Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And I think Jeffries and Booker would be the two worst out of those options. 

Disarray, baby. Disarray. 

 

Yeah, it's just too damn early to pick, although it's not too early for these guys to show what they got.

qe7A0F.gif

200w.gif?cid=6c09b9520mtm9u775iz8vqvcv5v

 

 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus Christ, she'd be shredded, probably assassinated.

I have zero such faith.  The American people have gone full racist again, and man, they LIKE how it feels.  ESPECIALLY suburban women.  Hate is fucking intoxicating, and we're drunk as hell on it now.

You mean, on "MARXIST COMMUNISM?????"  That's all the GQP has to do.  Call him a marxist communist non-stop, and he's toast.  It doesn't have to be true, it just has to appeal to idiots.

That is the entire story of America politics 2025: it doesn't have to be true, it just has to appeal to idiots.

The sooner the Dems wake up to that and start playing that game, the better a chance they'll have.

Which is never going to happen.   So, we're fucked.  We are a full-on idiocracy now, and there's no going back.

I can always count on Brisket to be further out on the ledge, and I respect it. 

I might be slightly more optimistic, but the last 4 words of the above post are true and I think everyone - politicians, voters, any American - really need to come to grips with it: there is no going back. What was will never be again. This country has morphed so quickly that you can't even look to 2024 to figure out what to do next.

We need an entirely new path. Past victories and strategies are meaningless. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Jesus Christ, she'd be shredded, probably assassinated.

I have zero such faith.  The American people have gone full racist again, and man, they LIKE how it feels.  ESPECIALLY suburban women.  Hate is fucking intoxicating, and we're drunk as hell on it now.

You mean, on "MARXIST COMMUNISM?????"  That's all the GQP has to do.  Call him a marxist communist non-stop, and he's toast.  It doesn't have to be true, it just has to appeal to idiots.

That is the entire story of America politics 2025: it doesn't have to be true, it just has to appeal to idiots.

The sooner the Dems wake up to that and start playing that game, the better a chance they'll have.

Which is never going to happen.   So, we're fucked.  We are a full-on idiocracy now, and there's no going back.

68a304fa70a28f0bef156fb64a8d28b66dacc876

  • Haha 2
Posted

Also it would serve the Democrats well to treat Biden's 2020 win as a complete fluke. That if a global pandemic didn't happen, Trump would have easily won again. 

2020 presidential election was 100% a pyrrhic victory.  Take nothing positive from it. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

ANY woman is DOA, unfortunately and unbelievably. It's a shame because we're going to run AOC. She'd be the best thing to happen to the presidency and country in decades, but there's basically no chance. The drooling idiots of this country can't imagine a woman as president and it scares them. 

I'd be a lot more optimistic about a gay man's chances, actually. 

Condoleezza Rice would still kill if she ever wanted to run.

Posted
Just now, Rip76 said:

Condoleezza Rice would still kill if she ever wanted to run.

No she wouldn't.  Fox news would paint her as a radical BLM Marxist Neocon DEI hire, and it would be over before it even starts.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

I had a bit of a dawning epiphany this morning reading the Politico articles on Latinos who flipped for Trump (Link) and Adam Jentleson (former CoS for Fetterman) starting a think thank working in support of moderating interest group influence (Link).

The Democratic Party is just consumed with the idea that it's a big tent, and the electorate can be sliced up demographically with targeted appeals for each, narrowly defined subcategory.  South Texas Mexicans (1st or 2nd gen), suburban women who voted for Bush but hate Trump, voters who grew up in a church but now define themselves as non-religious--they know these are groups, they have the data to target them, and they've convinced themselves this is how you win elections.  It's a confluence between the knowing that the Democratic constituency doesn't have a lot in common, a preference for inclusiveness, and openness to bring in tech solutions (or mirroring what the social media companies have done to steal attention from traditional media). 

