Author Topic: 2020 Presidential election  (Read 73059 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: Andrew McCarthy: Time to step back from the brink
« Reply #1300 on: December 12, 2020, 05:03:01 PM »
McCarthy is a deep state cocksucker.


I'm outta freebies.  Could someone paste the article please?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/time-to-step-back-from-the-brink/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%202020-12-12&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart


Time to Step Back from the Brink
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
December 11, 2020 9:01 PM
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard
Email this article

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton addresses reporters on the steps of the Supreme Court, in Washington March 2, 2016 (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Did the GOP attorneys general who backed Texas’s failed election lawsuit understand the dangerous implications of their argument?
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
‘This is the big one.” That is how President Trump on Wednesday described Texas attorney general Ken Paxton’s Hail Mary lawsuit against four states that have certified Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. The president was tweeting an announcement that he would be “INTERVENING” in the suit.

Technically, he was asking the Supreme Court to permit him to join the suit. In the end, as we’ve predicted, there was nothing for him to join. Friday evening, the Supreme Court summarily denied Texas’s motion to file its complaint. Reportedly, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented. They did not contend there was any merit to the suit; they adhered to their longstanding view that the Court must accept cases when states invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction.

There was no rule requiring the Supreme Court to decide Texas’s motion within a specific time. There is, however, a significant timetable imposed by Congress for (1) the resolution of election disputes at the state level, (2) the meeting of the Electoral College, and (3) the convening of a joint session at which Congress counts the votes. As I explained on Friday, because these dates are prescribed under Congress’s plenary constitutional authority, the Supreme Court had no power to ignore or delay them. The Court itself recognized this fact 20 years ago in deciding Bush v. Gore — which it did on the safe-harbor day because further delay would not have been permissible.

MORE IN TEXAS
Texas Unleashes an Absurd Kraken
Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit to Overturn Elections
The Dumb Statistical Argument in Texas’s Election Lawsuit
On Friday evening, the Court ruled that Texas lacked standing to posit its claims. For that reason, among others, I had described those claims as “frivolous” in my previous column. That was upsetting to some readers, despite my assertions that some of the voting irregularities Texas complained about are anything but frivolous. As I’ve detailed (see, e.g., here, here and here) some serious, credible reports of shenanigans have been raised, the “kraken” and other dross notwithstanding. Those matters need to be addressed.

The problem is that a federal lawsuit by Texas was not a viable vehicle for doing that. It is not my intention to belabor the multiple fatal weaknesses of Texas’s claims. (Our National Review editorial about that is here.) What I want to focus on is the fact that 18 other states with Republican attorneys general sought to join Texas’s gambit. That is to say, 19 states that identify as conservative now take the position that states should be able to sue other states for the latter’s application of their own laws to their own citizens.

What this argument implies, whether the states making it realize it or not, is that even if Missouri wants to apply its own, stricter voter-identification standards, California should be allowed to file a complaint against Missouri in the Supreme Court. After all, the uber-progressive Golden State’s experts will say a strict-identification requirement disproportionately discourages qualified minority voters, which depresses Democratic Party turnout, effectively inflating the value of Republican votes to the detriment of Californians, who voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate.

You can see where this goes.

Remember how up in arms Republicans from these 19 states used to be over the effort by Democrats, as soon as they took control of the House, to “federalize” national elections? Democrats wanted Washington to dictate to red states that there should be no registration deadlines, no identification laws, no restrictions on voting by felons, strict limitations on how the rolls were purged of ineligible voters, and so on.

Yet, less than two years later, we’re in such crazy times that Republicans proposed to have the Supreme Court federalize elections through lawsuits brought by red states against blue states and — or did they figure their stunt wouldn’t lead to this? — blue states against red states.

It is a lamebrain idea. Fortunately, it had no chance of happening because, under Chief Justice John Roberts, not with a ten-foot pole would the Supreme Court touch a case that involves governmental processes that are inherently political — i.e., consigned by the Constitution and tradition to the political branches of government that are accountable to voters.

THE MORNING JOLT
Get Jim Geraghty’s tour of the political news of the day.


