Mid-term election Predictions


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I didn't vote for Trump the first time SPECIFICALLY because I didn't like the guy.  I didn't like what he stood for.  I thought he was just putting on a face to get elected.

The second time, I voted for him because I could hold my nose enough about the man, and hope he got some of the POLICIES through.

Ditto, except I was more impressed with Trump's Supreme Court picks than his policy decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 I've often mused whether they thought long and hard about a more Orwellian name... until the Disinformation Governance Board was created.

A federal ministry of truth they are trying to create needs to be fought against by everyone.  It will nearly or completely destroy freedom of speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Vort said:

 

14 hours ago, Vort said:
  22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I didn't vote for Trump the first time SPECIFICALLY because I didn't like the guy.  I didn't like what he stood for.  I thought he was just putting on a face to get elected.

The second time, I voted for him because I could hold my nose enough about the man, and hope he got some of the POLICIES through.

Ditto, except I was more impressed with Trump's Supreme Court picks than his policy decisions.

I ended up liking his personality overall* (with exceptions**) and feeling disappointed in what he got done... or, rather, didn't get done.

*What I mean is that I only knew Trump from the news media, etc. Then after he was elected, I'd listen to his speeches and enjoy and find him funny and the like. Then the news media would report on it and spin the funny joke as racist hate rhetoric. 

**Sometimes the jokes went too far. And I never appreciate swearing or crudeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2022 at 12:16 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I ended up liking his personality overall* (with exceptions**) and feeling disappointed in what he got done... or, rather, didn't get done.

*What I mean is that I only knew Trump from the news media, etc. Then after he was elected, I'd listen to his speeches and enjoy and find him funny and the like. Then the news media would report on it and spin the funny joke as racist hate rhetoric. 

I feel you.  And upon reflection, on one level, I agree.  But I also side with Democrats when I say that he really didn't do anything to close the divide between right and left.  We could blame the Democrats for that.  But Trump really didn't do anything on his end either.

On 5/8/2022 at 12:16 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

**Sometimes the jokes went too far. And I never appreciate swearing or crudeness.

Yes.  And that is evidence that he could have done more to close the divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 1:58 PM, Carborendum said:

I feel you.  And upon reflection, on one level, I agree.  But I also side with Democrats when I say that he really didn't do anything to close the divide between right and left.  We could blame the Democrats for that.  But Trump really didn't do anything on his end either.

Yes.  And that is evidence that he could have done more to close the divide.

I disagree.  There is nothing Trump could have done to close the divide, as the Democrats simply don’t want it.  The reason the there is such a divide is because division is what the left thrives on.  The other reason is because the right and left in America no longer are two opposing sides with the same goal.  The right wants to save the United States and protect our constitution.  The left wants to destroy the United States, shred the constitution, take down all of our traditions and values, and everything that made this nation great, and turn it into a third world country. 
 

Personally, the fact that Trump made Jokes about the left, and called them out for their ridiculous antics and ideas, is something I really liked about him.  I thought it was about time we had someone in Office who was willing to call it like it was, and pull no punches.  No more of this “touchy/feely, reach across the aisle” garbage.  He was dealing with a party of petulant children, and he treated them as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

as the Democrats simply don’t want it.

Republicans don't want it either, but I think the word “compromise” in politics is silly. Will pro lifers “compromise” with pro choicers? Who budges? Who gives what up? 
 

Also, no one wins a “compromise”. All you do is anger the bases of both parties. The “reasonable moderate voters” don’t exist in great numbers anymore. 
 

Compromise is great in your personal life but seldom works out in politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

I disagree.  There is nothing Trump could have done to close the divide, as the Democrats simply don’t want it.  The reason the there is such a divide is because division is what the left thrives on.  The other reason is because the right and left in America no longer are two opposing sides with the same goal.  The right wants to save the United States and protect our constitution.  The left wants to destroy the United States, shred the constitution, take down all of our traditions and values, and everything that made this nation great, and turn it into a third world country. 
 

Personally, the fact that Trump made Jokes about the left, and called them out for their ridiculous antics and ideas, is something I really liked about him.  I thought it was about time we had someone in Office who was willing to call it like it was, and pull no punches.  No more of this “touchy/feely, reach across the aisle” garbage.  He was dealing with a party of petulant children, and he treated them as such.

I feel it was Obama who really started to really widen the divide.

There was always a division and difference between the Republicans and Democrats.  It started to get wider in the 90s, but it got REALLY wide under Obama.  Rather than repairing and bringing people together, he chose to constantly push an agenda through without any bipartisan notions of agreement.  When racial tensions rose, he simply fed the fire.  When people complained about various aspects of liberal movements being pushed through without listening to any other voice but their own, he went ahead and pushed through them.