Even now, the party is proposing that it needs a leftie Joe Rogan, or needs to focus on what might bring back in young white males.  That the medium is the message and that Democratic policies are popular, it's the failure to make government work that's the problem (aka the Ezra Klein analysis).  The Biden BBB Plan and Inflation Reduction Act was partially an effort to help in areas that lost jobs over the previous three decades (if you're Biden and you're bemoaning the loss of union jobs, and believe that unions inherently are aligned with Dem interests, then increasing union jobs solves multiple problems).  The Buttigieg's and other Biden administrators have a party line of "we failed to do it fast enough and when we did move fast, we failed to get credit for our wins." 

 

Unfortunately, that's just another way to isolate out a portion of the electorate and what can't be overcome is that the message this sends to everyone else.  Now @Brisketexan just wrote this:

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The American people have gone full racist again, and man, they LIKE how it feels.  ESPECIALLY suburban women.  Hate is fucking intoxicating, and we're drunk as hell on it now.

And it's substantively correct (if a little hyperbolic), but the idea behind it is that voters are rejecting a Democratic party that says "I want to help you, first gen college African American.  And you, Appalachian single mom.  And you, Portland hipster lesbian," even if you're in one of those groups because you're not uniting behind anything and the Democratic party is happy to cater to you as an individual.  

Furthermore, maybe you're actually irate that, as a single mom in West Virginia, you resent these first generation African Americans college kids getting help, that the Portland hipster lesbian has access to health care or community benefits that you do not, etc.  There is no benefit to being a member of a coalition that tries to give a little something to everyone, because your perception is someone else is getting more. 

It's easy to say "we need to get mean", or "this doesn't work, do the other thing."  I'm not sure it's very clear what the "other thing" is, but maybe it's as simple as to stop targeting subgroups just because you can.  If you have a political message that isn't a good fit for a larger community, then it's a poor fit for winning elections. 

 

Edited by LCHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I had a bit of a dawning epiphany this morning reading the Politico articles on Latinos who flipped for Trump (Link) and Adam Jentleson (former CoS for Fetterman) starting a think thank working in support of moderating interest group influence (Link).
The Democratic Party is just consumed with the idea that it's a big tent, and the electorate can be sliced up demographically with targeted appeals for each, narrowly defined subcategory.  South Texas Mexicans (1st or 2nd gen), suburban women who voted for Bush but hate Trump, voters who grew up in a church but now define themselves as non-religious--they know these are groups, they have the data to target them, and they've convinced themselves this is how you win elections.  It's a confluence between the knowing that the Democratic constituency doesn't have a lot in common, a preference for inclusiveness, and openness to bring in tech solutions (or mirroring what the social media companies have done to steal attention from traditional media). 
Even now, the party is proposing that it needs a leftie Joe Rogan, or needs to focus on what might bring back in young white males.  That the medium is the message and that Democratic policies are popular, it's the failure to make government work that's the problem (aka the Ezra Klein analysis).  The Biden BBB Plan and Inflation Reduction Act was partially an effort to help in areas that lost jobs over the previous three decades (if you're Biden and you're bemoaning the loss of union jobs, and believe that unions inherently are aligned with Dem interests, then increasing union jobs solves multiple problems).  The Buttigieg's and other Biden administrators have a party line of "we failed to do it fast enough and when we did move fast, we failed to get credit for our wins." 
 
Unfortunately, that's just another way to isolate out a portion of the electorate and what can't be overcome is that the message this sends to everyone else.  Now [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention] just wrote this:
And it's substantively correct (if a little hyperbolic), but the idea behind it is that voters are rejecting a Democratic party that says "I want to help you, first gen college African American.  And you, Appalachian single mom.  And you, Portland hipster lesbian," even if you're in one of those groups because you're not uniting behind anything and the Democratic party is happy to cater to you as an individual.  
Furthermore, maybe you're actually irate that, as a single mom in West Virginia, you resent these first generation African Americans college kids getting help, that the Portland hipster lesbian has access to health care or community benefits that you do not, etc.  There is no benefit to being a member of a coalition that tries to give a little something to everyone, because your perception is someone else is getting more. 
It's easy to say "we need to get mean", or "this doesn't work, do the other thing."  I'm not sure it's very clear what the "other thing" is, but maybe it's as simple as to stop targeting subgroups just because you can.  If you have a political message that isn't a good fit for a larger community, then it's a poor fit for winning elections. 
 

