[E. Pluribus Unum]

Populism is often a highly effective strategy, and many Trump voters are indeed “deplorable” in the Hillary Clinton sense of the term.

Some of Nate's other "reasons" are even more bigoted and despicable.

[Responsibility2nd]

Silver is a jerk. Except when he’s right.

[mikey_hates_everything]

“Democrats’ argument that Trump is a critical threat to democracy is valid and important”

Bull, I don’t remember seeing Kamala’s name on my Dem primary ballot. Who is the threat to democracy?

[atc23]

She won’t win the popular vote. What did she get among democrat primary voters in 2020? About .03 %? Right, now she’s going to win the popular vote ?

[marktwain]

It is funny, because he attribute failings of the Biden/Harris administration to falsehoods widely believed on the Left.

He characterizes problems with what is going on in the world as affecting the Democrat's position, but is very careful to insinuate, none of those problems were created by Democratic Party/Leftist policies.

It is interesting he notices the "felonies" don't affect President Trump's popularity, but never mentions Democratic Party and Biden Administration funded lawfare as the reason.

He notes X (formerly Twitter) has "shifted far to the right", but never explains how it was far to the left and it was Biden administration policy to push Twitter in that direction, and to censor their political opposition.

[Thommas]

..many Trump voters are indeed “deplorable”..saying they're "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic."

Indeed deplorable? Where does one want to begin in picking apart this calumny?

Each of these insults is a study in ad hominem attack. Where do Hillary or Nate get their definition of
each reprehensible term?

Then to apply these terms in blanket fashion to those who won't vote for you is astounding.

[AndyJackson]

Nate hits all around the target and misses the heart of the matter.

[dp0622]

I see a lot of solid reasons that make sense.

Of course there were gonna be the idiotic ones

[Nervous Tick]

>> if you study the factors that have historically determined elections, you’ll see that [Hairless is] battling difficult circumstances

Yeah, poor thing! Like an outer-space-grade vacuum where her brain ought to be. That’s a tough campaign impediment!

[Not A Snowbird]

Maybe if she didn’t sound like a whiny crybaby shrew more people would pay attention to her.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Voters have nostalgia for the relatively strong economic performance in the first three years of Trump’s term and associate the problems of 2020 with Democrats, even though they weren’t in charge at the time.

Democrats “weren’t in charge” in 2020 - but Trump wasn’t actually in control of the Republican Party, either. In reality, Trump’s ascendance constitutes a takeover of the Republican Party by Ross Perot’s Reform Party.

Harris is seeking to become the first woman president. In the only previous attempt, undecideds broke heavily against Hillary Clinton, and she underperformed her polls.

She is also running for the ultimate executive position while having a resume which is devoid of executive experience. Neither prosecutor nor Senator is an executive position, and neither is vice president. She is only a quasi-incumbent part of the Biden/Harris Administration.

She would be (the first woman) president right now, if she were a “stand up guy” who executed her constitutional duty to invoke the 25th Amendment. But seemingly she doesn’t have the clout in “her own" administration to pull that off.

Trump’s conviction on a series of felony charges hardly made any difference, for instance.

The framers of the Constitution could very easily have forbidden the selection of a felon to be POTUS. They didn’t. One very logical reason for that would be that they could smell Biden’s DOJ a mile - centuries, actually - away. In that sense the act of calling Mr. Trump “a felon” should logically put your own fingerprints on that illegitimate action by partisan prosecutors, judges, and jurors.

Of course the other reason the framers didn’t forbid selection of “a felon” to POTUS might have been that they all - in the King of England’s eyes - were felons.