Email Address
Occasionally, this default position is maddening. The justices end up avoiding some issues they should decide, and too narrowly deciding others. Still, putting aside the chief justice’s jitters over the Court’s reputation for nonpartisanship, the Court’s posture is driven by the admirable principle that a self-determining people should govern itself through its politically accountable elected officials — not the unaccountable judiciary.

The Court made this clear last year in Rucho v. Common Cause, a case in which voters and activist groups from each party — Democrats in North Carolina, Republicans in Maryland — complained about the politicized drawing of districts. As Justice Scalia had explained 15 years earlier in his Veith v. Jubelirer concurrence, “gerrymandering,” the better-known term for this practice, was minted in 1812 — an amalgam of the name of then-Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry and a salamander, the vivid image evoked by an election district Gerry had drawn for blatant partisan advantage. Districting is a quintessential political function, one that defies workable standards of justiciability.

While acknowledging Chief Justice John Marshall’s time-honored Marbury v. Madison proclamation that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Scalia also seemed mindful of the equally well-known but more often ignored wisdom of Clint Eastwood: “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

ALSO FROM
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
Hunter Biden Investigation: Overt and Primed for a Special Counsel

So do courts. “Sometimes,” Scalia wrote, “the law is that the judicial department has no business entertaining the claim of unlawfulness — because the question is entrusted to one of the political branches or involves no judicially enforceable rights.” Applying this principle, Chief Justice Roberts in Rucho observed that judicial intrusion into district-drawing by legislatures would mark “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power” — and “not into just any area of controversy, but into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.”

Guess what? In terms of partisan politics, presidential elections are gerrymandering times a hundred. All the more reason to oppose what Roberts, in the redistricting context, described as “the effect of the unelected and politically unaccountable branch of the Federal Government assuming such an extraordinary and unprecedented role.”

Choosing a president is a political process left, at the federal level, to Congress. With due respect to the president, then, “the big one” was never going to be a Supreme Court case. It will be a legislative vote: the one Congress will take on January 6.

Texas and the 18 other red states pleaded with the judiciary to do their heavy lifting for them. Why should the Supreme Court have done that? Why shouldn’t its answer have been, “Hey, senators and representatives of Texas and all the rest of you elected delegations from Republican-leaning states: If you don’t think the votes of 20 million people should count, why don’t you object to them yourselves, in Congress?”

If Texas Republicans want the votes of other states stricken because those states failed to follow the letter of their legislatures’ election laws, let them stand up and object — and in so doing explain why Texas’s own electoral votes should still be counted, even though their own governor unilaterally changed election law.

If congressional Republicans are adamant that the votes of the people of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia are illegitimate, let them stand up and object . . . and see if they ever win another election in those states again.

Let Republicans try to explain to the country why what they propose to do to states that vote for a Democratic candidate won’t result in Democrats disenfranchising states that vote for a Republican candidate.

With President Trump refusing to accept defeat and his core supporters stoked by hysterical claims that the election has been stolen — as opposed to righteous concerns that election integrity needs shoring up — Republicans are walking a razor’s edge. They do not want to court the wrath of Trump supporters, so they are supporting the unsupportable; besides the 18 states, well over 100 GOP House members have now expressed support for Texas’s gambit. They may calculate that this is a cost-free gesture, but it is not: It eggs on the president’s tirades and intensifies his supporters’ “Stop the Steal” zeal.

With the Court declining to entertain the Texas lawsuit, however, and the Electoral College voting on Monday, what then?

Are Republicans ready for what they are teeing up on January 6? Have they thought this through? Are they ready to have the Republican Party identified with the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans? Are they ready for a new kind of “United” States in which we invalidate each other’s votes? In which we roll the dice on how states will coexist once they start trying to disenfranchise each other?