That’s why you need to pick on the small and the weak. It’s the time-honored path to power.
Posted

If we survive the dark midnight of the American soul that is still to come, meaning we do somehow have elections but our institutions and democratic norms are totally fucked... I'm watching Adm. McRaven and Raphael Warnock. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Tigersnake said:

If we survive the dark midnight of the American soul that is still to come, meaning we do somehow have elections but our institutions and democratic norms are totally fucked... I'm watching Adm. McRaven and Raphael Warnock. 

I had high expectations for Radical LIberal Raphael Warnock but he voted for the Lincoln Riley Act (a sign of weakness) plus he's old, he's not white, and he's not expendable in the Senate because it's not a safe D state and the GA lege and GA governor will stack the odds

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
If we survive the dark midnight of the American soul that is still to come, meaning we do somehow have elections but our institutions and democratic norms are totally fucked... I'm watching Adm. McRaven and Raphael Warnock. 

McRaven doesn’t fit my age criteria, but he has the resume to maybe make it work. I just haven’t seen any evidence that he has the political chops (or desire) to be viable.

He’d have to be willing to go scorched earth, though. Call JD Vance a pussy to his face type shit. He’d get eaten alive if he just tries to be the wise, calm military man.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

And it's substantively correct (if a little hyperbolic), but the idea behind it is that voters are rejecting a Democratic party that says "I want to help you, first gen college African American.  And you, Appalachian single mom.  And you, Portland hipster lesbian," even if you're in one of those groups because you're not uniting behind anything and the Democratic party is happy to cater to you as an individual. 

It’s hyperbolic bullshit of the first order.  
 

You all seriously need a fucking reality check.  Americans are NOT racist as a default.  Live some fucking real life and you see a damn broad spectrum of people treating each other pretty damn fairly.

To the D party and men.  The last 15 or so years has been spent by the left telling straight white men they are the root of all evil.  So it’s surprising they don’t want to sign up for more of that?

Edited by Incredulity
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

the left telling straight white men the are the root of all evil.

The fact anyone believes this is an accurate description of reality is a testament to how effective propaganda is on Americans. The most subtle critiques and recommendations are treated like unforgivable affronts.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

You all seriously need a fucking reality check.  Americans are NOT racist as a default.  Live some fucking real life and you see a damn broad spectrum of people treating each other pretty damn fairly.

Are you a person of color? 'Cause if not, I don't think you can speak confidently on how they are treated. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

There was a leadership vacuum and it's being filled by the strongest actors in the party.

1. AOC

2. Sanders

3. Crockett

4. Kamala Harris

5. Buttigieg / Jeffries (TIE)

7. Booker

8. Newsom

I'm honestly shocked Jeffries is as high as he is, but look at that top three and compare how the public perceives them to how Booker and Newsom are perceived today.

https://coefficient.org/national-approval-study/

I think these polls are worthless, FYI. And here's a new one. 

 

Posted

If trump runs for a 3rd Obama runs and wipes the fucking floor with him and then executes him live on national TV at the inauguration.

If not then it'll be AOC or Pete. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think these polls are worthless, FYI. And here's a new one. 

 

Very curious who these 569 RVs are, but either way that doesn't mean Kamala or Barack Obama are the "face" of the party.

Leadership vacuum, filled by AOC and Bernie.

Posted
20 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think these polls are worthless, FYI. And here's a new one. 

