November 7, 2024

Unstolen election mega-thread

Just re-posting two initial comments here for now to get the ball rolling, will add to it in the comments as usual.

* * *


Why didn't Dems steal it this time? Well, Dems were promising to steal it -- the state election boards in battleground states, the media, and Obama himself on the campaign trail.

Why didn't they this time? Perhaps the election steal of 2020 was part of the broader civic breakdown of 2014-2020 -- most of which was marked by political violence, hostile rhetoric, etc. Stealing an election is not physical violence, or even heated rhetoric, but it is hyper-competitive, antagonistic, anti-social, etc.

It was also part of the broader hostile crusade by woketards, like censoring and deplatforming everyone during the 2014-2020 abyss. That's also hostile, anti-social, war-like, etc., but not physically violent.

This is part of the Peter Turchin 50-year cycle in civic breakdown, whose last peak was the late '60s and early '70s, then the late 1910s and early '20s, late 1860s and early '70s, a missing explosion circa the late 1810s and early '20s (which was instead the Era of Good Feelings), and another burst around the Revolutionary War of circa 1770.

It's a kind of energy that builds up, and then dissipates, over a cycle lasting 50 years, or 25 years in either direction.

By 2024, it was already clear that the violent symptoms of this pattern had abated -- BLM and Antifa did not burn down half the country in '24, there were no roving executions of cops caught on camera like in the mid-late 2010s, Democrats didn't roam around assassinating Trump supporters for no reason and getting off with no bail, etc. Although there were 2 assassination attempts on Trump himself -- the violence hasn't gone to 0, but it's only 5% of what it was during the 2014-2020 abyss.

Libtards didn't even hold marches when the Supreme Court over-turned their sacred cow of Roe v. Wade in '22. There will be no pussy hat marches when Trump is re-inaugurated.

Twitter allowed itself to be bought out and taken over by Musk, which would not have been allowed in 2014-2020, and they submitted to the new orders about no more crazy censorship and ban waves.

So, the failure or unwillingness of Dems to carry out the steal this time must be part of that general dissipation of policitized zeal from its 2014-2020 peak (abyss). There will be no Russiagate, #MeToo, Resistance, etc. bullshit like there was during Trump's first term, during the peak of politicized zealotry.

I thought since stealing an election wasn't violent or confrontational, they'd still do it -- especially since that's what they were promising for the past few months, right up through most of election night, with Philadelphia halting their vote count early in the evening, waiting for the rest of the state to return their numbers, anticipating a steal. Who am I to second-guess the same message, from the same top-level figures, that was followed up on by a successful insane steal in the very last election?

The energy level declining across all dimensions -- violence, censorship, stealing elections -- is also bipartisan. There was WAY less zeal on the Trump side this cycle, compared to 2015-'16, and even 2020. No one is sincerely posting God-Emperor memes anymore, no one is champing at the bit to lay the first bricks in that Big Beeyooteeful Wall, which never got built the last time. And there's just been far less trolling and teabagging this time than in 2016, and certainly 2020 when it got stolen, preventing the teabagging.

Politicized zeal overall in American society has fallen off of its 2014-2020 explosive peak, and will reach a minimum circa 2045, which will be as non-partisan as the mid-1990s were 50 years earlier. Then the next explosion will happen in the 2060s and early '70s, and the cycle will keep on repeating...

* * *


Also a quick dunk on tech determinist dum-dums, who blamed / credited the explosive zeitgeist of 2014-2020 on newfangled tech (social media, smartphones, "meme magic," online in general).

Well, Americans are even more online than they were in 2016, yet the zealotry has fallen off a cliff after 2020, and will continue plummeting toward a minimum in 2045 -- all while Americans continue to be as online, or even more online, than they were in the 2014-2020 period.

That's the cross-temporal proof. Then there's the cross-sectional proof -- Japanese people have become more and more online since they first adopted the internet. Yet they have experienced no such explosion of politicized zealotry -- whether leading to violence, censorship, heated rhetoric, stolen elections, or whatever else.

All technologies are mere tools, indifferent to how they're used, and impotent to shape, channel, or nudge human societal systems or individual behavior. Rather, the dynamics of society and individual psychology lead to some people using some tech for some purpose in some state of affairs, and some others to use some other tech (or even the same tech) for some other purpose when they're in some other state of affairs.

Americans didn't need social media or the internet or online anonymity to carry out an equally explosive bout of zealotry in the late 1960s and early '70s, or the late 1910s and early '20s, or the Civil War or the Revolution -- or the civic breakdown of the 60s AD during the Roman Empire, most of whom weren't even literate, let alone employing a communicative medium other than speech sounds coming out of the mouth.

When the cycle enters a crazy zealous phase, they use whatever means / media they have at their disposal, and when the cycle leaves the crazy zealous phase, they either use different media that have no stain of the zealous-associated media, or they use the same ol' media for a different purpose.

Technologies are utterly indifferent to how they're used, and they have no deterministic or even probabilistic influence stemming from inherently from themselves, toward human behavior, at any scale (person, group, society, etc.).

51 comments:

  1. Homework assignment for right-wingers emphasizing the excess of 15-20 million votes that Biden supposedly got in 2020 vs. Harris in 2024, but also vs. the Democrat in 2016 and 2012 and 2008, etc., which was one of the clearest signs of massive fraud in 2020 -- and has now been confirmed by it collapsing back to Democrat vote totals for 2008, '12, and '16, without the society-wide coordinated steal machine of 2020.

    Repeat this very simple intuitive analysis -- at smaller scales. Go state by state, but start with the stolen states of 2020. With 15-20 million fake votes in the nationwide pile for 2020, undoubtedly all states were contaminated by them. But if the purpose was to steal certain battleground states, the fradulent excess should be very apparent in those ones at a minimum.

    Go finer-grained, focusing on the big cities in the stolen states of 2020 (Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta and its suburbs, etc.).

    Perhaps two levels of fine-scale -- counties making up a single metro area and going metro by metro within a single state's boundaries (some metro areas span multiple states), and even finer going single county by county.

    This will look even more stark and revealing, cuz I doubt that the 15-20 million fake votes landed in rural counties, and there are a lot of rural or small-pop counties. The fraud would've been concentrated in the counties that house the dominant city of the state, its broader metro area, and maybe some second-tier cities as well.

    I will get the ball rolling, but will not flesh it out entirely -- that's someone else's job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2020 Democrat vote fraud, as shown in vote totals for Pennsylvania statewide, Philadelphia County, and the Philadelphia metro area (within PA), from 2008 through 2024.

    The vote is still be tallied or tabulated or reported, so it'll increase somewhat, but not drastically. The '24 figures reflect what is reported on electionreturns.pa.gov on the afternoon of 11/7.

    Pennsylvania, D votes (mill)

    2008: 3.28
    2012: 2.99
    2016: 2.97
    2020: 3.46
    2024: 3.3

    Without the gargantuan steal machine in '24, D votes plummeted back to Obama '08 levels, and not too high above '12 and '16 levels. D's lost 160K votes between '20 and '24.

    The surge between '16 and '20 was about a 5% increase in votes -- that may sound small, but 5% annual inflation is big, especially in a large-pop statewide figure that should be fairly stable. And it was not meant to flip PA to being 90% D -- just enough to steal it back across the narrow margin that Trump won it with in '16.

    Philadelphia County, D votes (thou)

    2008: 596
    2012: 589
    2016: 584
    2020: 604
    2024: 553

    Because Philadelphia initiated, then walked back, the steal on election night '24, by halting the vote count or holding back that information, there are still some left to be reported. Nevertheless, so far there are some 50K fewer votes in the county in '24 vs. '20.

    The surge between '16 and '20 was about a 3.5% increase, similar to the statewide pattern.

