85.2%

[Physics Guy]

Cheer up: the next four years may be terrible. Trump and his team will probably fail again and again, in such obvious ways that a large fraction of the American population will learn the hard way to demand more than flattery from politicians in future. Trump could prove to be, not the thin edge of the wedge of totalitarianism, but inoculation against it: infection with a weak strain, that builds resistance.

If the Trump administration somehow turns out not to damage the country so much, then maybe Trump wasn't actually such a bad choice after all—just ugly packaging on a decent product. I don't expect this, but managing not to screw up badly at American federal government is actually a pretty high bar to clear. If Trump somehow pulls it off, it will have to recognised as proof that his detractors were mainly wrong.

The worst case I can see is that Republican unity collapses under the responsibility of power, so no big moves of any kind are attempted, but the government manages to muddle along and avoid the worst. Then instead of the next four years being a decisive test of government by idiocy, they're a crescendo of tantrums against traitors, leading to demands for absolute power the next time.

That would be serious. So far, though, I'm cautiously optimistic that there will just be disaster.

[Hound of Heaven]

Hound,

First, we must categorize the progressive movement as far left, identifying it as a fringe movement within our party. Next, focus on creating a party that embraces everyone,

So far in your posting, you've spent all of your time on part one, categorizing all the things you think indicate progressives have coopted Democrats. Honestly, this is essentially the same thing our resident Trumpers do. You haven't provided any examples of something you think Democrats can do to "embrace everyone" (aside from avoid criticizing Trump, same as Ceeboo).

And then on the one hand you write:

Young Americans aspire to find happiness, smile, own a home, and achieve success without accumulating debt after completing college

Agreed. But on the other hand, you say:

On the Republican side, there are numerous memes and videos featuring Republican women smiling and laughing as they mock Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, Jennifer Lopez, and various other celebrities

In your world, somehow the right has a magical power to fuel dreams of home ownership and college without debt by crapping on celebrities and rallying around MMA. I'm trying to understand how it is the left is supposed to compete with that. You haven't provided any examples.

I assumed you appreciated facts? You frequently point out when posters fail to provide factual support for their assertions. If we are to engage in a conversation about the Democratic Party's strategy for 2026 and beyond, it is essential that we focus on the facts. Initially, you wrongly assert that in my perspective the right possesses extraordinary abilities to inspire aspirations of home ownership and education without substance by criticizing celebrities and supporting MMA. If you would like me to provide examples for something I mentioned, it is essential that you accurately represent what I said.

You mentioned that I have dedicated all my time to categorizing the elements I believe show how progressives have taken over the Democrats. Indeed, I have. This discussion focuses on the Democrat party and does not pertain to addressing issues within the republican party. Your mention of ceeboo and Trumpers in a discussion about the Democratic Party indicates a deep emotional investment in liberal politics, which seems to hinder your ability to analyze why we lost to a man who appears to apply self-tanner in a dark closet without a mirror. In fact, you are demonstrating my argument. Progressives do not tolerate any critique of their radical agenda, and if someone tries to address the extremity of that agenda, even if they are a Democrat, the far-left will attempt to associate the more moderate Democrat with the MAGA movement in a bid to tarnish their name and reputation.

As I have mentioned many times before, three decades ago, Democrats and Republicans were able to coexist without attempting to undermine one another. The emergence of the extreme left has undermined all the positive aspects of the Democrat party. Even the traditional news media is diminishing in influence.

Could you please explain why four democrat individuals—Elon, Rogan, Gabbard, and Kennedy—had a greater positve impact on Trump's election than any ten prominent Republicans together? I assert that the reason isn't due to the Republicans winning over these four individuals with their conservative agenda, just the opposite.. Rather, it's because the 88% of moderate Democrats permitted the 12% of extreme progressives to wield significant influence over the past 15 years. As a result, those we truly need in the Democratic Party are departing in search of a more rational environment. Should that sanity originate from the conservative perspective, individuals may be inclined to change their allegiance, as the progressive movement does not tolerate dissent regarding their agenda within the Democratic party. Kindly demonstrate the contrary to my perspective.

[Gadianton]

Initially, you wrongly assert that in my perspective the right possesses extraordinary abilities to inspire aspirations of home ownership and education without substance by criticizing celebrities and supporting MMA. If you would like me to provide examples for something I mentioned, it is essential that you accurately represent what I said.

