56 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-7-24”

  1. Votes for recent Dem presidential candidates:

    Barack Obama (2008): 69,498,516

    Barack Obama (2012): 65,915,795

    Hillary Clinton (2016): 65,853,514

    Joe Biden (2020): 81,283,501

    Kamala Harris (2024): 67,961,957

    Where did the 15,000,000+ mysterious “ghost votes” come from in 2020? Hmmm…

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  4. I found this opinion interesting. I never saw these ads myself. I do remember when we were still in the Democratic Party, they started to move anyone who was LGBTQ etc (well, really that term was not even invented yet) to the front of the line in all committees. They also decided on a continuing party platform, stopping all the discussion and votes on abortion. Ideas can start small but have enormous results; damaging results; killing results.

    https://wng.org/opinions/nonsense-and-rejection-1730927881?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGWpcrVFINNPvTbjOakZDly0IfMjbnvA4k_WafPmgM1TmzzON_Zf3naOyahqXtZ6Eyu_BubtYLeS9vta0j6XpkARS64VedBEK5UZ6XZJMvaifcb

    So much has infiltrated the churches as well. May we get back to reading and interpreting the scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit and walking in truth.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  6. “The groups Harris did best with tell you why the Ds have big problems.

    Rich people (those making more than $100k) went from +5 for Biden to +8 for Harris. The rich are one of the only groups she improved with.

    Those who never go to religious services were +26 for Harris.

    Those who say they have no religion were +40 for Harris.

    College grads were +8 for Harris and those with post-graduate degrees were +24 for Harris.

    The D base is college educated, wealthy, non-religous people. No wonder they’re losing Hispanics and working people. They are a party that’s increasingly rich, non-religious and elitist – and out of touch.”

    “https://x.com/AriFleischer/status/1854270972775305291?t=bbHoOnYl8MRPr56b5T1cig&s=19

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. Our friend was one who stopped all three government branches in our state to be controlled by the Dems. His seat has been held by a Dem for almost a hundred years. I don’t think he ever thought he would be in this position. Serving God can bring us in some very unexpected situations.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  8. There’s a new Sheriff in town. 🙂

    “Arizona just declared for @realDonaldTrump, making it a clean sweep of all swing states!

    Massive red wave success! It is beyond a landslide, as Republicans won:

    – Presidency

    – Popular vote

    – Senate majority

    – House majority

    – State governor majority

    – State legislature majority

    The few states that didn’t go red are mostly ones without voter ID requirements. Must be a coincidence 🙄

    This is an extremely clear mandate from the people for significant change!”

    —-

    “For anyone, whether in America or other countries, who finds this result shocking, they should reconsider where they get their information.

    This trend was obvious on 𝕏 for months, but almost all the legacy mainstream media pushed a completely false reality.

    They lied to you.”

    —–

    Again.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  9. Melt down of the left.

    “Just think about the last two weeks,” Reid seethed, barely hiding her disdain. She cited Trump’s recent campaign promises—like boosting immigration enforcement and reclaiming American sovereignty—as if they were shocking ideas. To her, these proposals are signs of impending doom: “The vulgarity in front of families with young children and the threats to do mass deportation… a violent start to his dictatorship on day one,” she claimed. But here’s the kicker: Reid isn’t just questioning Trump; she’s questioning half of America that supports him. “If all of that gets you half of the votes, what does it tell you?” she asked dramatically.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  10. Good concession speech yesterday:

    In The Washington Examiner, Quin Hillyer said Harris’s speech ‘struck a near-perfect tone’

    “Making a political concession speech is a difficult, emotionally fraught task. In Vice President Kamala Harris‘s concession remarks Wednesday afternoon, she ably upheld the civic imperatives of the moment,” Hillyer wrote. “Let’s not parse every word to identify phrases from Harris that critics believe are disingenuous. Sometimes the cause of statesmanship requires a sort of civically lofty language that hides policy disagreements and personal grievances. Harris strove for, and almost entirely achieved, a constructive tone, an uplifting message, and an appeal to the best parts of American tradition.

