he has not said he voted, and he has not said he is disappointed with the outcome. And no, calling Trump disordered is no substitute. Men like him are also why Harris lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Progressive scolds find racism and sexism in every nook and cranny of America. Perhaps, as they claim, Trump won because half of America is racist and sexist, but maybe, just maybe, the reality is that that half of America is just plain sick to death of the scolds.

      Delete
    2. ”I wouldn't be surprised if he made himself a medical excuse and stayed home watching Fox instead of voting.”

      Wrong. That’s because anonymices NEVER actually read the blog. They only skim for ammunition.

      “We've seen that claim again and again!
      TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024
      The Times keeps looking away: We've just returned from a two-block hike to our voting place. Based upon the votes we cast after perhaps a three-minute wait, Harris and Walz will be elected today, along with Senator Alsobrooks.”

      Delete
    3. PP, we already know that a portion of Trump's supporters is sick of woke. That isn't anywhere near what @2:58 is discussing. Your suggestion echoes JD Vance's remarks about cat ladies who make life miserable for everyone else with their scolding. That version is misogynistic because scolds can be male too. Your lack of interest in social justice is noted. Don't try to tell anyone here you are a liberal again. You fit in fine with Trump's bros.

      Delete
    4. Cecelia always believes Somerby when he lies. That may be why she is for Trump too. She probably believes all of his lies, even the obvious ones. Somerby even pretended that Harris was winning, despite living in a state with no opportunity to observe red or swing voters. He doesn't say whether he voted for Alsobrooks, who is black and female.

      I don't believe Somerby voted for Harris any more than I believed him when he said he supported her and then used every opportunity to tear her down.

      Delete
    5. 4:54. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since Nixon. I've dedicated my career to protecting and expanding the rights of those who work for a living. I'm a hardcore liberal and feminist. That's reality.

      Delete
    6. I don't believe there is anyone who has voted Democratic consistently and yet doesn't care about civil rights or other shared Democratic values. You are not a feminist, no matter what you think. You come across as an asshole here, and complaining that women are scolds puts you in the wrong category to be claiming to be a Democrat. Anyone can, of course, be a Democrat by voting for Democratic candidates and claiming that party affiliation, but denying the platform and issues important to that Party makes you a piss-poor example of a Democrat. So, you should understand why you would be mistaken for a Republican when you climb on the anti-woke bandwagon and call women cat ladies. It seems ironic, but a female scold is rightfully called a termagant, not Gutfeld. I think you are a lying troll who is trying to confuse Somerby's readers by blurring what the parties stand for in our country.

      Delete
    7. "you should understand why you would be mistaken for a Republican when you . . . call women cat ladies"

      Are you completely nuts? If you're not, why would you just make up shit like this?

      Delete
    8. BTW, I did not say that "women are scolds." Learn to read. I complained about "progressive scolds." You're the one who for some apparently sexist reason thought I was talking about women.

      Delete
    9. At least we all agree we can't stand Democrat woke scolds of any gender.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 4:56pm, you said that Somerby never mentioned that he had voted. You were proved dead wrong and now you accuse him of lying about voting. What dumb cat lady you are. You don’t read the blog, so you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about .

      Delete
    11. And I, for one, can't stand those who use "Democrat" as an adjective.

      Delete
    12. There is no credible evidence that whatever is meant by "progressive scolding" contributed to Harris' loss, and there is no evidence indicating that Somerby voted or if he did who he voted for.

      Y'all are clowns.

      Just let the trolls post their nonsense, if you ignore them they will leave.

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse 7:23pm, there’s evidence that Bob voted because Bob said he did. He said it in a blog on voting day and he said it long before a cretin here erroneously claimed that he probably didn’t vote because he hadn’t mentioned it.

      Delete
    14. That is not evidence, that is not how evidence works. That is just a story Somerby told, and there is no proof to back it up.

      Delete
    15. There is no evidence trolls go away if you ignore them because they are being reinforced in other ways.

