Radical Serge in Republican Voter Registrations Sin Carlie Kirk's Death

[A2SG]

Again, people are allowed to change their minds.

Yup.

-- A2SG, didn't disagree...just commented on conclusions drawn from that happening....

 

[RileyG]

Yup.

-- A2SG, didn't disagree...just commented on conclusions drawn from that happening....

Cool

Have a lovely evening

 

[DaisyDay]

Every time I see this thread, I think, "Radical serge? I can't think of a less radical fabric."

Clinton tanked her own campaign.

No, her campaign picked up steam after the email server investigation was closed and was widely predicted to win, but then eleven (11) days before the election, Comey announced, against FBI protocols, that he was reopening it, only to close it again a mere two (2) days before the election. Despite this, Clinton won the popular vote.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Every time I see this thread, I think, "Radical serge? I can't think of a less radical fabric."


No, her campaign picked up steam after the email server investigation was closed and was widely predicted to win, but then eleven (11) days before the election, Comey announced, against FBI protocols, that he was reopening it, only to close it again a mere two (2) days before the election. Despite this, Clinton won the popular vote.

Clinton lost to Trump because of James Comey...check. Harris lost because of Joe Biden...check. The DNC actually accepting responsibility and showing the level of self awareness necessary to learn from their mistakes....non existent.

 

[DaisyDay]

Clinton lost to Trump because of James Comey...check. Harris lost because of Joe Biden...check. The DNC actually accepting responsibility and showing the level of self awareness necessary to learn from their mistakes....non existent.

Lols.

 

[durangodawood]

Bring it on!

 

[A2SG]

Clinton lost to Trump because of James Comey...check.

No, Clinton lost due to the Electoral College. More Americans voted for her than for her opponent, but the way the Electoral College works, that didn't matter.

-- A2SG, granted, Comey didn't exactly help....

 

[rjs330]

People are leaving the Democratic party. Some of it due to their far leftist ideology. Now Some of it is due to how people have responded to rhe Charlie Kirk murder. So yes people have left.

The more radical they become the more people they lose.

However, I still think the economy will be the DRIVING factor in the upcoming elections. If it's bad the Democrats will win. If its good the Republicans win. If its okay and remains the same, the Republicans win. Mostly due to stuff like this.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, Clinton lost due to the Electoral College. More Americans voted for her than for her opponent, but the way the Electoral College works, that didn't matter.

-- A2SG, granted, Comey didn't exactly help....

Then explain that to @DaisyDay. She seems to disagree.

 

[A2SG]

Then explain that to @DaisyDay. She seems to disagree.

No need, she knows perfectly well what happened:

Despite this, Clinton won the popular vote.

See?

-- A2SG, she's pretty well informed overall....

 

[Oompa Loompa]

People are leaving the Democratic party. Some of it due to their far leftist ideology. Now Some of it is due to how people have responded to rhe Charlie Kirk murder. So yes people have left.

The more radical they become the more people they lose.

However, I still think the economy will be the DRIVING factor in the upcoming elections. If it's bad the Democrats will win. If its good the Republicans win. If its okay and remains the same, the Republicans win. Mostly due to stuff like this.

It is time to turn the overton windows back about 20 years.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Clinton came very close to winning. Comey pretty much tanked her campaign. What were the Democrats supposed to learn from that? To have a thoroughly partisan DOJ? Trump learned.

Being close to win is irrelevant; she was defeated.

In 2016, aside from Senator Sanders—who was not a Democrat—there were no credible challengers to Secretary Clinton. Democratic leadership assumed it was Clinton's turn and believed no one could defeat her. Primaries should involve a competitive process so voters can choose their preferred candidate, but that was not the case for Democrats in the 2016 primary.

Did James Comey’s outburst about Clinton a week before the election affect the results? I believe so, especially since he kept the investigation into Trump private. Did Russian social media propaganda against Clinton have an impact? However, these were not the sole factors contributing to Clinton's loss in the election.

If there had been more candidates in the 2016 primary, issues like emails, servers, and classified information might have been discussed more openly, giving voters a fair chance to evaluate everyone carefully. Instead, voters were left with only Clinton as their option.

Hillary Clinton, while recognized for her intelligence and policy positions, she had no charisma like her husband or President Obama. Her style lacks the inspirational quality typically associated with highly charismatic politicians. While President Trump’s policies may not appeal to everyone, he demonstrated the ability to energize his base much like Presidents Obama and Clinton did during their campaigns. Charismatic politicians tend to motivate voters, whereas those perceived as more reserved and analytical, such as Hillary Clinton, may face challenges in cultivating similar enthusiasm. Do you know she did not visit two important states needed to win: Michigan and Wisconsin, during either the primary or general election. Instead, her campaign focused on Georgia and Arizona.

It appears that the Democrats didn’t learn anything from 2016 election. Even after nine years, many continue to attribute their loss to external factors such as Russia's involvement and James Comey's actions. They made the same mistake in 2024 by nominating a candidate who received no primary votes.

 

[durangodawood]

Being close to win is irrelevant; she was defeated.....

Its completely relevant when the dispute at hand is about who we the people preferred.

 

[DaisyDay]

Being close to win is irrelevant; she was defeated.