    “Harris’s record and ideology make her, for some of us, political anathema. In the immediate aftermath of an extremely divisive election, that status shouldn’t matter. What matters is whether Harris used the occasion to reinforce the ideals of freedom, civil rights, and the constitutional system writ large. And, of course, to revalidate, after four years of discreditable violations from her Republican opponent, the necessity of respecting the results of an election and encouraging the peaceful transfer of power.”

    Amen, and onward.

    • dj

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  11. Dj, I said yesterday that she did a good job with it. I am in agreement. I just wish that with the more liberal sources of posts, articles, and comments that they would not use any and every occasion to bash Trump. And the beat goes on . . . Beat . . . BASH. . Beat . . . BASH . . .no relief.

    Like

    Reply

  12. And from the Tangle blogger:

    ~ I appreciated (the speech) because it left no doubt. A decade ago, I took concession speeches for granted — but after the last few election cycles, particularly 2020, I will never take them for granted again. Harris was clear, direct, and genuine. It sucks to lose, but she lost, and she unequivocally stated she would oversee and assist in a peaceful and organized transfer of power. This was an important message, as I saw some wisps of election denialism (or at least election skepticism) rubbing up online from the left. ~

    (So give credit where it’s due — it’s a big part of what makes our nation unique.)

    • dj

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  13. The one solace for the losing party (either Republican or Democrat) is the emotional release of getting to bash the other side. It’s important to move on from that but in the moment (painful for many of our fellow Americans), I get it. And then to move on.

    The losing candidate’s speech is very important, and it signals that we are still one nation under God and there is a time, once the emotion dies down, to move forward and lay some of the vitriol aside.

    This goes for both sides of course, whether the emotional bashing or the gloating that seems to rise up in the immediate post-election days. It’s called being an adult (and a good American). In my book.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  14. On Tuesday morning, I took one last look at various polls and decided Harris’s only path to victory was 270 to 268. And that wasn’t taking into account polls traditionally under-reporting Trump support. I went for a 5 mile hike. Came back to my friend messaging me that the trading ‘bots were acting is if Trump would win (this before polls closed). The alogirthms designed by the quants are nearly always correct. I spent the afternoon talking with neighbours about work, retirement, chores, etc. It was a beautiful day at 24 degrees (75) so I sat on the porch with some whiskey and enjoyed the evening as if it was summer. Saw light blue on Penn before I went to bed, woke up at 2:30 and it was light red. And at 630 it was dark red – game over. Not entirely surprised.

    The exit polls were what I expected except for “white women”. Pre-election polls and Democratic strategy suggested abortion might pull more to Harris. The lack of white woman support plus young white males going for Trump more than other young demographics sealed it.

    For the sake of stability, Trump needs to win the popular vote along with the electoral college (he’s at 50.9% but they’re still counting). Its not an overwhelming win but its a win. Right now, the House still seems up in the air. It will be interesting to see if the overall House votes match Trump’s percentage.

    Curious if any exit polls match demographics to reasons for vote. My social conservative friends were happy with the results mainly because of trans issues or “woke” issues. Not sure how Trump will cure that but….it motivated them.

    hrw

    Like

    Reply

  15. Reactions

    My female friends were horrified – they see a vote for Trump as an endorsement for sexual violence. His win vindicates, for them, an unwillingness among women to report sexual assault. After all, if people will vote for a known sexual predator, there are no consequences and the victim will always be doubted.

    My Polish friends are fearful it will lead to an abandonment of Ukraine and Russia moving to the Polish border. They don’t want to share a border with Russia

    Palestinian supporters are fearful the genocide will continue and if even possible get worse. Carpet bombing of Gaza perhaps?

    My own view

    Character matters. Civility matters. Trump represents neither. His win will ensure civil discourse especially on the Republican side will be minimal.

    Fear won over hope. Harris had policy and plans with which she hoped would help people whereas “people are eating cats” was Trump’s reply. Fear of the other. This will reinforce the use of scapegoating and dehumanisation in public discourse.