      Delete
    16. I posted a serious comment and this is what it devolves into with PP & Cecelia.

      Delete
    17. 8:11 there is:

      https://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657

      https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-09-trolls-dont-good.html

      etc.

      Delete
    18. Anonymouse 7:45pm, eh…no, this not a court of law. In a conversation, cretin anonymouse accused Somerby of not voting and prefaced it on Bob not even mentioning whether he had voted.

      In fact, Bob expressly mentioned it and quipped that this meant that the people he voted on would be elected. He said all this on Nov 5th, before he was accused by a cretin of not voting.

      You might as well accuse everyone who you didn’t see voting, of not voting. You don’t need an eye witnesss in this sort of dispute, contemporaneous statements of having voted at the time are enough.

      Delete
    19. You corrected the commenter on whether Somerby claimed to have voted or not, apparently he did make such a claim, and indeed you provided proof for it, self defeating your own argument about claims not needing some kind of substantiation.

      Discourse does not permit unsubstantiated claims; there is no evidence that Somerby voted, only that he claims to have voted, and furthermore many consider Somerby to have a history of making disingenuous claims.

      Delete
    20. Anonymouse 8:37pm, you’ve mischaracterized what I said. I made a distinction in the type of proof needed for particular venues.

      We do not need video tape of Bob entering a voting booth to ascertain that the cretin anonymouse was wrong that Bob had not mentioned voting and then doubled down by suggesting he was lying when he blogged it. We don’t have to suspend belief based upon this sort of tripe.

      Delete
    21. The commenter was only wrong about Somerby making a claim about voting.

      Apparently Somerby did claim that he voted.

      The commenter suspects that Somerby may not have actually voted.

      There is no substantiation for the claim that Somerby actually voted.

      Many commenters view Somerby's various claims as being disingenuous.

      It is reasonable to suspect that Somerby did not actually vote.

      It is not reasonable in any way, with any normal standard, to take Somerby's word on this claim at face value; it remains unsubstantiated.

      You are free to believe Somerby, but you can not credibly claim to know that Somerby did in fact vote.

      Therefore, your stance on this issue is not credible, and irrelevant.

      Delete
    22. Agree with 8:37, Cecelia said you do not need solid proof to make a claim, but then felt compelled to offer solid proof for the first claim.

      That is not a mischaracterization, Cecelia was caught being disingenuous.

      Delete
    23. PP,
      Maybe, just maybe, you are forgetting the 24/7 scolding about the Biden-Harris "open borders' claim from the same people you think are sick of the scolding.

      Delete
    24. Fun Fact: Biden and Harris didn't have open borders.
      It's just a Right-wing lie told to bigots who claim to love a merit-based society, but are really just afraid to compete with immigrants for jobs on the open market.

      #themoreyouknow

      Delete
    25. 9:29,
      That should be right at home with people who think the USA should never, ever be criticized, who also think the country needs to be made great again.
      Seriously. The bullshit some people repeat in service of their bigotry. Amirite?

      Delete
    26. Anonymouse 9:21pm, actually , you and your anonymouse buddy are making my argument for me.

      Is the fact that Somerby contemporaneously stated he had voted “solid proof” as you have called it? I didn’t describe it like that.I claimed it was the sort of proof that easy meets the standard of being proof for this sort of dispute. I made a distinction in the level of proof needed for different sorts of disputes.

      Thanks for calling it solid proof.

      .

      Delete
  5. "Men like him are also why Harris lost."

    White women (like you?) went for Trump. Shall we blame them, too? Or shall we just blame "men"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, lots of blame to go around

      Delete
    2. Black and Hispanic women didn’t drift toward Trump…

      Delete
    3. It's quite possible black and hispanic women drifted to Kamala because she "looks like them," which is the definition of racism.

      Delete
    4. It isn't racism to feel pride because a member of your own community has succeeded. It is the result of identifying with a role model or aspirational figure. David routinely confuses identity with racism. He needs to look up the definition more often. Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group." None of that is found among women who like Kamala because she is a member of some group they identify with.

