You're interpreting the numbers through a lens biased by your emotions.
Odd that you think you know better than the actual people fighting these elections.
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
You're interpreting the numbers through a lens biased by your emotions.
Odd that you think you know better than the actual people fighting these elections.
- Reaction score
- 12,409
- Points
- 1,040
Sadly, I'm just looking at the numbers. The series of Wikipedia articles on US elections makes it easy to see the D+/R+ gains in Senate, House, and governorships, and the EV counts in presidential years. Links to prior and succeeding elections make it easy to see if a small-ish gain in one year might be at least partly because there was a big gain in the prior year, or to judge the size of a swing.
It's just funny that you think reading columns of numbers is more emotional than people responding to an election outcome.
Why is it that people keep describing the results as "historical"? What is being compared?
My guess: people are comparing the result to the polls (of which there is only one set, for this election) instead of to past election results (of which there are many, based on sample sets much, much, much larger than any poll). So, GIGO. Favouring the map over the terrain would be a pretty foolish way for any rational numbers-focused person to behave.
[Add: thought exercise for any reader: if you believe the result is "historical", ask yourself what the basis is for your belief. You are comparing the results to the polls? You are simply following the opinions of others? You have looked at the past election results?]
- Reaction score
- 2,057
- Points
- 1,160
Missed this; Apparently yesterday the stock market in the US crashed - big time!! Possibly triggered by the Democrats big win and investors fearing an AI crackdown, resulting in something like $3.2 Trillion USD being wiped out.
www.theguardian.com
US tech stock rout: is the AI bubble bursting?
After Thursday’s share price plunge on Wall Street, could the volatility be the start of a huge market meltdown?
www.theguardian.com
- Reaction score
- 12,409
- Points
- 1,040
The usual rule applies - nothing is "wiped out" if the market rebounds. If people panic and sell at a loss, that's an individual problem. I suppose there might be a slight permanent dip in some AI companies' stocks.
Don't be the last one holding the stock when a bubble pops. Bubbles eventually pop; there is usually some kind of triggering event, but the underlying problem was never the triggering event.
- Reaction score
- 12,409
- Points
- 1,040
Here's another thing that has mostly escaped notice: Democrats believe they control enough states to give effect to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
I suspect socialists believe they can capture the US ("permanent Democratic majority") and capture its wealth- and innovation-generating potential intact. I am certain they are wrong. The US is what it is because of the way it is; change the underlying firmament, and everything else will change. But maybe they don't care.
I suspect socialists believe they can capture the US ("permanent Democratic majority") and capture its wealth- and innovation-generating potential intact. I am certain they are wrong. The US is what it is because of the way it is; change the underlying firmament, and everything else will change. But maybe they don't care.
I noticed that but don’t give it much weight. It lasts only as long as it aligns with the interests of enough state houses. As soon as a statehouse would have to apportion electoral votes that would result in a presidency of the opposite party when otherwise they would get one ‘on side’, I think they’ll balk.
Gordon Dundas/
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 304
- Points
- 780
During the Orange Crush some years back , supposedly one newly elected Quebec MPs first words upon being informed were , " I what ?!!??!!"
- Reaction score
- 28,608
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 12,409
- Points
- 1,040
I believe that also. I'm interested in seeing Democrats commit to it as a reality rather than an idea. Voters will notice either before or after an election (much better for the political health of the country if they do it before). Either way, I doubt the reaction will favour Democrats, and I'd like to see them pay for this attempt to sidestep the constitution, which I am confident most Americans still respect.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,621
- Points
- 1,040
Riding that fireball straight into the ground.
nypost.com
Trump fires Susie Wiles after midterm blowout, names Stephen Miller as new chief of staff
President Trump on Friday announced that he was replacing Susie Wiles as his chief of staff with his longtime adviser Stephen Miller following the Republicans’ landslide midterm election loss…
nypost.com
- Reaction score
- 12,409
- Points
- 1,040
Some thoughts from Sean Trende (a political analyst for RCP).
There is fodder in there for those making the case for "historic".
He deprecates theories of a mass defection of registered Republicans, and identifies independents as a probable source of large swings.
The list of probable causes is more inclusive than what most people are offering.
There is fodder in there for those making the case for "historic".
He deprecates theories of a mass defection of registered Republicans, and identifies independents as a probable source of large swings.
The list of probable causes is more inclusive than what most people are offering.
It's you that keeps talking numbers. And focused on the Senate and House.
The rest of us are talking about the breadth and depth of the change. Texas went from Ruby Red Republican to a state government almost as blue as California. Ted Cruz is the only Republican left in state wide office there. Democrats are getting elected in places that last elected Democrats a century ago when they were segregationists. Look at the Governors and State Houses flipped. Look at the margins by which Democrats won. It's historic.
And if Republicans did even half of this, I would say the exact same thing. Like I said earlier, if Republicans did this in California or New York, let alone both at the same time, nobody would say, "Meh, it's just a slightly worse than average loss for the Democrats."
And rhere's nobody in either party, and no pundit that I have seen, and no poll, that came close to predicting what happened. If youu have seen such predictions, other that by degenerates on betting markets, please post.
- Reaction score
- 2,057
- Points
- 1,160
Riding that fireball straight into the ground.
Trump fires Susie Wiles after midterm blowout, names Stephen Miller as new chief of staff
President Trump on Friday announced that he was replacing Susie Wiles as his chief of staff with his longtime adviser Stephen Miller following the Republicans’ landslide midterm election loss…
Not good news for Ukraine. Here is Phillip P. O'Brien on Miller and his views on Ukraine and Russia.
Trump is going Full Putin with the Miller Appointment
Are you ready Democrats?
phillipspobrien.substack.com
Riding that fireball straight into the ground.
Trump fires Susie Wiles after midterm blowout, names Stephen Miller as new chief of staff
President Trump on Friday announced that he was replacing Susie Wiles as his chief of staff with his longtime adviser Stephen Miller following the Republicans’ landslide midterm election loss…
This is going to be painful for the world. But also entertaining. I don't think Miller has ever delivered anything for Trump that didn't eventually turn into a disaster.