Big Picture Assessment time.. reconsidering the democratic process

[Snowball]

Not a lot of positives for the conservative cause in the US. The nation remains deeply divided with the edge overall still in the hands of the liberals. Reasons include the brainwashed under 30's, the increasing demographic shift away from European ethnicities, and the inability of Republicans to shake the reputation that they are only for the rich, big oil and Wall Street. It should also be noted that elections taking place where the Democrats run the election are impossible to win.

We should stop allowing either party to run their own elections. Elections should be administered by non-affiliated organizations. As long as the party in power counts the votes, they will rig. Still, the Pro-Choice wins offer a look into the weaknesses of traditional conservatism. 3 more states put Pro-Choice into their State Constitutions, California, Vermont and Michigan. Montana had a bill to make Pro-Life care mandated for all BORN, and it's down slightly. The doctors came against it. In Kentucky, a sweeping Pro-Life referendum failed at 53% against. Although it won't change Kentucky's Pro-Life laws yet, the bill was seen as too aggressive because it removed any right to terminate pregnancy at any time under any circumstance. Last month, the SCOTUS refused to hear the fetal personhood case brought to it by a Catholic group in Rhode Island. Scotus is not going to consider any more Pro-Life cases for a while. I would expect gay marriage to also be popularly supported at this point. Conservative principles seem to be dying off. Public education and entertainment propaganda are having their effect on the young.

Ron Johnson almost lost in Wisconsin. Oz never really came close in Pennsylvania, despite the obvious mental problems Fetterman has since his stroke, and the endorsement of Oz by former president Trump. Even in Montana, Zinke is only 3 points ahead. Georgia is headed to a runoff which could determine the control of the Senate. House stands now at 172 Dem / 200 Rep with 218 needed for majority. Senate is 48/48.

In many states, even those in Dem hands, Republicans can come close, logging high 40s in places like CT, RI, PA, OR, etc. but are failing to crack that Democrat wall. The nation is split down the middle. Demographically, the pheomeon of a conservative rural vote and a heavily Democratic urban and college vote persists. More states are affording drivers licenses to the hordes of immigrants from the southern border.

The bright spot of Florida, with Republicans even winning in Miami-Dade, is obviously due to the diaspora of Northeast professionals and retirees leaving their states to live in Florida, and since they are almost all White and not collecting welfare, Florida's status as a Republican stronghold becomes firmer. The flip side of this is that there is less Republican vote in the states they are leaving.

Overall, as long as the Republicans win the House, Biden will be unable to advance the Democrat agenda in the next two years. The Senate is actually less important because it can't do anything without the House except appoint cabinet members which is already done.

It would be a mistake to assume that DeSantis's big win means anything at all about his chances for victory in a POTUS race 2024 being good. They are not, and neither is Trump's. DeSantis should not run for POTUS if Trump announces first. Trump's loyal base will be offended. Probably what will happen is other Republicans will announce to challenge Trump instead. I wouldn't expect DeSantis to accept a VP offer either, and his endorsement is likely to be withheld until late 2023 at the earliest.

Since the expectations of a Red Wave or convincing control of the Senate or even the House is no longer possible, we need to hope the GOP at least takes the House, even by a little, then what happens in the Senate is of much less importance. I believe that if the GOP wants to retain its stature as a national party, it has to change its message, because it's just not resonating enough with the current voting population to break through that liberal wall. Not even in this election, where the ineptitudes and objectionable policies of the Democrats are on full display. We have to accept the nature of democracy has led to this, and that perhaps resistance to the state should take other forms, and not be coddled into restricting its efforts solely to the "democratic process".

[Brian4Liberty]

The bright spot of Florida, with Republicans even winning in Miami-Dade, is obviously due to the diaspora of Northeast professionals and retirees leaving their states to live in Florida, and since they are almost all White and not collecting welfare, Florida's status as a Republican stronghold becomes firmer. The flip side of this is that there is less Republican vote in the states they are leaving.

That was my take last night. The influx of more conservative voters to Florida also represented a loss of conservative voters in other states, which may well have resulted in the loss of several other key races.

Big picture, the absolute DNC control of the MSM can not be over looked. Despite the loyal viewership of several Fox News personality shows like Tucker, there are still a majority of people who get their “news” from major MSM networks. People who are not interested in politics, independents, swing voters all tend to get their news from quick glances at local news, which is usually the most heavily biased in favor of the progressive left.