    In terms of economics, I’ve always seen a bipartisan consensus in the US especially since B Clinton. Both parties pursue neoliberal policies (ie Reaganomics) To say these policies don’t work is an understatement, they destroyed the American industry and the middle class. It will be interesting to see if Trump deviates from those policies – a general tariff will be a deviation but the wrong one. It’s essentially a hidden sales tax. And it will grind down international trade which for better or worse is essential especially in the short term.

    It will be also interesting to see if Trump does try to implement “Project 2025” type policies – they will destroy rural America. They have two years to do it since I doubt control of the House will last any longer. And project 2025 demands a strong executive with little regard for state rights.

    In terms of social issues, I can’t see much change unless state rights are not respected. Republican/Red states have gone as far as they can in terms of abortion regulation and the rates won’t change as medication can be mailed and people can still travel. LGBQT rights may suffer but internal migration will resolve that.

    hrw

    Like

    Reply

  16. Just came across interesting demographics – 59% of Latino men voted for Biden, only 44% voted for Harris. That’s a 15% drop. People are debating whether race was an issue ie Harris is mixed black/Indian but I thought gender would be a bigger issue. This helps confirm my suspicion.

    Tychicus — maybe there’s some of your “missing” millions. And some just stayed home. Just curious, you don’t think this election was rigged? Why not? What was different this time.

    AJ

    The Democratic base is well educated and urban. 100K a year in urban areas does not make you wealthy. Last year I made 103k Cdn. I’m not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. I’m middle class. That’s the Democratic base middle class, educated and urban. 44% of the US is college educated, 33% is urban. The real fight is suburban which is 50% of the US.

    It wasn’t an overwhelming victory. Its extremely narrow and a victory lap mentality isn’t good for any side at this point.

    Janice

    Opposition parties have a role in democracies. They present alternative policies, criticising gov’t policies and hold the gov’t to account. Sometimes they get carried away but we need an opposition for democracy to function.

    hrw

    Like

    Reply

  17. The first WORLD article was bizarre. 50.1% is not a resounding victory. And leftist ideology is not solely social issues. Yes Latinos voted on the basis of social conservative issues but that doesn’t mean they endorse neoliberalism (ie Reaganomics), Project 2025 or any other Trump economic policy. You can be socially conservative and still be a leftist. My favourite German party – founded by former communists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahra_Wagenknecht_Alliance

    The tone of the first article was also off putting. I couldn’t read it. The second article was an interesting contrast.

    Like

    Reply

  20. hrw: As aj mentioned, Republicans won the Presidency, the popular vote, a Senate majority, a House majority, a State governor majority, and a State legislature majority. Pres. Trump united Dem and Rep voters, and his coattails led to a resounding victory that certainly was overwhelming. It was indeed the greatest political comeback in US history.

    Don’t bother trying to account for the 15 million Dem vote discrepancy from 2020 – you can’t do it. As to your question re. why this election didn’t have the massive voter fraud that occurred in 2020 (though it was certainly tried in some places), as I’ve already asserted, this time it was simply too big to rig.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  21. I’ll be honest, I’m sort of a checks-and-balances American so I would actually not mind one of those congressional branches being more from the loyal opposition party, just to keep us all in check.

    We’re not royalty, our nation was designed to have some internal criticism — so one side doesn’t go completely off the rails.

    Not that anything like that could ever happen here, of course … Lol

    Either way, in two years with staggered terms the congressional mix will change again.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  23. The Democrat party of today is not the same Democrat party of a few years ago. It has gone way left. It would not be a true check and balance that we’d have seen a little while ago.

    With some high-powered Dems switching to Republican, there may be within the Republican party a new form of check and balance. Yeah, that seems weird, but these are unusual times we are living through.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  24. Reagan/Mondale, 59%/41% was a landslide. Nixon/McGovern, 61%/ 38% was a landslide. Johnson/Goldwater 61%/39% was a landslide.

    Trump/Harris 51%/47% is clear, but not a landslide. Nearly half the people voted against Trump.

