2026 Midterm Elections Thread

[wire28]

That algorithm short circuiting boyyy

The people I allegedly care about already getting fukked over WTF I care about them getting fukked over even more as long as the white people making the algos driving me are happy

Your boy is spiraling to finish the year this is wild

 

[choc_cardigan]

Allstars finding excuses to lock arms with Fuentes in 26 is gonna be crazier than the BS they pulled the last two years

Its more amazing trash like Nick gets promoted in general and keeps popping up on this website.



Loose is a bad faith poster, put him in the same category as cac mamba and negro nap. If you are human think about the numerous things you could be doing with your time then going back and forth with those accounts.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Thing about politics you don't need a algorithm to discuss stump speeches and what candidates are running on.

Majority of kamala speeches focused on:
Trump being a threat to democracy
project 2025
Trump being a crook
How general's hate him
How ex republicans hate him ( liz cheney)
Abortion on the ballot
She tried to steal his no tax on tips but no one cared
Originally said she would go after price gougers but walked it back due to donor pressure.
Wouldn't commit to keeping bidens regulation policy
Didn't call out any of bidens failures why would swing voters back this?

Trumps:
No tax on ss and tips ( fraudulent)
Immigrants stealing jobs
Inflation being out of control
Biden bringing in immigrants to steal jobs/housing
Gas prices being high
Tarrif rambling while insane to me its a change and admitting the economy sucks
interest rates being high


As a democrat he's a nut but when you think about it from a swing voter perspective it's not surprising


i was and called it out at the time of howweak her policies were

none of this has to do with swing voters idk what u babbling about they don't ccare he a racist buffon they care about how far they pay checks stretch

Useless to a swing voter this marketable to democrats. Hopefully going forward democrats can run on how they will change people's material needs instead of losing to a fat racist who running on right wing populism outflanking them

Your framing is dishonest. Her speeches also focused heavily on economic stability, labor, healthcare, gun violence, student debt relief, and middle-class cost pressures. You don't have to erase the substance of her platform -- even if you don't think it was up to snuff -- to make a critique. You definitely shouldn't do it while simultaneously romanticizing Trump's empty slogans and white grievance politics as a coherent "vision."

I don't know if you see it, but you're pushing a nasty double standard: Trump gets credit for talking about grievances without evidence or solutions, while Harris is penalized for nuance and addressing systemic realities. Calling attention to Project 2025, threats to democracy, or the rollback of rights isn't fluff, it's relevant policy contrast. I'm not defending her campaign or even saying it was good; I'm just pointing out what she actually did, even if it doesn't meet your expectations.

 

[Loose]

Your framing is dishonest. Her speeches also focused heavily on economic stability, labor, healthcare, gun violence, student debt relief, and middle-class cost pressures. You don't have to erase the substance of her platform -- even if you don't think it was up to snuff -- to make a critique. You definitely shouldn't do it while simultaneously romanticizing Trump's empty slogans and white grievance politics as a coherent "vision."

I don't know if you see it, but you're pushing a nasty double standard: Trump gets credit for talking about grievances without evidence or solutions, while Harris is penalized for nuance and addressing systemic realities. Calling attention to Project 2025, threats to democracy, or the rollback of rights isn't fluff, it's relevant policy contrast. I'm not defending her campaign or even saying it was good; I'm just pointing out what she actually did, even if it doesn't meet your expectations.

This is the unfortunate reality when you're currently in power as the administration: you don't get to run on what you would do in the future when you've already stated you wouldn't change anything about the current leadership you're a part of. Do I agree with that? No, I don't. I voted for her, but that's the reality of the situation we were in.

Kamala told swing voters, who already had major concerns about Biden given his mid-30s approval rating, that she wouldn't change a thing from his administration. They responded by telling her they didn't want her. You can't say inflation is bad and then claim Joe Biden is doing a great job. You can't talk about what you would do yourself but refuse to criticize the administration you're tied to. You can't run on promises like economic stability, labor rights, healthcare reform, gun violence prevention, and student debt relief while also saying you wouldn't change anything about the Joe Biden administration. Those two positions are fundamentally at odds. Jd vance if he wins the republican primary will have a similar problem to kamala, which is why we should have had a primary in the first place to at least give us a chance to win the presidency.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

This is the unfortunate reality when you're currently in power as the administration: you don't get to run on what you would do in the future when you've already stated you wouldn't change anything about the current leadership you're a part of. Do I agree with that? No, I don't. I voted for her, but that's the reality of the situation we were in.

Kamala told swing voters, who already had major concerns about Biden given his mid-30s approval rating, that she wouldn't change a thing from his administration. They responded by telling her they didn't want her. You can't say inflation is bad and then claim Joe Biden is doing a great job. You can't talk about what you would do yourself but refuse to criticize the administration you're tied to. You can't run on promises like economic stability, labor rights, healthcare reform, gun violence prevention, and student debt relief while also saying you wouldn't change anything about the Joe Biden administration. Those two positions are fundamentally at odds. Jd vance if he wins the republican primary will have a similar problem to kamala, which is why we should have had a primary in the first place to at least give us a chance to win the presidency.

I actually agree with you about the structural bind of incumbency. What I'm pushing back on is the idea that they "ran on nothing," and that this somehow turns Trump's white grievance-mongering into a "vision."

 

[Loose]

I actually agree with you about the structural bind of incumbency. What I'm pushing back on is the idea that they "ran on nothing," and that this somehow turns Trump's white grievance-mongering into a "vision."

I'm aware Trump is an unhinged racist weirdo with nonsensical babbling, but he was able to win the race with swing independents simply by offering change. I think what Kamala ran on was pretty weak, which is my problem with Democratic consultants in general. Before the convention, the energy around her campaign was the highest it had ever been, especially after the Walz appointment, because people assumed she would abandon Biden’s policies and run on a more populist platform.But what we actually got was straight out of the Bill Clinton–era consultancy playbook: say a bunch of words with no real meaning behind them. I think we also need to move past the idea that voters are just stupid and racist. That explanation made more sense in 2016 coming off of Obama. In 2024, the economy was struggling, Biden was at a 34 percent approval rating, and Democrats basically had no chance of winning without a hail mary. Running an incumbent was as asinine as it gets, and running an incumbent with a stale vision was even worse.

I'm not even sure Trump’s white‑grievance messaging mattered. Swing voters had already thrown the Biden administration away.. Trump just happened to be the other choice. Whatever republican would have won

 

[wire28]

I actually agree with you about the structural bind of incumbency. What I'm pushing back on is the idea that they "ran on nothing," and that this somehow turns Trump's white grievance-mongering into a "vision."

The problem with his argument is Trump actually was president for four years, and already had done none of what he ran on in 2024. He lied, again, and people “fell for it”, again, because he was exactly what they wanted. Trump was just as much as an incumbent as Kamala and arguably more so since he was actually president and had been leader of the GOP for damn near 10 years.

 

[wire28]

I'm aware Trump is an unhinged racist weirdo

who we should allow to govern without a fillibuster @Outlaw

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

I'm aware Trump is an unhinged racist weirdo with nonsensical babbling, but he was able to win the race with swing independents simply by offering change. I think what Kamala ran on was pretty weak, which is my problem with Democratic consultants in general. Before the convention, the energy around her campaign was the highest it had ever been, especially after the Walz appointment, because people assumed she would abandon Biden’s policies and run on a more populist platform.But what we actually got was straight out of the Bill Clinton–era consultancy playbook: say a bunch of words with no real meaning behind them. I think we also need to move past the idea that voters are just stupid and racist. That explanation made more sense in 2016 coming off of Obama. In 2024, the economy was struggling, Biden was at a 34 percent approval rating, and Democrats basically had no chance of winning without a hail mary. Running an incumbent was as asinine as it gets, and running an incumbent with a stale vision was even worse.

I'm not even sure Trump’s white‑grievance messaging mattered. Swing voters had already thrown the Biden administration away.. Trump just happened to be the other choice. Whatever republican would have won

You're oversimplifying voter dynamics and overstating the intentionality and substance behind his campaign. It's more accurate to say he exploited economic frustration and cultural resentment, which worked politically, but wasn't a policy-driven "vision."

Again, what I'm pushing back on is the rewriting of reality to say she "ran on nothing" and that Trump somehow "offered change" in a meaningful sense, when all he said was a bunch of words with no real will or meaning behind them. Those two claims only work if we pretend messaging exists in a vacuum and power doesn't matter.

Trump didn't offer a coherent alternative vision, he offered emotional permission to blame, vent, and burn things down. That feels like change to people who are frustrated, but that doesn't make it substantive. Calling that "change" while dismissing actual policy commitments as "nothing" is the double standard I'm pointing out.

You're right that the consultants failed. You're right that the campaign lacked boldness. But that's different from saying Trump won because he had a vision, or that his white grievance messaging didn't matter. It mattered precisely because it weaponized discontent without responsibility, and that's not the same thing as "offering change."

 

[Loose]

who we should allow to govern without a fillibuster @Outlaw

I know you're a stupid poster but the legislative and executive branch is separate powers. I'll link school house rock for you , we taking this shyt back to 2nd grade

 

[mastermind]

I'm not even sure Trump’s white‑grievance messaging mattered. Swing voters had already thrown the Biden administration away.

The more we get away from the election, the more I believe this. Trump’s ratings are in the trash because the economy is worse and people are pissed that he is lying about it being good—like Biden did.

 

[wire28]

I know you're a stupid poster but the legislative and executive branch is separate powers. I'll link school house rock for you , we taking this shyt back to 2nd grade

Think you getting off a joke referencing a 50 year old cartoon when here in the reality of present day where the rest of us live the GQP run legislative branch has proven itself to be nothing but firmly attached to Donald trumps teet in the year 2025 of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, algo driven brehs.


Call Donald Trump an unhinged racist the day after advocating giving him and his cult even more power, loose screw brehs.


And dapped by smooth mind who still stands firmly behind “Trump vindicating voters” in Jan 2025



Yall spend hours going back and forth with this nikka every day, God bless