And the elephant in the room was abortion. The Supreme Court ruling ignited a firestorm. The MSM and Democrats made this 100% about abortion. Even that dolt Brian Kilmeade on Fox news said that "abortion was the number one issue, right behind inflation". We should not forget that neocons like Lindsey Graham put gasoline on the fire by calling for a Federal abortion law (which was spun as a total ban). Anecdotal evidence is often telling as to the real story at the micro level, and nearly every Democrat or independent woman I talked to said that abortion and "women's rights" was their main concern, and it effected their attitude on every single race, from dog catcher to Governor. Was this an intentional plan, or natural blowback?

[69360]

As a part of the wave that moved to FL, I say let it burn. Hurricanes are easier to deal with than noreasters, snow and freezing to death with no heating oil. A lot of people seem to agree.

Trump's chances are zero. DeSantis's are good. People like what he does, some just won't say it publicly. The votes show that.

[Snowball]

That was my take last night. The influx of more conservative voters to Florida also represented a loss of conservative voters in other states, which may well have resulted in the loss of several other key races.

Big picture, the absolute DNC control of the MSM can not be over looked. Despite the loyal viewership of several Fox News personality shows like Tucker, there are still a majority of people who get their “news” from major MSM networks. People who are not interested in politics, independents, swing voters all tend to get their news from quick glances at local news, which is usually the most heavily biased in favor of the progressive left.

And the elephant in the room was abortion. The Supreme Court ruling ignited a firestorm. The MSM and Democrats made this 100% about abortion. Even that dolt Brian Kilmeade on Fox news said that "abortion was the number one issue, right behind inflation". We should not forget that neocons like Lindsey Graham put gasoline on the fire by calling for a Federal abortion law (which was spun as a total ban). Anecdotal evidence is often telling as to the real story at the micro level, and nearly every Democrat or independent woman I talked to said that abortion and "women's rights" was their main concern, and it effected their attitude on every single race, from dog catcher to Governor. Was this an intentional plan, or natural blowback?

To the extent which abortion was an issue, I believe much more that it was an inescapable repurcussion after the rescension of Roe v Wade. I don't think it had anything at all to do with the Republican effort to ban abortion after 15 weeks. Whatever the effect was, we'll never know how much it contributed to the actual voting taking place. That cannot scientifically be proven. Regardless of Lindsey Graham's introduction of that bill, the Pro-Choice voter was going to support Pro-Choice.

The systemic changes in demography cannot be overcome by Republicans because the Republicans still have the wrong reputation. Voters are becoming more socialist because socialism is seen as their only way to "get something" out of politics. They see both parties supporting the status quo for the elites. Since both do this, the masses figure that only the Democrats at least toss them entitements and spending to offset the loss of the American dream.

[Brian4Liberty]

To the extent which abortion was an issue, I believe much more that it was an inescapable repurcussion after the rescension of Roe v Wade. I don't think it had anything at all to do with the Republican effort to ban abortion after 15 weeks. Whatever the effect was, we'll never know how much it contributed to the actual voting taking place. That cannot scientifically be proven. Regardless of Lindsey Graham's introduction of that bill, the Pro-Choice voter was going to support Pro-Choice.
...

Agree. This was blowback from the Supreme Court decision, with or without Lindsey Graham.

The Supreme Court baked the cake, and Lindsey Graham put icing on it and placed it in the display window.

[ClaytonB]

The United States is not, and never has been, a democracy. There is no "democratic process" under the Constitution. There is representative government in the form of a union of republics (States).

[acptulsa]

The United States is not, and never has been, a democracy. There is no "democratic process" under the Constitution. There is representative government in the form of a union of republics (States).

Nothing but the election of representatives. Which is why it's sometimes called representative democracy.

They've made a joke of that and rubbed our noses in it. They've served notice that it's by invitation only.

[Snowball]

The United States is not, and never has been, a democracy. There is no "democratic process" under the Constitution. There is representative government in the form of a union of republics (States).

With all due respect, You are FOS.

The democratic process is and has always been the law of the land here, since the Revolution.

Republics ARE Democracies.

Please don't allow this thread to be ruined by that false debate.
It's already been discussed. Here is the case I made:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7109138

[ClaytonB]

With all due respect, You are FOS.

The democratic process is and has always been the law of the land here, since the Revolution.

Republics ARE Democracies.