It is relevant because the criticism is that she ran a poor campaign. I have acknowledged in each post that she lost the Electoral College even while winning the popular vote.

In 2016, aside from Senator Sanders—who was not a Democrat—there were no credible challengers to Secretary Clinton. Democratic leadership assumed it was Clinton's turn and believed no one could defeat her. Primaries should involve a competitive process so voters can choose their preferred candidate, but that was not the case for Democrats in the 2016 primary.

Did James Comey’s outburst about Clinton a week before the election affect the results? I believe so, especially since he kept the investigation into Trump private. Did Russian social media propaganda against Clinton have an impact? However, these were not the sole factors contributing to Clinton's loss in the election.

If there had been more candidates in the 2016 primary, issues like emails, servers, and classified information might have been discussed more openly, giving voters a fair chance to evaluate everyone carefully. Instead, voters were left with only Clinton as their option.

Hillary Clinton, while recognized for her intelligence and policy positions, she had no charisma like her husband or President Obama. Her style lacks the inspirational quality typically associated with highly charismatic politicians. While President Trump’s policies may not appeal to everyone, he demonstrated the ability to energize his base much like Presidents Obama and Clinton did during their campaigns. Charismatic politicians tend to motivate voters, whereas those perceived as more reserved and analytical, such as Hillary Clinton, may face challenges in cultivating similar enthusiasm. Do you know she did not visit two important states needed to win: Michigan and Wisconsin, during either the primary or general election. Instead, her campaign focused on Georgia and Arizona.

It appears that the Democrats didn’t learn anything from 2016 election. Even after nine years, many continue to attribute their loss to external factors such as Russia's involvement and James Comey's actions. They made the same mistake in 2024 by nominating a candidate who received no primary votes.

What should the Democrats have learned but to have the DOJ, including the FBI, loyal to the president rather than independently loyal to the Constitution and the rule of law as Trump has put into action in his second term?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Again, you are wrong. All of the individual results are in that link.

Trump came in 2nd in Iowa, behind Cruz. Then he came in 1st in NH, SC, and NV. By the time they got to Nevada, half the field had dropped out, but 5 candidates were still left in the running (including Trump).​

​

On Super Tuesday, there were 11 state primaries, of which Trump won 7, came in 2nd in 3, and 3rd in 1.​

​

After that, Carson dropped out, leaving 4 candidates.​

​

Of the next 9 states (I'm skipping PR, Guam, DC, and VI), Trump won 5, came in 2nd in 3, and 3rd in 1.​

​

Then came Super Tuesday #2, which still had 4 candidates. Of those 5 states, Trump won 4 and came in 2nd in the other.​

​

Then Rubio dropped out, leaving 3.​

​

Of the next block of 7 states - this one's a bit muddled because of some state-level quirks, but say Trump won half of them.​

​

Then on Apr 26, 5 states in the northeast/mid-atlantic voted. Trump won all of by at least a 2:1 margin. This was with 3 candidates left. And he dominated the rest from there.​

​

Trump was ahead of everybody from the beginning. There were a couple weeks between the Super Tuesdays when it looked like Cruz might have a chance of catching up, but that was about it.

Over the past nine years, I have had many conversations with evangelical Christians from my church and social circles who voted for President Trump.

They all presented a similar rationale: they supported Mike Huckabee during the primary because he is considered a man of faith, an ordained minister with strong character, and a positive role model. However, after his withdrawal from the race, they felt compelled to vote for Trump.

My response is: if someone chooses Huckabee for his faith, role modeling, and Christian values, but then supports a candidate who has been divorced twice, married three times, and faced multiple allegations of misconduct, it suggests that their criteria regarding faith, character, and the sanctity of marriage were not consistent. The shift in support from Huckabee to Trump raises questions about their conviction of these principles.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Its completely relevant when the dispute at hand is about who we the people preferred.

We the people preferred Trump over Clinton in 2016.

 

[durangodawood]

We the people preferred Trump over Clinton in 2016.

Thats false. Trump won the election. But we the people preferred the other candidate. Unfortunately that was the constitutionally valid outcome.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

It is relevant because the criticism is that she ran a poor campaign. I have acknowledged in each post that she lost the Electoral College even while winning the popular vote.

What should the Democrats have learned but to have the DOJ, including the FBI, loyal to the president rather than independently loyal to the Constitution and the rule of law as Trump has put into action in his second term?

Democrats should recognize that, regardless of who the Democratic or Republican candidate is, approximately 40% of Americans consistently vote for the Democratic candidate and another 40% vote for the Republican candidate. Only about 10% of Americans are likely to change their preference between parties. This group of voters tends not to focus on issues such as democracy, the DOJ, abortion, or the Constitution; instead, their main concern is often the cost of everyday items like tomatoes at the grocery store. As one prominent Democrat once stated, "It's the economy, stupid."

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Thats false. Trump won the election. But we the people preferred the other candidate. Unfortunately that was the constitutionally valid outcome.

The rule of the game is 270 electoral college. Talking about popular votes is irrelevant.

 

[durangodawood]

The rule of the game is 270 electoral college. Talking about popular votes is irrelevant.

Its relevant when the dispute is over "did X party run a candidate whos acceptable to the voters or not".