      This distortion of racism and sexism by changing their definitions is a right wing tactic.

      Delete
    5. I'm proud that a man who is a member of my own racial community has succeeded in the election and that he defeated members of other racial communities, because he is the same color as me. Am I doing this right?

      Delete
    6. It depends. Are they eating the pets?

      Delete
    7. "White" is not a race, your comment is dumb as fuck, and it is dumb as fuck on purpose to distract others into wasting time to explain racism to dumb as fuck morons like yourself.

      Race is a function of racism, if a group is not experiencing racism, then there is no race.

      Black people experience a lot of racism, it is why for every dollar a "White" person has, a Black person only has 15 cents, YOU FUCKING MORON.

      Delete
  6. "We Blues have never stopped thinking that way. In our view, it doesn't help. "

    Oh, come ON! It's a jape, a joke, a mild witticism. And it's funny! It's of a piece with Dick Tuck's famous concession speech.

    You don't always have to be such a sourpuss, you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course it's a joke, but jokes draw their humor from a kernel of truth. And that kernel here is found in Stevenson's smug assumption of superiority that millions find to be grating.

      Delete
    2. Stevenson comment is funny and it was nonpartisan. If he was alive to say it today, he’d be called anti-American on one side and accused of “Bothsiderism” on the other.

      Delete
    3. Intelligent people spend their whole lives being accused of smugness, a sense of superiority, elitism, etc., when they are just being themselves and trying to live their lives in a productive way. Stevenson was highly intelligent, which is obviously a handicap for running, but not for governing.

      I think the problem resides with the others, not with Stevenson, when it comes to being reminded that there is such a thing as intelligence, wit, etc. We used to call the trait of blaming others for their accomplishments "jealousy". Now we blame the person who succeeds out of a misguided sense of egalitarianism. Somerby is the worst when it comes to that, with his routine tearing down of anyone with a college degree. It amounts to reverse-snobbery and I do believe it is worse on the right than on the left, but mostly because there is greater common sense on the left. Why should people tear down those who can contribute effectively to our society, just to indulge a false sense of pride among those who have accomplished the least?

      Delete
    4. "I think the problem resides with the others"

      Guess what? So does every other human being.

      Delete
    5. Here is another scold that PP will ignore:

      "Political commentator Elie Mystal had some scathing words for America in his latest column for The Nation.

      "We had a chance to stand united against fascism, authoritarianism, racism, and bigotry, but we did not," he wrote. "We had a chance to create a better world for not just ourselves but our sisters and brothers in at least some of the communities most vulnerable to unchecked white rule, but we did not. We had a chance to pass down a better, safer, and cleaner world to our children, but we did not.

      "Instead, we chose Trump, J.D. Vance, and a few white South African billionaires who know a thing or two about instituting apartheid."

      Delete
    6. Anonymices 4:47pm, when Stevenson made his quip, he didn’t make any distinctions between Americans as to who was less smart or discerning. You did.

      Delete
    7. Adlai Stevenson was acknowledged by everyone to be very smart. I didn't make that up.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 5:30pm, no one has said otherwise.

      Delete
    9. I remember Adlai. He was intelligent, and obviously so. But a lot of voters don’t like candidates who parade their intelligence. Ike was intelligent, but hid it. He always spoke in simple, down to earth words. GW Bush didn’t mention his degrees from Harvard and Yale. Reagan didn’t boast about his interest in issues and deep knowledge. Trump doesn’t boast about hi Ivy League degree. And Vance is careful to drop the final letter when using words ending with “ing”

      Delete
    10. Thanks for that quote from The Nation @5:08. It faults Musk for being White and from South Africa. The rules against judging people based on skin color and national origin apparently don’t apply to liberals.

      Delete
    11. Trump voters were sending a message to political commentators that they were standing united against empty and trite accusations of fascism, authoritarianism, racism, and bigotry. People don't care what Elie Mystal's take is. It doesn't have much value, if any.