 

If you pulled Obama, Biden, Sanders and Harris out of this list and handed me a ranked choice ballot for the rest, I'd go 1. Pete, 2. Walz, 3. AOC, and wipe my ass with the rest of the list. Walz might be the most electable "Everyman" on the list and I've wondered several times if the outcome would have been different if they'd flipped spots on the ticket. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
23 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Also it would serve the Democrats well to treat Biden's 2020 win as a complete fluke. That if a global pandemic didn't happen, Trump would have easily won again. 

2020 presidential election was 100% a pyrrhic victory.  Take nothing positive from it. 

 

A big reason we won was down to Dump's dumbass making his voters think early voting and voting by mail were bad for some reason. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

If you pulled Obama, Biden, Sanders and Harris out of this list and handed me a ranked choice ballot for the rest, I'd go 1. Pete, 2. Walz, 3. AOC, and wipe my ass with the rest of the list. Walz might be the most electable "Everyman" on the list and I've wondered several times if the outcome would have been different if they'd flipped spots on the ticket. 

I think he would have won more swing states if he was #1 AND if he kicked Biden's loser staffers out of the campaign.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/3/2025 at 6:23 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

Are you a person of color? 'Cause if not, I don't think you can speak confidently on how they are treated. 

 

He has a black friend or had a black friend. Same difference. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I think he would have won more swing states if he was #1 AND if he kicked Biden's loser staffers out of the campaign.

Inflation probably would have doomed any Democrat's campaign.

Them's the breaks.

Posted
3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Inflation probably would have doomed any Democrat's campaign.

Them's the breaks.

I disagree there. The "keys to the white house" guy favored Kamala Harris. This was a fumble.

Posted

Man remember when Kamala entered the race and the entire thread was like “we win! She’s amazing! Trumps done!” I remember that nonsense.

Then she got her tits blown off - and by blown off I mean blown the fuck off.

Now AOC is being mentioned? WTF?

If you think you’ve seen a lady get her tits blown off in a presidential election - run AOC and watch the tits, Ankles, elbows, and ass get blown the fuck off.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
On 6/3/2025 at 4:20 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

Also it would serve the Democrats well to treat Biden's 2020 win as a complete fluke. That if a global pandemic didn't happen, Trump would have easily won again. 

2020 presidential election was 100% a pyrrhic victory.  Take nothing positive from it. 

 

Most reviews of the data from the 2020 election show that covid actually probably helped Trump and that the BLM protests hurt him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Most reviews of the data from the 2020 election show that covid actually probably helped Trump and that the BLM protests hurt him.

Hmm. That doesn't make much sense to me. People watched a Trump led insurrection shortly after and decided they wanted him back in office. 

Either way, my larger point was to take nothing from the 2020 Biden victory and definitely don't implement any 2028 strategy based on it.

 

Posted

There is no chance in hell Pete B or AOC could win the next election... and I like them both. 

Pete is gay and would scare off most (if not all) Christians just because of their cult-think. 

AOC is a woman AND a minority which is probably worse. A lot of men would end up voting for any white dude the Republicans trot out because they are too macho to vote for a woman. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Handcruser said:

Man remember when Kamala entered the race and the entire thread was like “we win! She’s amazing! Trumps done!” I remember that nonsense.

You’re going to need to show your work because I don’t remember this website being like that at all about Kamala. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Pancho said:

You’re going to need to show your work because I don’t remember this website being like that at all about Kamala. 
 

 

Yeah, I don’t think anyone here presumed a Harris victory in the wake of Biden’s late exit.  
 

Everyone was pretty jubilant that sufficient pressure was being put on Biden, though, because his campaign was truly hopeless.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

I think what this website misread was the enthusiasm and support at Harris events vs the general pathetic and unenthusiastic nature of Trump events. Everyone forgot it was thelow information/unenthusiastic voter who was going to decide things. 

