Seems like a lot of people are regretting their vote.

Jarod said:
She almost beat Trump.
Click to expand...
She should have never lost though.

Not really her fault and almost entirely Biden's by not honoring his promise to step down and be transitional POTUS. had he done that, allowed for a full, aggressive Primary process to allow a candidate to emerge who could establish true distance from the Biden Admin, in an election season that was almost entirely driven by a desire for 'CHANGE' over all else (world wide 'change trend), Biden somehow made Trump the 'Change' candidate by insisting Kamala had to be anointed as his price of staying down as Biden was thinking about HIS legacy and wanting his regime continuation beyond his other considerations.

In an aggressive Primary process Kamala loses, probably in first round, and i think someone like Elizabeth Warren would have won. She then would have the credibility with much of the emerging 'Populist' voters to perhaps blunt Trumps appeal, based on lies, he was telling as he pretended to be a Populist.
 
QP! said:
She should have never lost though.

Not really her fault and almost entirely Biden's by not honoring his promise to step down and be transitional POTUS. had he done that, allowed for a full, aggressive Primary process to allow a candidate to emerge who could establish true distance from the Biden Admin, in an election season that was almost entirely driven by a desire for 'CHANGE' over all else (world wide 'change trend), Biden somehow made Trump the 'Change' candidate by insisting Kamala had to be anointed as his price of staying down as Biden was thinking about HIS legacy and wanting his regime continuation beyond his other considerations.

In an aggressive Primary process Kamala loses, probably in first round, and i think someone like Elizabeth Warren would have won. She then would have the credibility with much of the emerging 'Populist' voters to perhaps blunt Trumps appeal, based on lies, he was telling as he pretended to be a Populist.
Click to expand...
Had Biden not badly fucked up the first debate, he would still be POTUS.
 
QP! said:
She should have never lost though. Not really her fault and almost entirely Biden's by not honoring his promise to step down and be transitional POTUS. had he done that, allowed for a full, aggressive Primary process to allow a candidate to emerge who could establish true distance from the Biden Admin, in an election season that was almost entirely driven by a desire for 'CHANGE' over all else (world wide 'change trend), Biden somehow made Trump the 'Change' candidate by insisting Kamala had to be anointed as his price of staying down as Biden was thinking about HIS legacy and wanting his regime continuation beyond his other considerations. In an aggressive Primary process Kamala loses, probably in first round, and i think someone like Elizabeth Warren would have won. She then would have the credibility with much of the emerging 'Populist' voters to perhaps blunt Trumps appeal, based on lies, he was telling as he pretended to be a Populist.
Click to expand...

Oh, really?

The post in question is #64 in that thread (QP!), responding to the idea that Harris “almost beat Trump.” Here is a claim-by-claim assessment.


The actual 2024 result​


Trump won 312–226 in the Electoral College and the popular vote ~49.8% to 48.3% (roughly 77.3 million to 75.0 million). He flipped Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. That is a clear win, not a fluke, but it was not a popular-vote blowout. “She should have never lost” is an opinion, not a fact.


“Almost entirely Biden’s fault” / the “transitional president” claim​


Partly grounded, overstated.


Biden did describe himself in 2020 as a “bridge” or “transition candidate” who would pass the baton to a younger generation. He never made an explicit public one-term pledge; his campaign denied that he had committed to it, and he later said his plan was to run again. So “broke a promise to step down” is stronger than the public record.


What is fair: staying in until late July 2024, then immediately endorsing Harris, closed off a competitive primary. Nancy Pelosi later said that if he had gotten out earlier there might have been an open primary and Harris “would have been stronger.” Ballot and delegate deadlines made a real contest after July 21 essentially impossible. That timing was a strategic failure by the incumbent and party leadership. It is not “almost entirely” the explanation for the loss. Harris was the sitting VP of an unpopular administration; voters widely saw her as continuity, especially on inflation and the border.


“Election almost entirely driven by CHANGE”​


Directionally right, too absolute.


Post-COVID inflation and incumbent-party fatigue were real, including in other democracies. U.S. exit polls and issue surveys put the economy/prices first, then immigration. Trump’s coalition treated those as “change from the status quo.” Harris voters more often cited democracy and abortion. So “change” was a major driver, not the only one. Harris’s problem was that she was the incumbent ticket’s VP. That made the change argument hard no matter how she branded the campaign.


“In an aggressive primary Kamala loses in the first round”​


Not supported by the evidence we have.


When Biden dropped, Harris rapidly consolidated Democrats. Hypothetical and ranked-choice polls of Democrats/independents around that period put her first, often by a wide margin over Whitmer, Buttigieg, and others. She had name ID, the VP office, the donor network, and the argument that dumping the Black woman VP would look like a snub. A very early open field (2023) is unknowable, but “first-round loss” is a strong claim without polling or vote history behind it.


“Elizabeth Warren would have won” and then blunted Trump with populists​


Weak and speculative.


Warren’s 2020 record: about 7.7% of the Democratic primary popular vote and 61 pledged delegates. She exited after Super Tuesday. She was 75 in 2024, identified with a high-tax, regulatory, academic-progressive brand—not the working-class / immigration / cost-of-living lane Trump actually expanded (Hispanic, Black, and young male voters). There is no 2024 polling showing her as the likely nominee in an open field, let alone the candidate best positioned against Trump’s version of populism. Naming her as the obvious winner is guesswork, and a poor fit for the voters who actually moved.