After the Electoral College votes, there will be no more pleading with courts to take the explosive actions. After that, we’re down to plain old self-government by accountable politics. Here’s hoping that’s when we step back from the brink.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53659
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1301 on: December 12, 2020, 05:14:22 PM »
Ever the pithy eloquence from our GM  :-D

I confess to having a lot of respect for AM.   He has been a bright light of clarity, including legal clarity, for the past four years.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1302 on: December 12, 2020, 05:30:22 PM »
Ever the pithy eloquence from our GM  :-D

I confess to having a lot of respect for AM.   He has been a bright light of clarity, including legal clarity, for the past four years.

"With President Trump refusing to accept defeat and his core supporters stoked by hysterical claims that the election has been stolen — as opposed to righteous concerns that election integrity needs shoring up — Republicans are walking a razor’s edge. They do not want to court the wrath of Trump supporters, so they are supporting the unsupportable; besides the 18 states, well over 100 GOP House members have now expressed support for Texas’s gambit. They may calculate that this is a cost-free gesture, but it is not: It eggs on the president’s tirades and intensifies his supporters’ “Stop the Steal” zeal."

I guess we are just supposed to let the left's fraud machine give us a good old prison raping and just shrug our shoulders and walk away as they turn this country into Venezuela Del Norte.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1303 on: December 12, 2020, 05:33:05 PM »
He knows more about the law than he does about the evidence. His predictions have tended to come true so his take here helps us to keep our expectations low.

There is a conundrum here.  Nothing happens judicially until the evidence is overwhelming and people can't be overwhelmed by what investigators won't investigate and media won't allow to be known.

If this was a coordinated attack, that will likely be demonstrated too late when there is no remedy available.

My approach is just wait and see until each deadline passes. Today the Wisconsin Supreme federal district Court heard testimony and saw evidence. Milwaukee was one if the four main cities where these result changing,  middle of the night, Biden vote count surges occurred. (Dem judge dismissed it.) Republicans need a win in three States and it has to start with a win in one of them - soon.

Biden did not win 99+% in any precinct or vote batch that included working people, blacks, Hispanics or whites. Anything to the contrary was changed or manipulated. Proving it is another matter.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 06:46:03 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1304 on: December 12, 2020, 05:39:20 PM »
When the legal system loses connection to justice, humans will revert to the laws hardwired into them.

Lex Talionis.
 

He knows more about the law than the evidence. His predictions have tended to come true so his take here helps us to keep our expectations low.

There is a conundrum here.  Nothing happens judicially until the evidence is overwhelming and people can't be overwhelmed by what investigators won't investigate and media won't allow to be known.

If this was a coordinated attack, that will likely be demonstrated too late when there is no remedy available.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1305 on: December 12, 2020, 05:58:57 PM »
"When the legal system loses connection to justice, humans will revert to the laws hardwired into them.
Lex Talionis"

Right. Law of retaliation. The steal lights the fire within us, but it is when they use the ill-gotten power against us that real resistance will emerge.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1306 on: December 12, 2020, 06:04:02 PM »
"When the legal system loses connection to justice, humans will revert to the laws hardwired into them.
Lex Talionis"

Right. Law of retaliation. The steal lights the fire within us, but it is when they use the ill-gotten power against us that real resistance will emerge.

There are multiple things that could be the final spark into the growing pool of gasoline, but I would bet the attempt to take guns will be it.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1307 on: December 14, 2020, 06:47:47 AM »
Arizona has a vote fraud hearing this am.
Electoral college meets today, result is predetermined.
Trump lawyers still making moves.
(Georgia Senate elections are Jan 5.)
Tally of the electoral votes cast is Jan 5.
270 wins, Biden has 306 as it stands. 
Trump needs result blocked or changed in 3 states to get to the next round.
Trump needs vote blocked in one state SOON to open that possibility.

Most likely 99.9% chance result, Biden is irreversibly inaugurated as more and more evidence of mass fraud continues to emerge. MSM continues to call it baseless allegations while reasonable people reason the result illegitimate. Georgia Senate races determine if we have one party rule. The honor and wisdom of Chuck Schumer (lack thereof) will determine if the filibuster is removed forever. Pack the Court or just wait these justices out, constitutional limits on power are on the way out.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 07:01:30 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1308 on: December 14, 2020, 08:08:40 AM »
Summarizing the G M graphic,
Trump was up by 5% in Wisconsin, 8% in Georgia, 10% in Michigan and 15% in Pennsylvania with all the polls closed and the majority of the votes counted, when the (baseless) steal began.

