An election prediction I believe most/all will agree with

[Toll_Collector]

@margaretms2

If Trump loses and fails to reverse the election, I guess it’s possible that the GOP sticks with him and he runs again in 2028. Very unlikely, given his legal troubles and electoral failures. If they want to tunnel deeper into that squalid rabbit hole, great: This version of the party has no way to go but down.

But I hope the Republicans try to move on.

I believe they will. He’s not coming back from losing to one of the worst Dem. candidates since Michael Dukakis. Plus his age.

[margaretms2]

@Toll_Collector

@margaretms2

If Trump loses and fails to reverse the election, I guess it’s possible that the GOP sticks with him and he runs again in 2028. Very unlikely, given his legal troubles and electoral failures. If they want to tunnel deeper into that squalid rabbit hole, great: This version of the party has no way to go but down.

But I hope the Republicans try to move on.

I believe they will. He’s not coming back from losing to one of the worst Dem. candidates since Michael Dukakis. Plus his age.

To clarify: I’m not looking for a partisan argument, or any argument. But it’s hard to picture Trump fading gracefully. We have a decade of watching his behaviors in a political context.

Who, exactly, tells him to step aside? What authority? How do you think he’ll react to ingratitude and disloyalty? I’d say there’s more than a 50% chance that he goes to war against the GOP. Assuming Trump accepts a loss, the Republican Party would make an easy scapegoat for him.

It would be incredible if he acted out of character. But it’s possible.

[WuWei]

@margaretms2

But it’s hard to picture Trump fading gracefully.

Agreed. Impossible.

[Toll_Collector]

@margaretms2

@Toll_Collector

@margaretms2

If Trump loses and fails to reverse the election, I guess it’s possible that the GOP sticks with him and he runs again in 2028. Very unlikely, given his legal troubles and electoral failures. If they want to tunnel deeper into that squalid rabbit hole, great: This version of the party has no way to go but down.

But I hope the Republicans try to move on.

I believe they will. He’s not coming back from losing to one of the worst Dem. candidates since Michael Dukakis. Plus his age.

To clarify: I’m not looking for a partisan argument, or any argument. But it’s hard to picture Trump fading gracefully. We have a decade of watching his behaviors in a political context.

Who, exactly, tells him to step aside? What authority? How do you think he’ll react to ingratitude and disloyalty? I’d say there’s more than a 50% chance that he goes to war against the GOP. Assuming Trump accepts a loss, the Republican Party would make an easy scapegoat for him.

It would be incredible if he acted out of character. But it’s possible.

I don’t know how graceful he will be if he loses. But I think he steps aside. I believe this because he’s not going to have the voter enthusiasm after a loss to Harris. I would never vote for him again if he can’t beat Harris. I can’t be alone. Perhaps I’m wrong.

[margaretms2]

It’s going to be . . . a dangerous December!

[Publius]

@Oldandtired

I love the poorly educated as well. Do you think you are any smarter than them?

Smarter? Not necessarily. Less ignorant? Probably.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@bigtwnvin

You’re the one who made the gratuitous assertion “Trump loves the poorly educated “.
You received an equally reciprocal gratuitous response.
Now, your turn to give us examples of your “weird” assertion.
We’ll wait.

Are you really that far gone?

[Samm]

@Ben_Natuf

yes it is. It is drawing a district to achieve a desired result. equal numbers and contiguous area is one thing, as soon as you throw on the social values, you’re gerrymandering. Gerrymandering does not have to be about party, it can be party, race, ethnicity, voting patterns, religion, age. It can literally be anything giving one demographic an advantage over another. And it need not be putting a large number in a district, just one tilted toward the target majority. There is NO SUCH THING as a non gerrymandered district. They are ALL drawn to achieve a result.

TX attempted to make all districts equal GOP majorities, It would have resulted in 100% GOP representation, and it was gerrymandering. But it was fair. Instead they are forced to create minority districts which cater to extremes and make the GOP districts around them even more GOP, catering to extremes. But you do get minority party representation you would not otherwise have. Also gerrymandering.

This idea that “gerrymandering” is “only the bad things I don’t like” is silly

No. When the desired result of equal population, contiguous geographical area, and similar social/life-style values are met it is not gerrymandering regardless of which party holds the majority in that district. If political affiliation is the primary motive for setting district boundaries, it is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering IS bad … and illegal under DoJ rules.

[bigtwnvin]

Probably and way out there gone. Watching it all unfolding from out here has been quite entertaining. Please don’t stop.

[Samm]

@Nemesis

Whats wrong with someone admitting they made a mistake?

Who said it was wrong?

That’s a perfect example of how libs try to change the narrative.

[Samm]

@DougBH

@Impenitent

no matter who wins the election, all hell is going to break loose

buy ammunition

I prefer to watch it on tv (or the computer).

I prefer not to watch (or listen) and wait for the Wednesday morning paper.

[Samm]

@conan

@Samm

Gerrymandering is a myth. It’s banned by the US Department of Justice. Accusations of such are nothing more than a sour grapes excuse by the losing Party.

Libs loved Gerrymandering when it benefited them. It’s how they controlled the house for 56 years out of 60 between 1935 and 1995. Damn Newt Gingrich for upsetting their apple cart.

Yep. Gerrymandering was invited by southern Democrats to restrict the number of black politicians from having a chance in Statewide elections.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Oldandtired

Less spending. Less taxes. Less regulations at the federal level. States having more control of what happens within their state and feds having less control. Giving more control back to the citizens and less control to the federal government.

More facts of the pathetic results of Lib politicians and their policies:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/california-s-homeless-population-grows-despite-billions-spent-on-solutions/ss-AA1toguU?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=a2523e93c4094e83ac79df52655ea959&ei=10

[Samm]

@Publius

@Oldandtired

I love the poorly educated as well. Do you think you are any smarter than them?

Smarter? Not necessarily. Less ignorant? Probably.

More arrogant? For sure.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Nemesis

Great OP, how can we reverse this trend? Both sides are at fault. I do think part of the problem is the dems and republicans have allowed the more fringe members of their party to control the narrative.

Kathy Hocul will no doubt bring us together:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ny-gov-kathy-hocul-if-you-vote-gop-you-re-anti-woman-and-anti-american/vi-AA1toYN0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=d2f0519a87b1408eabee117a73c07313&ei=12

[Nemesis]

So someone who overreacted (like I did) and then apologizes js trying to change the narrative???

[WuWei]

Jer people murdered Pnut.

[Ben_Natuf]

yes, it is gerrymandering and any denial you make is just that, denial. Gerrymandering is not limited to political affiliation. There is nothing you’re going to say, no argument you’re going to make and no pointless dance you can do to make it otherwise.

[Ben_Natuf]

@Samm

and illegal under DoJ rules.

no its not

[Samm]

@Nemesis

So someone who overreacted (like I did) and then apologizes js trying to change the narrative???

No, insinuating that someone said it was wrong to admit the mistake is changing the narrative.

I sure get tired of having to explain everything to you …