    For the Philadelphia metro area, aggregate Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties.

    Philadelphia metro, D votes (mill)

    2008: 1.35
    2012: 1.28
    2016: 1.33
    2020: 1.52
    2024: 1.44

    Another plummet in D votes by 80K between '20 and '24, though still notably elevated above even Obama '08 levels, which is prima facie unbelievable.

    The surge between '16 and '20 was a comically ridiculous 14% increase, an order of magnitude above the surges in the state or county scale.

    This super-high excess, and the still very elevated levels vs. Obama '08, says that the steal was concentrated in the entire Philly metro area, not just the city, and that they were absolutely pumping out fake votes like mad in '24.

    However, their pile of fake votes was only half as big as it was in '20, and they were going up against a higher pile of R votes statewide. Trump got 3.38 mill in '20, increasing to 3.45 mill in '24.

    The fake-vote-printer was only working at half-output, and had to tackle a wider gap = D's called off the steal that was already in motion.

    Better luck next time, suckers!

    ReplyDelete
  3. To cut some slack to the black urban working and lumpen classes in the city of Philadelphia, and to heap more of the blame onto the white fake email job MSNBC junkie psychos in the suburbs, have a look at the vote surge between '16 and '20 by county within the Philly metro.

    D vote increase, 2016-'20 (%)

    Phil: 4
    Buck: 23
    Ches: 29
    Dela: 17
    Mont: 25

    Again, even the Philadelphia County results are sus, but the other 4 suburban counties are outright unbelievable. That's where the lion's share of the fake-vote-printer was operating during the steal of 2020.

    On the other side of the steal, compare the decrease from '20 to '24

    D vote decrease, 2020-'24 (%)

    Phil: 8
    Buck: 5
    Ches: 1
    Dela: 5
    Mont: 3

    Philadelphia actually threw in the towel more than the suburbs did. The stealers remained far more psycho and committed in the affluent suburbs than in the shithole city itself, even if all of them were less psycho than in 2020.

    Just something to remember when writing your fanfic about who will be put into the camps on the Day of Truth and Reconciliation.

    Back on planet Earth, though, Trump won't touch the wealthy white libtard suburbanites who are his most committed enemies, cuz he's a (disjunctive) neolib and prizes yuppies first and foremost, and probably won't bother going after the less-important blacks of the city proper (cuz waycism).

    But just so the historical record is clear, it's the middle-class white professional progs and libs who are the problem, not emotionally exhausted blacks from the city.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't mean wealthy white suburbanites voted more D than urban black workers. That's not what "the enemy" means -- that's just "the other team" or "rival" in a fair-play competition.

    By enemy I mean the cheaters, psychos, breaking or re-writing rules willy-nilly, no concern for long-term stability in pursuit of short-term selfish gain, destroying the entire competition by melting down the norms, just so you can win this one single match.

    The psychos and cheaters are middle-class white Democrats, not urban working / lumpen blacks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In fact, given the psycho reactions by middle-class white Democrats to Hispanics, and Arabs for lowering their level of support for the Democrat this time, I wouldn't be surprised if the Philly Dem machine isn't going to launch the most KKK-tier tirade against the blacks of the city itself, in private of course.

    "While all counties had somewhat lower vote totals than in 2020... SOME OF US managed to hold the line better than OTHERS OF US..."

    "[Sucks teeth] Why don'tchu jus' come on out 'n' SAY IT!"

    "If you damn pavement apes had just gotten off your LAZY ASSES and done the work, if we didn't have to BABYSIT YOU so much... maybe we could've pulled it off again! There! Happy?! I hope you are!"

    Imprison white middle-class Democrat voters, for the welfare of all races, sexes, and classes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was delightful to see the Arabs of Michigan turn against the Dems en masse wasn't it? Particularly given how many thought in 2016 that Trump would lead a Fourth Reich with Muslims and Mexicans as the equivalent of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs!

      Then again, pre-9/11 American Muslims were natural allies of the GOP. Pat Buchanan even courted them in his 2000 Reform Party campaign. During the Cold War, conservative Muslims were the allies of Republican administrations against the Commies. It is a little known fact that they even held out on the Chinese mainland until 1958!:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang_Islamic_insurgency

      Now that the commies are kind of back, its nice the see the old trans-Med ethnic group alliances coming back again.

      Delete
    2. Some blacks were also psycho against Hispanics and Arab Americans for betraying their side, to the point where they are disavowing the whole "people of color" alliance over on Twitter.

      You talked earlier on the blog on how blacks hate recent immigrants like Hispanics and Arabs and Asians:

      https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2018/01/black-vs-immigrant-tensions-heating-up.html

      It's looking like realignment in 2028 is going to be American nationalism on the Democrat side with anti-immigrant whites and blacks who can trace their ancestry back before the civil war vs imperial multiculturalism on the Republican side with Ellis Islander ethnic whites + Latinos + Asians + other recent immigrants.

      Delete
  6. I'm not surprised. This cheating in elections usually happens in a period of huge economic inequality and striving and elite competition and internecine warfare like today and also like the previous Gilded Age in America, where you regularly see people like Boss Tweed steal elections for their own side.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fraud was rampant in a small-pop deep-blue state like Vermont in 2020 as well, not just battleground states.

    Vermont, D votes (thou)

    2008: 219
    2012: 199
    2016: 197
    2020: 243
    2024: 215

    The surge between '16 and '20 was a comical 23%, which has since crashed back down below Obama '08 levels, though still a bit higher than '12 and '16. (The '16 figure includes both Clinton and Bernie write-ins.)

    So it looks like the fake-vote-printer was not just trying to flip battleground states, but to run up the nationwide popular vote on top of that, to deliver a SUPER-DUPER stinging rebuke to Trump. Sad and pathetic -- and also totally impotent, since doing so made it unbelievable, and just reminded all sides that the people favored Trump rather than Biden.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Moving onto bellwether analysis, start at the state level -- Ohio and Florida are long-term historical swing states. Rarely, one of them votes against the eventual occupant of the White House -- but almost never do both of them vote against the eventual occupant.

    In 2020, while others were doing bellwether county analysis, I did that for the state-level, and going back through all of American history, not just the past several cycles. The only elections were both Ohio and Florida voted against the eventual occupant of the White House were 1960 and 2020.

    The 1960 election is admitted to have been stolen, although no one makes a big deal out of it anymore. It was stolen through the city of Chicago, during the Daley Machine's heyday, and since Illinois used to be a swing state in that era (not a long-term swing state), and has a huge population, that was just enough to narrowly steal the nationwide election. It was not a comical steal of a dozen battleground states as in 2020.

    In 2024, both Ohio and Florida voted the same way -- and in favor of the eventual occupant, restoring the system to normal. It's the exact same candidate, too -- Trump -- not just "a Republican" or "the same choice, regardless of party or individual".

    How did both Ohio and Florida vote for that same exact individual in 2020, yet the other party occupied the White House? Cuz the other side stole it, in only the 2nd time in American history (the other being 1960). Ohio and Florida have been states since the 1848 election onwards -- plenty of a track record to judge from.

    ReplyDelete
  9. See this post from 2020 about how to do bellwether analysis at the county level. It's actually different from what most people mean when they say "bellwether counties", more clear and standardized. It showed that 2020 was not just anomalous in itself, but highly compared to 2016.

    The statistical test for counties is in one of the comments, not the main body of the post, which also focused on state-level (Ohio + Florida) analysis.

    https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2020/11/judging-soundness-of-elections-from.html

    I'll have to wait until later when all the results are in to see how anomalous 2024 looks -- but from the state-level being normal, I'm guessing the county-level will be normal, too.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But all of this statistical forensic analysis pales in comparison to the events that everyone remembers from election night 2020 itself -- the Great Ballot Count Stoppage.