We expected the mail in count to favor Biden by a possible 2 to 1 ratio, 66 to 33, not 99.9 to 0.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/18/election-2020-biden-voters-twice-likely-vote-mail-survey-finds/3394795001/

This is the one in a quadrillion math experiment:  Put 67 blue and 33 red marbles in a large jar, shake for three hours, then count them.  Repeat until you get the result 100 blue and zero red.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 08:14:55 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11969
    • View Profile
election fraud
« Reply #1309 on: December 14, 2020, 08:26:06 AM »
now acceptable

if done by Democrats

dumb ass Republican governors and state legislatures did not stop this when the writing was on the wall prior to election

MSM

are the ones really destroying our democracy NOT Trump

many on the LEFT will learn the hardway

but the rest of us who know better will all have to suffer now on the way down

Chinese still laugh at us and our stupid politics

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election - the musical, Pallets full of Ballots
« Reply #1310 on: December 15, 2020, 07:56:05 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk3LzrjDOfc&feature=emb_logo
Pallets Full of Ballots
is the only way to win.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 08:39:08 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53659
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1313 on: December 17, 2020, 03:11:47 AM »
Huh?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1314 on: December 17, 2020, 01:32:40 PM »
Huh?

Anything of note in GA related to the election?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53659
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1315 on: December 17, 2020, 08:14:57 PM »
Sorry to be slow but , , , huh?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, immigrants trended toward Trump, who knew?
« Reply #1316 on: December 25, 2020, 11:14:34 AM »
https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2020/12/25/immigrant-voters-trended-toward-trump-n2582092

Really, everyone trended toward Trump, except my friends, white rich suburban men, and the six cities that had the cheat on.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential election, NYT: Republicans made huge gains with minorities
« Reply #1317 on: February 04, 2021, 09:39:09 AM »
Who knew.
------------
President Trump said throughout the campaign that the Democratic Party took African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians for granted, and the message apparently got through to the increasingly powerful voting blocs.

Detailed voter analysis by The New York Times released last week shows a massive influx of votes for Trump from the blocs. While Democrat Joe Biden still got the majority of votes from the groups, in cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami and Philadelphia huge swaths of the groups voted Republican.

"The red shifts, along with a wave of blue shifts in Republican and white areas, have scrambled the conventional wisdom of American politics and could presage a new electoral calculus for the parties," the Times wrote.

The findings were stunning, and no doubt have thrown the Democratic Party for a loop. Before the 2024 election, Democrats will need to figure out if Trump was the key, or if rank-and-file Democrats really are getting fed up.

Take Cook County, home to Chicago. Mr. Biden won it by 50 percentage points over Trump. Some 2,158 precincts shifted right, compared to the 2016 election. Meanwhile, just 1,508 shifted left.

"In particular, Chicago precincts with a lot of immigrants saw more people turning out than in 2016, and many shifted to Mr. Trump," said the Times.

In areas of the Windy City that include large numbers of people of Mexican descent, Trump received 45% more votes than in 2016, while Biden's share stayed stagnant. Immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe also turned out for Trump.

For instance, in Chinatown, Trump's share of the vote increased by 34% while Biden's actually dropped — he received 6% fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Biden's margin among Asians fell 12 percentage points compared to 2016.

Much the same thing occurred in Los Angeles, where the study showed that in 1,544 voting precincts, votes for Trump increased by 78% over 2016. And the number was the same in New York, with precincts heavily populated by Latinos and Asian-Americans also increasing by 78%.

The list goes on and on. Comparing 2020 to 2016, Trump's share of the vote from Latinos and Asians rose by:

59% in Houston
61% in Miami
59% in San Diego
94% in San Jose
70% in Orlando
111% in Philadelphia
33% in Dallas
64% in Phoenix
54% in Las Vegas
The two voting blocs will only get stronger. Right now, about 13% of voters are Hispanic, and 4% are Asian-American, but in 12 years, Hispanic voters are projected to make up 18% of the electorate, and the Asian-American number is set to rise, too.

