- Reaction score
- 9,565
- Points
- 1,360
MOD POST
LAST COMPARISON TO NAZI'S IN THIS THREAD [OR IN OUR ' LIBERAL MAJORITY' TOPIC ALSO]
This is non-negotionable, if that's all you have then you have nothing, and need to post in another forum.
Bruce
Staff
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
LAST COMPARISON TO NAZI'S IN THIS THREAD [OR IN OUR ' LIBERAL MAJORITY' TOPIC ALSO]
This is non-negotionable, if that's all you have then you have nothing, and need to post in another forum.
Bruce
Staff
I think Ytz is saying this is historic numbers for Democrat's.
He keeps going by national numbers. Notice how he ignored the state houses flipped. Or how he ignored the example of Texas waking up to news they'll be California in January. Or the fact that the 2010 midterms, ass whooping that they were, still saw the Democrats hold the Senate. This was almost like a good chunk of America had an anaphylactic reaction to the GOP.
Like I keep saying, if California or New York changed every state wide position to Republican in a single election, I would call that historic too. We have Republicans who get this. But somehow, randos in Canada don't.
- Reaction score
- 2,062
- Points
- 1,160
Only thing missing is him holding a white Persian cat.
- Reaction score
- 10,794
- Points
- 1,260
I worry that this is the take the Democrats will have, and decide to squander their good will on fringe far left silliness.
The electorate reacted to MAGA, that doesn't make them full-blown Democrats. It means they punished the worst excesses of the MAGA crowd, but doesn't signify a hard shift to the left.
I hope they learn what the LPC seem to have learned, being in the centre beats fighting on the margins.
- Reaction score
- 28,619
- Points
- 1,360
“Ladies and gentlemen, there’s turbulence coming up so please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelts tightly…”
- Reaction score
- 12,414
- Points
- 1,040
Yes; it's necessary to properly situate the estimate for it to be "historic". At least that's marginally better than "in-con-ceivable!".
- Reaction score
- 12,414
- Points
- 1,040
No need to worry. The far left silliness was right out declared in the open well prior to the election.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,348
- Points
- 1,160
Tip the ship too far left or right, and she sinks.
The political parties need to focus on the 80% of the population which is somewhere in the center. At least for us Canadians. And I do know many an American (including 6 cousins), and not one of them is far left or far right.
However people also have to be careful what they define as "far/fringe left or right"
A few examples
-Wanting a decent universal healthcare does NOT make you far left
-Wanting reasonable and manageable immigration does NOT make you far right
-Wanting a decent education system for all does NOT make you far left
-Wanting to a moderately effective armed forces does NOT make you far right
and we could go on.
- Reaction score
- 12,414
- Points
- 1,040
I haven't ignored anything. I have no idea what's on the list of things you are thinking about. Try introducing an additional factor to the discussion and exploring it before assuming anyone is "ignoring" it.
As I already wrote, "There are some noteworthy, perhaps even "historical" pieces". They don't automatically make the whole thing "historic".
Control of a chamber doesn't have to flip for a net gain number to be consequential, and a modest gain can sometimes flip a chamber. It's the gain number that has the potential to make something "historic".
FL was a battleground state until it wasn't any more. CO was purple until it wasn't. State voting patterns do change. Democrats have been claiming they were going to break into TX (Senate and governor) for several elections now. It's hardly historic when it finally happens, unless they were just winding themselves up the whole time and didn't really believe they had a shot.
Something also isn't "historic" just because no-one had a reliable tool to see it coming.
I actually think if that is the takeaway, it will spare them going all in on far left stuff.
