The Next President is...

[disgruntledemployee]

I read something that said Biden felt dissed so when he withdrew, he named Kamala as a fuck you.  I don't think he has enough brain left to do that, but the spin is fascinating.

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I read something that said Biden felt dissed so when he withdrew, he named Kamala as a fuck you.  I don't think he has enough brain left to do that, but the spin is fascinating.

The DNC is self-immolating with the blame game, I hope they come to some self-reflection about just how extreme they became.  Fareed does a good job of breaking down three major mistakes, even if he does pat himself on the back for calling these errors in advance.

1.  "The collapse of the immigration system and the chaos at the border"

2.  "The overzealous misuse of the law to punish Trump"  "Overeducated urban liberals were hypocrites, happy to bend rules and norms when it suited their purpose."

3.  "The dominance of identity politics that came from the urban academic bubble."

He wraps with liberals using "speech codes and cancel culture that censors or restricts that most cherished of liberal ideas....free speech"

The GOP was got reflect and corrected after the beatdown that was supposed to be a red wave in 2022, I wonder how long it will take the DNC to cull the heard.  California and Massachusetts are poised to fight to the death for the failed policies...the shit show will continue.

[TreeA10]

Few on the Dem side had the testicular fortitude to call BS on this but a week later, everybody saw it coming and thought it was a losing path.  Maybe they were also in China with Tampon Tim when Tianamen Square want down.  The scary part is none of this would come out if Harris had won and then the past policies are good to go for another 4 years.

[guineapigfury]

4 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I read something that said Biden felt dissed so when he withdrew, he named Kamala as a fuck you.  I don't think he has enough brain left to do that, but the spin is fascinating.

The timeline forced the Democrats to go with Kamala.  Since she was on the ticket with Biden she still got to access the campaign funds they'd raised prior to his withdrawal.  That would not be the case for anyone else and those funds would have to be returned to the donors or given to the DNC if neither her nor Biden were the nominee.  The DNC could spend that money, about $100 million, on ads but not on directly running the campaign as that would violate campaign finance laws.  If the Democrats had speedrun a second primary or picked literally anyone else at an open convention, that candidate would have to build a campaign apparatus from scratch and start fundraising from a base of $0 all less than 4 months from the election.  The Democrats really just did not have any other option than to go with Kamala since she was the only candidate with existing campaign funds and equally important an already existing campaign apparatus in place.  You go to the election with the campaign you have if I can paraphrase an F-tier SECDEF.

[di1630]

The timeline forced the Democrats to go with Kamala. 

Not true, $ stuff is accurate but Donors flocked once Biden was out. There would have been plenty.

Rumor has it the Obamas were readying Mark Kelly to take the ticket and Biden endorsed Kamala with no support from the DNC high ups as a F-U for being ousted in the manner he was.

Really sour relations reported between Obamas and Bidens.

Mark Kelly v Trump even with a smaller war chest = Trump loss and we’d have a different outcome.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[ViperMan]

12 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I read something that said Biden felt dissed so when he withdrew, he named Kamala as a fuck you.  I don't think he has enough brain left to do that, but the spin is fascinating.

I want this to be true so badly. The irony of her calling him a racist in the 2020 election cycle and then him, an ornery old man, sinking her future political career with this kiss of death would be absolutely delicious, but I don't think he was that adept.

The whole thing went exactly according to their plan...problem is, it didn't work.

8 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

The timeline forced the Democrats to go with Kamala.  Since she was on the ticket with Biden she still got to access the campaign funds they'd raised prior to his withdrawal.  That would not be the case for anyone else and those funds would have to be returned to the donors or given to the DNC if neither her nor Biden were the nominee.  The DNC could spend that money, about $100 million, on ads but not on directly running the campaign as that would violate campaign finance laws.  If the Democrats had speedrun a second primary or picked literally anyone else at an open convention, that candidate would have to build a campaign apparatus from scratch and start fundraising from a base of $0 all less than 4 months from the election.  The Democrats really just did not have any other option than to go with Kamala since she was the only candidate with existing campaign funds and equally important an already existing campaign apparatus in place.  You go to the election with the campaign you have if I can paraphrase an F-tier SECDEF.