Florida offers a troubling insight for Democrats. Trump was widely popular among voters of Cuban descent, which helped power him to victory in the swing state. While Biden won Miami-Dade County by 7 percentage points, Hillary Clinton crushed Trump there in 2016 by 29 percentage points.

"But the shift right in areas with high immigrant populations was statewide, not just in Miami, and helped the president win the state with a margin larger than in 2016, though polls had predicted a Biden win," wrote the Times.

"The shift occurred in many precincts with Latino immigrants from Central and South America, including in Fort Lauderdale, north of Miami. And it also encompassed areas that are Latino but not immigrant. In Orlando, precincts with a substantial population of Puerto Ricans shifted red, though less so than the ones in Miami."

Trump also improved his performance in majority black precincts in Miami-Dade County, winning just over 13% of the vote compared to just under 7% in 2016, the Miami Herald reported.

"In Miami Gardens, the largest majority black city in Florida, Trump captured nearly 15% of the vote, compared to just over 7% in 2016, with the vast majority of votes counted," the paper reported.

Trump's good numbers were in part the result of a strong effort by his campaign to connect with potential black voters.

But successful policy measures by Trump and his administration were arguably more effective. Among them were criminal justice reform and an economic policy that resulted in record-low unemployment for black Americans — and more recently a so-called "Platinum Plan" that attempts to provide more access to capital for black-owned businesses and a steady federal funding stream for Historically Black Colleges.

Trump's efforts have won him support from such influential leaders in the black community as former football star Herschel Walker and entertainers Kayne West and Lil Wayne.

The Herald noted that Trump's big numbers among Hispanics helped him win the state.

"Trump's success in Miami-Dade was driven in part by gains in majority Hispanic districts, where he won nearly 55% of the vote, and majority White precincts, where he took nearly 43% of the vote with most results reported," the Herald wrote. "Hillary Clinton won roughly 56% of the vote in these majority Hispanic precincts in 2016 and nearly 60% of the vote in these majority White precincts in 2016."

Meanwhile, reports that Texas is rapidly turning blue might by wishful thinking.

More than 687,000 Californians have moved to Texas over the last decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from 2010-19. With no state income taxes — one of only a handful of states to offer such a break — Texas is a huge change from high-tax California. That's led to predictions that Texas — with its massive 38 electoral votes — will fall soon.

"The long-anticipated purpling of Republican Texas that was supposed to come as more Latinos joined the electorate was certainly nowhere in evidence on Election Day," the Times wrote.

How'd that work out? "In Houston's 245 precincts with the largest share of Latinos, turnout was up sharply from 2016, and Mr. Trump won nearly two-thirds of the additional votes," said the Times. "Across Texas, the red shifts were most pronounced in precincts with the highest proportion of Latinos. The Democratic margin in 80 percent Latino precincts dropped an average of 17 percentage points."
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/hispanic-asian-vote-shifted-hard-gop-2020-presidential-election
« Last Edit: February 04, 2021, 09:49:50 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53659
    • View Profile
WSJ: Trump lost to himself
« Reply #1318 on: February 19, 2021, 02:21:52 PM »
rump Lost to Himself
His own pollster shows why he became a one-term President.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 18, 2021 6:43 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
2,206

President Trump at the White House, Sept. 17, 2020.
PHOTO: SAUL LOEB/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES



Donald Trump launched a personal attack on Mitch McConnell this week after the Senate GOP leader called the former President “practically and morally responsible” for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Mr. McConnell doesn’t need our defense, but we hope GOP voters aren’t buying Mr. Trump’s attempt to rewrite the history of the 2020 election.

Mr. Trump’s statement didn’t claim that he won the election, but it did begin to burnish the result by taking credit for every GOP victory while boasting that he “received the most votes of any sitting President in history, almost 75,000,000.” Joe Biden still beat him by more than seven million votes.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
Trump's Acquittal and the GOP Future


SUBSCRIBE
As important is why he lost, and for that look no further than Mr. Trump’s own pollster, Tony Fabrizio. His firm’s post-election analysis was first reported by Politico, but it’s worth resurfacing for Republicans to ponder.