Please don't allow this thread to be ruined by that false debate.
It's already been discussed. Here is the case I made:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7109138

From Wiki: "A republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a "state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; specifically a state without a monarchy" and also a "government, or system of government, of such a state." A democracy, not being a monarchy, can be called a type of republic. But it is the type of republic that Madison and others among the founding fathers understood to be the worst form of government (far worse than monarchy) -- we would be better off to go back under the British monarchy than to have a democracy-as-such (French-revolution style mob-rule).

And it's not a false debate, in fact, it's the topic of the day -- the entire argument over mail-in ballots and vote-fraud is really a proxy argument over democracy. The Presidential election is treated by the media as a "democratic" election, despite the fact that the popular-vote winner has frequently failed to take POTUS, even in recent elections. The masses are frequently wrong and demagoguery substitutes the animal-spirits of the mob for the rational deliberation of elected representatives. A group of 1,000 people can surely elect someone to represent them and make rational decisions. But if every issue is put to a vote by those same 1,000 people, a demagogue can more easily bend them to his whims than a herd of sheep.

A body without a head is a zombie. Democracy is zombie-rule. That is why the United States is not now, nor ever has been a democracy. And our system of government has been corrupted precisely to the extent that we have permitted it to be subjected to mob-rule and demagoguery. The youth are always louder and more rambunctious -- in a crowd, their voices drown out reason and experience. It is among the gray heads that at least some modicum of wisdom can be found, and the strength of their voice cannot come from shouting but, from recognition of the group that this or that individual should represent the interests of the many.

[Snowball]

From Wiki: "A republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a "state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; specifically a state without a monarchy" and also a "government, or system of government, of such a state." A democracy, not being a monarchy, can be called a type of republic. But it is the type of republic that Madison and others among the founding fathers understood to be the worst form of government (far worse than monarchy) -- we would be better off to go back under the British monarchy than to have a democracy-as-such (French-revolution style mob-rule).

And it's not a false debate, in fact, it's the topic of the day -- the entire argument over mail-in ballots and vote-fraud is really a proxy argument over democracy. The Presidential election is treated by the media as a "democratic" election, despite the fact that the popular-vote winner has frequently failed to take POTUS, even in recent elections. The masses are frequently wrong and demagoguery substitutes the animal-spirits of the mob for the rational deliberation of elected representatives. A group of 1,000 people can surely elect someone to represent them and make rational decisions. But if every issue is put to a vote by those same 1,000 people, a demagogue can more easily bend them to his whims than a herd of sheep.

A body without a head is a zombie. Democracy is zombie-rule. That is why the United States is not now, nor ever has been a democracy. And our system of government has been corrupted precisely to the extent that we have permitted it to be subjected to mob-rule and demagoguery. The youth are always louder and more rambunctious -- in a crowd, their voices drown out reason and experience. It is among the gray heads that at least some modicum of wisdom can be found, and the strength of their voice cannot come from shouting but, from recognition of the group that this or that individual should represent the interests of the many.

Did you go to the link? There is no reason for me to repeat the better argument I already made. But, we do agree on the main problems here. It is nothing but operational symantics to wonder if a Republic is a form of Democracy or a Democracy is a form of Republic. That's not what this thread is meant to discuss. Anyway, out of 59 Presidential elections, only 4 have gone against the popular vote, and by around 1%. 1824 doesn't count, because there was no whole popular vote, as 6 states were still employing the legislatures for seating electors with no direct popular vote for POTUS. Moreover, what is MANY are all the forms of direct democracy this country DOES employ, in local and statewide referendums which were on full display last night.

We are split down the middle, and the future does not look good for people who think like us or would do like us. Many of us here have already realised that the democratic process is not going to advance our viewpoints. We've known this for a very long time, and every election it becomes more and more obvious.

[Ender]

With all due respect, You are FOS.

The democratic process is and has always been the law of the land here, since the Revolution.

Republics ARE Democracies.

Please don't allow this thread to be ruined by that false debate.
It's already been discussed. Here is the case I made:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7109138

Nope- the united States of America was originally supposed to be a republic.

Democracy is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

A republic is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.