That was their plan. They didn't want Biden. They didn't want a primary. Dems waited until the time was right so they could jettison Biden, but were also close enough to the general election that they couldn't "afford" to hold a run-off or primary. Don't kid yourself. Pelosi and Obama wanted nothing to do with a damaging free-for-all primary that was going to be anybody's game with all the attendant uncertainty, all the while Trump was dodging bullets and chucking spears in the background.

No. The plan was to prop up Kamala and pray. It didn't work.

[M2]

On 11/10/2024 at 6:37 PM, ClearedHot said:

As I don't trust any media, even that which I agree with; and as I have been playing around with AI a lot lately (STS), I decided to ask this question of it.  While it couldn't give me a map for some reason, here are the results...

Here is a list of every state, indicating who won in the 2024 Presidential Election and whether the state requires a photo ID to vote:

States with Strict Photo ID Requirements

1. Alabama - Donald Trump
2. Georgia - Donald Trump
3. Indiana - Donald Trump
4. Kansas - Donald Trump
5. Mississippi - Donald Trump
6. Tennessee - Donald Trump
7. Wisconsin - Donald Trump

States with Non-Strict Photo ID Requirements

1. Arizona - Kamala Harris
2. Arkansas - Donald Trump
3. Colorado - Kamala Harris
4. Florida - Donald Trump
5. Idaho - Donald Trump
6. Louisiana - Donald Trump
7. Michigan - Kamala Harris
8. Missouri - Donald Trump
9. North Dakota - Donald Trump
10. Ohio - Donald Trump
11. Rhode Island - Kamala Harris
12. South Carolina - Donald Trump
13. South Dakota - Donald Trump
14. Texas - Donald Trump
15. Utah - Donald Trump
16. Virginia - Kamala Harris

States without Photo ID Requirements

1. Alaska - Donald Trump
2. California - Kamala Harris
3. Connecticut - Kamala Harris
4. Delaware - Kamala Harris
5. Hawaii - Kamala Harris
6. Illinois - Kamala Harris
7. Iowa - Donald Trump
8. Kentucky - Donald Trump
9. Maine - Kamala Harris
10. Maryland - Kamala Harris
11. Massachusetts - Kamala Harris
12. Minnesota - Kamala Harris
13. Montana - Donald Trump
14. Nebraska - Donald Trump
15. Nevada - Kamala Harris
16. New Hampshire - Kamala Harris
17. New Jersey - Kamala Harris
18. New Mexico - Kamala Harris
19. New York - Kamala Harris
20. North Carolina - Donald Trump
21. Oklahoma - Donald Trump
22. Oregon - Kamala Harris
23. Pennsylvania - Kamala Harris
24. Vermont - Kamala Harris
25. Washington - Kamala Harris
26. West Virginia - Donald Trump
27. Wyoming - Donald Trump

Here are the definitions for strict, non-strict, and no ID required voter identification laws:

Strict Photo ID Requirements

• Strict Photo ID: Voters must present a government-issued photo ID to vote. If they do not have an acceptable ID, they can vote on a provisional ballot but must take additional steps after Election Day for their vote to be counted. 

Non-Strict Photo ID Requirements

• Non-Strict Photo ID: Voters are asked to present a photo ID, but if they do not have one, they can still vote by signing an affidavit, having a poll worker vouch for them, or using another method to verify their identity. 

No ID Required

• No ID Required: Voters are not required to present any form of identification to vote. These states use other methods to verify the identity of voters, such as matching voter registration information with other records. 

[M2]

And since I was already messing around with Copilot, I decided to ask it the predicted results of the 17 outstanding House seats.  The GOP currently has 214 seats and the Democrats 205, with 218 needed for a majority)...

