The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 9,494 comments
- 361,307 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The real kicker seems to be at the end - even if Trump & Co are successful in eliminating those four states the Total Electors number also shrinks. That removes the probably-hoped-for option of throwing the decider to the House.
Welcome to post-truth where the facts are just what enough people agree with on Facebook.
- 11,650
- Marin County
It seems like about half of Republicans are firmly planting their flag on this and about a quarter are firmly rejecting it. I think we're in the early stages of the GOP breaking in two. This doesn't seem like any issue easily reconciled...
Last edited:
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Clinging to Trump - reluctantly in many cases - seems to be the only thing holding the GOP together at the minute. I predicted in 2015 that Trump would destroy the Republican party, seems to be happening at a much slower rate than I anticipated, but we may get there in the end.
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
106 House Republicans have now tied themselves to the Texas Supreme Court lawsuit....err....let's just call it "Act of Sedition". While I'm sure there are a few who are "True Believers" those who simply lack the foresight or perspective to see it for anything other than what it is, I suspect many are just playing politics. But I think it's a dangerous game and one that they're destined to lose.
Far be it from me to second guess over 100 wily politicians, many of whom have made quite a career out of this. Yet I think they're planning to to fight the "next" war, the election of 2024 and are planning to attack it with an outdated concept. Much in the same way that Trump himself and Peter Navarro approached their China trade policy in 2017--by applying concepts and fighting a war we already lost decades ago, instead of the kind of battle we need to fight in the future. It's why Trump lost his trade war with China and it's why they'll lose the political battle they're trying to win by sticking with Trump in the dying days of his Presidency.
Despite losing the Presidential election, Trump still finds himself sitting on the GOP's throne. Politically, he's finished. And in so far as making a run for the Presidency in 2024, he has no chance. He's almost the equivalent of Hilary Clinton now--persona non grata. The popular vote shows this. This election was less about support for Biden than it was about disdain for Trump. He governed by pumping up his base and showing outright hatred for everybody else. And everybody else just returned the favor.
And yet somehow, GOP politicians don't quite see it that way. And it's clear why. While campaigning for Purdue and Loeffer last week in Georgia, the crowd barely acknowledged the Senate duo's presence. Yet they cheered loudly for Trump. They were there for HIM. He knows it. And so do other GOP politicians who have had to join the Trump train over the last four years or be ostracized by their own party.
And yet, to what end. I suspect they're all desperately hoping that Trump WON'T run again in 2024. And that he'll pass on the mantle to a worthy underling. Be it Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan--heck, maybe even Tucker Carlson. Who knows. They want what he has. That being 70 million rabid followers. The kind who are "willing to die" for Trump. (That's not a metaphor--more than one has actually said it). I don't see it happening.
There is always the possibility that the economy crumbles and Biden has a series of huge missteps and there is enough anger and spite and hatred billowing by 2024 that Trump or somebody like him has a chance. (I mean, hate WAS the singular message of his campaign. And in that sense, it was effective). Otherwise, his base is growing smaller. Many have already left. More still are starting to understand that it was NEVER really about them, and it was always about...HIM. Some will simply die of old age before the next election. And as younger people, who are more liberal come of voting age, and more immigrants with a more worldly view become US Citizens, the GOP base, such as it was under Trump, will continue to diminish.
I believe that the politicians fighting to now overturn the election, seeking to subvert the will of the people, and destroy the democratic process, will be remembered. And they will face a political backlash in the years to come. People's memories are short. But this is a very dark and distasteful moment in our nation's history and students of history will not forget it. Nor should they.
I think @Biggles was right. Trump DID destroy the Republican party. I don't think they can run again with the same destructive message. They can try but they won't win. They need a new message if they're going to have any chance. And those 106 politicians have just destroyed their own chances.
Last edited:
- 11,650
- Marin County
- 11,650
- Marin County
GOP Senate seems far more reserved about the case than the house.
The house, of course, is eating this **** up. This part was particularly servile and disgusting.
That's some HBO drama-level ***licking. "Yes my Lord!"
Tell me these jackasses pledge their allegiance to the flag of the united states - yeah ****ing right. They don't even know what that flag looks like anymore, from where their heads are all they can see is orange all around.
Good lord has the GOP become disgusting.