    The counting, tabulating, and reporting of votes was shut down on election night, across a dozen battleground states.

    All of these states began dumping pallets of ballots in the wee hours of the morning, day after day, week after week, seemingly month after month.

    These pallets of ballots were not from real live people running over to a polling location with a real ballot in their hands, waving frantically and shouting, "Wait! Wait! I overslept the election by 5 days, lemme hand in my ballot!" They were in suitcases.

    And they did not even remotely match the partisan composition of the place they were from -- 70, 80, 90% Biden. Laughable.

    For days, weeks, and months after the election was already over, they kept adding these pallets of ballots dumped off at 4am by the hundreds-of-thousands and skewing 80% Biden.

    None of these elements had ever happened in American history, let alone at this scale! Results are in on election night, period.

    And that's why the media, Dem officials, etc., all warned the nation in advance of election night 2020 -- "There may appear to be a Trump victory on election night, but WE PROMISE, that will all change in the days, weeks, and months afterward. In fact, EVERY SINGLE ELECTION has gone this way since our inception. You have never experienced an election where the results were in on election night. Now just be patient, and everything will be OK."

    That's also why in 2024 the media and Obama and the battleground election boards were trotting out the same line about how America has never had its results in on election night, that it takes days, weeks, and months to finally discover the outcome, and that the apparent winner on election night will be reversed afterward.

    Total bullshit and lies. We've always had the results on election night, and we've never heard the media, Dem officials, state election boards, etc., issue the warning about "wait until the days, weeks, and months after the election is already over to find out the results". That only began in 2020.

    Nobody stops the ballot-counting process when they're winning -- only when they're losing. And the only reason they do so, is to lie about their true numbers through whatever means they have at their disposal (and are irrelevant).

    I know this is all obvious, and old hat, but I'm writing for future historians from outer space, who didn't live through all of this personally.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And so, *that* is another major change in '24 -- results in on election night, nationwide.

    The Philly metro initiated their steal, by declaring that their results would not be fully released until later, and they were done for the night.

    Then Michigan's board said their results would be the first to be reported among the battleground states, but that this would only "possibly" be overnight -- possibly even later. If they were going to be first, that meant the others would report later still.

    The ball was rolling.

    But then, for whatever reasons, they walked back their halting of the ballot-counting process. Presumably they crunched the numbers, discovered that their fake-vote printer was only operating at half strength, and that their opponents had an even larger pile of votes than in '20, so the steal would not work. Maybe in one state, but not all of them.

    So they threw in the towel, and all states' results were known on election night. None of the major media outlets said "It's still too early to tell" about the nationwide results, let alone continuing to say that for days, weeks, and months later.

    Democrats will not occupy the White House, after an election whose results were fully reported on election night. They only occupied the White House last time, after an election whose results were shut down on election night, continually added to for days weeks and months later, and final results known well after the election was already over.

    So it's not just the number of votes that surged in '20 and then crashed back to earth in '24 -- it's the processing and reporting of results, which was halted and then added to forever in '20, but was fully carried out on election night in '24.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I give no credit to the Trump team's army of lawyers and poll watchers, pre-emptive threats by Lara Trump about "no cheating," etc. It's nice they had something put together beforehand this time, vs. jacksquat last time.

    But despite that, the election boards of the battleground states, the media, and Obama himself were still issuing their warnings about the results not being in on election night, it takes days weeks and months to finally discover the results, and "that's normal" (that's never happened outside of 2020).

    And despite that, the Philly metro initiated their steal by shutting down the processing of ballots. And Michigan followed suit.

    They only walked that back after midnight EST on the day after the election (still election night).

    And again, we can see from the Philly metro results that their fake-vote printer was still operating this time, unlike 2008, '12, or '16, but like '20.

    So, they were not deterred at all by the combined Republican / Trump effort to prevent a steal. They ran the exact same playbook as in 2020.

    It's just that, on their own side, they couldn't produce nearly as many fake votes (perhaps reflecting the flagging enthusiasm of their psycho activists, or funding getting cut by their patrons).

    And on the other side, Trump ran up bigger numbers statewide, making the stealers' target harder to hit.

    Those two things are the only reason they reversed the steal, after starting the steal. It was not cuz they were afraid of poll watchers (impotent) or lawyers (toothless, since judges will never overturn a purported electoral result) or a Trump family member keyboard warrior-ing on social media.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In the future, the single biggest message and threat about accepting election results has to be that they must be fully reported on election night.

    Halting the tallying, tabulation, and reporting of results is in itself grounds to conclude that the purported party lost, and is only resorting to these delaying tactics to reverse their loss. If some entity, from a ward all the way up to a state, insists on delaying, then everyone from the public to the government itself will consider that a forfeit and award the contest to the winner before the halt was implemented.

    When I say "reporting," I mean by the election boards themselves to the general public -- not by the media to the media audiences.

    And emphasize to the general public that it has never been the case that the results were not fully reported on election night -- that that only happened in 2020. It is NOT normal.

    No, 2000 does not count -- the results were fully tallied, tabulated, and reported on election night, but the two parties disputed these results afterwards. That dispute, after the fact of reporting the results, is what dragged on forever after the election -- not the basic reporting of results themselves. That was in on time, on election night.

    In 2020, there was no dispute about the results the day after the election -- cuz the results kept being added to and modified for days weeks and months! You can only dispute the outcome once the outcome is in, and the outcome didn't come out until forever after the election. Totally different case from 2000.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't think there will be any stolen elections in the foreseeable future. Any Democrat activists would have lost the energy and motivation to steal the election by 2028, and if Trump is a disjunctive president then the Democrats are going to win a landslide next election anyways, so there will be no need for stealing elections from the Democrat perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dems definitely stole the Michigan and Wisconsin Senate seats; possibly Nevada too. The more they steal, the chance of any re-alignment from them drops below zero.

    With regards to Pennsylvania, Shapiro has presidential ambitions so Harris winning would have pushed him out until 2032.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Do you think it's more likely that the Democrats become the populist nationalist realigning party in 2028 or that the Democrats implode like the old Whigs and are replaced with another populist nationalist realigning party in 2028?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Energy level declining - the last outburst was in 2021, since then legal marijuana and push to use psychedelics and become a passive vegetable has increased quite a bit. It's the 1970s 2.0.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I've always thought (well, since it was possible to think like this, in the late 2010s) that the Dems *are* headed toward the fate of the Whigs. Usually realignment doesn't involve creating a new party, but in their case it did (Whigs collapsed, Republicans took their place as the non-Democrat party).

    Why? Hyper-polarization, lead-up to the literal Civil War. Realignment meant bringing over chunks of the old rival party, in that case defectors from the Democrats. But in hyper-polarized times, it's hard to switch sides like that in large numbers. If there's a new party, it doesn't have the tainted association of the boo-hiss Other Party as the existing other party has.

    1850s Democrats could not bring themselves to switch to being Whigs. Just like today's Republicans can't bring themselves to switch to being Democrats (boo-hiss, puke!).

    But if 1850s Democrats aren't becoming Whigs, but Republicans... well, maybe that's not so bad. And if 2020s Republicans are not becoming Democrats, but Populists (or whatever the post-Democrat party is called), well, maybe that's not so bad.

    And from within the realigning party, the old one is no good. They've enabled the hyper-polarized climate to get so insanely far, they can't be trusted to lead a new way forward. Whigs in the 1850s had let the matter of slavery on the frontier get all the way to Bleeding Kansas, way past the Missouri Compromise of the non-polarized Era of Good Feelings (1820). So whoever is a Whig and wants to put a radical end to all this enabling, cannot remain a Whig -- they have to change into a Republican.