[ClaytonB]

Did you go to the link? There is no reason for me to repeat the better argument I already made. But, we do agree on the main problems here. It is nothing but operational symantics to wonder if a Republic is a form of Democracy or a Democracy is a form of Republic. That's not what this thread is meant to discuss. Anyway, out of 59 Presidential elections, only 4 have gone against the popular vote, and by around 1%. 1824 doesn't count, because there was no whole popular vote, as 6 states were still employing the legislatures for seating electors with no direct popular vote for POTUS. Moreover, what is MANY are all the forms of direct democracy this country DOES employ, in local and statewide referendums which were on full display last night.

We are split down the middle, and the future does not look good for people who think like us or would do like us. Many of us here have already realised that the democratic process is not going to advance our viewpoints. We've known this for a very long time, and every election it becomes more and more obvious.

I agree that too much can be made of it, the key problem I have is this idea of associating democracy (a form of popular government) with freedom, which is a verbal-trick that the Marxists have been drilling into US culture for probably 100 years now. If a State were to have full direct democracy in their Constitution, it would still technically be a Constitutional republic but in practice it would be direct democracy... and as far as I understand Constitutional law, it would be legal. So be it, you can be stupid if you really want. But the problem is that we have become lazy and imprecise in our thinking, and we have allowed the enemy to define the terms in which we are now compelled to conduct the debate. Even when we agree, it's no longer clear, and that's the single biggest issue!

We have all the tools we need. We have been given a republic. It's up to us to keep it. I do not believe that 50% of my neighbors are deranged maniacs who want global slavery and tyranny. Yet the voting numbers keep saying that that must be the case. Should I go knocking door-to-door among my neighbors and ask them, "Are you in favor of a global oligarchy emanating from WEF controlling every detail of our daily life, dictating to us what we can and can't say or what information we can or can't access, controlling our every expenditure with digital currency which they can switch off at any time?"... 99% of them are going to say "HELL NO". And I live in a blue part of a red state... meaning, my neighbors are statistically slightly more D than R. So what gives? How are we in this situation where, at the national level, we have the choice between WEF-Agenda-Now (D) or WEF-Agenda-Tomorrow (R)? While arms have their place under the 2A, the solution is not banding together and rolling into DC with guns. Jan 6th already showed how that will play out. What we need is a global spiritual revival. People need change in their hearts. From this root, all the other social changes that need to happen will automatically flow.

Democracy isn't working. Raiding DC with guns won't work. What will work? Have we tried the plain old Gospel? Or is that too "silly" for Clown World, as if anything can be too silly in this place....

[TheTexan]

Republic is democracy with extra steps

[Snowball]

I agree that too much can be made of it, the key problem I have is this idea of associating democracy (a form of popular government) with freedom, which is a verbal-trick that the Marxists have been drilling into US culture for probably 100 years now. If a State were to have full direct democracy in their Constitution, it would still technically be a Constitutional republic but in practice it would be direct democracy... and as far as I understand Constitutional law, it would be legal. So be it, you can be stupid if you really want. But the problem is that we have become lazy and imprecise in our thinking, and we have allowed the enemy to define the terms in which we are now compelled to conduct the debate. Even when we agree, it's no longer clear, and that's the single biggest issue!

We have all the tools we need. We have been given a republic. It's up to us to keep it. I do not believe that 50% of my neighbors are deranged maniacs who want global slavery and tyranny. Yet the voting numbers keep saying that that must be the case. Should I go knocking door-to-door among my neighbors and ask them, "Are you in favor of a global oligarchy emanating from WEF controlling every detail of our daily life, dictating to us what we can and can't say or what information we can or can't access, controlling our every expenditure with digital currency which they can switch off at any time?"... 99% of them are going to say "HELL NO". And I live in a blue part of a red state... meaning, my neighbors are statistically slightly more D than R. So what gives? How are we in this situation where, at the national level, we have the choice between WEF-Agenda-Now (D) or WEF-Agenda-Tomorrow (R)? While arms have their place under the 2A, the solution is not banding together and rolling into DC with guns. Jan 6th already showed how that will play out. What we need is a global spiritual revival. People need change in their hearts. From this root, all the other social changes that need to happen will automatically flow.

Democracy isn't working. Raiding DC with guns won't work. What will work? Have we tried the plain old Gospel? Or is that too "silly" for Clown World, as if anything can be too silly in this place....