      Delete
    12. Musk is faulted for being a conservative whacko. He is an immigrant with experience in an apartheid state where his being white gave him privileged status. Who better to implement such a system in the US. The part you miss David, is that the attributes of Musk are held as an individual and not being assigned based on his whiteness or his nationality. No one is reasoning that Musk, because he is white must be in favor of apartheid. No one is stereotyping him based on race. They are judging him based on his own behavior and attitudes, not those of any racial group. Trevor Noah is also from South Africa but he doesn't go around being a bigot like Musk does. His henchman, Peter Thiel, was born in Germany and is also an immigrant, but from one of the countries Trump calls good and not shithole.

      If someone said that based on his German origin, Thiel must be racist, that would be stereotyping based on national origin, not white race. If someone said that based on being white, he must be racist, that would be racial stereotyping. But what people are saying about Thiel and Musk is based on their own statements and behaviors, not derived from their skin color or national origin, and that is why it is not stereotyping of any kind.

      Are you guys really this stupid or are these comments disingenuous and intended to undermine arguments by confusing readers?

      Delete
    13. Now Cecelia is claiming she can read Adlai Stevenson's mind and knows what he was thinking. Somerby doesn't say so, but the consensus about why Stevenson kept losing is that he used too many big words and made voters feel stupid. I'm not the one attributing this stuff to Stevenson, but Cecelia is so ignorant of politics that she doesn't realize that.

      Delete
    14. Better trolling please.

      Delete
    15. Anonymouse 5:51pm, I know what Stevenson said. He was told that he was thinking person’s candidate and he essentially said there wasn’t enough of them to put him over the top. That would include every Democrat voter too.

      Delete
    16. No one needs Elie Mystal to scold them about the other side's racism and bigotry. You can get that same banal take anywhere, 24/7. It's fucking boring.

      Delete
    17. Anonymouse 5:51pm, show me where I disputed the notion that Stevenson was considered to an an elite egghead?

      Delete
    18. "Trump doesn’t boast about hi Ivy League degree."

      Except that he does:

      "From June 16, 2015 to Jan. 11, 2018 where he mentioned Wharton in his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump has said “Wharton” 52 times. Over the same time period, he has noted that he went to an Ivy League school 12 times,"

      https://www.thedp.com/article/2018/01/trump-penn-wharton-data-education-times-ivy-league-business-finance-philadelphia-campaign

      Delete
    19. Trump is an elitist.

      He claims to be a stable genius, that he somehow inherited intelligence from his uncle that was a prof at MIT.

      Trump was born to the manor, his father was extremely wealthy. Trump attended private schools and an Ivy League university.

      Trump inherited from his father close to half a billion dollars (as well as a mountain of unresolved childhood trauma).

      Then here is what happened: Trump failed at all his business ventures, having to claim bankruptcy 6 times, Trump failed at multiple marriages, cheating on all his wives, even raping his first wife, Trump is currently financially underwater - he OWES more than he OWNS, Trump is now a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist. He also stole classified docs from the US, Trump is a traitor.

      TRUMP DID NOT WIN, HARRIS LOST. TRUMP COULD NOT EVEN MANAGE TO GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF VOTERS AS HE DID IN 2020 WHEN HE LOST.

      WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE ELECTION IS THAT SOMEHOW DEMS DID NOT VOTE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DEMS DID NOT VOTE.

      This election had nothing to do with a reaction to supposed Dem elitism, Somerby's analysis is MORONIC BEYOND BELIEF.

      Delete
    20. Anonymouse 7:39pm, what happened is the Democratic leadership couldn’t hide Biden’s decline anymore, Harris had to take over and she wasn’t up to it as a politician. People saw that.

      Bob had also expressed reservations about Biden’s age in 2019. He was roundly vilified for it and by 2024 the facade cracked.

      Delete
    21. If Biden had stayed in the race, he probably would have won.

      Bob has never offered any credible or coherent electoral analysis.

      Trump is obviously a loon losing his mind, yet Repubs came out and voted for him.

      Just because "your guy", on whichever side, is not up to the task in whatever way, is not a deterrent for voting, since the "other guy" is always going to be worse.

      I will grant you, if the Dem nominee was as horrible as Trump, a corrupt criminal purely out for their own benefit, a convicted felon and rapist, then yes Dems might stay home, because many Dems are stuck with some modicum of integrity. But that is not what happened.

      No significant amount of Dems thought that Biden, or Harris, would be worse than Trump.

      There is no evidence for this silly claim.

      Trump is a corrupt, horrible person, nobody is credibly arguing otherwise. Yet he still got enough votes to win.

      Notably, even though he won, he did not get enough votes in 2024 to win the 2020 election.

      That is because in the 2020 election Dems actually came out and voted.

      In 2020 Biden was being attacked for being too old, too frail, too incoherent, yet he still won, because Dems came out and voted. These types of issues do not deter voting. The US also has robust policies and protocols for dealing with incapacitated presidents, it is a non issue.

      Dems did not come out to vote in 2024, which is the main reason Harris lost.

      Some of why Dems did not come out to vote for Harris has to do with racism and sexism, which is rampant in all corners of our society, but the biggest reason is easy to see: barriers to voting in 2020 were reduced, Republicans could not nullify the Dem vote like they typically have since 2000, with all their dirty tricks. Ironically, it was Trump's failure in handling Covid that led to Biden winning.

      Delete
    22. Anonymouse 8:17pm, your Democratic leadership decided that Biden couldn’t run because it was obvious to everyone including the media.

      It was obvious before the debate even though Democrats were then saying that video of his lapses was faked. No one was less inclined to pull Biden out at the last minute than Pelosi and Schumer. They would not have done it if it hadn’t been necessary.

      Whether it was Hillary, Comey, Biden, or Comma La, you’ve slandered a guy on his own blog for some accurate conclusions that he has drawn. Some concerns he had that should have been weighed rather than resulting in some awful accusations against him.

      You’re no friend to your party. You’re a none-too-bright militant clown.

      Delete
    23. Somerby made no astute "accurate conclusions".

      The complaints about Biden were widespread, dating back to the 2020 campaign.

      Worse, the same complaints were made about Trump, WHO WON!

      Therefore, the weak point you attempted to make is false and irrelevant.

      With nothing else to add, you devolve into ad hominem attacks, per usual.

      Delete
    24. Anonymouse 8:52pm, no one has had to tell Trump that he needs to step down. He ran circles around both Biden and Comma La.

      There have been whispers as to Biden from jump.

      However, things may change for a Trump. . He is a geezer.

      Delete
    25. Trump performed very badly in his debate with Harris, where she "ran circles" around him.

      Multiple Republicans tried to assassinate Trump.

      An amazing amount of Republicans have called for Trump to step down, including most of his cabinet and top generals, etc.

      Trump is a convicted felon and was found liable for rape, and he would have lost his other court cases as well.

      Trump lost to Biden in 2020, and in 2024 could not even get the same number of votes he got in 2020.

      Trump has never "run circles" around anyone or anything, both figuratively and literally - he can barely stand upright or even walk, he drags his right leg behind him and needs help going down stairs and inclines.

      Your arguments are not credible, and are therefore irrelevant.

      Delete
    26. Anonymouse 9:17pm, Trump ran circles around Biden, Walz and Comma La. He stood for hours answering the off- the-cuff questions of reporters.The media complained about Comma La running off and not taking questions,

      Even more significant is that Trump beat her!

      Again, Trump may fall apart tomorrow, Younger men would have collapsed under the strain of what he’s gone thru,

      Delete
    27. 7:39,
      How does any of that nullify Trump's bigotry against the same people Cecelia hates?