    Look at all the Reaganite garbage the Democrats have supported and enabled since the '90s. NAFTA was a Republican treaty, drawn up by the Bush Sr. admin, under the orders of the Republican sector of manufacturing (to make use of cheap labor in Mexico for their off-shored factories, instead of well-paid American labor). It got huge majority GOP support in both houses of Congress, while being rejected by Dems in both houses (with enough traitors, though, to combine with the huge number of GOP supporters, to make it pass). Clinton signed a treaty that his rival party drew up, supported in huge numbers, and was thoroughly rejected by his own party and support base. Neoliberal scum.

    Reaganite Dems supported every failed war of the past many decades -- no wins, no glory, no spoils, just pure loss and humiliation. Dems have an even worse record on supporting failed wars, though, cuz they used to be the military party during the New Deal and earlier, when they had the Solid South, where the military bases are concentrated. They supported the Korean, Vietnam, anti-Cuban, etc. wars from the '40s through the '70s, lost every one of them, wasted tons of our money, killed huge numbers abroad and of our own, and put L after L on the international scoreboard, humiliating Americans who treat war as a sports contest.

    How can anyone who wants to realign the Democrat party work with that disgraceful track record stretching back decades?

    That's why Bernie's a nominal independent -- the Democrat party stinks too much for would-be realigners internally, and is too noxious to court massive defections from their rivals.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But I don't think national realignment is even possible going forward. Realignment presumes that the nation is whole, and follows a single over-arching paradigm, with support from both parties and across the nation. One party blazes the trail for it, while the other is a Johnnie-come-lately, but sooner than later they both carry it out.

    E.g., the New Deal being spearheaded by Dems, resisted but then joined by Republicans (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, etc.). Or Neoliberalism being spearheaded by Republicans under Reagan, resisted but then joined by Democrats (beginning with Clinton).

    The last time we were this hyper-polarized, we had an integrative civil war -- when the empire was still expanding and cohesive. Now the empire is contracting, and people don't view the whole country as "my fellow Americans". So we won't have another integrative civil war -- it will be disintegrative, and probably not a shooting war but just breaking apart, but you never know, some shooting could take place as well.

    So the real realignment coming down the pike is at the state level or regional level, like DeSantis in Florida or Newsom in California. Merely breaking away from the central state is pretty far into realignment territory -- realigning away from the model of a central state, and toward one with multiple rump states to the old empire.

    Then within each state or regional duchy or whatever, there will be trailblazers who pioneer the way forward for their own distinctive rump state. And perhaps none of them will carry on the names or branding of the two major parties from the pre-collapse stage.

    National-level realignment just seems totally out of the question, until we split up into multiple new nations and realign at that smaller-scaled level. A fresh start, no sense of having to hold your nose and defect toward the old rival party. It's not the old party, it's a brand new one, for a brand new nation!

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Soviets thought they had a realignment under way with Glasnost and Perestroika in the '80s... then the whole empire collapsed, and there was no way to realign the USSR at that scale. They had to split up into multiple rump states to the old Russian Empire, and only within that smaller scale could people realign away from Communism.

    It will be qualitatively no different during the collapse of the American Empire just a few decades later.

    ReplyDelete
  21. About the Arabs in Dearborn MI breaking their Democrat chains, I had a pretty good hint of that just beforehand, from Rania Khalek's focus group of them. I think only 1 tenous Harris voter, a couple Trump voters, 1 undecided, and the rest were "third party" AKA Jill Stein.

    I knew about the huge "uncommitted" vote they gave during the (non-)primary this year, but still, shocking to see how many just blew off the Democrat party altogether.

    But, not so shocking, considering how the Democrats have treated them -- typical post-Ellis Island treatment, where they give you nothing and expect your loyalty just cuz you're a "person of color", "ethnic minority," "historically disadvantaged population," or whatever other Civil Rights bullshit euphemism.

    STFU and do me favors, or you get no loyalty.

    But it was so much worse this year -- Democrats not only gave them nothing, they sent their leading figures like Bill Clinton to say to their faces on an official campaign visit, "Y'know, if your babies weren't terrorists, then Israel would not have to blow them up."

    They just couldn't help themselves from rubbing their failed Zionist war in their faces. But then I'd be bitter and seething if I were the so-called pre-eminent military in the region and couldn't wipe out Hamas, let alone if I were getting invaded and annexed by Hezbollah and bombed by Iran.

    Anyway, what I found more striking -- and reassuring -- was that none of the people in her focus group were woketards blaming white people. Several spontaneously said, "the same things that are hurting us are hurting white people too, sometimes even more so, like the opioid epidemic".

    Very much an anti-woke left group of people. Not so surprising, considering the ethnic composition of the anti-woke left:

    https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2019/08/ethnic-composition-of-anti-woke-left.html

    Arabs, including Lebanese Christians, have not been integrated into the Democrat ethnic patronage network system. The Muslim ones are barely integrated at all, which is why Rashida Tlaib is such a novelty rather than a standard type, like the zillions of African-American Congress members.

    Also endearing to hear how many of that focus group had not just assimilated by speaking fluent English, but had clearly grown up with a strong regional Michigan accent. Only the recent immigrants had generic American or slightly ESL accents instead of Michigan accents. But the ones who grew up there sounded like Michael Moore was their next door neighbor.

    And of course pleasant to see how many babes there were -- but they were Levantine, so that's only natural.

    That, and seeing the Green VP candidate come out against men in women's sports (triggering AOC), gave me a last-minute convincing to vote for Stein. Although as it turns out, it doesn't get tallied in Ohio cuz she was late to fill out some paperwork, so her name appeared on the ballot and could be chosen, but it would not be counted in the tallies. Oh well, as long as I never vote Democrat for prez. It was as if I cast no vote for prez.

    Too bad to see Sherrod Brown, one of the remaining Dems worth a shit, get beaten by some generic neocon homosexual Republican, but that was just riding Trump's coat-tails. Last time he won in 2018, when Ohio was fiercely pro-Trump, but it was a mid-term so Trump didn't carry the down-ballot candidates so much.

    Left the US House vote empty, but voted R the rest of the way down -- gotta keep libtards on a tight leash at the state and local level.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anna K. was talking a lot about speaking the language of your adoptive country, as a bare minimum for assimilation.

    Obviously she speaks English, no prob there.

    But it's an even stronger signal when you adopt the regional accent of where you grew up. That shows a stronger rooted bond to a wide group of natives of the country -- which you cannot do when you learn it in a classroom in your home country, however well you master it. You still won't get a regional accent.

    I wish Anna would let her Jersey girl accent out more often, for that reason. Very endearing, even if she's not aware of it, or tries to hide it cuz she thinks New Jersey is declasse. It's a stronger testament of your assimilation! ^_^

    One word in particular, she pronounces "forward" in the Mid-Atlantic regional accent, as FOE-word instead of FOR-word as in the standard American dialect. Usually in the phrase "going forward". One example of a non-rhotic pronunciation (half non-rhotic anyway, pretty sure she says the "r" in the 2nd syllable), even though most of her dialect is fairly rhotic and not very old school New Jersey.

    Is "wahmen" the New Jersey way of saying "women"? Everybody always loved it when she said that...

    Then there's the broader Northeast pronunciation of "bury" as BURR-ee instead of BEAR-ee. I forget if she's ever said that one or not.

    I may be able to better overtly articulate these things, but even the listeners who cannot, probably still pick up on them, and appreciate them. They like when a girl from New Jersey sounds like a Jersey girl.

    ReplyDelete
  23. About the opposition party being too toxic for the defectors from the dominant party, I wonder if the Labour Party in the UK is in that situation. Maybe the realigners in the UK, instead of Labour, will be some successor populist anti-Tory party who takes control after Labour implodes from being too much of a toxic woke Blairite Thatcherite neoliberal party like they are currently under Keir Starmer.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Outside America, it depends on how polarized the country is, whether they'll realign with an existing party or have to totally start a new one. That's the logic -- only when the climate is hyper-polarized, does the old opposition party have to be eradicated and rebuilt from the ground up, in order to realign.

