Fox News calls it for 46th President Joe Biden

[CF DolFan]

The GOP is pretty obsessed with identity politics, I wouldn't put it past them. Hell the proud boys put up a token minority into a leadership position and then got rid of him and went full nazi after the election.

You are seriously funny. The Proud Boys were never right wing and you know it. They didn't token anyone. There are a lot of minorities and even gays in the Proud Boys. Left = identity politics.  It's the left that wants to call people out by race, age, or eve who they vote for. Ask a minority that is conservative who has sprouted the racial hatred towards them and it's never the conservatives.

[Dave Gray]

You are seriously funny. The Proud Boys were never right wing and you know it. They didn't token anyone. There are a lot of minorities and even gays in the Proud Boys.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the Proud Boys the last couple of days?

[CF DolFan]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the Proud Boys the last couple of days?

You mean the racist they kicked out that is trying stage a coup? He isn't the Proud Boys. In fact ... he isn't even in the Proud boys any longer.

[Sunstroke]

You mean the racist they kicked out that is trying stage a coup? He isn't the Proud Boys. In fact ... he isn't even in the Proud boys any longer.

CF defending a far-right group that condones violence against anyone that isn't far right?

Say it ain't so, Joe!!

    

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The GOP is pretty obsessed with identity politics, I wouldn't put it past them. Hell the proud boys put up a token minority into a leadership position and then got rid of him and went full nazi after the election.

I think 2024 Republican primary comes down to Trump (or a Trump die hard protege) vs. a never Trump. Haley is neither of those two.

My way too early prediction: Mike Pompeo or Barr wins the nomination edging out Charlie Baker.

[Spider-Dan]

The Proud Boys were never right wing and you know it.

So do you believe the Proud Boys are centrist, or apolitical, or what exactly?

It's hard to think of a more textbook example of conservatism than a group of self-described "western supremacists" who "believe in the great values that built the western world," to say nothing of a founder who openly declares, "The left has declared war on free speech and we've declared war on them."

[dolphins4life]

I have to bring this up:

Does the fact that Donald Trump got the second largest amount of votes in history mean anything?  Don't we have to consider population growth?   I mean, of course George Washington probably got one of the lowest, if not the lowest vote totals in history in his first term.

[Spider-Dan]

Does the fact that Donald Trump got the second largest amount of votes in history mean anything?

Yes.

Neither candidate in 2012 or 2016 got as many votes as Obama did in 2008.  Trump is going to wind up with ~5 million more votes than 2008 Obama.

[dolphins4life]

Yes.

Neither candidate in 2012 or 2016 got as many votes as Obama did in 2008.  Trump is going to wind up with ~5 million more votes than 2008 Obama.

    Again, that was twelve years ago.  Surely the Population of the United States has increased by at least ten times that amount.                                                                                                                                                                                   

[dolphins4life]

It's like comparing how much a candidate spent on their campaign in the 1920s vs today without accounting for inflation.

[Spider-Dan]

Let me try this again:

Neither candidate in 2012 or 2016 got as many votes as Obama did in 2008. Just because your election comes later, that doesn't mean you get more votes.

Surely the Population of the United States has increased by at least ten times that amount.

No, the population of the United States did not increase by "at least" 50 million over the last 12 years.  It has increased by about 22 million or so, many of whom are children or non-citizens who cannot vote.

But if you would like a more straightforward mathematical explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections

In 2008, about 57% of the voting eligible population turned out to vote.
This year, we don't have the final numbers yet, but it looks like about 70% of the voting eligible population turned out.  That will be the highest percentage turnout we've had in over 100 years.

[dolphins4life]

Let me try this again:

Neither candidate in 2012 or 2016 got as many votes as Obama did in 2008. Just because your election comes later, that doesn't mean you get more votes.
No, the population of the United States did not increase by "at least" 50 million over the last 12 years.  It has increased by about 22 million or so, many of whom are children or non-citizens who cannot vote.

But if you would like a more straightforward mathematical explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections

In 2008, about 57% of the voting eligible population turned out to vote.
This year, we don't have the final numbers yet, but it looks like about 70% of the voting eligible population turned out.  That will be the highest percentage turnout we've had in over 100 years.

That does make more sense, my point was that you need to account for increases in population in comparing different elections.

I think such a high turnout is definitely something to be proud of as a country

[Pappy13]

That does make more sense, my point was that you need to account for increases in population in comparing different elections.

I think such a high turnout is definitely something to be proud of as a country

Depends on if you are voting to vote FOR someone or AGAINST someone. My gut says this year the difference was mainly people voting AGAINST one of the candidates. Just my opinion.