    Nearly half the Senate will be Democrats or independents who caucus with them.

    Pretty close to half the House will be Democrats.

    The Republicans have a clear victory, for sure. They can use that to pursue goals and policies that are widely beneficial and appreciated. Or they can use it to further alienate half the country and lose Congress and the White House in ’26 and ’28. We’ll see.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  25. Good points and analysis Kevin. I also was seeing this win as still relatively close, with the nation remaining basically split 50-50 or close enough. So the polling was all that far off as it turned out, but it was always too close to predict within margins of error.

    Personally, I’d like to see the Democrats and Republicans moderate themselves going forward, both parties have gone to their further ends of the spectrum right now (though with the GOP it’s more about the populism of one man, Donald Trump and he’ll be off the stage in a few years; we’ll see if his brand will continue in the party, will depend on how viable it still is).

    We may be stuck in a more extremist mode for now. It happens, who can forget the late 1960s-early 1970s when it took Jimmy Carter’s nomination to bring the Democrats back to earth?

    Losing elections and support is usually what it takes to bring parties back to more normalcy.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  27. The GOP will need to seek wisdom. Trump would do well to find wise counselors not afraid to be honest with him.

    So often power brings hubris (which Trump already possesses abundance) which leads to missteps and blunders and political mistakes, followed by lost elections.

    It will be interesting to see what Trump’s staff and cabinet will look like, who his personal advisors will be. Loyalty is fine, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of smart people who also will not be afraid to be honest.

    For now, the possibilities of Musk and RFK Jr. give me an uneasy feeling.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  29. Yes, why would anyone want a rocket scientist business man who’s given the world landable rockets, free rides for the world’s astonauts, robots, bionic brain chips, and philanthropy out the wazzu in their cabinet? Clearly he’s not qualified,,

    That’s crazy talk….

    🙄

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  32. Debra, Trump is something of an outlier phenomenon – not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative (which is what some people like about him), but more of a populist attraction, a reality show host who caught a wave of discontent in the Republican Party.

    To your question, I suppose I’m speaking more of classic conservatism (and yes, I realize many of you despise all of that).

    Parties change and morph and then change again, so none of these “eras” are forever.

    NJ, Carter followed McGovern, enough said?

    He appealed to a much broader, more moderate swath of Democrats who never could get onboard for the McGovern message in ’72. So yes, he brought the party back to earth. I wasn’t talking about the success or lack thereof during his term. Like all presidents, there were wins, there were many missteps, and losses. Some more wins than losses, others more losses than wins.

    History decides that (as do the voters when the next election comes around; if I’m not mistaken, Carter only served one term?). History though tends to soften our views on some of these eras, maybe because our own era can seem not so great as we’re living through it.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  33. Carter also followed Nixon, now that I think about it. He was a needed breath of fresh air for many who had lived through that discouraging period of Watergate.

    But Carter was probably more respected as an “ex-president” years later, with his work in Habitat for Humanity.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  34. “too big to rig”?? It’s the same size as the previous election.

    It’s a running joke on the left side of the internet — if the Democrats were so smart to rig the 2020 election why didn’t they do it again. Maybe the Republicans cheated better than the Democrats?? Maybe they need to march on Washington chanting “its rigged” with of course no evidence.

    I don’t think the Democrats need to moderate. The Democratic party had no clear message just some policy. Harris spent alot of time trying to bring dissatisfied Republicans like Cheney. As the Democrats expanded the tent to include some on the right, those on the left quietly left.

    Trump won because people are dissatisfied with the status quo. For some it was social policy but for others its the failure of Reaganomics and the decline of the Rust Belt. A different economic message – tariffs, Project 2025, etc may or may not work better but at least its not the standard economic message both parties have been peddling since the 1980s. To win the Democrats need a new economic vision — I like the vision Bernie has been selling.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  35. DJ, you still haven’t given a living example of the kind of moderate you would like to see elected. Is there one currently in the Senate? The House? I’m curious to see the kind of legislation they support that you agree with.