The house, of course, is eating this **** up. This part was particularly servile and disgusting.
That's some HBO drama-level ***licking. "Yes my Lord!"
Tell me these jackasses pledge their allegiance to the flag of the united states - yeah ****ing right. They don't even know what that flag looks like anymore, from where their heads are all they can see is orange all around.
Good lord has the GOP become disgusting.
Last edited:
- 29,459
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Gosh, when you put it that way, it sounds like there's nothing substantive to support your original response to my remark. And that actually tracks, because an actual attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election would have made the news. But there was no attempt, much less such a despicable concerted effort to take back what was lost fair and square.
It seems to me the only real claims of an unfair election came from Trump and his base. I do recall an unsupported and seemingly arbitrary figure of three million "illegal votes."
That wasn't the first time Trump alleged a rigged election, either. He'd done it previously in 2012, but it wasn't a presidential election and it wasn't even one in the United States. No, it was actually in Scotland and it was a promotional contest put on by whisky producer Glenfiddich, who Trump purported to choose the owner of a property that he wanted to purchase, but refused, for the honor of 'Top Scot,' purportedly because Trump went with another producer for Trump branded whisky.
...
Sometimes all somebody has is allegations of hypocrisy. People want to defend others against criticism but the tactics being employed here by vast swaths of the GOP in representative roles are so far beyond indefensible that you were compelled to instead go after critics with the allegation, the limp-wristedness of the attempt notwithstanding.
The fight over the name "Republican" may be an interesting one. No doubt some are desperate to hold onto it because of the association with Lincoln, for one can't possibly be racist if they're a member of the party that freed the slaves. Plus it can be used as a weapon against Democrats...as it was just this year.
The framers of the Constitution were undoubtedly aware of threats of prosecution for treason being used as a political tool and/or to shut down criticism, and so the wording in Article III is very important. This is why the T word may as well have been "toothless" when it was used by Trumpkins and the whiny little bitch himself against perceived opponents.
- 86,119
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I mean... you'd hope that even a highly stacked conservative SCOTUS with three Trump appointees would look at one state trying to tell four other states what to do and know it's straight in the shredder...
... but the fact that there was the remotest possibility they wouldn't is in itself highly concerning.
- 11,650
- Marin County
So who were those 100+ GOP reps again? I don't want to forget...
It's a pretty stinky name at this point. And I used to consider myself an almost-Republican! (As opposed to an almost-Democrat now, I'm not big on commitment). I could see the group that has preserved some amount of dignity (obviously not the 100+ who signed their names on this massive stinker) wanting to ditch the brand. Lincoln seems like a decent name....
edit: From SCOTUS:
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections"
This is actually a kind of a weighty takedown when you consider it was aimed at a State Attorney General, especially one ideologically aligned with the current makeup of the court.
And let us not ever, EVER hear from Texas about "States Rights" again. They have ceded any sort of credibility with this monumentally bad decision.
edit 2: I propose verbizing (that's not a word) Paxton's name, similar to how Robert Bork's last name is now used.
Paxton:
verbINFORMAL•US
past tense: Paxtoned; past participle: Paxtoned
to grovel way too hard, making yourself look incredibly foolish and undermining your own projected world view and all future credibility
It's a pretty stinky name at this point. And I used to consider myself an almost-Republican! (As opposed to an almost-Democrat now, I'm not big on commitment). I could see the group that has preserved some amount of dignity (obviously not the 100+ who signed their names on this massive stinker) wanting to ditch the brand. Lincoln seems like a decent name....
edit: From SCOTUS:
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections"
This is actually a kind of a weighty takedown when you consider it was aimed at a State Attorney General, especially one ideologically aligned with the current makeup of the court.
And let us not ever, EVER hear from Texas about "States Rights" again. They have ceded any sort of credibility with this monumentally bad decision.
edit 2: I propose verbizing (that's not a word) Paxton's name, similar to how Robert Bork's last name is now used.
Paxton:
verbINFORMAL•US
past tense: Paxtoned; past participle: Paxtoned
to grovel way too hard, making yourself look incredibly foolish and undermining your own projected world view and all future credibility
Last edited:
- 29,459
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Any word can be a verb if you word it hard enough
- 5,234
- Alabamistan
What they're afraid of is that if they don't go all in, that come 2022 one of the true wack pack republicans will run against them labeling them as a traitor to Trump and possibly put them out of office. So it's either take your chances with this Trump and his merry band of losers, or get stabbed in the back by your own kind come 2022 primaries.
