US Presidential Election, Nov 5th 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why did the Democrats lose? I think the West is in decline and this makes it extremely difficult for the incumbent leader to get re-elected.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
That you think it’s a lecture is a YOU problem. Back to the “I’m offended because he talked down to me” thing. Look, feel the way you feel, whatever, but I never want to hear “liberals” tarred with the “snowflake” brush again if masses of Trump voters are offended because Alec Baldwin yammered on about global warming or some shit.

Yes, I am already on record as saying they’ll never win again barring an economic disaster of epic proportions.
Click to expand...
It’s not a ‘problem’ at all. I just don’t think it helps. Similar with brexit - calling millions of people uneducated, didn’t persuade anyone.
 
Palerider said:
Why did the Democrats lose? I think the West is in decline and this makes it extremely difficult for the incumbent leader to get re-elected.
Click to expand...
Dems lost because of massive income inequality and the impact that has on day-to-day lives of average Americans, IMO.

Populists can get elected/reelected over and over again in such an environment, as they'll tell whatever lie is currently convenient - and in the USA, they're backed by Fox (primarily) as their exclusive source of news which will simply reinforce whatever their MAGA leader says - regardless of truth.
 
super_city_si said:
Spot on. Twitter was virtually unusable the last two week as it was just spammed to fuck by Elons tweets lying about everything and weird AI pictures of Trump wrestling rhinoceroses
Click to expand...

we can see through it and even laugh it off, sadly it worked and millions and millions are permanently brainwashed by twitter propaganda.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Dems lost because of massive income inequality and the impact that has on day-to-day lives of average Americans, IMO.

Populists can get elected/reelected over and over again in such an environment, as they'll tell whatever lie is currently convenient - and in the USA, they're backed by Fox (primarily) as their exclusive source of news which will simply reinforce whatever their MAGA leader says - regardless of truth.
Click to expand...

This. Too many people feel/are shit broke with no hope of improving their lot. They don't want to hear about how well the stock market is doing or how GDP is up if they're not feeling it in their own pockets, rightly so IMO. They felt Trump was the solution to that and not Kamala. Doesn't matter why they thought he was the solution, but if the current incumbent isn't improving your life, it's hardly a giant stretch to see why they'd try the only other available option.
 
fulabeer said:
View attachment 137650
Click to expand...
Among the bullshit wrong predictions about who would win the Presidency or a local election that I thought were suspect:

* Some processor dude (Allan Lichtman) with a bunch of factors who was right in 9?/10 of the past elections. Yeah, given enough professors expressing opinions on the matter (a bunch) someone is bound to be right 9/10 of the time - it's simple probability - regardless of predictive algorithm - well, Lichtman's algorithm was reasonable, but I thought unreliable, because it was ad hoc and because the current election might have been so close-called (it ultimately wasn't) - and in spite of it not being close-called, Lichtman was dead wrong. He's now busy about explaining why he was wrong and presumably updating his ad hoc factors so that he's right next time. Yeah... whatever.

Give me math, statistics, probability and science - insofar as these can be made to apply - or perhaps even AI to study the problem and learn from past data to make predictions - that's what I'd be inclined to trust. Not some random dude who by chance was right in most previous elections.

* The "Gold Standard" Iowa J. Ann Selzer pollster who predicted that Iowa would go for Trump - again, given enough pollsters - there are a ton - someone, by random happenstance, will be accurate most of the time, regardless of how their predictive formula works and regardless of applicability to the current election. Selzer predicted this time that Iowa would go for Harris - way off. My take is that chance caught up to Selzer and that she isn't some guru - though I've not looked into this at all.

One that I thought might prove accurate and ultimately was:
* Bettors. Yeah, yeah, yeah - whatever you want to say against this point. There are two reasons that bettors are better predictors than polls and are probably the best indicator of outcome at least insofar as who will win the US Presidency is concerned or in other big, well-known betting markets: 1) It's not about who you want to win - it 's about who you think will win b/c you have money on the line - so you may vote A but bet on B; 2) betting is crowd-sourced and benefits from the surprising emergent phenomenon that crowds are somehow better predictors of future events than individuals, even than individuals with a track record of success.

Betting odds for regional USA political races - e.g., who will win a particular Senate or House seat - are off recently. Nonetheless, over the years, betting odds have been very good at predicting who will win the US Presidency. This may of course be due to random chance - but I think not. I think that "money on the line" coupled with "crowd sourced" for a huge betting market such as the US Presidential election - has built-in factors for robustness - some of the robustness wears off for regional markets where there's not enough knowledge for outsiders to place an informed bet - so these markets will drift towards "who do you hope will win."

This is, of course, not to say that bettors on the US Presidency will always get it right - I'm arguing instead, that such bettors are likely better predictors than any other currently known metric, at least at this time. And indeed - should a better predictive metric emerge - betting markets should be self-correcting - as the more reliable bettors place more/larger bets and move the market towards increased predictive accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Dax777 said:
I disagree with a lot of this. But I won't belabor the issue. I am as unlikely to convince you as you are to convince me.


This might have something. But I'm have almost as little faith in studies coming out of the social science and humanities fields of higher education these days.

That said, is probably have to see these studies their methodologies and biases before I can opine. But I'm unfortunately probably not as interested in wading through it.

For example if I had the energy, I'd like to know how they defined "populist" and what qualifies one. How did they define 'hate' or hate filled people.

Let's for example use this and similar threads as an example

Am I the hateful one when if I disagree with the opinion of the majority and think men shouldn't be allowed in female jails or sports... to use a present relevant example. Or are the people who call me a piss of shit, a bigot, am asshole , a bastard and transphope the hateful ones?

I suppose that would depend on where you stand on the issue, no? Or better yet, if you stood outside the fray perhaps you'd conclude both I and the abusers are both hateful. A conclusion I certainly would not abide.

Anyway, still enjoyed reading your summary on the studies.
Click to expand...

You never know you might convince me?

Anyway should we engage on this again at some point in the future and to answer your question, there's obviously variations on a theme but from what I've read, these are typical of the framing and seem reasonable definitions to me:

Populism: a political mentality portraying society as divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the common “pure” people, and the “corrupt elites.

Hate: a unique strong, intense, and enduring feeling, intended to harm or eliminate its targets physically, socially, or symbolically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.