I see the reaction of 2016 where people wanted change...any change whether it was the radical right or radical left, they wanted something or someone in reaction to the policies of the past 8 years.  Trump was the reaction of the right, something the polar opposite to the President they just had.  He didn't do anything to repair that divide.

The divide just got bigger and people got angrier and harsher...on both sides.

This is where I really hope Biden can succeed (but thus far, it looks like he is failing...badly) as he is FAR MORE moderate than the past two Presidents have been.  He ran on the idea of trying to work with bipartisanship in Congress, and though it has meant several of the Bills Democrats have tried to push have failed, he has tried to at least do more bipartisanship than the past two Executives in the White House in many ways. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

There is nothing Trump could have done to close the divide, as the Democrats simply don’t want it.

I think, for the  most part, you are correct.  But there are still a few moderate Democrats.  And Trump did what he could to flip those guys off too.

I believe the overall sentiment is generally correct because of an exchange I heard between an obviously liberal journalist and Rand Paul when he was first elected.

Quote

J: So, Senator, are you going to be willing to compromise with other side of the aisle?
P: If you mean I'm willing to trade something I want for something they're offering, of course.  What I'm not willing to do is simply give in for nothing in return.

J: So, what I'm hearing is that you're not willing to compromise on anything.
P: I think we're having difficulty communicating here.  I want to know the conditions of the compromise.  I'm willing to give up some things if I get something in return.  But I don't just rubber stamp what the other party wants without getting anything back for my side.

J: I was hoping you wouldn't just say some talking points.  I really want a straight answer.  Are you willing to compromise?
P: (a frustrated laugh) It's not a talking point.  It is about what compromise actually means.  I want something back.

J: Well, if you're representative of most Republicans, it looks like we'll be seeing a lot more gridlock in Congress again.

I honestly don't know if that journalist even knew the definition of compromise.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I feel it was Obama who really started to really widen the divide.

I'm glad you say this, because so many people forget how many digs he would make at conservatives. The right wouldn't make a huge fuss over it, (unlike the left did with Trump) but Obama was very rude and condescending at times.

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is where I really hope Biden can succeed (but thus far, it looks like he is failing...badly) as he is FAR MORE moderate than the past two Presidents have been.  He ran on the idea of trying to work with bipartisanship in Congress, and though it has meant several of the Bills Democrats have tried to push have failed, he has tried to at least do more bipartisanship than the past two Executives in the White House in many ways. 

Honest question...what exactly has he done? I am not saying I outright disagree with you, but I truly don't see anything that he has actually done to make anything better. His administration seems worse than Obama's to me. How has his "moderacy" reigned in the far left and made relations with the right better? It seems like the only democrats that show any signs of moderacy are the ones elected in red heavy states. (and vice-versa with republicans in blue heavy states)

Edited by scottyg
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, scottyg said:

I'm glad you say this, because so many people forget how many digs he would make at conservatives. They right wouldn't make a huge fuss over it, (unlike the left did with Trump) but Obama was very rude and condescending at times.

Honest question...what exactly has he done? I am not saying I outright disagree with you, but I truly don't see anything that he has actually done to make anything better. His administration seems worse than Obama's to me. How has his "moderacy" reigned in the far left and made relations with the right better? It seems like the only democrats that show any signs of moderacy are the ones elected in red heavy states. (and vice-versa with republicans in blue heavy states)

The thing is that many people look at personality more than policy.  He speaks about bipartisanship.  Then he nominates a SCOTUS justice that was so far left that she refused to define what a woman was in front of the entire country.

People are so taken in by personality and words that they don't bother to look at the substance of the individual or the administration.  He's the exact opposite of Trump. And that is what some people mean when they say that Biden is moderate.

Trump did many extremely conservative things.  He said many off the wall things that most conservatives would disagree with.

Biden says many things that conservatives would agree with. I can only think of  one thing he's done that conservatives would agree with.  He voted for the partial-birth abortion act.  But then disagreed with SCOTUS when they supported the law.

Actual legislation/regulation/positions he's supported:

  • Affirmative Action
  • Abortion on demand
  • Gun-free zones
  • Supported the Patriot Act.  But so did nearly all of Congress.  Republicans went off the rocker on this one as well.
  • Open borders
  • Supported "don't ask don't tell" but then switched with the political tides.  Ditto for most LGBTQ issues.  Now he's all for it.
  • Green New Deal
  • Obamacare
  • Taxes (always sided with Democrats on any plan regarding taxes).
  • Govt handouts

If you pay more attention to the words than the actions, we understand why magicians are so successful.