    Like

    Reply

  36. HRW, Democrats don’t need to moderate? Really? They’re observably mentally ill. Some of them need mental help with their basic biology denial. They are living in a delusion. And that’s putting it as succinctly and kindly as I can.

    Bernie would have been a credible left leaning candidate before he threw in with Biden. But I think he is widely considered a sellout now. His credibility is shot. after 2020. I don’t ever hear left leaning Democrats talk of him seriously now.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  37. Debra, it’s not that hard. 🙂 And I think you get what I mean. Whatever classic conservatives you dislike are probably those I prefer, how’s that? We can agree to disagree.

    I do think it’s important to work across the aisle so by way of “moderate” I suppose that’s what I’m primarily getting at. My sense is that it’s a particular notion of old-style governing that doesn’t hold much water on this thread, however.

    Trump? He is flawed by virtue (or lack thereof) of his character but I repeat myself. His political views (some of which I agree with, btw) were adopted by him, I believe, when he saw it as a pathway to politics. He’s an entertainer, he lacks personal virtue and he has led to the further decline of our public discourse.

    I know I’ll be lambasted for that view as I have in the past, but there it is.

    • dj

    Like

    Reply

  40. Mercy you had my brain all in a fuddle…Carter followed McGovern? Huh? We had a President McGovern??? Don’t mess with my old brain k???

    I know soooo many object to Trump’s “character”…such an awful person he was but still is. I am so thankful I know who washes me white as snow and remembers no more….but of course Trump can’t be extended that grace I suppose.

    Now Clinton…there’s a man of grand character stature…him and his winning ways and all….oh yes…he was and is a Democrat…he gets a pass…then there was Kennedy, Roosevelt, and how many more?

    Like

    Reply

  41. No, DJ I won’t lambast you for your view of Trump and I know you’re not alone in that assessment. But much is made of the virtue of moderates in our government. Are there truly no nationally elected officials you consider moderate? What currently serving politician measures up to your standard for national politics? What kind of compromises do they make that allow them to remain moderate in your view? What makes this particular person moderate in your view?

    It’s easy to blast Trump. He’s an easy target; he makes it easy. But it’s always more difficult to build a positive argument for something (like a particular moderate in politics) with specifics. I know you are busy—most of us are. But I really wish you all here on the blog who advocate for the ‘moderates’ in government would dig a little deeper. Who are these people? What do they stand for? Where are they leading? Do they even exist?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  42. Debra, I’m sorry if I sounded frustrated in my earlier post — it’s not so much a “who” as a “what” the standard is.

    So yes, my primary complaint in the past several years has been. with the man, Trump. The reasons are many, of course, and as you point out I’m hardly alone in this assessment. It’s not shallow, but rather gets at what should be foundational traits for a nation’s leader.

    No one “measures up” perfectly, of course, and our culture has fallen quite a distance in recent decades, to be sure. The standard perhaps is simply unrealistic anymore, though something that would profit us all to return to.

    Surely we could do better than this.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  44. Local news is already talking about the next elections. Kemp can’t be governor again so it was mentioned that he has eyes on the White House. I have wondered about that for quite some time. I know how AJ feels about him.

    Like

    Reply

  45. That said, I’m not a “far right” kind of person, I’m a center-moderate conservative. I think the difference is pretty clear generally, so it’s more of a position than “naming a name.”

    I liked Nikki Haley, I liked Tim Scott, I still like Trey Gowdy, though the first two of these also caved formally to Trump for whatever reason (political, I’m guessing), so they lost much of my attention with that. Disappointing, but probably not surprising in this climate and within “political” circles where such things are required to stay alive. I suspect they’ll regret it someday, but perhaps not. What do I know.

    This isn’t the golden age of principled politics or principled politicians (but is that an oxymoron? probably).

    Call me picky.

    • dj

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  46. And Kemp — he now is a Trump supporter; but as we see, true “trumpers” like AJ only despise and revile him anyway.