I was being facetious. You point out that young people want homes and education without debt, but then also point out how easily people vote based on MMA stunts -- my point is they must want something else aside from affordable homes. And given the extreme difficulty if not impossibility of Democrats providing a way for young people to secure homes in this economy, as a campaign strategist, it would be more profitable to pursue other forms of messaging.

Indeed, I have. This discussion focuses on the Democrat party and does not pertain to addressing issues within the republican party.

That's fine, my point wasn't we should discuss Republicans, but you should discuss your strategy ideas for connecting young voters with affordable homes. So far your strategy idea consists of dropping both wokeness and criticism of the right. That's fine, I've agreed elsewhere non-whites are shifting to Trump despite the racism of Trump and his base. So what do you focus on instead? You brought up homes and education -- if we focus on that, we'd better have a plan for it. What's your plan?

Could you please explain why four democrat individuals—Elon, Rogan, Gabbard, and Kennedy—had a greater positve impact on Trump's election than any ten prominent Republicans together? I assert that the reason isn't due to the Republicans winning over these four individuals with their conservative agenda, just the opposite.

I don't know enough about Gabbard to say. Elon, Rogan, Kennedy all have one thing in common; branding themselves for maximum attention within a post-truth world. Elon's situation is more complex because according to my leftwing friend who is an Elon nut, Biden totally screwed him.

Any messaging grounded in the factual world has an uphill battle today. Your mistake is in thinking wokeness is the only issue. Dropping wokeness and campaigning on facts relevant to the plight of the non-1% (education and housing) -- which seems broadly to me to be the Bernie campaign -- is still up against the tremendous momentum of high-energy post-truth populism. You may have missed it, but a swath of the post-truth right-leaning Rumble world was prepared for an alien invasion yesterday that didn't happen; they aren't deterred by the fact that it didn't. Perhaps it did spiritually?

My point is that Rogan, for instance, is less who he is due to wokeness on the Left, and more due to what sells with the least effort to the greatest number of viewers.

[canpakes]

As I have mentioned many times before, three decades ago, Democrats and Republicans were able to coexist without attempting to undermine one another. The emergence of the extreme left has undermined all the positive aspects of the Democrat party. Even the traditional news media is diminishing in influence.

If you are as old as you’ve alluded to, you should remember two things that make your paragraph above both incorrect and historically incomplete:

1) The existence in past decades of much more ‘radical’ left activities like the Peace & Love/antiwar/communism movements, and -

2) The existence of Newt Gingrich.

[yellowstone123]

Hound of Heaven wrote:

The far left perceives white men as overly masculine and seeks to redefine the concept of masculinity. Trump makes appearances at various UFC fights, entering the arena to enthusiastic applause as the crowd chants USA. What elements did we possess that could attract potential voters with a masculine appeal? We had a commercial featuring an overweight man claiming he eats carburetors for breakfast, and we also showcased Tim Walz having difficulty loading a shotgun.

For me the UFC fights are almost exactly like politics. If one looks at the history of the UFC and what happened at the beginning the conclusions some might take is that the biggest and strongest person doesn't always win the last match. When I watched reruns of the first couple UFC fights in the mid 90s, I would turn the T.V on and off because I didn't want to see the smaller person get beat up. Then after a few minutes I didn't turn the T.V. off because the big strong person was in real trouble. Then the big strong person lost and the smaller person won the title.

I learned it's not the most physically powerful that wins in the long run but its the person who knows how the big strong person will make their approach and the many different ways to address that approach: each move requiring likely half the strength to counter that used by the strong person. The moves used in the first UFC fights to win were/are taught in the beginning classes in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. The person dominating can suddenly find themselves in trouble and tap out in seconds signaling his opponent to stop the match.

Then people around the world seemed to slowly learn as they reviewed the tapes again and again to see exactly what was used and how to counter those moves. Of course those who teach Brazilian Jiu Jitsu had countless counter moves to the final holds that won those first UFC fights. In fact, they would have never gotten into that situation but would have easily have escaped if it were to occur.

It took a few years but superior kick boxing and grappling skills were tried with a lot of success. Suddenly the moves that won the first few UFC fights no longer worked at times. Then those in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu needed to reassess the situation. So it's back and forth with that type of constant reassessment which evolved into the current MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) style. Those first UFC fights took place thirty years ago and it's evolved in a way that is better for everyone involved in the sport or for basic self defense.

