• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
angrysoba said:
The best argument I can think of that might conserve some of that idea in a rational way is that by telling Trump voters they will lose so badly the self-fulfilling prophecy is that Trump voters will end up so despondent that they won’t even vote.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is a demographic/factor big enough to be worth "injecting into the algorithm" so to speak, but I do think that "I want to vote for the winning candidate" is a factor in there somewhere.

I don't buy that simply going "Hey the chart says Trump has X% chance of winning" is pro-Trump in anyway, but I also can't in honesty go "The general vibe of how much chance any candidate has no effect" either. People like backing a winner. There's a tiny shred of that in all of us. I can't honestly believe being told your candidate doesn't have a chance versus they have a chance versus they are the predicted winner doesn't change the landscape at all.

Like as a pure impossible thought experiment if you could ask a genie to make it so when you step into a voting booth all knowledge of how "popular" any of the candidates are just "poofs" vanishes from your mind and all the voters had to vote without that piece of information in their head... it could be interesting and surprising.

Or not. Part of me still thinks that huge, undemographiced, uncategorized, unpolled, off the radar "I honestly and truly couldn't tell you WHY I'm voting for Kang over Kodus, it's all an emotional gut feeling" voters really are the only ones that matter.

At times, not all the time but times, I sorta thinks of all... this, all the debate, all the polling, all the talking heads, all the analytics, all the arguing on the internet and social media, all the signs and bumperstickers and campaign ads.... just don't matter.

*Long sigh* I so ******* want to live in precedented times again.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
Lichtman has been called the “Nostradamus” of US presidential elections.
Click to expand...


https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/compliment

:D

picture.php
 
Vance has declared that if he had been VP in 2020, he would have asked for new electors instead of certifying 2020 election results.
“I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we had,” Vance said in an interview with the All-in Podcast on Monday, when asked multiple times what he would have done if he was in former Vice President Mike Pence’s position on Jan. 6, 2021.

When asked to clarify whether that means he would not certify the election results, he repeated that he would ask states to “submit alternative slates of electors.”
Click to expand...
“Mike Pence could have done more, whether you agree or disagree, Mike Pence could have done more to sort of surface some of the problems in the 2020 election,” Vance said.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

Mr. Vance, you are no Mike Pence.
 
Just for the heck of it, I thought I'd look up his prediction in 2016.

“The Keys point to a Donald Trump victory, and in general, point to a generic Republican victory. Still, I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, Trump could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor,” Lichtman said.
Click to expand...

Not exactly brimming with confidence at the time.
 
newyorkguy said:
Qoting the Guardian: "Lichtman accurately forecast Trump’s unheralded 2016 election triumph over Hillary Clinton...."
Click to expand...


No, Lichtman did not predict that Trump would beat Clinton. He predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, which he lost.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
He's been right about pretty much every election going back to the 1800s, actually. At least according to the Wiki (I know, not the best source). But yes, of course he can only predict if Harris will get 270+ electors, not whether Dump and SCOTUS will manage to steal the election.
Click to expand...


No, he has not been. See my post above.
 
jt512 said:
...He predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, which he lost.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reference for that? Because on the American University website -- Lichtman is on the faculty there -- a September 26 2016 news story reporting Professor Lichtman was predicting a trump win was prefaced by the following editorial note:
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with a correction. It has been corrected to read that Prof. Lichtman’s 13 Keys system predicts the winner of the presidential race, not the outcome of the popular vote. American University article link
Click to expand...
 
jt512 said:
No, Lichtman did not predict that Trump would beat Clinton. He predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, which he lost.
Click to expand...

newyorkguy said:
Do you have a reference for that?
Click to expand...


The Wikipedia article on Lichtman's 13 Keys To The White House says this: "Though Lichtman claims he called the 2016 election correctly based on the 13 keys, his 2016 book and paper stated that the keys only referred to the popular vote, which Donald Trump lost." The article cites this reference: Allan Lichtman is Famous for Correctly Predicting the 2016 Election. The Problem? He Didn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom