Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

On top of that those higher income Democratic districts send huge amounts of foreign aid to the poor Republican disctricts in the form of farm subsidies, Medicaid, disability benefits, and infrastructure projects. No flowers or thank you notes expected.
 
Tapate50 said:
What’s the cost of living in blue districts vs red ?
Click to expand...
btw the cost of living generally is a reliable index of standard of living

i guarantee you when you compare cost of living across countries they are higher in rich countries than shithole states (err countries)
 
Jaw said:
I can help with this. The words that come out of his mouth unpresidential and generally idiotic. The policies that come out of his administration are vastly preferable to those of any administration of the last 30+ years. He’s a lying jackass, and often hires jackasses. He tends to keep a large number of idiots in his orbit. That’s the downsides. But he was still preferred by the country to 2/3 of the Dem candidates he faced, without even considering the pandemic and shenanigans around the 2020 election.

That’s how out of touch, incompetent, and outright disgusting the Democratic Party has become.
Click to expand...
Sure, but there’s two issues with this:

First, Trump mustn’t be graded on a curve. Being better at politics than Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton and the DNC does not make him a good President. My objections to his conduct were not a commentary on his electoral effectiveness, and the jackasses he keeps in his orbit are the ones I’m criticizing.

Second, Trump in his second term has done plenty to simply abandon a portion of the voters who helped him beat Harris. Between the unconstitutional tariff schemes wherein the President just declares on a whim how much Americans are taxed, sending armed, poorly trained goons to violently disrupt American cities, turning DOGE into a PR machine, whatever the fuck he’s doing with the Epstein files and now starting a literal regime change war in the Middle East, there’s definitely some reason to suspect voters in 2026 and beyond will have a different view on whether or not to roll the dice on him.
 
nsacpi said:
I think Republicans would be in a lot of trouble if senior citizens (many of whom do not pay taxes) were excluded from voting. Older voters are one of their strongest demographic groups.

That's the funny thang about y'all. Y'all think y'all are ballers when in fact y'all are the fat people weighing down the wagon.

As of 2023, the average Democratic congressional district had a median household income of about $81,000, compared to $69,000 in Republican districts.
Click to expand...
If you have a median household income for Dems and republicans in each state it would be more beneficial.

Hell, I make 6 figures here in Mississippi, and I can live really well. The same salary in California, and I'd be living in some crap apt.
 
msstate7 said:
If you have a median household income for Dems and republicans in each state it would be more beneficial.

Hell, I make 6 figures here in Mississippi, and I can live really well. The same salary in California, and I'd be living in some crap apt.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, household income data by party are not available.

But we can make some inferences from congressional districts.

I'm glad you make a good income in Mississippi. My point remains that restricting voting rights by whether people pay taxes is not likely to favor Republicans. Y'all not the ballers you make yourselves out to be.
 
Nationwide, roughly 10% to 20% of households do not file federal income tax returns, largely because their income falls below the standard deduction (currently around $15,000 for singles and $30,000 for married couples).

By state, the "non-filer" rate tends to correlate with poverty levels and age:

  • Higher Non-Filer Rates: States like Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico often have higher percentages of adults who don't pay income tax because a larger share of the population earns below the filing threshold.
  • Lower Non-Filer Rates: Wealthier states or those with very low filing thresholds, such as Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, generally have a higher percentage of the adult population participating in the income tax system.
 
nsacpi said:
Unfortunately, household income data by party are not available.

But we can make some inferences from congressional districts.

I'm glad you make a good income in Mississippi. My point remains that restricting voting rights by whether people pay taxes is not likely to favor Republicans. Y'all not the ballers you make yourselves out to be.
Click to expand...
There’s never been an academic more out of touch in the world
 
Estimate the national vote share by party if only those who pay federal income taxes were allowed to vote.

Rough estimate:
About 25–30% of voters pay no federal income tax in a typical year. That group is disproportionately lower-income and more Democratic-leaning.

If only people paying federal income tax could vote, the electorate would skew more middle- and upper-income.

Based on typical income voting patterns, the national vote might shift roughly to:
  • Republican: ~51–54%
  • Democratic: ~44–47%
  • Other: ~2–3%
So the change would likely produce about a 5–8 point Republican advantage nationally compared with the current electorate.
 
Make the same estimate for the House and Senate.

Very rough estimate, assuming the national shift of ~5–8 points toward Republicans and that the shift happens fairly uniformly across districts.

House of Representatives (435 seats)

Current elections usually hinge on many districts decided by under 8 points, so a swing that large would flip a lot of them.

Estimated outcome:
  • Republicans: ~245–265 seats
  • Democrats: ~170–190 seats
So Republicans would likely gain about 20–40 additional House seats compared with a typical recent result.

Senate (100 seats)
Senate seats depend heavily on which states are up in a given year, but applying the same national shift:

Estimated long-term balance:
  • Republicans: ~55–58 seats
  • Democrats: ~42–45 seats
This assumes several swing states (PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV, GA) tilt more consistently Republican under the higher-income electorate.

Bottom line:
  • House: roughly R +40 to +60 majority
  • Senate: roughly mid-to-high 50s Republican seats.


 
Jaw said:
Estimate the national vote share by party if only those who pay federal income taxes were allowed to vote.

Rough estimate:
About 25–30% of voters pay no federal income tax in a typical year. That group is disproportionately lower-income and more Democratic-leaning.

If only people paying federal income tax could vote, the electorate would skew more middle- and upper-income.

Based on typical income voting patterns, the national vote might shift roughly to:
  • Republican: ~51–54%
  • Democratic: ~44–47%
  • Other: ~2–3%
So the change would likely produce about a 5–8 point Republican advantage nationally compared with the current electorate.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Ask your bot friend if he/she is taking into account all the grandmas and grandpas who don't have to file. Many of them are just above the poverty line (by design) but don't make enough to pay taxes.

It is probably the case that more eligible Democratic voters don't file. But they tend to skew young and have low voter turnout.

The eligible Republican voters who don't file are older and have much higher turnout.

I'd be willing to take my chances.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
I dunno. Ask your bot friend if he/she is taking into account all the grandmas and grandpas who don't have to file. Many of them are just above the poverty line (by design) but don't make enough to pay taxes.

It is probably the case that more eligible Democratic voters don't file. But they tend to skew young and have love voter turnout.

The eligible Republican voters who don't file are older and have much higher turnout.

I'd be willing to take my chances.
Click to expand...
You used AI religiously for years and swore by it

Then second guess it and dismiss.

Circle is complete
 
The idiot is actually making the case that the democratic party doesnt benefit from the leeches of society voting

Guys, theres a reason they dont want voter ID nad they want to lower the voting age and they want mass migration. They get power from the idiots voting for more free stuff

Skip college, kiddos
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
The idiot is actually making the case that the democratic party doesnt benefit from the peeches of society voting

Guys, theres a reason they dont want voter ID nad they want to lower the voting age and they want mass migration. They get power from the idiots voting for more free stuff

Skip college, kiddos
Click to expand...
All of their power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top