Your neighbors and mine have thrown in the towel to global oligarchy and it's been that way since at least the Great Depression. The only shifts since then have been to introduce moral decay as a public right and associate it with "freedom" (when in reality, moral decay has always resulted in decreased freedom), and to provide the necessary entitlement programmes which arose from the astronomical wealth disparity that financial liberalism has foisted upon us. Financial liberalism has never, ever been a conservative principle. It was the propaganda of non-first born sons and daughters from England... they did not inherit the fiefdoms of their families, being less-than-first in the lines of primogeniture, so they came to the New World in search of their fortunes. It was not long before the English crown shifted hands, and its own policies and those of France and Holland became impassioned by greed and competitions... all serving the interests of the new central banking class which has now, centuries later, assumed a permanent plutocratic system of world government, that until Vladimir Putin had no challengers. Which is why both our parties agree on what's important to their masters - fighting Russia and China, and Iran and any other nation-state not yet fully assimilated to their structures of control.

Our neighbors gave up because at least they "get something" from the elites with the Democrats. This is how their power has grown. Indications that their political largesse is reaching an irresistible fulcrum are evident.

I started a thread about financial liberalism which nobody responded to. These are uncomfortable truths for certain ideologues in the libertarian community.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7059847

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Florida's results were better because it has actually been taking care of voter fraud there.

[acptulsa]

Florida's results were better because it has actually been taking care of voter fraud there.

Oklahoma's were the same as always, because we've looked to that all along.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Oklahoma's were the same as always, because we've looked to that all along.

My great grandmother was full blooded Indian. It is time for me to leave the white man's trouble to themselves, lol.

I did note when Oklahoma went back to indian control by supreme court decision. I'm surprised it wasn't bigger news.

[Occam's Banana]

People are blaming (or crediting) a variety of things for the results: Trump, Roe v. Wade, student debt forgiveness, etc.

I'm sure all those things played at least some role.

But I can't help but wonder if they are really just surface details.

The chickens from decades of public education indoctrination (K-12 & college) may finally be coming home to roost en masse ...

https://twitter.com/dellavolpe/statu...90476334096386

[Occam's Banana]

The United States is not, and never has been, a democracy. There is no "democratic process" under the Constitution. There is representative government in the form of a union of republics (States).

Nope- the united States of America was originally supposed to be a republic.

Democracy is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

A republic is 2 wolves & 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...76488337117185


https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...22306894868480


https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...44531219308546


https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...52187550384136

[...]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...12480316465152

[Occam's Banana]

[ClaytonB]

...

Well, now I know why I ignore Malice. What a blowhard full of wannabe gravitas.

The point in distinguishing between democracy and republic is not just to look smart at dinner parties -- or whatever. The point is that democracy is just demagoguery and always results in tyranny. As Hoppe explains in Democracy: The god that failed, democracy is just socialization of the decision-making mechanism of the government. Democracy is just communism in drag. However, there is a middle-ground between democracy and monarchy -- this is what we call a republic, and that is what the founding fathers created when they wrote the US Constitution.

Failing to understand that -- like Malice -- doesn't make you witty or profound, it just makes you ignorant.

[acptulsa]

Failing to understand that -- like Malice -- doesn't make you witty or profound, it just makes you ignorant.

Malice appears to understand it. He also appears to understand that not understanding, and not caring, makes people typical.

<Insert typical lecture about political realities Republicans generally treat libertarians to about now>

[Occam's Banana]

Well, now I know why I ignore Malice. What a blowhard full of wannabe gravitas.

The point in distinguishing between democracy and republic is not just to look smart at dinner parties -- or whatever. The point is that democracy is just demagoguery and always results in tyranny. As Hoppe explains in Democracy: The god that failed, democracy is just socialization of the decision-making mechanism of the government. Democracy is just communism in drag. However, there is a middle-ground between democracy and monarchy -- this is what we call a republic, and that is what the founding fathers created when they wrote the US Constitution.

Failing to understand that -- like Malice -- doesn't make you witty or profound, it just makes you ignorant.

People who say things like "we live in a republic not a democracy" are not "distinguishing between democracy and republic".

They are asserting a blatant falsehood.

FACT: We live in a democracy.

FACT: We do not live in a republic.

Malice is right: Joy Behar (of all people!) has a better grasp of how American politics actually works than those who need to have those manifestly and demonstrably obvious facts pointed out to them - and "what the founding fathers [might have intended to create] when they wrote the US Constitution" has got nothing to do with it. Chanting "a republic, not a democracy" at liberty-hating progressives (like Behar) isn't going to accomplish anything more than waving the Constitution in their faces will.