The other thing we notice is that everyone tends to think of themselves as pretty close to center.  They have no idea where they actually are on the political landscape.  So, a person in the "center of the left wing" thinks that their position is center for the nation.  So, it's easy to think Biden is conservative by that standard.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I feel it was Obama who really started to really widen the divide.

 

I feel it was the Clinton impeachment that really stepped it up. However, we were always divided as a country. Look at political cartoons from the Civil War. They were brutal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I feel it was the Clinton impeachment that really stepped it up. However, we were always divided as a country. Look at political cartoons from the Civil War. They were brutal. 

True.  Whenever I start thinking about how divided we are, I just remember a fun anecdote from our Founders.  President John Adams, talking about Alexander Hamilton:

Quote

What a pity it is that our Congress had not known [Hamilton's plans] all arose from a superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off? And that the same vapors produced his lies and slanders by which he totally destroyed his party forever and finally lost his life in the field of honor.

That's some top-tier 17th century divisiveness right there, from a former US President.  Seriously?  "Dood wouldn't have lied or done such horrible things, if he could have just had more extramarital affairs"? 

Yeah, we're all mad at Trump making it personal, but he never made anything THAT personal! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

True.  Whenever I start thinking about how divided we are, I just remember a fun anecdote from our Founders.  President John Adams, talking about Alexander Hamilton:

That's some top-tier 17th century divisiveness right there, from a former US President.  Seriously?  "Dood wouldn't have lied or done such horrible things, if he could have just had more extramarital affairs"? 

Yeah, we're all mad at Trump making it personal, but he never made anything THAT personal! :)

I’d love for politics to be a pretty, polite game between gentlemen but that’s so naive that it’s a little ridiculous. 
 

The truth is that if someone can’t handle division, personal attacks, one side winning and one side losing-they should not even think about following politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw crap.  I keep forgetting which way the math swings.  C.E. 0-99 = 1st century?  What sort of history nerd came up with that weirdness?  (Probably someone like @Vort.)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Aw crap.  I keep forgetting which way the math swings.  C.E. 0-99 = 1st century?  What sort of history nerd came up with that weirdness?  (Probably someone like @Vort.)

This is a common misunderstanding because people aren't used to dealing "durations".  They're used to dealing with units.  The first century does not begin at the end of the 100 years.  It begins with the first year of that 100 year duration.  Just as a year doesn't begin with Dec 31st, we consider the beginning of the year from the first day of the year (Jan 1st on our current calendar).

There was no year zero.  So, we count 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD, 3AD.  But each century is based on what is "first". 

  • Each century would cover ALL the years within the 100 year period.

100 BC to 1 BC is the "first century before Christ" because BC by definition counts backwards from Christ.

1 AD to 100 AD is the first century (implied AD).  And 1AD would be the year Christ was born regardless of what date in that year he was born.

... 1601 to 1700 is the 17th century

...1901 to 2000 was the 20th century.

2001 to 2100 is the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I feel it was the Clinton impeachment that really stepped it up. However, we were always divided as a country. Look at political cartoons from the Civil War. They were brutal. 

In 2008, when Barack Obama was still on the campaign trail, he was giving an interview at a radio station.

He *intended* to recount a story involving his maternal grandmother, and as part of the story was talking about how his grandmother, like many white people of the day, held what we would now regard as racist views. His intention was to use his family as a reflection of how much American society had changed over the decades. 

During his recounting, however, he referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person". 

By all appearances, this was simply yet another incident in which Obama didn't choose his words as well as he should have. But it still gave large swaths of Americans the impression that Obama held anti-white sentiments and would pursue a policy of racism if elected. Obama's many blunders when it came to discussing race-related issues further reinforced this notion, such that he inadvertently encouraged much of the very same militant "us vs. them" mindset he had been hoping to quell. 

Throw in Obama and his people showing signs of increasingly being out of touch with the everyday concerns of most Americans and Hillary's increasingly bizarre political campaign (remember when she "overheated" in 80 Fahrenheit weather and had to be carried back to her vehicle?), and it's no wonder Trump won in 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

In 2008, when Barack Obama was still on the campaign trail, he was giving an interview at a radio station.

He *intended* to recount a story involving his maternal grandmother, and as part of the story was talking about how his grandmother, like many white people of the day, held what we would now regard as racist views. His intention was to use his family as a reflection of how much American society had changed over the decades. 