    Also in Europe and elsewhere they come up with new parties all the time, and that's not a sign of realignment necessarily. Unlike in America where the parties endure for very long periods.

    As one example of realignment already under way from the existing oppo party -- Denmark is being realigned by the Social Democrats, originally founded in 1871, member of the Party of European Socialists, etc. Totally mainstream, longstanding left party. They're ushering in anti-immigration populism, as of 2022.

    The neoliberal era in Denmark was carried out by the right, as in America and Britain, with Poul Schlueter being their Reagan / Thatcher. The right, under him and later under the Venstre Party, has been the dominant party for the neolib era.

    Starting with the Social Democrat PM Frederiksen in '22, they're realigning rather than merely adapting themselves to the neolib status quo.

    But Denmark, as part of Scandinavia, lies outside of the defunct Euro empire zone -- did not have an empire of their own, and were not part of another empire. And even during the neoliberal '90s, Danish people rejected adopting the Euro currency, and that vote was respected by the government.

    So perhaps it's no surprise that their country is an early trend-setter for realignment away from neoliberalism, and toward nationalist populism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The big sign to look for, though, is the return of industrial-scale manufacturing to Denmark. Neoliberalism gradually melted down manufacturing plants in well-paid countries and rebuilt them in cheap-labor, shoddy workmanship, poor quality assurance shitholes in the Third World and sometimes Eastern Europe.

    I grew up with, and now have picked up new examples of, Danish furniture that was made in Denmark during the 1990s. But now when you see something branded with the Danish flag, Danish name, etc. -- it's a teak cutting board that's actually made in Thailand, not Denmark. No sale, then!

    Danish Modern architecture and design was the pride of their nation not so long ago -- they will never recover their former glory without it!

    Profit margins must be crushed, in order to restore high-quality at affordable prices and with national prestige. So only the over-turning of the "profits uber alles" industrial policies will reverse de-industrialization, and Make Danish Modern Great Again. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  26. I easily found cutting boards that were Made in Italy, brand-new in a discount retail store (TJ Maxx / Home Goods), and they were not more expensive than the made-in-Thailand ones with Danish branding. Or maybe a couple bucks more expensive, IDK -- not a different category of price-point, though. Solid wood, well made, excellent function! By Legnoart, if you're curious.

    That was in the 2010s, don't know if they're still easy to find for good prices in Anywheresville America. But easier to find than made-in-Denmark ones -- which you'd probably have to pay a handsome sum for at an antique / vintage store. I'll totally pick one up for cheap at a thrift store if I come across it, but I'm not paying an insane amount for a cutting board, especially if it's made in a cheap-labor sweatshop colony!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I've been pointing out for awhile how Gen Z is an echo of Gen X, and it's heartwarming to see them resemble us politically as well -- dropping the excessive played-out libtardism of the generation before us.

    Very clueless social media shysters try to paint Millennials as the based generation, when they are defined by their woketard crusade of the 2010s. Being part of the 5% of your gen who isn't a flaming woketard doesn't excuse the other 95%.

    Gen X has been Republican-leaning since they were teenagers, and have remained so into middle age. Millennials will never "age out" of being Democrats, just as X-ers never aged out of being Republicans. Millennials are pushing 40 and still that way, including those with a marriage, mortgage, and munchkins.

    Good ol' Zoomers, first election when the late teen and 20-something demo is dominated by them instead of Millennials, and it's a bloodbath for woketards and Democrats. Not just among the male half either (same was true for Gen X females being more GOP-leaning than Boomer or Millennial females at the same age).

    Obviously they're not voting for industrial policy, taxes, etc. -- they're enjoying a healthy backlash against the woketard oppression that fucked up their lives during the Biden admin and earlier. And not being raised as woketards, they had no counter-balancing benefits from that system to placate them.

    Not that you would know any of this by being a sad little social media junkie, binging on cherry-picked ragebait clips of broccoli-haired Zoomers from TikTok.

    Just another reminder that all Millennial whining about Zoomers is just confession through projection. All those culture war crusades, cancellations, Antifa / BLM rioting, tearing down statues, etc., was perpetrated by Millennials, not Zoomers, who were only in high school or middle school during the woketard 2010s.

    And now that they can vote, they're coming out guns a-blazin'! OK Boomer, whatever you say, Boomer!

    Luv Zoomers. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  28. Raora is a daddy's girl, confirmed! ^_^ Around the 2-hour mark in her drawing stream today, she talks very fondly about her dad, how cute and sweet he is, how he watches her streams, how he likes when her fans (chattini) give her flowers, how her fans might get to meet her dad sometime, and so on... very proud of his talented and popular little girl! Awww...

    Then she says her mom hardly knows who her fandom is, lol.

    Sounds exactly like Irys' family dynamics. I hope they can collab sometime and bond over being daddy's girls, how they have cool interests in order to bond with their dad, etc. It's rare among girls, but very much appreciated by the mostly male fandom!

    Daddy's girls are the cool chicks, hehe.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In fairness to Millennials, who are forever stuck in the 2000s, you can see how they all became libtards -- in reaction to the state of conservatism / right-wing / GOP during the George W. Bush years.

    It wasn't a fresh revolution like Reagan's initial election in 1980, not exciting or novel or other things that would appeal to a young person (which Reaganism did to Gen X-ers in the '80s).

    Stagnant, boring, stupid (low-IQ), Dunning-Krueger glibness mixed with failure, failed to defend against 9/11 (the whole raison d'etre of a sky-high military budget), humiliating losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, blew up the whole economy in 2008.

    Of course you're going to swing away from that right, if that's what the right is at the time you're becoming conscious or forming your identity.

    And that's why Trump had to shit all over the Bush era, and Bush himself -- pointing angrily at Jeb on the debate stage, and barking "His brother did NOT keep us safe on September 11th!"

    Although a minority of Millennials, right-wingers / Trump supporters cannot possibly join a GOP-led movement if it's still linked with the nemesis of their generation's political consciousness. Same with Millennial indies who are open to either side -- can't be anything Bush-related.

    At least, in branding -- in outcomes, Trump I was just a Jeb Bush presidency with Trump branding.

    But branding has to do with identity and consciousness, not with real-world outcomes. If it's going to be the same ol' tired and failed Bush-ism, in turn the same ol' tired and failed Reaganism, well at least give it a branding that makes it go down without such a bad psychological association.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really think Millennials would have been different if their childhood/youth was spent under a Gore Presidency?

      Keep in mind the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was signed by the Clinton Administration and Joe Libermann, Gore's would-be Vice President, campaigned on overthrowing Saddam on practically a regular basis (even before 9/11).

      Delete
  30. Millennials confused by how right-shifting the Zoomers are, just apply your own identity formation in a boo-hiss reaction to 2000s conservatism, to someone coming of age during the insane woketard crusade of the 2010s.

    Denying basic science, while demanding everyone trust the science, flip-flopping during the Covid hysteria, cancellations and witch-hunting, Dunning-Krueger glibness (trust the science, it's called being a decent fucking human being, etc.) combined with ignorance and failure, demonizing white people / men / heterosexuals / Americans, burning the country down to whip votes for some geriatric libtard who tanked the country, sacralizing the previous libtard president just cuz he's half-black, and on and on down the line.

    Of course the next gen is going to swing away from the left, when that's the state of the left as they're coming of politically aware age.

    Millennials should therefore also internalize the fact that their worship of Obama is just as cringe as right-wing worshipers of George W. Bush or that era in general.