[Occam's Banana]

People who say things like "we live in a republic not a democracy" are not "distinguishing between democracy and republic".

And note that the statement being referenced is "we live in a republic not a democracy", not "we ought to prefer to live in a republic not a democracy [because reasons]". The former is simply a straight-up denial of reality - and its difference with the latter is similar to the one which consists between wishing in one hand, $#@!ting in the other hand, and squeezing both to see which comes true.

[ClaytonB]

People who say things like "we live in a republic not a democracy" are not "distinguishing between democracy and republic".

They are asserting a blatant falsehood.

FACT: We live in a democracy.

So, the President is obviously always the national popular-vote winner. Obviously...

No, we do not live in a democracy.

FACT: We do not live in a republic.

And in exactly the same sense,

FACT: this is not a pile of crap:

Malice is right: Joy Behar (of all people!) has a better grasp of how American politics actually works than those who need to have those manifestly and demonstrably obvious facts pointed out to them - and "what the founding fathers [might have intended to create] when they wrote the US Constitution" has got nothing to do with it. Waving the Constitution in the faces of liberty-hating progressives (such as Behar) isn't going to accomplish anything more than chanting "a republic, not a democracy" at them will.

Malice is a blowhard. Obvious controlled-opp which explains why he takes up so much oxygen in the room that I can't avoid talking about his nonsensical, smooth-brain opinions despite studiously attempting to avoid him.

As for the Constitution, I think that current events are proving the importance of the Constitution more than ever. In good times, I will confess I have Spoonerian tendencies (Constitution of No Authority), but in this time of general mayhem as we descend into the mouth of the Abyss and America is being transformed into a 24x7 circus sideshow in Clown World, yes, we need history, we need tradition, we need grouchy dead Presidents spitting piss and vinegar. Clowns want to play word games with their straight-razors, so be it... I'm bringing a damn chainsaw to the ring...

[ClaytonB]

Malice appears to understand it. He also appears to understand that not understanding, and not caring, makes people typical.

<Insert typical lecture about political realities Republicans generally treat libertarians to about now>

Inflation, Ukraine, and all the other "issues" didn't drive this hypothetical general-population of American moron-voters who can't tell their backside from a bowl of soup into the open arms of the GOP... which is what the "standard political calculus" dictates should have happened. Sure, the Dems turned out their base but that's all. Theirs is not a message of evangelism and compromise or something. So, that means that something else is happening. These people who are neither voting for GOP traitors nor for Democrat invaders, could it be that they are starting to wake up and actually care about things they didn't used to care about before? That's definitely possible. I don't have data to establish or refute my theory, but it's a reasonable theory.

You can fool some of the people all the time and you can fool all the people some of the time... but you can't fool all the people all the time. The devil's reach has exceeded his grasp this time...

[Occam's Banana]

People are blaming (or crediting) a variety of things for the results: Trump, Roe v. Wade, student debt forgiveness, etc.

I'm sure all those things played at least some role.

But I can't help but wonder if they are really just surface details.

The chickens from decades of public education indoctrination (K-12 & college) may finally be coming home to roost en masse ...

https://twitter.com/dellavolpe/statu...90476334096386

https://twitter.com/deb_fillman/stat...60840326115329

[Occam's Banana]

So, the President is obviously always the national popular-vote winner. Obviously...

[...]

You're doing great! Keep up the good work.

Malice is a blowhard. Obvious controlled-opp which explains why he takes up so much oxygen in the room that I can't avoid talking about his nonsensical, smooth-brain opinions despite studiously attempting to avoid him.

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...96928261218308

[nobody's_hero]

This is basically what you're up against in the democratic process:

PA Election Board Official ILLEGALLY Asks Journalist to "Vote Democrat Down Ballot"
Judge of Elections: "I agree with [Project Veritas Action]...this doesn’t look good"
https://rumble.com/v1t0t6e-pa-electi...rat-down-.html

NPCs.

[Brian4Liberty]

People are blaming (or crediting) a variety of things for the results: Trump, Roe v. Wade, student debt forgiveness, etc.

I'm sure all those things played at least some role.

But I can't help but wonder if they are really just surface details.

The chickens from decades of public education indoctrination (K-12 & college) may finally be coming home to roost en masse ...

https://twitter.com/dellavolpe/statu...90476334096386

And most of them still living with and supported by mommy and daddy. Of course they want government to take care of them. They have never taken care of themselves.