And for all the gleeful hope of conservatives like Brad for that kind of overreach you have open discussion from actually elected officials like this:
I actually think numbers matter too. The DSA caucus is a smaller proportion of the incoming Democratic cohort. And they won with smaller margins. They can be loud. But they won't actually get very far. And you also see some recognition that sticking to economics issues is the winning path. AOC has scrubbed her website of what she calls "Woke 1.0" stuff. And the memo she sent out near the election is heavily focused on combating corruption, wealth inequality, etc
They aren't stupid. They know nothing is getting passed. So the question is what do they propose that Republicans and Trump will veto on the record, that they can use in 2028. Just imagine how voting against restoring Obamacare subsidies is going to look after the full health insurance hikes kick in. Or how voting against a $15 minimum wage is going to look. The only question for me, is whether this stuff gets drowned out in all the drama that will come out of all the oversight stuff that will inevitably happen and all the unprecedented corruption starts getting revealed (which will dominate the news cycle). There's so much people have forgotten, like DOGE critters getting access to everybody's social security numbers without a clearance.
Funny. Sean Snell has the exact same take as me about this being "historic" right in the opening two minutes. Jenni Byrne calls it a complete repudiation. Maybe Brad should go argue with them too.
This was great analysis. Especially on the part about impacts on Canada.
I will say. It's disappointing to hear Conservatives argue against the Telesat deal. Something that a whole bunch of us serving (especially in the space domain), agree is in line with our national security interests. Sad to see that become partisan. They spent the entire podcast talking about inequality and why it matters politically. And then run out to protect Elon Musk's interests over a Canadian company at the end.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 28,619
- Points
- 1,360
Agree. If MRG had a more prominent place in the CPC, it would be a good thing for the CPC and Canada.
This. The CPC lets its institutional hatred of Carney effectively dismiss TeleSat’s past, current and future contribution to Canada’s‘staying in the game.’ That Carney knows Daniel Goldberg and Donald Tremblay from a previous life (where he also knew and worked with Emmanuel Macron, Harold Lutnick and Scott Bessent btw) shouldn’t be anything of either a surprise, or a reason to prefer Elon Musk and his capabilities/products over a Canadian space communications solution.
- Reaction score
- 12,414
- Points
- 1,040
A thing about history (particularly military and electoral is that the initial takes are often wrong. Undoubtedly parts of mine will be, too. But the more times power changes hands at some given set of numbers, the less exceptional it looks.
Most of the "experts" have a dog in the fight. On a winning side, they're prone to overstatement telling themselves how awesome they are, how doomed their enemies are, how inevitable their long-term triumph is. On a losing side, they're either exaggerating the scale of loss to quickly rally people to start rebuilding or minimizing it to cheer people up (sometimes both at the same time). Many are obfuscating and embellishing for reputation (individual and party) management (some write entire books). All of that makes for highly coloured assessments, almost all of which are worthless.
Overreach is baked in. I like to see some nemesis for hubris now and again, but I just assume Democrats are gonna Democrat and that voters will correct heavily - probably starting next election (think 2008/2010) because what Democrats have been talking about doing does not align with what independent voters want and they, the most important voters, are obviously already at a high pitch of discontent. One of the stories Democrats are telling themselves right now on TV is that they're going to make things better for ordinary Americans. Not a chance. If they were capable of that, they'd have done it by now in the cities and states they've dominated for decades. Independents want to see a course correction to the centre; the Democratic base wants to see widespread punishment. Which constituency is truly most likely to get what it wants?
- Reaction score
- 12,414
- Points
- 1,040
That's partly correct. One of the good things about the election result is that it's a strong win, which means the Speaker and Majority Leader can't be held hostage by a handful on the leftmost side.
Contrarily, they have demonstrated the capability to use primaries to take safe seats away from moderates and to wag the dog.
Overall it's clear the Democrats are moving left at a pace high enough for their moderates to drop or be pushed off the right. The extremists in the DSA mold stand at the leftmost side, but if that's the side (and it is) to which the party is moving, the extremists are gradually winning. All they need is for that velocity to remain unchanged and for some time.
- Reaction score
- 4,404
- Points
- 1,190
I'm seeing a little of reports/interviews from the Democrats who won in traditionally Republican areas and there's a lot of messaging that "we're done with work/far left culture war BS".