During his recounting, however, he referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person". 

By all appearances, this was simply yet another incident in which Obama didn't choose his words as well as he should have. But it still gave large swaths of Americans the impression that Obama held anti-white sentiments and would pursue a policy of racism if elected. Obama's many blunders when it came to discussing race-related issues further reinforced this notion, such that he inadvertently encouraged much of the very same militant "us vs. them" mindset he had been hoping to quell. 

Throw in Obama and his people showing signs of increasingly being out of touch with the everyday concerns of most Americans and Hillary's increasingly bizarre political campaign (remember when she "overheated" in 80 Fahrenheit weather and had to be carried back to her vehicle?), and it's no wonder Trump won in 2016. 

Trump won because he wasn’t Hillary. The moment the democrats ran anyone other than her, he lost.  
 

Now, back to division for a second. Did Obama help? Not really. Like many others here I also think he was not a great president. He didn't start the division though.  We’ve been very divided as a nation for 100+ years now. 
 

And that’s okay. Frankly, I don’t want to unite politically with people who don’t share my values. I’m blessed with having right wing friends, left wing friends and apolitical friends. I have a great ability to be friends with people who I don’t agree with politically. One thing we all agree on is that we’d never vote for one another if we ran for office! 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Sorry my friend, but Biden is president. Trump lost. 

I was just hearing about the 2000 mules documentary earlier today. Looks interesting.

Of course I know that Biden is legally president and Trump, therefore, obviously "lost". ;) Was what happened legally based on fair and square though? Highly dubious imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

course I know that Biden is legally president and Trump, therefore, obviously "lost". ;) Was what happened legally based on fair and square though? Highly dubious imho.

That’s fine FP, I understand fully. But that sounds like “your team” lost the Super Bowl on a questionable call. That’s unfortunate-but no matter what you say from here you can’t go back in time. 
 

Perhaps it best if the right focuses on regrouping and winning in 2024 rather than talking about how bad the referee’s call was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

That’s fine FP, I understand fully. But that sounds like “your team” lost the Super Bowl on a questionable call. That’s unfortunate-but no matter what you say from here you can’t go back in time. 
 

Perhaps it best if the right focuses on regrouping and winning in 2024 rather than talking about how bad the referee’s call was. 

I think I ought to be able to comment on something (specifically a new documentary, that is timely), without having my person commented upon in return. I'm not lamenting here. I'm commenting. You're telling me what I'm feeling on the matter, as if my comment has anything to do with "teams". I don't care who's team won or lost. I care if the game was fairly played. Cheating and dishonesty is wrong from either side of the aisle. And I'm commenting because I saw something about an interesting documentary that implied things and it was...you know...interesting.

But even if I believed whole heartedly that the election was absolutely stolen, it doesn't mean I'm moping about feeling like my team lost. You're putting that on me in your reply. Objective analysis does not equal "feelings".

I know you like to point out how conservatives in the reverse are just as bad as the liberals. That is, certainly, true in many situations. But I am, politically, quite a bit more fair minded than that. (Get me talking religion and I'm less so, as you might be aware). I am not one of those people who blames Biden for inflation and gives Trump a pass, for example. Trump's spending was out of control! He dropped the ball on a lot of things. And anyhow, I'm on team Jesus. I'm not on team Trump. Sorry.

And, I might add, if there really was cheating going on, we sure as shootin' better be aware of it, and better be talking about it as a nation, and better be doing something about it for future elections instead of burying our heads in the sand because the media (mainstream, social, and otherwise) are all crying "Nothing to see here. Move along people. Don't believe your lying eyes."

I'm pretty sure we should, actually, discuss history so we don't repeat mistakes. I think I learned that somewhere once. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

think I ought to be able to comment on something (specifically a new documentary, that is timely), without having my person commented upon in return. I'm not lamenting here. I'm commenting. You're telling me what I'm feeling on the matter, as if my comment has anything to do with "teams". I don't care who's team won or lost. I care if the game was fairly played. Cheating and dishonesty is wrong from either side of the aisle. And I'm commenting because I saw something about an interesting documentary that implied things and it was...you know...interesting.

Okay. Well, I’m sorry I came across that way. You are, of course, free to comment and talk about any issue you’d like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I was just hearing about the 2000 mules documentary earlier today. Looks interesting.

Of course I know that Biden is legally president and Trump, therefore, obviously "lost". ;) Was what happened legally based on fair and square though? Highly dubious imho.

Mitch McConnel certainly thought so.  

 

But hey, maybe you know something the courts, the states, the electors, and the federal government don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share