Mr. Fabrizio looked at data from exit polls and AP’s VoteCast in 10 highly competitive states that Mr. Trump won in 2016. Mr. Trump lost five of them in 2020—Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin—while winning Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas a second time.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
One stunning conclusion: Mr. Trump lost even though the electorate was more Republican in 2020 than in 2016. Mr. Fabrizio reports that Mr. Trump lost “largely due to a massive swing” among independents and erosion among Republicans. This helps explain how the GOP gained a dozen seats in the House even as Mr. Trump became the first President to lose re-election since George H.W. Bush.

Much of this erosion in support was based on dislike for Mr. Trump personally and the way he handled the Presidency. “While a majority of voters said they didn’t find either Presidential candidate honest or trustworthy, Biden held a double-digit advantage over POTUS,” especially in the five states that flipped to Mr. Biden in 2020, says the Fabrizio analysis.

Mr. Trump was favored 6 to 1 or more among voters on the economy. But the coronavirus was the top voter issue in both groups of states, and Mr. Biden carried those voters 3 to 1. Mr. Trump’s eroded credibility and inability to maintain a consistent Covid message may have been decisive.

More startling is that Mr. Trump “suffered his greatest erosion with white voters, particularly white men in both state groups,” according to the Fabrizio analysis. This offset his double digit gains with Hispanics while he performed about as well with blacks as he did in 2016. The former President also lost ground with nearly every age group in both sets of states, and he “suffered with white college educated voters across the board.”

We rehearse all this not to rub an open political wound. The point is to remember, as time passes and Mr. Trump blames everyone else for his defeat, that 2020 was a winnable race. Mr. Trump had many accomplishments to tout, and voters recognized them. But Mr. Biden’s consistent campaign message of a return to a calmer, more unifying politics resonated with millions of voters who had tired of the constant Trump turmoil.

Mr. Trump didn’t lose to Joe Biden. He lost to himself.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Trump lost to himself
« Reply #1319 on: February 19, 2021, 04:25:45 PM »



 :roll:

That and MASSIVE fraud.


rump Lost to Himself
His own pollster shows why he became a one-term President.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 18, 2021 6:43 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
2,206

President Trump at the White House, Sept. 17, 2020.
PHOTO: SAUL LOEB/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES



Donald Trump launched a personal attack on Mitch McConnell this week after the Senate GOP leader called the former President “practically and morally responsible” for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Mr. McConnell doesn’t need our defense, but we hope GOP voters aren’t buying Mr. Trump’s attempt to rewrite the history of the 2020 election.

Mr. Trump’s statement didn’t claim that he won the election, but it did begin to burnish the result by taking credit for every GOP victory while boasting that he “received the most votes of any sitting President in history, almost 75,000,000.” Joe Biden still beat him by more than seven million votes.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
Trump's Acquittal and the GOP Future


SUBSCRIBE
As important is why he lost, and for that look no further than Mr. Trump’s own pollster, Tony Fabrizio. His firm’s post-election analysis was first reported by Politico, but it’s worth resurfacing for Republicans to ponder.

Mr. Fabrizio looked at data from exit polls and AP’s VoteCast in 10 highly competitive states that Mr. Trump won in 2016. Mr. Trump lost five of them in 2020—Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin—while winning Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas a second time.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
One stunning conclusion: Mr. Trump lost even though the electorate was more Republican in 2020 than in 2016. Mr. Fabrizio reports that Mr. Trump lost “largely due to a massive swing” among independents and erosion among Republicans. This helps explain how the GOP gained a dozen seats in the House even as Mr. Trump became the first President to lose re-election since George H.W. Bush.

Much of this erosion in support was based on dislike for Mr. Trump personally and the way he handled the Presidency. “While a majority of voters said they didn’t find either Presidential candidate honest or trustworthy, Biden held a double-digit advantage over POTUS,” especially in the five states that flipped to Mr. Biden in 2020, says the Fabrizio analysis.