      Delete
    28. Anonymouse 10:01pm, I don’t hate anonymices I just think you’re disingenuous paid partisan jerks. ,

      Delete
    29. 10:15,
      Not the TDH commenters.
      The women, minorities, gays, trans people, immigrants, etc.
      You know, the same people the Republican
      Party and their leader, the next President of the United States, hates.

      Delete
    30. Anonymouse 10:21pm, oh, you mean people that you use as hand puppets until they catch on and then you call them dirty names. Got ya.

      Delete
    31. The biggest issues facing our country are abortion and transgender rights.

      Delete
  7. A senior lawyer once told a young associate: "The biggest mistake you can make is to let the judge know that you think you're smarter."

    I think that's part of why we Blues lose: We let the Others know that we think we're smarter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We’re dumb and tribal and filled with loathing and pretty much nobody likes us."

      Yup.

      Delete
    2. It's not that we think we're smarter. It's that we are. That's what really bothers them.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 7:16pm, it doesn’t bother me if Democrats think they’re smarter than Republicans. Same with liberals vs conservatives. It’s normal to think that you have the intelligence and the insight to see and understand things more fully than people in the other party. Otherwise, they’d be in your party.

      That’s different from thinking that people are dumb.

      Delete
    4. PP'S CLAIM IS IDIOTIC AND EVEN MORE IDIOTIC, TO BACK UP HIS STUPID CLAIM, HE CITES A STORY ABOUT A LAWYER.

      Delete
    5. There is empirical evidence Dems are smarter, not anyone’s opinions.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 7:51pm, run that up the flagpole and I’ll salute it.

      Delete
    7. There is evidence Dems are better informed, not that they are smarter.

      There is no credible evidence to indicate any significant difference in mental capability among all people not suffering from mental disorders.

      If anything, many Repubs are probably more clever and savvy than Dems because they have to constantly maintain in their heads a house of cards, whereas Dems tend to rely more on their innate human nature.

      Delete
    8. Dems are champions of resilience. Time and again they evince "good" coping skills. They are not mere snowflakes but instead embody a spirit of enduring commitment, intellect, vision, fortitude and fashionable pants. Dems are always moving forward and adapting, even when faced with challenges as significant as this year’s unusual landslide victory by Trump. Nothing in the universe is certain. Everything is on a spectrum and comes down to key waves and coping skills that deal with uncertainties. That's what really bothers them.

      Delete
    9. 8:50 why you mad bro?

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 8:50pm, anonymices endlessly cry like babies. Resilient?

      Delete
    11. Agree, 8:50 is your typical whiny snowflake, trying to be clever, but in reality, too clever by half - Google it.

      Delete
    12. Resilience is a quality that underpins success in both politics and life, enabling individuals and societies to withstand setbacks, adapt to change, and thrive under pressure. In politics, resilience is essential for leaders facing crises, as well as for citizens affected by political shifts and policy changes. Somerby thinks Biden must navigate complex, often unpredictable challenges such as economic downturns, social unrest, or global pandemics without resilience. But a single crisis could collapse the systems that support Republican society. For instance, during the pandemic, Biden prioritized sustainability, job creation, and social welfare to help communities recover and emerge stronger.

      Resilience in politics also requires adaptability. Trump's policies are inflexible and tend to falter in the face of unexpected circumstances. Conversely, Democratic Party policies are designed to be adaptable and sustainable, allowing Americans to pivot as conditions change. This campaign, the resilient Harris team adapted quickly, paid experts, and took actions that were initially unpopular but ultimately benefited the greater good. Their resilience often inspired confidence and stability within the entire population and was crucial for the massive societal cohesion we are now experiencing.

      Nothing in the universe is certain. Everything is on a spectrum and comes down to life's self-reflected support networks. Ironically, Trump's winning led to Biden's failure.

      Delete
    13. Anonhmouse 9:13pm, it’s cute that you would go to AI for an essay on Democratic resilience and Biden’s in particular, when the man couldn’t get thru the first debate and anonymices, democrats, the media were in denial until Pelosi and Schumer showed up at his door.

      Delete
    14. Dems invented clouds.