Here are the predicted winners for the outstanding House election results in key states:

Arizona

• 1st District: Leaning Republican
• 6th District: Leaning Democrat

California

• 13th District: Leaning Democrat
• 22nd District: Leaning Republican
• 27th District: Leaning Republican
• 41st District: Leaning Republican
• 45th District: Leaning Democrat
• 47th District: Leaning Democrat
• 49th District: Leaning Democrat

Colorado

• 3rd District: Leaning Republican
• 8th District: Leaning Democrat

New York

• 4th District: Leaning Democrat
• 19th District: Leaning Democrat
• 22nd District: Leaning Democrat

Oregon

• 5th District: Leaning Democrat
• 6th District: Leaning Democrat

Texas

• 34th District: Leaning Republican

These predictions are based on the latest vote counts and trends¹²³. The final results will depend on the remaining ballots being counted and any potential recounts or legal challenges.

[nunya]

You need 218 for a majority. 270towin has called several of those, putting Rs at 219. The only ones they've not called are AK and 5 in CA.

[M2]

17 minutes ago, nunya said:

You need 218 for a majority. 270towin has called several of those, putting Rs at 219. The only ones they've not called are AK and 5 in CA.

Yeah, I fat-fingered 214.  Thanks, I've corrected my post to read 218! 🫡

And I can't access 270towin at work! 🤬🤬

[M2]

And even more great news...

Next year’s Congress will feature the most women vet members ever

The next session of Congress will feature the most women veterans ever elected to the House and Senate, with at least eight winning races this year.

And that number could grow by one more: Iowa Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks holds a small lead in her re-election bid, with a few thousand votes left to be counted. The total is already double 2018, when only four women with military experience were among the 535 voting members of Congress... (full story at title link)

[brabus]

4 minutes ago, M2 said:

The next session of Congress will feature the most women veterans ever elected to the House and Senate, with at least eight winning races this year.

 

But but but, I was told America is largely misogynist and won’t elect female leaders!

[dream big]

13 minutes ago, brabus said:

But but but, I was told America is largely misogynist and won’t elect female leaders!

Kristi Noem tapped for Homeland Security, arguably one of the most critical cabinet positions. My money is on Tulsi as SecDef. Man what will you tell your daughter!?!

[nunya]

12 minutes ago, dream big said:

My money is on Tulsi as SecDef.

I just saw her reply to that implication with a grin and “He’s making choices.”

[Vito]

Also, remember, the Democrat apparatchik’s  were fine propping  a senile Biden as long as they THOUGHT HE COULD WIN. After the debate, it became obvious he wouldn’t win,  so they dumped him ASAP. If he had performed satisfactorily in the debate, we could possibly be looking at another 4 years of Biden as a figurehead President with other non-elected operatives pulling the strings of the Biden Puppet. Add to that,  the fact that Kamala was waiting in the wings to assume the Presidency as the first Black, female President. A Liberals wet dream.  None of these schemes were for THE GOOD OF THE NATION.  This goes to show how conniving and un-democratic the Democrat  party apparatus is.  The more I look at this election I realize how Un-American and power hungry the Democrat party really is. With a willing accomplice in the main stream media, they didn’t even try to hide it this time!  What Hubris.

Edited November 12, 2024 by Vito

[StoleIt]

8 hours ago, M2 said:

As I don't trust any media, even that which I agree with; and as I have been playing around with AI a lot lately (STS), I decided to ask this question of it.  While it couldn't give me a map for some reason, here are the results...

Here is a list of every state, indicating who won in the 2024 Presidential Election and whether the state requires a photo ID to vote: 

Classic correlation vs causation. Liberal states vote left and a leftist tenant is their disbelief in voter ID laws. Not that a lack of voter ID turned those states liberal. They were already liberal.

Also, as of today, that list seems to be incorrect since Trump has won Nevada and Pennsylvania.

Edited November 12, 2024 by StoleIt
grammar

[Vito]

Stolelt,

  You can also look at it this way. No voter ID requirements allows illegals to vote, even though they’re not citizens. So assume a few million Illegals voted in these No ID states, most probably for the party that facilitates them.(democrats)  You don’t think a few house races would be affected by these extra imported voters? 