    Trump destroyed the sacrosanct aura that Bush and the 2000s had, so whatever realigning Democrats are out there must also destroy the sacrosanct aura around Obama and the 2010s.

    Otherwise they'll be as cluelessly shut-out as the GOP as of 2016, before Trump won the primary -- saying Bush Jr. was a great president, all praising Saint Ronnie on top of it, bla bla bla. Only Trump said, "Y'know Ronald Reagan was a nice guy, nice guy -- but he did the 1986 amnesty of millions of illegal immigrants, signed the most pro-abortion laws as Governor of California, yadda yadda yadda... not the greatest prez we ever had". And just shredded Bush Jr.

    If Democrats, or post-Democrats, want a Trump of their own, they're going to have to disown the whole woketard 2010s, gay marriage, cancel culture, racial demonization, Obama personally, etc. Otherwise no one will take them seriously about having gotten rid of all that toxic waste that they're still currently lugging around with them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, I'm saying Millennials imprinted on 2000s conservatism, and reacted against that. It just so happens that an R was prez for most of that time, but it could've been Gore or Kerry for that time, and 2000s conservatism would've been in the same state -- and would've produced the same backlash among Millennials.

    For example, Zoomers imprinting on 2010s lib-prog-woke-tardism were exposed to that happening under a D prez (Obama, then usurper Biden), but some under an R prez (Trump-era Resistance, #MeToo, the height of BLM and Antifa, etc.).

    Ideologies, or practices, or whatever, are present whether they currently occupy any level of office or not. It's that state of affairs for one side, whether or not it controls the presidency, Senate, House, etc., that impressionable minds are forming a picture of and reacting to.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The cross-sectional proof is that British Millennials are the same as American Millennials, and yet they were experiencing 2000s conservatism under a Labour government -- in fact, from 1997 to 2010.

    But 2000s conservatism in Britain was mostly the same as in America, and impressionable minds rejected its ridiculousness and became lifelong libtards in reaction.

    This is a closer comparison since the dominant parties in the neolib era are both right-wing in Britain and America (beginning with Reagan and Thatcher). The 2000s in Britain saw a left party in power, and an oppositional left party (unlike in most of Europe, where a left party would've been the dominant party of the neolib era).

    And yet, British Millennials are the same as American ones. There may be subtle degrees of difference, since American Millennials were railing against the incumbent 2000s right-wingers, whereas British ones were railing against the out-of-power 2000s right-wingers, but they're 99% identical AFAICT.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Not that campaigns matter much (larger sets of forces matter), but the Harris campaign accepting and touting the endorsements of the #2 right-winger under George W. Bush himself, Dick Cheney, and his equally Bush-era neocon daughter, just shows how out-of-touch and doomed the Democrats are to irrelevance.

    They had to disavow those endorsements, and heap scorn on the Bush Jr. admin as a whole for good measure, in order to not alienate the nation as a whole -- but their Boomer and Millennial core demos in particular.

    Millennials imprinted on a world where George W. Bush is Satan -- you can't say you're glad to have Satan's endorsement, his Vice-Satan's endorsement, etc. You have to say that Satan is just trying to sow Satanic trickery and chaos by endorsing us -- he really supports our rival, since they're from the same party, and we disavow Satan and want him banished back to Hell where he came from.

    Trump disavowed Bush Jr., viciously attacked his record on all sorts of topics, including launching the pointless War on Terror and not protecting us from 9/11, probably the major topic for which Millennials concluded Bush Jr. was Satan. Then proceeded to shit on his brother, to his face, and disavowed and waved away the loud chorus of boo's coming from those who were loyal to the Bushes or at least fond of 2000s conservatism.

    Again, this just amounted to branding -- the real-world outcomes were idential to a Jeb Bush or Romney presidency. But still, to even go down without a noxious taste among voters, successful R's like Trump had to shit all over Bush Jr. and everything related to him from the 2000s.

    Realigning D's or post-D's will have to do likewise relating to Obama and his era, in both his neolib and woketard aspects. The 2010s and early '20s really were the worst of both worlds for the left party -- iconoclastic heritage-hating destruction and persecution, and austerity and inequality to boot!

    Zoomers (and Americans as a whole) might have bitten their tongue about the woketard shit if it had been paired with New Deal economics. Instead it was "What if Reagan, but witch-hunting half the population?" Garbage!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "War of Terror" is mostly just the persistent Saudi palace struggle exported further abroad as a means of getting rid of their bad apples anyway. I didn't know if you saw this article in a remarkably mainstream magazine on Saudi complicity in 9/11:

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/september-11-attacks-saudi-arabia-lawsuit/678430/

      Remember the WikiLeaks release of Crooked Hillary's emails on how ISIL was a means for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to offload their bad apples.

      Delete
    2. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney really looked like Bond villains in the 1970s:

      https://photos.com/featured/donald-rumsfeld-with-richard-b-cheney-bettmann.html

      Gerald Ford apparently once said, "[Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [Vice President Dick] Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq" not be released until after his death. Funny how he doesn't even mention the president's name and "the president" comes after Rumsfeld and Cheney!

      Milton Friedman himself, who added "neo-liberal" to the English language, wanted Donald Rumsfeld to be Reagan's VP:

      https://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2006/12/25/milton-friedman-ronald-reagan-and-rumsfeld/

      Delete
  34. Do the Democrats steal midterm elections as well, or are they only interested in stealing the presidency from Donald Trump?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good analysis, as usual. The one area where we disagree was that it wasn't lack of energy, it actually was the additional election lawyers and watchers, a factor not there in 2020, and lowered willingness of country club Republicans to cooperate (they thought Biden was a "moderate). As you noted, the steal was in progress in 2024 until North Carolina and Georgia were callled. Republican candidates won the other state wide races in Pennsylvania, so they must have been getting some bad numbers for them from that state.

    I posted the following on another site, after checking the totals on Wikipedia:

    Nationwide, Wikipedia now has Harris at 71.6 million votes, and Trump at 75 million votes, with 149.3 million votes total and 20% of the California vote still not counted, so we can expect maybe an additional 4 million votes.


    In 2020, officially 158.4 million votes cast, 84.3 million for Biden and 74.2 million for Trump.


    In 2016, officially 136.7 million votes cast, 65.8 million for Hillary Clinton and 62.9 million for Trump.


    In 2012, officially 129 million votes cast, 65.9 million for Obama and 60.9 million for Romney. The 2012 totals for both parties were down from 2008, so I'll stop there. Normally the total vote will increase somewhat from the previous election due to population growth, the 7.7 million vote increase between 2012 and 2016 being a fairly normal increase.


    So total votes increased by 7.7 million in 2016, 21.7 million and 15.7% in 2020 and there will probably be a drop of about 5 million votes and 4% in 2024 when the results are all in. The drop between 2008 and 2016 was 2 million votes and about 1.5%, for contrast. The 2024 vote total for Harris is right now almost 6 million higher than for Hillary Clinton, and will likely wind up 8 or 9 million higher. The Trump vote total increased by 11.3 million in 2020 and is now up 0.8 million in 2024, will probably wind up a million or so higher when the California results are finally in.


    Note that the 2020 increase of 21.7 million votes and 15.7% was the highest in modern electoral history in terms of numbers of votes, and the third highest percentage increase. There was a percentage increase of 26.9% in 1928 and 26.7% in 1952. But these were off of baseline totals of 29 million in 1924 and 48.8 million in 1948, and the lower the baseline total the easier it is to get a high percentage increase.


    So the Biden vote was pushed up by 18.5 million nationally in 2020, and over half of these votes were still there for Harris in 2024. I think they were on track to do the whole thing until about 2 AM EST on November 6th.


