This is MAGA country. You're just living in it.
As of writing, the election isn't over yet. While Trump has won, there are still states yet to be counted - but it would take a miracle to alter the map. MAGA has won the hardest it has ever won since being established. More EVs then 2016, the popular vote, Senate seats flipped, and likely the House is staying red. After needing a lucky break from Comey in 2016, getting crushed by a Blue Wave in 2018, losing in 2020 and the Red Drizzle in 2022 that saw the Dems gain in the Senate, Trump has finally achieved a total victory. America looked at what Trump offered, and it collectively decided that Trump had the stuff. For this little longpost, I want to first observe why I think Trump beat Harris - what Trump did right, what Harris did wrong, then analyse the results of this crushing victory.
The Campaign Trail
Trump's campaign, by most standard metrics, has been butt and fries . He had far less money then Harris , even with Musk's backing, a much worse ground game and was always held in a lower personal estimation then Harris. He was generally agreed to have lost the debates , and his surrogates Vance and Musk are some of the few men to be less liked than Trump . And christ, Vance deserves his own section discussing why he was such an awful choice - Rubio and especially Burgum would have been far better choices. But he was clearly doing something right, as can bee seen by his tremendous margin of victory. I believe his strengths can be tied to 5 big things;
1. The media game
Be it going on livestreams with Zoomer dipshits or going on podcasts, Trump was tremendously cunning about his media outreach. He was sure to stick to mostly friendly interviewers, only attending one neutral to hostile interview with Vance, and cashed in on the good will of the various dipshits to earn credibility to a mostly untapped demographic to win the election.
Vance proved himself a capable campaigner on this front as well. While Trump was fricking with Adin Ross, it was Vance that'd be on TV and getting into details with interviewers. Vance's approval rating was the lowest in the entire race, and he was a constant punching bag for basically anyone with eyes and ears - but this actually worked in his favour, I believe. When the voter hears about this sick freak that fricks couches and wants battered wives to stay in abusive marriages, and sees a fairly articulate and affable conservative, Vance sprints over and leaps over a bar set in heck. Perhaps they don't like Vance, but they don't loathe him like they may have expected too.
He's still r-slurred btw
2. Constant association with policy
This is a slightly esoteric one. It's not the policy itself, but the fact he was constantly addressing policy gave him a real sense of legitimacy. Be it his 20% tariffs on everything, planned deportations, states rights on abortion, his constant rejection of Project 2025 and No-Taxes-On-Tips - the actual policy doesn't matter, voters simply felt comfortable with a man discussing issues. I want to go a bit deeper into this when I talk about Harris' weaknesses, but the short version is that Trump isn't the "Frick You" protest vote he was in 2016. He's considered a legitimate politician, and the policy discussions enhanced this image.
3. Memories of 2018
Trump's greatest strength was long considered to be his status as an outsider, but the problem with that is that you can't be an outsider after you win and govern like a pretty normal Republican - he didn't really drain the swamp, he cut taxes and failed to end Obamacare. However - times were decent in 2018. Prices were low, Afghanistan was less a current occupation and more a memory, and the rest of the world seemed at peace. The Trump Presidency was many years ago - what's remembered, it seems, is that the President made mean tweets while times were good and Joe Biden was a nice r-slur that fricked everything up.
In essence, the outsider's new strength is his status as an experienced insider.
4. RFK Jr and the nutjobs
But you can never forget your roots. Kennedy Junior's Quixotic adventure ended with him becoming one Trump's top guys, being given some kind of Health job in the future Trump administration, did a lot to rebuild bridges with Trump's insane person base. Now, they always made up Trump's base, but for those disillusioned with Trump following his presidency, Kennedy throws them a lifeline. Tulsi Gabbard does something similar, to a lesser degree.
5. Having a weak opposition.
Why Kamala lost
Because Joe Biden is unpopular.
There are other reasons I'll get into, but that's the main one. She couldn't define herself as an agent of change, and that killed her stone dead. Joe Biden is associated with high prices and global instability, and as his Vice-President she was linked inexorably to that. No election is ever decided by a single event, but if it was, then it was this..
Definition was Ha-Ha Harris' problem in general. She never stuck to her guns on anything except abortion. She's the Democratic warrior fighting to ensure "We're not going back!" while promising to put a Republican in her cabinet, she loves policing and was prosecutor but don't worry she supports reform, she wants to crackdown on the border but in a progressive way unlike mean old Trump - it was just a mess of a talking out of both sides of her mouth. The consequences were simple - progressives were depressed by her flip flopping from her 2020 stances, while Independents she was courting were turned off by her flip flopping without an actual plan, and the conservatives she was courting by touting that fricking Cheney endorsement were worried about her 2020 stances.
Her lack of commitment meant that she was very easy to paint. Dropping Joe for Kammie could have been more than swapping an r-slur for a less r-slurred r-slur, but the Republican's admirable messaging discipline (they managed to go from President Biden's inflation to Vice-President Harris' inflation very smoothly) and her lack of concrete positions let the Republicans paint her as anything they liked.
Her Vice-Presdential pick was perfect - Walz remained the most popular person in the race, and honestly he was underutilised. He's fine giving speeches, but if Harris was refusing to give interviews, then it should have been Walz. Maybe picking Shapiro could have saved Pennsylvania, but even if it did, that still doesn't get her past 270 while pissing off other states even more.
As for the Gaza shit in general - to the degree it mattered, it ties back to Joe Biden. The average voter vaguely supports Israel, but isn't that invested in the war. The war is like Afghanistan - just another example of Biden causing problems where there were none before. The specifics don't matter. Not at all, as I'll get into later.
The question emerges from this - could Harris win? Was Trump's victory certain? The answer may surprise you.
The Results
The results are bad for Harris. She's the first candidate to lost the popular vote since John Kerry in 2004, who was the first to lost the popular vote since Dukakis in 1988 - and unlike Kerry, Kammie doesn't have an excuse like 9/11 to justify her piss poor results. The main reason Harris lost the popular vote are her poor results in safe blue areas. For comparison;
Biden won New Jersey by 57%, Harris won it by 51%
Biden won Illinois by 57%, Harris won it 53%
Biden won California by 63%, Harris won it by 57%
Biden won New York by 60%, and Harris won it by 55%
And despite what leftists hope , this can't be tied to Jill Stein and the Greens . Of the above mentioned states, Stein was only on the ballot in California and New Jersey, and she didn't do so well in the states that she managed to frick up her margins. While the precise results are being counted, looking at the key swing states;
The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Pennsylvania are 130,487, Stein won 33,544 votes
The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Georgia are 130,487, Stein won 18,162 votes (which means she came in 4th, after Chase Oliver)
The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in North Carolina are 130,487, Stein won 24,289 votes
The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Wisconsin are 29,634, Stein won 12,266 votes and came in 4th after RFK Jr
Even in Michigan, Stein's best state, the difference is 81,750 and Stein only got 44,642 votes.
The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Arizona are still being counted, and has technically not been called for Trump, but as of now Stein is also behind Oliver there.
These results are a horror story. Harris is losing popularity in her safest spots, the left didn't cost her anything - the American people just liked Donald Trump and his platform a lot more. It looks like a devastating defeat for Harris at first glance... but what if, for fun, we add just 2% to Harris, in every state. Just a small upgrade. How does she do?
A measly 2% does not change the shocking collapse in safe areas. But it does massively alter the electoral college - Harris actually wins with just a 2% change, while still in all likelihood losing the popular vote. Despite the seeming dominance Trump's victory has presented, the coalition he's built is a bizarrely fragile one. It's difficult to see this coalition surviving social media and 24 hours news cycles... but that's J.D Vance's problem.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I got a little carried away and my reply ended becoming longer than the post. It's been known to happen sometimes.
Trump had a huge advantage in actually having the guts to go on Joe Rogan. When he did but Kamala chickened out, that's when I was pretty sure she would lose. If you're scared to have a chill relaxed conversation with the most popular dudebro in the country, you're not going to win. It's easy to notice when Trump's people are being weird. But I would argue that Kamala not going on Rogan is weird. It shows she can't even talk to ordinary Americans, let alone relate to them. I'd bet this cost her about a million votes.
Yet another example of her campaign making a colossally r-slurred decision because they're so isolated from real America they have no idea how normal people will react. They were hoping to attract Reagan Republicans who despise Trump but are undecided about voting for Kamala and need to be convinced. Note that this niche does not include Republicans who were already going to vote for Kamala or would never vote for Kamala. Everyone else hears "Cheney" and immediately thinks of the Iraq War, which is probably the worst thing a politician could possibly be associated with. Everyone is pissed off about the war and a lot of people still care very deeply about it.
The Democrats were on a quest to find these disgruntled Republicans like they're the Holy Grail. I'm sure a few of these people exist, but this is a very specific niche. About 4 million (12%) of Republicans dislike Trump. There were 129 million votes cast in this election. They were chasing after 3% of the electorate. Pissing off 97% of voters to get some fraction of that 4 million is not something a candidate does if they want to win.