    Good luck to these folks, but this is a cut-throat era for so-called “republicans” — or whatever they call themselves these days.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  47. Not asking for perfect, only for someone with enough good character (flawed of course always, but surely we understand the general standards?) to lead a nation that values those kinds of qualities. Maybe we’re not that kind of nation anymore.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  48. DJ, Ok, so I think I understand your position a little better with the names. Names are just examples, and it’s understood that examples will hit the mark in some areas and not in others. So in a discussion, if one aspect of the person or their position is emphasized it may be a particular that you do or don’t agree with, right? It’s the same with supporting Trump, I suppose; most don’t support his vulgarity, but do like most of his policies and think he has the intent to deliver as much as he can.

    As a presidential candidate, I thought of Nikki Haley as an interventionist establishment candidate. And by that, I mean she favored using a heavy hand abroad including CIA or military force and her domestic policies favored big business. I read in one article that as governor of SC she wanted to abolish the corporate income tax altogether, but would have left the state individual income tax in place. I am not an expert on all things Nikki Haley, so in your opinion, what makes her moderate—it can’t be just her demeanor.

    Like

    Reply

  49. NJ – From what I remember, Clinton did not get a pass in conservative or Christian circles. I remember much talk about not being able to trust him because of his lack of character.

    DJ’s mention of Carter following McGovern puzzled me, too, for a moment, but then I figured she meant followed him as a candidate.

    Like

    Reply

  50. NJ, you’re misunderstanding DJ about Carter and McGovern. She never said McGovern was president, and she never said Carter was a good president. She said Carter brought the Democrats back to earth after McGovern.

    McGovern was way out in left field, and Carter brought them back closer to the center.

    Does that make sense now?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  52. Sorry for the confusion, thanks for clearing that up if I wasn’t clear (and I guess I wasn’t). But yes, I was speaking of the Democrat nominees and the impact on the (Democrat) party.

    And yes, I well remember the angst over Clinton, it caused a major upset among many of us within Christian circles — the shame of a president who would be entangled in such a thing, what had happened to us?

    I guess it wouldn’t matter so much now.

    • dj

    Like

    Reply

  53. Debra, I think we best avoid wars by having a strong defense, keeping our eyes open; so — to me — that’s simply a matter of having wisdom to be aware (and ready).

    So you and I have a more fundamental difference there, beyond candidates we may feel comfortable with or willing to support. A different problem altogether, that.

    • dj

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  54. I support being careful about entanglements — but isolationism (which is how I see much of what I’m hearing from Republicans now) is just not a wise course. It’s a lesson we seem to need to relearn every few generations or so, though. Trump’s naive embrace of Putin (as well as Kim Jon Un) is, in my mind, dangerous folly.

    • dj

    Like

    Reply

  55. dj: Pres. Trump received the most votes by any presidential candidate in history (the fake Dem count in 2020 doesn’t count, of course, at least in my mind). That’s what made it too big to try the same shenanigans of drawing out the count for days on end in certian key states, assessing how many votes they needed, then dropping enough of the late mail-in ballots, etc. to cover the difference. That’s why it was too big too rig this time, esp. b/c most people knew they had already cheated in 2020.

    In general, I’m with you re. not having a single party in charge of all three branches, but in this case I’m glad, b/c it’s going to take a LOT to undue the damage (esp. what happened through lawfare, censorship, terrible border policies, terrible economic policies, terrible energy policies, etc.) of the previous administration. This way, the new admin will be able to get a lot more done a lot quicker. And Janice made a great point @3:57 about how “out there” the Left now is.

    Btw, when some of us speak of Conservatism here and when you speak of it, it seems that we are talking about two different concepts. in what ways has the Republican Party “gone to the further end of the spectrum”? In what ways is it now in “extreme mode”?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  56. Holding enemies close is not folly but wisdom. Remember, everything we see is tainted by the tilt of our glasses to the left or right. If our news sources that we believe are left leaning then we will believe Trump has true friendship with Communist leaders. He has respect for their power as I see it. His respect masquerade as a type of friendship.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply