Post election prediction

Quote:

---

The "citizens" involved are what are called "anchor babies." That game no longer works.

---

PD was right, you were able to justify to yourself. And the fact that to do so required you to disregard both the humanity of a two year old child and to ignore the text of your constitution shows that I was right too, there is no line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapator

But keyboard warriors got to keyb as they can't do anything else but wine wine wine.

---

Had to preserve that one. The spelling error strikes me as the most European statement I've seen in a good long time...though I admit that I may well be wrong about my impression, so nobody else might find it nearly as amusing as I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

It's baffling because you're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking isn't why did people vote for Trump. You should be asking why are the people rejecting the Democrats.

---

That question is being asked plenty. Too much, I'd say. In the US, the party that loses an election goes into an intense bout of soul searching that gets reported on as a circus event. I call it a circus event because I've never known it to come up with any right answers. Insiders all say, "we ought to do X" or "perhaps we should try Y", which gets reported on as angst and some kind of different direction, but then the next election comes along and what actually happens ends up being different, though predictably so.

Basically, you can ignore all the predictions and hand-wringing until the mid-term elections.

Have you smashed every mirror in your home? You sure do get outraged whenever I hold one up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Had to preserve that one. The spelling error strikes me as the most European statement I've seen in a good long time...though I admit that I may well be wrong about my impression, so nobody else might find it nearly as amusing as I do.

---

I knew what I wrote and I knew what to expect (marks "X") :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

It's baffling because you're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking isn't why did people vote for Trump. You should be asking why are the people rejecting the Democrats.

---

That's a fair point. I'd say a significant amount of the votes Trump received were from voters that don't believe his lies but were voting against the current administration. But some are true believers and as I said,

Quote:

---

What I find baffling is that ANYONE would believe ANYTHING he says.

---

You just never know what's coming next. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1...lcatraz-reopen

Trump truly is the P.T. Barnum of presidents. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

But some are true believers and as I said,

---

There aren't enough of those to make a difference.

It seems to me that the lion's share of Trump voters are refugees fleeing the Democrat party or independents voting against the Democrats. I don't know if I said this before but whether you like Trump or hate him he is still a far better choice than Kamala Harris and when I say far better, I mean that. They aren't even in the same universe. If I were American, I'd vote against her too. I don't care if a lump of coal was her opponent, I'd vote for the lump of coal in a heartbeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That question is being asked plenty. Too much, I'd say. In the US, the party that loses an election goes into an intense bout of soul searching that gets reported on as a circus event. I call it a circus event because I've never known it to come up with any right answers. Insiders all say, "we ought to do X" or "perhaps we should try Y", which gets reported on as angst and some kind of different direction, but then the next election comes along and what actually happens ends up being different, though predictably so.

Basically, you can ignore all the predictions and hand-wringing until the mid-term elections.

---

I've seen some of the post-mortems from both the right and the left and based on that, it could be a while before the Democrats hold the office of President again. The right gets it, but Democrats have no idea why they lost. Their forensic analysis of the corpse that was their presidential campaign keeps leading them to the wrong answers. The Democrats believe that they did everything right and that they are perfectly moral, just, and beyond reproach. In their view, the problem is the American voter who is an uneducated, racist, transphobic bigot, slow to renounce his hateful ways. If they don't let go of this fantasy, they may never hold the office of President again.

In my opinion, the Democrats need to scrap the entire thing and start over from scratch. They need new voices and a new message. They need to rebuild their brand from the ground up and take great care not to incorporate any of the insanities they are currently infested with or any other insanity out there currently looking for a home in the political landscape.

I figured that was too expensive to be realistic. Sounds like that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

If I were American, I'd vote against her too. I don't care if a lump of coal was her opponent, I'd vote for the lump of coal in a heartbeat.

---

That, right there, is the very essence of modern American politics. There are some people who like one candidate or another, and there are a whole lot who vote like that. Perhaps it has always been that way. It may be why we only ever have two viable candidates, since a lot of people will be voting against somebody rather than for somebody.

Quote:

---

I've seen some of the post-mortems from both the right and the left and based on that, it could be a while before the Democrats hold the office of President again.

---

I would guess that it will be four years. Culture warriors want to make it out that what matters to them is what drives US elections. It does drive a little bit. It drives the base to the polls. The election swings on the economy. We want our causes to matter, but there are not enough Democrats or Republicans to win an election on their own. They have to move independents, and it's the economy that moves them.

Quote:

---

There aren't enough of those to make a difference.

---

Certainly there is. If .8% would have voted differently there could have been a different result. Depending on what state those votes were in. Haven't checked in a while but the last I saw there are about 30 - 35% of the republican party that are Trump loyalist.

You seem to be having a hard time grasping what the term "ANYONE" means.

Quote:

---

The election swings on the economy.

---

I remember a while back you saying, people vote with their wallets. I think that's an accurate way to put it. The economy doesn't even really need to be bad. You just have to get people to perceive it to be bad or that you will improve their financial situation.

Right, but it's a bit deeper than that. Roughly 70% of our economic activity is us buying and selling crap between one another. That makes sense if you think about it. Even if you buy a widget from China, you generally bought it from a store in the US staffed by people in the US, so your buying the widget did result in some money going to China (if you leave time out of it), but it also resulted in a bit of money going to the employees of the store, whatever means you took to get to the store or get the widget from the store to your house, and so forth.

If people feel like the economy is bad, then it will be. If they believe it is strong, then it will be. If enough people decide to delay a purchase, we go into recession. This is a maddening situation for politicians, because there isn't much they can really do about boosting it...except give money to poor people. That will work. Giving money to the middle class won't do much, and giving money to the rich won't do a thing, but giving money to poor people will boost the economy. Not easy to do, though, and if people still feel sour about the economy, it might not even help much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

Certainly there is. If .8% would have voted differently there could have been a different result. Depending on what state those votes were in. Haven't checked in a while but the last I saw there are about 30 - 35% of the republican party that are Trump loyalist.

You seem to be having a hard time grasping what the term "ANYONE" means.

---

No no no. What I was meaning to say is that he cannot win with his die hard supporters alone. There aren't enough of them. Trump won because he was able to convert a lot of people. That's the idea I was driving at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

No no no. What I was meaning to say is that he cannot win with his die hard supporters alone. There aren't enough of them. Trump won because he was able to convert a lot of people. That's the idea I was driving at.

---

But that's not what you said.

Quote:

---

There aren't enough of those to make a difference.

---

Trump certainly wouldn't have won without them. They definitely made a difference. Your statement was very clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Right, but it's a bit deeper than that. Roughly 70% of our economic activity is us buying and selling crap between one another. That makes sense if you think about it. Even if you buy a widget from China, you generally bought it from a store in the US staffed by people in the US, so your buying the widget did result in some money going to China (if you leave time out of it), but it also resulted in a bit of money going to the employees of the store, whatever means you took to get to the store or get the widget from the store to your house, and so forth.

If people feel like the economy is bad, then it will be. If they believe it is strong, then it will be. If enough people decide to delay a purchase, we go into recession. This is a maddening situation for politicians, because there isn't much they can really do about boosting it...except give money to poor people. That will work. Giving money to the middle class won't do much, and giving money to the rich won't do a thing, but giving money to poor people will boost the economy. Not easy to do, though, and if people still feel sour about the economy, it might not even help much.

---

I'm honest enough with myself to realize I don't know much about what creates a good/bad economy. I'd say I judge it on some basic factors,

Inflation - anything less than 4% seem fine to me.
Stock Market - A bullish market makes me happy.
Jobs market - If unemployment is low that's good. At least I thought that was always true until @ 2022 or 23 when the fed was saying it's to low. I still don't really understand
why that's bad.

There are other things but those are probably what I pay attention to the most. I would add the housing market but it's been crazy in my area for over 20yrs.

I know others that look at the economy very very simply. If gas prices are high, the economy sucks. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

But that's not what you said.



Trump certainly wouldn't have won without them. They definitely made a difference. Your statement was very clear.

---

Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said, there aren't enough of them to make a difference by themselves which is what I actually meant to communicate. I was trying to say that the winning strategy for Trump cannot depend on his die hard supporters alone. He must sway people on the fence and some from the other side. In other words, the true believers, as you call them, don't matter if he cannot seduce people outside his core base to make up the numbers he needs to win.

His core base was always going to vote for him regardless. The outsiders are what actually made the difference and the Democrats needed them to beat Trump.

Quote:

---

If .8% would have voted differently there could have been a different result.

---

This is undoubtedly true but I wonder why. I can understand that US politics is highly polarised but it seems statistically unlikely that it polarises along an almost exactly even split. Yet it does and has done for several electoral cycles. And it doesn't feel unique to you. Our situation in the UK sees slightly wider swings but not that much wider. I feel like there must be some "self corrective" factor at play to drive that split but I can't, for the life of me, think what it could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

This is undoubtedly true but I wonder why. I can understand that US politics is highly polarised but it seems statistically unlikely that it polarises along an almost exactly even split. Yet it does and has done for several electoral cycles. And it doesn't feel unique to you. Our situation in the UK sees slightly wider swings but not that much wider. I feel like there must be some "self corrective" factor at play to drive that split but I can't, for the life of me, think what it could be.

---

You need to factor in the Electoral College also. States with the population of the city I live in can carry as much weight as a state with millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That, right there, is the very essence of modern American politics. There are some people who like one candidate or another, and there are a whole lot who vote like that. Perhaps it has always been that way. It may be why we only ever have two viable candidates, since a lot of people will be voting against somebody rather than for somebody.

---

Not just American politics. We just had general elections in my country. The party I voted for was really just a vote against the other party. In other words, I didn't vote for them because I thought they were the better choice, I voted for them because I was thinking they might be the less bad choice.

BTW the other party won, so I guess I'll find out if they are going to be as bad as I imagined.

It may be true of EVERY election everywhere. It's unlikely that you will be happy with every position of any candidate, so you will almost certainly be unhappy with at least some portion of their positions. Therefore, it may be that almost everybody is voting against somebody rather than for somebody.

I would speak for Greek voters. The problem is attendance. With 40-45 (can't recall) in last elections the traitor got 41% (mind you not Euro elections that got 30 if I recall) so that is actually 20.5% of all voters. Of course there is the question if lazy voters get off their banoukas what will they vote for but most likely won't be the 1st party not the 2nd or the 3rd that they have established an army of party dogs. Hopefully with what happened with the last protests they will get off their harry potters and vote for something as long it's not the 3ple crown traitorial devotators .

Edit. Not 20.5 I was thinking a 50% but it's lower

We have something like that problem. Presidential elections bring much higher turnout up around 60-65%, while mid-term elections are quite a bit lower, and the off-year elections (local ballot initiatives only, for the most part) can have turnouts down around 20-30%. Those local ballot initiatives are often things that very directly affect people, as they tend to be things like bond levies for building schools, fixing roads, irrigation, and so forth. They are things that are quite expensive (especially since the cost is spread over so few people) and have significant impacts on daily life, yet only a tiny minority tend to vote in those elections.

When I was growing up, we would have town meetings. Perhaps 10% of the town would attend. All the big ticket items got voted on in those town meetings, and that could severely impact taxes. Vote for every purchase on the ballot, and your taxes could double for the next year. The reasoning behind every item on the ballot was pretty obvious and accessible, so people could really understand whether they needed a new snowplow, or whether a road should be widened. Those who voted were quite well informed on the issues by the time they voted, but it was still only a tiny percentage of the people affected, and that tiny percentage could do bizarre things that would impact everybody else.

You have to understand what the majority feels. They have been let down and abused and had a warped cultural paradigm shoved down their throats so much that enough finally stood up and said ENOUGH!

Here is what they see:

https://youtu.be/4VHw61dXMbA?si=7mk7uBCPQlR0fKFc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

This is undoubtedly true but I wonder why. I can understand that US politics is highly polarised but it seems statistically unlikely that it polarises along an almost exactly even split. Yet it does and has done for several electoral cycles. And it doesn't feel unique to you. Our situation in the UK sees slightly wider swings but not that much wider. I feel like there must be some "self corrective" factor at play to drive that split but I can't, for the life of me, think what it could be.

---

I wish I hadn't read this. lol

It started me thinking about why that split is so close, and thinking and thinking. With absolutely no answer. Was it media saturation by both sides, half the people are pessimists and half optimists, but nothing really explained such a close split.

Just what I need, another mystery of life. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

It may be true of EVERY election everywhere. It's unlikely that you will be happy with every position of any candidate, so you will almost certainly be unhappy with at least some portion of their positions. Therefore, it may be that almost everybody is voting against somebody rather than for somebody.

---

There is also the "one issue" voter. I voted for the first Bush, mostly, over gun rights. I image it is a small percentage but it is a piece of the overall voting blocks.

I believe the reasons are due to a number of dichotomies. Male/female, blue/white collar workers, heartland oppressed/bi-coastal elites, population density, etc.

But the biggest factor is probably that a lot of people, despite their pain, still try very hard to imagine that the Democrats care one whit about the American people. Stockholm syndrome isn't easy to shrug off. Quite a few have finally done so, and the trend is likely to increase. It already has among younger people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

I wish I hadn't read this. lol

It started me thinking about why that split is so close, and thinking and thinking. With absolutely no answer. Was it media saturation by both sides, half the people are pessimists and half optimists, but nothing really explained such a close split.

---

Here's a thought: Newton's method. Can anyone guess where I'm going with this?

I don't know.
Pythagoras?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Here's a thought: Newton's method. Can anyone guess where I'm going with this?

---

To sit under an apple tree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

To sit under an apple tree?

---

No, no, no!!!

To sit under a Fig tree. :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Here's a thought: Newton's method. Can anyone guess where I'm going with this?

---

Oh, right, Newton's method. Because nothing says 'I'm super intelligent' like casually dropping an advanced math term into a political conversation. Who needs actual points when you can just leave everyone wondering if they missed a calculus class? :bigyello:

Quote:

---

I believe the reasons are due to a number of dichotomies. Male/female, blue/white collar workers, heartland oppressed/bi-coastal elites, population density, etc.

---

But unless those dichotomies are an even split there is no reason they would scale to an even split. That's maths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

But unless those dichotomies are an even split there is no reason they would scale to an even split. That's maths.

---

Thank you.

Seems awfully unlikely, doesn't it? But hey, that might make us "conspiracy theorists."

"108 billion tons per year: Antarctica witnesses sudden rise in glacier ice"

https://www.livenowfox.com/news/anta...e-sheet-growth
https://www.indiatoday.in/environmen...692-2025-05-05
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-...arctic-sea-ice

And the WOKERS (I posted this eons ago in the known thread) https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/20/c...a-climate-intl

"John Turner and Josefino Comiso call for a coordinated push to crack the baffling rise and fall of sea ice around Antarctica."
https://www.nature.com/articles/547275a

So what do 99% of the scientist suggest? The climate gets hotter or colder or the same?

Quote:

---

that might make us "conspiracy theorists."

---

It just means there's some function at play we haven't identified. No conspiracy required.

An example of such a function might be that both parties adjust their stance, messaging and policies to appeal to the broadest spectrum of current opinion while staying in touch with their wing. Meaning that, as the Overton Window shifts back and forward, the parties tend to self correct, leading to the even split observed. FWIW, I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation (it's overly simplistic) but it should provide an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.

On the conspiracy theorist thing: if you're still cleaving to Election Fraud having changed the result of the 2020 election despite every audit, including those initiated by Trump, failing to find evidence and it having been dismissed in 62 separate court hearings including those held by Trump appointed judges, dismissed by Trump's own appointed Attorney General, dismissed by Trump's own DOJ, dismissed by Trump's own appointed aides and even dismissed by his own daughter, then yeah, you qualify.

When your position requires the "Deep State" to extend to the entire state then it's not the Deep State. It's just the State.

Quote:

---

The climate gets hotter or colder or the same?

---

Yes.

The climate changes regionally as well as globally. It also varies temporally. So while some parts of Antarctica have seen increased snowfall and ice growth, particularly in East Antarctica, this has not been enough to offset losses in their regions, particularly the West. And it really has not been enough to offset ice loss in the Arctic which is occurring at a much higher rate. The overall trend is still towards loss I'm afraid.

That damn climate, always on the run. ;)

A rise in Antarctic ice could have some interesting results. When the Thwaites glacier unzips, I would think that more ice would cause the unzipping to be faster and the result to be greater. That would be entertaining.

So Carney scuttled home after being told he has nothing we need. Starmer caved on trade. Stock markets are up. Xi probably won't last much longer, his plans make those around him uncomfortable. Australia is scratching its rear wondering if they really want to be last for tucker.