So why did they do it? What was more important than winning? Democrats have a fascination with Never Trumper Republicans in the same way that the alt right treats based black men. It makes them feel good to hear that even Republicans support them. They must be doing something right! And they cling to a pathetic hope that when Trump is gone, the nice Republicans will take over the party again. The kind of Republicans who might politely disagree with you but you could negotiate with them. Like it was before Trump. Wait... No, actually before Trump Republicans were already so fanatical in their hatred that they refused to compromise on anything. This fantasy isn't really going back before Trump, it's going back to the 1980s.
I'd like to turn back time to when Star Trek was good but I understand it ain't happening.
I'm hearing very little about the popular vote, but I think that's the best place to look to see just how severe this catastrophe is. Democrats have won the popular vote in every election in this century. Biden won it by 7 million. It was assumed that the Democrat would win the popular vote even if Trump managed to win big in the electoral college by taking key swing states.
Kamala lost the popular vote by a margin of 4.7 million. How did this happen? Was there a groundswell of support for Trump? Did he manage to encourage people to vote who normally wouldn't? Did hordes of angry white men descend on the polling stations, determined to never let a woman lead? No. Not even close. He got 1.6 million votes more than last time, an increase of 2%.
Kamala got 13 million less votes than Biden, a drop of 16%. This must be because misogynist white men who can't stand a female president defected to Trump, right? Oh wait, no, Trump didn't gain any voters at all. These are Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents who were so disgusted with Kamala that they bother voting at all. (Or left the presidential bubbles blank on their ballot like me. ) These are people on her own side who didn't feel that there was enough difference between Kamala and Trump to justify voting.
This election was an absolute fricking disaster for the Democratic party. Trump didn't do anything right in the whole campaign and only hung on to his previous supporters. Kamala (and the way she was "nominated") was so toxic she managed to drive off a large portion of her own team. The Dems have got to do some really fricking serious soul searching after this. They need to track down what people are responsible for this catastrophe and blame them, even if it hurts their feelings. This is not just a few innocent mistakes made by otherwise competent people. There is a long pattern of shockingly poor performance. In 2016 they lost to an elderly raving borderline r-slur. It was treated as if Trump was some new phenomenon that surprised them. They didn't have that excuse in 2020 but they still managed to pull off another disaster. Biden won by the narrowest of margins only because his opponent was an even worse candidate. At that point the party leaders had proved how inept they are. They should have been purged and replaced with new blood and the party reorganized. But Biden won, so they just pretended they did a good job.
This is the third time in a row that they've managed to frick up a sure thing. Heads have got to roll. "But Redactor," you ask, "they have all the power. They're so entrenched in their positions. Who could possibly force them out?" Donors. These people are obsessed with fundraising. They learned their trade in the bygone era before social media, when voters got most of their information about candidates from TV ads. Of course the world doesn't work like that anymore, proven by how badly Trump beats no matter how much more cash they have. But the dinosaurs running the party don't know that. They pimp out their candidates to every corporation and special interest group, making sleazy deals that turn off voters because money is that important to them. One day the donors are going to wake up and realize that there's no point in throwing money at the Dems when they're not even trying to win. At least I tell myself that so I can sleep at night.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A much more sensible perspective than your usual "it's id-pol's fault" drivel.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Young men shifted right 30 points in 6 years. It certainly plays a role even if it's not the only thing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Donors can't even make it or break it like Dems think. Trump had less than 400 million compared to Kamala's 1.1billion. For reference, San Francisco will drop 200 million on a small neighborhood park. Donors don't make or break the election, a disconnect with your average (somewhat r-slurred) swing voter does.
I'd hope this'd bring around real change within the American political system, but considering Alaska literally just voted to repeal its ranked choice voting system, I'd doubt it. The most we can hope for is psychopathic and snakelike Trump wannabes like Vivek or Vance on the GOP's side, and I don't even know on the Dem's.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think that includes superpac money, but I'm too r-slurred and lazy to look up the right numbers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It's podcasts vs legacy media. Legacy media is more expensive and gives you less return. Podcast appearances are cheap if not free, and give you insane exposure.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Why would this election cause America to change it's political system? The winner of the popular vote, won the election so it was democratic. The person with less money won, so clearly wealth is not destroying democracy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't think it's fair to lump vivek and Vance together. Just cause Vance also has a curry foid? Cmon now
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It blows my mind that people think ghouls like Peepee Cheney are better people than Trump or endorsements worth touting.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
For all the bad things Trump has done, he never got us into a war. Cheney got us into the most r-slurred war possible. When Trump ran for president in 2016 I'd say the #1 reason he succeeded was because everyone left, right, and center were so pissed off about the war that they didn't want to elect another ordinary politician.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ststicically, Americans don't prioritize foreign policy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Posts like this are why I do crack.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context