Edited by Surly Bevo
Posted
You’re going to need to show your work because I don’t remember this website being like that at all about Kamala. 
 
 

That’s how I remember it.

But let’s say it wasn’t quite that. Let’s say it was “she has a great chance against Trump, she’s smart, she’s articulate, she appeals to Xyz voters, etc”. Fair?

She got her tits blown square off. They still haven’t been found.

Think Florida vs Nebraska for the national title. That was Harris v Trump. No more tits.

If AOC runs? Oklahoma vs Aggy 77-0: no more body parts.

Dems gotta find someone normal.
  • Fuck You 1
Posted

To be fair, I will admit to misreading Harris’ support, and the fact that we (wife and I) ejected pretty much everyone anti-vaxxer in our social network during COVID meant we didn’t know anyone that voted for Trump (besides family, who were stuck with), which was a pretty big blindspot.  
 

I’ve also just listened to like my third podcast with Buttigieg in the last month, and I think the fact he sounds overly polished may be more detrimental in a general election than his sexual preference.  

Posted
22 minutes ago, Handcruser said:


That’s how I remember it.

But let’s say it wasn’t quite that. Let’s say it was “she has a great chance against Trump, she’s smart, she’s articulate, she appeals to Xyz voters, etc”. Fair?

She got her tits blown square off. They still haven’t been found.

Think Florida vs Nebraska for the national title. That was Harris v Trump. No more tits.

If AOC runs? Oklahoma vs Aggy 77-0: no more body parts.

Dems gotta find someone normal.

Do you think Obama/Romney was close?

Posted
24 minutes ago, Handcruser said:

Dems gotta find someone normal.

Lmao at Kamala Harris being anything other than normal gtfo

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Handcruser said:


That’s how I remember it.

But let’s say it wasn’t quite that. Let’s say it was “she has a great chance against Trump, she’s smart, she’s articulate, she appeals to Xyz voters, etc”. Fair?

She got her tits blown square off. They still haven’t been found.

Think Florida vs Nebraska for the national title. That was Harris v Trump. No more tits.

If AOC runs? Oklahoma vs Aggy 77-0: no more body parts.

Dems gotta find someone normal.

 

The bold in your reply above, no this website wasn’t like that either. 

The last sentence in your reply gives the impression that you don’t believe Black women are “normal” candidates, which is problematic on your part and I hope you get the help you need. 

 

There are a ton of other threads on this website where you could have used the phrase “blown her tits off” other than this one, and it’s unclear why you are so married to that idiotic phrase. 

 

But do you, bro.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
25 minutes ago, Handcruser said:


That’s how I remember it.

But let’s say it wasn’t quite that. Let’s say it was “she has a great chance against Trump, she’s smart, she’s articulate, she appeals to Xyz voters, etc”. Fair?

She got her tits blown square off. They still haven’t been found.

Think Florida vs Nebraska for the national title. That was Harris v Trump. No more tits.

If AOC runs? Oklahoma vs Aggy 77-0: no more body parts.

Dems gotta find someone normal.

Why don't Republicans have to find someone normal?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Those wanting a straight White guy as the candidate might get their wish because Newsom is handling this pretty well. 

IMG_2405.gif.6eabc5a4aeb9c68f72692f896a3f041c.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Those wanting a straight White guy as the candidate might get their wish because Newsom is handling this pretty well. 

It would actually be brain dead stupid for democrats to trot out another female, especially a minority female.

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

It would actually be brain dead stupid for democrats to trot out another female, especially a minority female.

Brain dead stupid is kind of America’s thing now.  I mean the Republicans have run a guy three times in a row that publicly reveres Hannibal Lecter, a fictitious psychopathic serial killer.  

Without a serious reform candidate with an inspiring vision, the opposition party (Dems) will merely be prolonging this fascist nightmare. Like, go ahead and nominate a Joe Biden again, see how far that gets us.  



×
×
  • Create New...