    I think the actual vote totals for both Biden and Harris were really somewhat below the 65.8 million Hillary Clinton got. Clinton came off of the second Obama term, which wasn't that bad, and Trump was an unknown quantity. The first three years of the Trump administration was kind of an improved version of the Bush administration. In 2020 the Democratic governors brought in the COVID lockdowns and masks, which granted Trump and the Republicans mostly supported, but also riots, and then Biden doesn't campaign. Riots always favor the law and order party. I think the riots caused a big increase in the Trump vote. Plus wokeness. Then we get the Biden administration, vaccine mandates, threats of war against Russia and China, wokeness, and inflation. Look, fewer people are voting Democratic in 2020 and 2024 than in 2016, when there was more of an argument for it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And those other vote surge years were not like 2020 in several key ways. Most telling, the total vote did not snap back in the next election after the surge. Total votes are down roughly 10 mill (6%), after the surge of 2020.

    But following the surge of 1928, in '32 there was no decline in total votes. In fact, it increased by 3 mill (8%). And following the surge of 1952, in '56 there was no decline. In fact, they slightly increased by ~270K (0.4%).

    And that's just total votes -- the big collapse was lopsidedly on the D side from 2020 to '24. That party saw a huge surge, followed by a huge collapse, which is unique in American history.

    Also, the next year after the surge, does the map snap back to what it looked like just before the surge? In 2024, it did -- it's the 2016 map, plus the little swing-ish pick-up of Nevada (as I predicted for 2020).

    In 1932, the map did not snap back to the '24 map -- it was totally different, being a realignment election (end of Progressive Era, start of New Deal era).

    And in 1956, the map did not snap back to the '48 map.

    Finally, did the party that went on to occupy the White House flip twice during these 3 consecutive elections? From 2016 to '20 to '24 it did -- R, then D, then snapped back to R.

    From '48 to '52 to '56, it was not this pattern. The surge year did flip the party, but this party went on to win the next election as well (i.e., as if our time had gone Trump, Biden, Harris).

    From '24 to '28 to '32, it was not this pattern either. The surge year saw the same party win as in the pre-surge year, and then flipped in the post-surge year (i.e., as if our time had gone Trump, Trump, Harris).

    The 2020 election was unique in American history for seeing not just a surge in votes, but immediately followed by a collapse -- and a HUGE collapse for the party benefitting from the surge. And for the post-surge map immediately snapping back to the pre-surge map. And for the WH-occupying party immediately snapping back to that of the pre-surge election.

    That's cuz D's stole it in 2020, creating this ridiculous discontinuity in multiple aspects, which was instantly restored to normal i.e. the pre-steal year, when they didn't have the steal effort needed for the post-surge election.

    ReplyDelete
  37. But no, those lawyers and poll-watchers were not the reason, as shown by the successful D steals in the Senate races in the battleground states -- stole AZ, WI, and MI, and tried but failed to steal PA (attempted usurper is still refusing to concede in PA).

    Same signatures -- total votes are massively increased long after the polls closed, the amount of newly discovered votes is huge (over 100K), they skew comically 90% for one candidate, who was the apparent loser on election night, magically flipping it to the usurper.

    Trump ran up such huge vote piles in the battleground states, that the attempted steal didn't work ("too big to rig"). But those Senate candidates are not Trump, even if they're riding his coat-tails, and did not have equally massive piles of votes. So they were within the margin where D's could steal it -- and they did steal it.

    Not a word from Trump, the RNC, any R in the Senate, most R commentators, etc. As in 2020, the entirely GOP apparatus is allowing D's to flagrantly steal high-ranking offices, rendering the whole system an illegitimate joke. Just less glaring of a joke in '24 vs. '20, since D's couldn't pull off the steal for prez as well.

    Until there are uniform standards to enforce legitimate election results in all 50 states and DC, the whole system remains a joke for all to see -- and even more delegitimized by the losers of the steal not even mentioning it, and taking it like a bitch.

    As with gerrymandering, which R's can and have wielded just as skillfully as D's have, to everyone's detriment, D's had better surrender sooner than later on election stealing, or their weapon will be picked up by their rival, and in the 2030s, we'll see rural and suburban R precincts refusing to release their vote totals until the major metro precincts release theirs, then magically discover however-many-hundred-thousand ballots are necessary to close the gap, plus a little just for good measure. And whammo, R's maintain a lock on the WH and supermajority in the Senate and majority in the House -- as elections devolve into fake games of chicken for releasing your side's vote totals.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Did D's steal the NV Senate race, too, or win legit? I don't recall that one. Probably stole, given the others being stolen, but if there was no signature there (100K+ ballots added to total after polls close, skewing 90% for D, flipping apparent winner from election night), then they won it legit.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Michael Tracey posted a video of the chair of the Philly Dem Party, Bob Brady, explaining to a journo that the Harris campaign totally blew him off, and blew off his level of the party. Didn't send volunteers, didn't send money, didn't send materials, etc.

    So that's why the collapse was bigger in Philadelphia itself compared to its suburbs -- the Harris campaign could rely on the psychotic zealots in the white middle-class suburbs who binge MSNBC and would give up their own lives in order to stop Trump. But the zealotry of 2014-'20 is still down, so they had less zealous of a steal effort in the 'burbs.

    Whereas in the city, they weren't relying on psychotic zealots, they were relying on pay-to-play palm-greasing. And they didn't grease their palms, so the amoral urbanites -- black working and lumpen classes, whatever white working class is left there -- said, "Ey, go fugyazelv..."

    And that's why the attempted steal for the PA Senate race didn't pan out. Philly is peak amoral patronage -- or rather, their morality *is* patronage, not high-minded MSNBC crusading about fascism, ARE DEMOCRACY, etc. Pay us, or geddafuggouttaheeahhhh....

    Good ol' Philly, keepin' it old school.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think the reason why the big city urban cores DGAF if Trump wins or loses, and why their D party bosses insist on extensive palm-greasing or GTFOH, is that they're such an insulated Democrat fiefdom and fortress. Their lives, culture, economy, social relations, etc., will not change one iota if an R or a D is in the White House.

    True, a D in the White House means more funding for D clients nationwide -- but we live in neoliberal Hell, a new Gilded Age, so that funding only goes to the top 20% of clients these days. D's were happy to slash welfare checks going to urban blacks during the '90s when they controlled the White House, and they haven't given them anything back under Obama or Biden. They're even replacing urban blacks with immigrants.

    The top 20% D's by income live mostly outside the urban core -- maybe just outside, but still, outside. Not beholden to the urban party boss, but to a psycho HR bitch boss in the immediate suburbs. And they're more likely to be psycho HR bitches and faggots themselves, living outside the urban core.

    That's where all the Central Bank money-printing went to under Obama ("quantitative easing") -- the tiny handful of D elites who live in cities, but mostly to D strivers who live outside of the urban core.

    So for the typical working-class or lumpen black living in Philly the city, life didn't get better under Clinton or Obama or Biden. So their only chance of getting actual patronage is during the campaigns --

    "Oh, so now you're suddenly desperate for our, uh, get out the vote machine? Sounds like you'd be willing to part with a handsome sum, then. You sure as hell haven't cut us any welfare checks when you were in office."

    Immigrants who literally just got here get better straight-up cash payments (technically, on a card) from D office-holders, than blacks get.

    So why would urban blacks be as psycho and zealous to get a D into the White House, by hook or by crook? Let alone the even more shoved-aside urban white working class. Their only feeding trough opportunity is during the campaign, so it's really pay-to-play time -- and the Harris campaign denied them even that fleeting moment of trough-feeding. So the urban machine told them to go fuck off and rely entirely on those do-it-for-free jannie psycho middle-class whites in the suburbs.