As to current politics, if one wants to compare a boxing round to a swing state - Well, Trump won all seven rounds. It doesn't matter if the points the judges awarded were 80-78 Trump, 80-77-Trump, 80-79 - Trump, Trump won all seven rounds.

As to the shotgun incident, I wondered at first why they didn't give him an M16 to load and fire since after spending twenty years in the National Guard he could likely have taken it apart and put it back together blindfolded, but then his Iraq deployment issue might have again surfaced which angered millions of voters whose love ones were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps a break-action shotgun. He only had to load two shells and fire it up in the air.

[Doctor Steuss]

Cheer up: the next four years may be terrible. Trump and his team will probably fail again and again, in such obvious ways that a large fraction of the American population will learn the hard way to demand more than flattery from politicians in future.
[...]

I wish I had your optimism about Americans learning from Trump's failures. Unfortunately, we already have a presidency of his that was rampant with chaos, decimated multiple American industries requiring massive bailouts, cost Americans billions of dollars in tariffs that had no strategic economic or trade benefit, irreparably damaged our international standing, and set off an inflationary bomb with his massive deficit spending and idiotic OPEC deal that took half of the following administration to finally wrangle in and undo the damage. Americans looked at not just a hypothetical, but an actual example of just how bad Trump is at being a President, and then said "meh, at least he isn't a brown woman."

At this point, Trump could not only steal from American taxpayers like he did in his previous administration, but he could hold a press conference to outline exactly how he'll enrich himself and his family on the back of Americans this time, and he would receive praise for his genius.

[canpakes]

You may have missed it, but a swath of the post-truth right-leaning Rumble world was prepared for an alien invasion yesterday that didn't happen; they aren't deterred by the fact that it didn't. Perhaps it did spiritually?

Didn’t this just turn out to be someone’s landscape maintenance crew?

My point is that Rogan, for instance, is less who he is due to wokeness on the Left, and more due to what sells with the least effort to the greatest number of viewers.

Candace Owens knows how this works. Going with the grift can be quite profitable.

[canpakes]

At this point, Trump could not only steal from American taxpayers like he did in his previous administration, but he could hold a press conference to outline exactly how he'll enrich himself and his family on the back of Americans this time, and he would receive praise for his genius.

During that press conference, he would also run ads selling 8 or 10 kinds of incredibly overpriced and shoddy Trump-branded merch, and his followers would freely and immediately buy a dozen of each.

[Physics Guy]

Unfortunately, we already have a presidency of his that was rampant with chaos, decimated multiple American industries requiring massive bailouts, cost Americans billions of dollars in tariffs that had no strategic economic or trade benefit, irreparably damaged our international standing, and set off an inflationary bomb with his massive deficit spending and idiotic OPEC deal that took half of the following administration to finally wrangle in and undo the damage.
...

At this point, Trump could not only steal from American taxpayers like he did in his previous administration, but he could hold a press conference to outline exactly how he'll enrich himself and his family on the back of Americans this time, and he would receive praise for his genius.

I'm not sure I actually am any more optimistic than others here about how much incompetence American conservatives are prepared to accept. I recognize that there's a lot of slack for anyone who mouths the right conservative shibboleths. Indeed, I might be less critical than others here about that sectarian tolerance. How much blame a government deserves for economic or political events is a fuzzy question, to me. There are a lot of plausible excuses and up to a point there is room for people to reach different conclusions.

It's just that I'm expecting disasters so big that they will go past that point. I'm expecting things that will be felt, not for half the next term, but for generations. I'm anticipating things that scar the national soul, as it were. I have no idea exactly what they will be, but the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and heading into the next four years of history with Donald Trump and his team at the helm seems like walking out into the jungle naked with no food or water. I'm expecting things to be bad.

I call that optimistic, because national scars have a wide range of badness. I'm thinking of things that are, say, only as bad as the Great Depression, and not nearly as bad as the Third Reich.

[Gunnar]

At this point, Trump could not only steal from American taxpayers like he did in his previous administration, but he could hold a press conference to outline exactly how he'll enrich himself and his family on the back of Americans this time, and he would receive praise for his genius.

That's what I fear will happen -- that a significant faction of his sycophantic supporters are so delusional that they will continue support and praise him, no matter how bad things get for any others than his family and ultra-wealthy friends and supporters.