[tac airlifter]

On 11/9/2024 at 4:58 PM, TreeA10 said:

An update shows the FEMA employee has been fired. 

 

Interesting follow up to the story. I gotta tell you, Elon Musk taking over Twitter  and restoring free speech is one of the greatest things to happen in my lifetime.

[SocialD]

15 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Interesting follow up to the story. I gotta tell you, Elon Musk taking over Twitter  and restoring free speech is one of the greatest things to happen in my lifetime.

 

 

Oh man, this is either good intentions being twisted into political fodder or there is about to be a shit storm in FEMA come Jan lol.  I don't want to believe that this was a wide spread policy and that there was not one person with a spine to blow the whistle on such a thing.  This will be interest to see how this plays out.  

[StoleIt]

3 hours ago, Vito said:

Stolelt,

  You can also look at it this way. No voter ID requirements allows illegals to vote, even though they’re not citizens. So assume a few million Illegals voted in these No ID states, most probably for the party that facilitates them.(democrats)  You don’t think a few house races would be affected by these extra imported voters? 

I agree that illegals voting can happen. But, I don't believe it did, especially in any significant numbers, occur in this election. I'd be happy to see proof to the contrary, though.

I am all for legal/approved ID being required to vote. I think that's just (un)common sense IMO.

[arg]

In NM you need ID to register. At the polls they ask some PII. So there is room for some fraud. Significant numbers would take time but I guess it's possible.

[M2]

As of five minutes ago... GOP 216 seats, Democrats 207.  Here are the statuses of the remaining races...

Alaska At-Large District: Republican Nick Begich is leading incumbent Democrat Mary Peltola by over 10,000 votes.
Arizona's 6th District: Incumbent Republican Juan Ciscomani is ahead of Democrat Kirsten Engel by 4,900 votes.
California's 9th District: Democrat Josh Harder is leading Republican Kevin Lincoln by more than 7,000 votes.
California's 13th District: Freshman GOP Rep. John Duarte is ahead of Democrat Adam Gray by nearly 3,000 votes.
California's 21st District: Democrat Jim Costa is leading Republican Michael Maher by just over 1,300 votes.
California's 22nd District: Republican David Valadao is ahead of Democrat Rudy Salas by 9,500 votes.
California's 41st District: Republican Ken Calvert is leading Democrat Will Rollins by more than 7,500 votes.
California's 45th District: GOP incumbent Michelle Steel is ahead of Democrat Derek Tran by 3,900 votes.
California's 47th District: Democrat David Min is leading Republican Scott Baugh by more than 3,200 votes.
California's 49th District: Democrat Mike Levin is ahead of Republican Matt Gunderson by 14,000 votes.
Iowa's 1st District: Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks is leading Democrat Christina Bohannan by 796 votes.
Maine's 2nd District: Democrat Jared Golden is ahead of Republican Austin Theriault by more than 2,100 votes.

If everything stays on track, the GOP will end up with 223 seats and the Democrats 212.  Iowa's 1st District is the closest vote difference with only just under 800 votes...

[TreeA10]

I'm baffled in this age of near instantaneous information exchange, Google searches in microseconds, and real time tracking of millions of package locations by freight carriers, why the hell can't votes be counted in a day? A week is just plain stupid.

[HeloDude]

8 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:

I'm baffled in this age of near instantaneous information exchange, Google searches in microseconds, and real time tracking of millions of package locations by freight carriers, why the hell can't votes be counted in a day? A week is just plain stupid.

Someone has to explain to me how it’s not due to incompetence, or worse (hopefully not), due to shady stuff going on.

[Smokin]

Some may be mail in ballots that had questionable signatures and needed to be verified, ballots that the machine rejected and have to be counted by hand, things like that.  But in general, I agree.  I voted in person this year for the first time in 20 years and the machine took my ballot as fast as copier and a little green light came on indicating that everything was good and it was counted.  My vote was registered into the state count within seconds.