      Delete
    15. PP,
      I think Dems lose because they don't know how to lie properly.
      Making "Trump wants to make Micah X. Johnson's birthday a National holiday" should be the equivalent of "Biden and Harris' open borders".

      Delete
  8. “Trump Announces Campaign Manager Susie Wiles Will Serve as White House Chief of Staff”

    Chosen for ability, not gender.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chosen because Trump doesn’t like being told he can’t do things, so he hopes she may be less likely to stand up to him.

      Delete
    2. Fake David mocking DiC for his bald hypocrisy.

      Delete
    3. Anobmnymouse 7:49pm, because she’s a woman?

      Delete
    4. Trump has surrounded himself with sycophantic loyalists, a trait he deems more important than his sexist inclinations.

      DUH FUCKING DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

      WHY ARE THERE SO MANY FUCKING MORONS POSTING COMMENTS HERE ON THIS SHITTY BLOG????????????

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 8:30pm, leave and there will be one moron less.

      Delete
    6. Everything is on a spectrum and comes down to coping perspectives and mind waves that deal with uncertainties. Dems are too old, too frail, too incoherent, yet they still came out to vote this year which is the main reason they are smarter. Trump won in a landslide and won the popular vote by over 5 million but unlike 2016, where Trump was an outsider shaking up the system, his return landslide victory against the smarter Dems is a deliberate backlash against the institutions and leaders who opposed him during his first term. This second win is a public reprimand of the political, military, and cultural elites that were the targets of voters’ frustrations and lack of confidence in traditional authority.

      Delete
    7. TWO MORONS TRYING TO PRETEND IT IS THE OTHERS THAT ARE MORONS, MAKING THEM LOOK EVEN MORE MORONIC!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    8. Agree, Cecelia and 9:00 are morons.

      We all agree on this.

      So what.

      Delete
    9. Trump's landslide victory represents a more purposeful rejection of the “ruling class,” a shift from Trump as a disruptor to Trump as an agent of political retribution, aiming to redefine power structures in line with his anti-establishment base’s values.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 9:11pm, so what, indeed.

      Delete
    11. I love that Trump is zeroing out the defense budget, and making the Estate Tax rate 100%, because he hates the elites.

      Delete
    12. Kamala won the popular vote. And how did 200,000 Democratic votes suddenly come up missing? Russia bombed two polling stations in Black Democratic precincts. Let's not rush to judgement by saying Trump won the election. The numbers don't add up and the American people are demanding a recount.

      Delete
    13. rejection of the “ruling class,”

      for instance, Wall Street? bwahahaha!!!

      Delete
    14. Yes, Wall Street is often considered a significant part of the "ruling class".

      Delete
    15. you mean the ones controlling all the wealth aren't calling the shots? Pray tell.

      Delete
  9. Cumalot lost because she was a sucky candidate. Sucking is who she is, it's what she does. Slurp slurp, gobble gobble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And she's woke, with all her "consensual sex" bullshit. No Right-winger would ever fall for that "consensual sexual relations" bullshit.
      C'mon haters, try to prove me wrong.

      Delete
    2. The election is over. Why write this stuff? Hate is easy.

      Delete
    3. 10:14,
      True that. Say what you will about the Republican Party and their voters, but you can't argue they don't love rape.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 10:23pm, say what you want about anonymice flying monkeys, they were conceived in a short bus.

      Delete
    5. Ha ha, Cecelia.
      I haven't heard something that funny, since Republican voters chose a President who is a rapist, just because he tickles their bigotry bones.

      Delete
    6. 10:23,
      Bullshit!
      Rape isn't one of the two things Republican voters care about at all.
      What next, claiming they care about the economy.?
      LOL.

      Delete
  10. An awful lot of y'all had a bad day today.

    Try to do better tomorrow, yeah?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Imagine a black man in America getting away with the crimes Trump committed.
    You'll have to imagine it, because it wouldn't happen in a gazillion years.

    ReplyDelete