“Trump pretended to be a populist based on lies”​


That is a value judgment, not a testable claim in the post. Trump’s 2024 pitch (tariffs, mass deportation, anti-establishment, “you’re worse off than four years ago”) was consistent with how he ran and how many of his new voters described their motive. Whether those policies are good or honest is a separate argument from whether the positioning was fake.


Bottom line​


The strongest parts of the post are: late Biden exit + instant Harris anointment blocked a real primary, and Harris was a poor “change” vehicle because she was the incumbent VP. Those are real constraints.


The weakest parts are: treating the loss as something that “should never” have happened; pinning it almost entirely on Biden’s 2020 rhetoric; asserting Harris would have been eliminated immediately; and asserting Warren would have won and then peeled off Trump’s new voters. Those last points are counterfactual fan fiction, not evidence. A different nominee might have run a cleaner “not Biden” race. There is no good reason to believe that nominee was Elizabeth Warren.

grok.com

Harris Loss: Biden Fault, Warren Speculation | Shared Grok Conversation

Analyze & assess these claims: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/seems-like-a-lot-of-people-
grok.com grok.com
 
Uncensored2008 said:
It's pure panic. The drones are catching on that the Midterms are lost for them. The hive is programming them to run against Trump, because the hive has no idea what else to do. So the drones put up clumsy threads like this trying to drum up Trump hatred to take the focus off the fact that democrats are openly Marxist.
El-Sayed is more important to Republican success in the midterms than is Trump.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. They don't seem to realize that the current POTUS cannot run again. The Democrats can run against his record, and I'm sure they will, but they won't really have much say individually over which candidate their party nominates. Ask Bernie.
 
IBDaMann said:
312 to 226
Click to expand...

Not an avalanche, and certainly not a landslide, either.

A 312–226 Electoral College result is a comfortable, decisive win, but it is not a landslide by historical or conventional standards.


There are 538 electoral votes; 270 is a majority. 312 is 58% of the total, with an 86-vote margin. That exceeds the last two elections (Biden 306–232 in 2020; Trump ~304–227 in 2016) and is similar to Obama’s 332–206 in 2012. Those were solid victories, not landslides.


Common benchmarks used by political scientists and journalists:


  • ~70% of electoral votes, or about 375+, is a typical threshold for calling an Electoral College result a landslide.
  • True landslides look like Reagan 1984 (525–13), Nixon 1972 (520–17), FDR 1936 (523–8), LBJ 1964 (486–52), or Reagan 1980 (489–49).

312–226 ranks in the lower half of presidential Electoral College margins historically (often cited around 44th of ~60 elections). Winning every major swing state produced a cleaner map than many recent races, but the outcome still hinged on relatively narrow results in a handful of states. A shift of a few hundred thousand votes in three battlegrounds would have flipped the Electoral College.


“Landslide” is informal and sometimes used rhetorically. By the numbers and by comparison to actual blowouts, 312–226 is a clear majority win, not a landslide.
 
Jarod said:
Had Biden not badly fucked up the first debate, he would still be POTUS.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But he knew the challenges he was having with age and should have never been willing to gamble that a debate like fuck up would not happen before the election to derail him. That was a choice to play with extreme fire at a time of dire need and gamble that he would only have 'good days' until after everyone had voted.

That was very wrong.

And i largely blame his advisors more than i do him, as i believe people at that advanced age and stage of issues increasingly rely on others to tell them whether they are ok or struggling.

What we see, especially in politics, is that the group of top advisors become more and more relied upon as the Politician declines. Instead of just giving them 'options' the person looks thru and makes a call they are often instead handing them almost complete decisions the person just reviews and agrees with. Truly independent thought starts to drift away in stages and the proxies become the decision makers.

I believe that level of proxy power becomes intoxicating to the core advisers who then rationalize why the person should not step down because 'they have good advisors and they do take advice.'.

And while 'taking advice' is a good thing (we see how Trump not taking advice is harming America), when that advice is becoming increasingly the actual decisions, it is time for the politician to step aside.
 
QP! said:
But he knew the challenges he was having with age and should have never been willing to gamble that a debate like fuck up would not happen before the election to derail him. That was a choice to play with extreme fire at a time of dire need and gamble that he would only have 'good days' until after everyone had voted.
Click to expand...

RBG did something similar.
 
IBDaMann said:
Trump won by a landslide.
Click to expand...

So you say.

There are 538 electoral votes; 270 is a majority.

312 is 58% of the total, with an 86-vote margin. That exceeds the last two elections (Biden 306–232 in 2020; Trump ~304–227 in 2016) and is similar to Obama’s 332–206 in 2012. Those were solid victories, not landslides.


Common benchmarks used by political scientists and journalists:


  • ~70% of electoral votes, or about 375+, is a typical threshold for calling an Electoral College result a landslide.
  • True landslides look like Reagan 1984 (525–13), Nixon 1972 (520–17), FDR 1936 (523–8), LBJ 1964 (486–52), or Reagan 1980 (489–49).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top