Mr. Trump was favored 6 to 1 or more among voters on the economy. But the coronavirus was the top voter issue in both groups of states, and Mr. Biden carried those voters 3 to 1. Mr. Trump’s eroded credibility and inability to maintain a consistent Covid message may have been decisive.

More startling is that Mr. Trump “suffered his greatest erosion with white voters, particularly white men in both state groups,” according to the Fabrizio analysis. This offset his double digit gains with Hispanics while he performed about as well with blacks as he did in 2016. The former President also lost ground with nearly every age group in both sets of states, and he “suffered with white college educated voters across the board.”

We rehearse all this not to rub an open political wound. The point is to remember, as time passes and Mr. Trump blames everyone else for his defeat, that 2020 was a winnable race. Mr. Trump had many accomplishments to tout, and voters recognized them. But Mr. Biden’s consistent campaign message of a return to a calmer, more unifying politics resonated with millions of voters who had tired of the constant Trump turmoil.

Mr. Trump didn’t lose to Joe Biden. He lost to himself.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11969
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1320 on: February 19, 2021, 05:20:49 PM »
Mr. Trump didn’t lose to Joe Biden. He lost to himself.

and that is why he MUST not be the candidate in '24
he is damaged goods
like as somewhere I read recently
Hillary was in '16 -
damaged goods

she was so purely hated by too many
she couldn't even win with all her advantages





G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1321 on: February 19, 2021, 07:00:09 PM »
Damaged by the left's hate machine. I am so old, I remember when Reagan was Hitler.



Mr. Trump didn’t lose to Joe Biden. He lost to himself.

and that is why he MUST not be the candidate in '24
he is damaged goods
like as somewhere I read recently
Hillary was in '16 -
damaged goods

she was so purely hated by too many
she couldn't even win with all her advantages

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13941
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1322 on: February 19, 2021, 08:29:57 PM »
"Damaged by the left's hate machine."

  - True, but also damaged with self inflicted wounds.

" I am so old, I remember when Reagan was Hitler."  [And Bush, McCain and Romney were racist, inoculating Trump.]

  - Yes.  They HATED Reagan.  He outsmarted the Soviet Union, the Republican establishment and the Democrats but he was a dunce.  He got the best of his critics when he won 49 states in 1984, including [you name it] Massachusetts, California, Illinois, New York, etc.  Hard to imagine now.  Then then got him by dragging him down with Iran Contra etc.  He got them when he won a third term in the name HW Bush.  And they won in the end when they got Bush to break his taxes pledge and lose.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11969
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1323 on: February 20, 2021, 04:50:44 AM »
"Damaged by the left's hate machine. I am so old, I remember when Reagan was Hitler."

Reagan had a normal personality

even if we had tweeting back then he would not have tweeted
foolish childish self aggrandizing gifts to the Left every day so they can attack him every day

Now the Trump is gone the media turns to Ted Cruz who made the unforced political error
of gong to Mexico
so they can take the heat off Cuomo

it used to be - hear what idiotic tweet trump made today

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53659
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1324 on: February 22, 2021, 08:17:14 AM »
Looking for that Time Magazine article wherein they brag how they rigged the election.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Time Magazine: How we rigged the election
« Reply #1325 on: February 22, 2021, 01:25:39 PM »
Looking for that Time Magazine article wherein they brag how they rigged the election.

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 02:43:29 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 53659
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1326 on: February 22, 2021, 02:42:55 PM »
Thank You

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19270
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #1327 on: February 22, 2021, 02:47:34 PM »
If only Trump had been meek and mild like Mittens Romney!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYtEuuhFRPA

"Damaged by the left's hate machine. I am so old, I remember when Reagan was Hitler."

Reagan had a normal personality

even if we had tweeting back then he would not have tweeted
foolish childish self aggrandizing gifts to the Left every day so they can attack him every day

Now the Trump is gone the media turns to Ted Cruz who made the unforced political error
of gong to Mexico
so they can take the heat off Cuomo

it used to be - hear what idiotic tweet trump made today