They're not afraid of Trump himself, they know he's out of power very soon. What they don't want to lose is his cult of followers AKA his voters. As has been demonstrated many, many times in the last four years, if you go against Trump his cult have no interest in voting for you any more, and that is going to continue long after Trump is gone. His base/cult are not going to disappear, so they're going to have to continue kissing his ass as long as they can.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,120
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
- 11,650
- Marin County
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Just saw this summary of voting demographics in the 2020 election. I can't say if it's accurate & there are many other stats to be extrapolated, but broadly speaking this is the swing nationally from the 2016 election:
White College D+11
White Non-Coll D+1
Hispanic R+12
Black R+2
Asian/Other R+6
This what the national polls just prior to the 2020 election predicted:
White College D+6
White Non-College D+11
Hispanic R+12
Black R+3
What it appears to show is a big swing to the Democrats on the part of college educated whites - significantly larger than the polls suggested - but on the other hand, the swing on the part of non college educated whites was much smaller than predicted. Hispanic voters also moved heavily towards Trump (about equivalent to what was expected) & a small number of black voters (about equivalent to what was expected) moved towards Trump.
The figures are affected by local & state particularities (like Florida, where the Cuban-American vote went strongly for Trump), but overall they reveal something concrete about the election results. White college educated voters (ie "suburban") moved very strongly against Trump, but white blue collar voters barely budged from 2016, notwithstanding the polls. This is what prevented a stronger Democratic "blue wave" & is the primary reason why the polls again undercounted Trump support. This was further reinforced by the move towards Trump by Hispanic voters (& "Asian" voters) - something the suggests that Democrats can't count on unquestioning support from Hispanic voters, who (presumably) actually favour quite "conservative" social positions.
White College D+11
White Non-Coll D+1
Hispanic R+12
Black R+2
Asian/Other R+6
This what the national polls just prior to the 2020 election predicted:
White College D+6
White Non-College D+11
Hispanic R+12
Black R+3
What it appears to show is a big swing to the Democrats on the part of college educated whites - significantly larger than the polls suggested - but on the other hand, the swing on the part of non college educated whites was much smaller than predicted. Hispanic voters also moved heavily towards Trump (about equivalent to what was expected) & a small number of black voters (about equivalent to what was expected) moved towards Trump.
The figures are affected by local & state particularities (like Florida, where the Cuban-American vote went strongly for Trump), but overall they reveal something concrete about the election results. White college educated voters (ie "suburban") moved very strongly against Trump, but white blue collar voters barely budged from 2016, notwithstanding the polls. This is what prevented a stronger Democratic "blue wave" & is the primary reason why the polls again undercounted Trump support. This was further reinforced by the move towards Trump by Hispanic voters (& "Asian" voters) - something the suggests that Democrats can't count on unquestioning support from Hispanic voters, who (presumably) actually favour quite "conservative" social positions.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,628
- Mile High City
That was mind numbingly stupid to read. It makes absolutely zero sense. But also just like that... Trump managed to lose the 2020 election yet again in a new and spectacular way.
It was pretty remote.
I agree with you from the perspective of... we needed this one. I mean it was pretty slam dunk that they would do this, all of the analysis leading up to it suggested that they would. But I really hate being in a situation where you need a win. I had previously posted the bloomberg article about how Biden would still take office even if the Texas suit succeeded. Trump had essentially no chance of overturning the election with that suit. But if the supremes somehow lost their minds and ruled in Texas's favor, it would, and I'm not the first person to put it this way, "break the country". If the supreme court ruled for Texas, basically nothing works any more. We basically lose all semblance of our democracy, because there is no such thing as an election anymore - it would just be a mess of states (AGs) suing each other to get their preferred candidate in office.
So it was dead from the start, but why were we in a position where we needed the supreme court to rule correctly to prevent complete destruction of our democratic elections? Safeguards worked, but man I hate testing them. We shouldn't be testing them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
Latest Posts
-
-
-
-
Gran Turismo 7 Livery Editor - General Discussion Thread- Latest: Touring Mars
-