    And it wasn't enough, lol! Not for the prez race, anyway, and in Philly where they keep it old school, not even enough to steal the Senate seat, lmao.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Most of the day-to-day providing and protecting patronage that urban blacks get is from the city anyway -- not necessarily even the state (if it's a purple or red state), nor the federal government.

    So urban blacks are happy to help get D's elected in the city, and certain D's rather than other D's. That's where changes in the office would affect their lives. Imagine if a white Republican, even a moderate cucky one, gained control over Milwaukee or Detroit or Philly -- suddenly blacks would fear for their lives. And rightly so. They'll do whatever it takes to prevent that.

    But if the White House is occupied by a white Republican, who cares? Their city will remain a D fiefdom and fortress. They'll still get their usual provisions and protections, which are doled out at the city level. Public housing, public schools, public transportation, public employment or connections to private employment, etc. -- all through the city level, not the national level.

    Yeah, these city orgs can get more funding from federal agencies, whose budgets could switch depending on D or R in the White House. But not seismically. Clinton, Obama, and Biden did not boost federal funding to urban public school lunch programs to the extent that those kids were eating steaks instead of pink-slime sloppy joes.

    But clients who rely on federal funding, have much more variance in their outcomes. Federal grants a HUGE, and could boost your income by double-digit percentages, or more, who knows? You could be taking home twice the income you used to be, if the D-controlled Central Bank ramps up the money-printer, or the CDC's budget gets doubled.

    And on the R side, if the DOD's budget gets doubled, if we go to a huge war, bomb Iranian oil fields, etc. -- a huge swing upward in suburban defense contractors' incomes, and professionals in the oil sector.

    Whereas poor rural R's don't experience wild swings one way or another, as they're not potential recipients for big-level patronage. Their variance is also small in scale, as with urban blacks. So they're passionate about keeping their rural county R at that level, but if there's a D in the WH, who cares? It's not going to turn their rural county into a libtard shithole.

    And no, immigration doesn't count there -- both R's and D's have sent boatloads of immigrants to small towns and rural areas during the neolib era, and Reagan and Congressional R's are the ones who implemented the 1986 amnesty.

    So that's why rural & small-town R's wouldn't volunteer if the federal R campaign blew them off and focused on middle-class suburbanites instead. Seems like what happened under McCain and Romney, and ruralites didn't GAF about turning out in droves for the general.

    Whereas Trump courted them heavily, promised them the moon, indulged their culture and tastes -- so they were happy to crusade for him in the general.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It's precarious, high-variance strivers in the middle or upper-middle class who are the source population for psychotic zealots. "Precarious" not in an absolute sense -- they won't starve if they lose -- but in a relative sense, of high variance, they could win big if they win but remain only mediocre if they lose.

    The super elite also have high variance, their incomes could double if their guy wins. But their baseline, if they lose, is even higher than it is for middle-class strivers. And their population size is even tinier. So they may use their vast wealth to fund the psycho zealotry of the strivers (founding an NGO that the strivers work for), but they're not the crusade's foot soldiers.

    Like I said earlier, imprison middle-class white strivers for the benefit of all. The pool of aspiring elites is way too over-produced, and half or more of the strivers will eventually be shoved back where they belong, where their non-striver ancestors came from and were happy to stay put.

    Might as well make their sinking happen sooner than later, or they'll just wreak more havoc on society at large as they impotently but intensely try to claw their way up.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yeah, you could throw in non-white middle-class strivers, too, but they tend to be ensconced within their urban Democrat fiefdoms, and don't really try to fuck up the nation as a whole. At most, they can fuck up their city with their striving.

    They just gave the finger to the Harris campaign, with a semi-black woman who would benefit -- it was the middle-class suburban whites who were the psycho zealots doing it for free, who try to fuck up the entire nation with their striving.

    Just imprisoning the white strivers would make it more palatable with the elites. D elites would like it for being not anti-minority, and R elites would enjoy having fewer wannabes nipping at their heels for wealth and status.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The Harris campaign went further than denying urban minorities the chance to trough-feed during the campaign -- they outright lectured and hectored and scolded them TO THEIR FACE during campaign speeches by leading Democrats like Obama and Clinton.

    It's bad enough to get no free shit, but getting slapped across the face is just adding insult to injury.

    Sure enough, urban minorities not only refused to enlist in the Second Great Ballot Count Stoppage, they shifted double-digits to the Republican when it came time to vote! xD

    Maybe next time you won't slap them across the face, and won't deny them piles of free shit during the campaign -- since everyone knows you're already not going to pony up any dough if you get into the White House.

    It really reinforces my belief that the Democrat party is simply going to implode like the Whigs, and become a whole new party -- or rather, parties, since we're going in the "post-imperial rump state" stage, not the "integrative civil war" stage.

    They put their thumb on the scale of the 2016 primary, outright terminated and stole the 2020 primary after Bernie swept the bellwether states, then didn't even bother with a primary in '24!

    In fact, didn't even hold the proverbial "smoky backroom deals" kind of convention. In the smoky backroom era, they had delegates from all 50 states, multiple delegates per state, and they had a roster of candidates, they held competitive ballots, round after round, until a consensus was reached. With horse-trading, favor-promising, faction-forming, etc., going on the whole time. Those nominees were not merely appointed by the top 3 nationwide party leaders.

    Each state's interests were represented, choices were available, votes were cast, results were reported. NONE OF THAT took place in '24. It was simply appointing Biden, then couping him and appointing Harris. No choices for the people in an election, and no choice for state delegates in a convention. Completely anti-democratic bullshit that delegitimizes its party more and more with each escalation.

    Who can even predict what depths they'll sink to during the '28 nomination process? xD

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why would a Trump supporter from 2016 and '20 care so much what happens to the libtard party? Well, like it or not, libtards will always be with us -- just as conservatards will always be with Democrats.

    Swinging from system to system is not stable short-term, it only happens once every several generations, in a medium-term realignment.

    Within each system, there will be a libtard flavor and a conservatard flavor of the same shared system -- otherwise, one side would remain out-of-step with the world and be shut out of power entirely within the medium-term. That creates the opportunity for entrepreneurs to swoop in and fill the void of choices, and so there will always be two competitive coalitions within any system.

    So the goal is not the laughable fanfic about "We're going to put all Democrats in cages!" Without Democrat support, you're not putting anyone in cages -- just like during Trump's first term.

    The goal is to encourage and form alliances with "the left case against open borders" faction of Democrats, which used to include El Bernarino himself during the 2015-'16 season. While interviewed by some neolibtard journo, he flatly declared that open borders is a Koch Brothers conspiracy for cheap labor, so of course he doesn't support it.

    "But Bernie was then mobbed into disavowing that position, and stating open borders libtard positions!" Yes, during the height of 2014-'20 insanity, but that is already dissipating, and future generations of Democrats will swing away from that craziness just as hard as they did from 1968 Democrat craziness by the mid'70s and '80s and '90s.

    Some diehards will remain woketard relics of the 2010s, well into old age -- sad. But entrepreneurial Dems will replace them by offering choices for an anti-woke left, a shrinking-immigration left.

    Bernie had the telltale signs of success on his side -- the hot people vote, as did Trump vs. the other R's. Most visibly with Bernie babe Emily Ratajkowski, who stuck by him in '20 as well as in '16.

    And no amount of hectoring and scolding by wannabe gatekeepers on the right-wing will prevent the eventual, irresistible fusion of Trump chads and Bernie babes. Why delay the inevitable? We won't be able to fight it forever, we might as well just give in and abandon ourselves to fate right now, tonight...

    ReplyDelete
  46. One more time, for old time's sake -- Bernie's "America" ad from 2016, the best political ad in world history and for all time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug

    If only society had followed my demand for a Trump-Bernie unity ticket in 2016, we could've had a real country by now...

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."