The rest of us need to look at this result with humility. American voters are not always wise, but they are generally sensible, and they have something to teach us. My initial thought is that I have to re-examine my own priors. I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.

— David Brooks

Gee thanks David. Glad you’re realizing this NOW.

Him, Bret Stephens, and the rest of the anti-Bernie crowd can just shut up now.

After Trump Took the Lead, Election Deniers Went Suddenly Silent

“Trump supporters spent years fomenting concern about election integrity. On Tuesday, they set it all aside.”

Lol— what a shocker! Who would have thought?! It’s almost as if it is, and always was, complete bullshit.

Maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised, but I am thinking it's more of the same. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep. Extending tax cuts, no national abortion ban, some dressed up nonsense on the border (packaged as something new, but basically continuing what’s been done with some murmurs about a wall), maybe some tariffs on Chinese goods (as Biden has done), and otherwise a bunch of hot air. He’ll be even worse on the Middle East, but will possibly stop funding the proxy war in Ukraine (perhaps the one bright spot).

The real shame will be 4 years of environmental deregulation, and the gutting of science. He’ll try to repeal the IRA, which may be possible now that they’ll have a trifecta (although a lot of republican districts have benefited, and with a slim house majority that may not fly).

Also, and equally damaging, is the free reign of appointing judges, which will further the courts to the right for a generation. I imagine Alito or Thomas will retire, and Sotomayer is in poor health I hear— so he may get another 3. He’ll have a full 4 years of a Republican Senate too, because 2026 there’s no chance Dems take it back, given the map.

But it’ll all likely swing back in ‘28. That is, if the party moves towards Bernie and away from the Clinton-Obama establishment neoliberal crowd.

Lionino was banned — Jamal

It’s unbelievable it took this long. Guess I can take him off my ignore list.

My family gets annoyed with me 'shouting at the television'. — Wayfarer

My family was annoyed that I was calling it for Trump :lol:

But yeah, it’s good to take some time away. Most people I talk to really don’t follow any of this that closely. What they end up with is whatever simple soundbite or slogan happens to make its way into their brains.

Political hobbyism, that’s all this is really. Don’t lose any sleep over it. Use whatever you feel to get involved locally. It’ll reset your perspective a bit.

Bernie. From the establishment's silencing of the right candidate for working class Americans came Trump's possibility to do what he's done. — creativesoul

Yep. Bernie would have won, in 2016, in 2020, in 2024. But the DNC made sure that didn’t happen. So this outcome isn’t surprising— which is why I called it weeks ago.

Trump is still the stupidest choice, but this will come with a lot of good things— like giving yet another “wakeup call” to the Democratic Party and the inevitable infighting and finger pointing. It’ll be fun watching what nonsense excuses they come up with. :lol:

A simple question I ask is: how many times did Harris rally with Bernie?

… and how many with Liz Cheney?

That’ll tell you everything you need.

I was wrong. :zip: — 180 Proof

Yeah, most people were I think. But this scenario wasn’t outside possibility— just sucks when it actually happens.

Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, Green New Deal, free public college, student debt cancellation, the PRO Act (unions), free child care and child tax credit, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, gun control, police reform, etc etc. She ran from all of it. Not only does it energize the base, but most of it has broad appeal. Not to mention she’s a war hawk and genocide supporter like Biden.

Also, for the record: Bernie would have won.

What do you think are the lessons for Democrats here? — Tom Storm

Not to run an empty, establishment candidate who runs away from every popular progressive policy there is, and who has no principles. They played this one by the book— and failed yet again. Didn’t help that she, like Clinton (and, to a degree, Biden), was essentially anointed by the DNC.

It gets tiresome having to exclusively vote AGAINST something— that’s extremely uninspiring. Despite all the gaslighting, I never felt the so-called “energy,” and I imagine millions of others didn’t either. It all felt rather bland and formal and forced and coached. Like Hillary all over again: machine-like; robotic. I still voted against the worst, as we all should, but eventually you have to offer something as well. Biden, pressured by Bernie (as he needed that large cohort to get elected), ran on several of his policies. Kamala immediately ran to the “middle,” which every bozo pundit in their infinite wisdom said to do. You see the obvious result.

What will they actually learn? Nothing, probably. Maybe blame Russia again, or run even MORE to the right next time.

So a reminder of those confidently predicting a Harris win/landslide:

Allan Litchman (“never wrong in 40 years” 13 keys guy)
Michael Moore
Bill Maher
Nate Silver (barely)
James Carville
…anyone else care to add to this?

The polls turned out fairly accurate— still underestimating Trump but not by as much.

Now it’ll be fun watching the Republicans try to govern and yet still blame democrats when everything goes to shit, as it always does under their leadership.

Today’s the day we get 4 more years of the old degenerate climate-denying corporatist con man. It’ll do irreversible damage and lock in 50 years of a reactionary Supreme Court and judiciary generally— and put the brakes on the little climate policy we managed to pass— but hey, Americans are fairly stupid and easily brainwashed, and the Democrats should have known better. The lesson they’ll take away from this is that they should move farther to the right, which is insane. — Mikie

@180 Proof?

The only question is control of the house. But that’s not looking great either. So looks like complete control of the federal government for two years — and the judiciary for 40 or 50 years.

More extreme climate disasters are also now locked in. Enjoy.

It’s over. Stop kidding yourselves.

So Trump is gonna win, as I expected. What a stupid country. :lol:

Clown on me if I am wrong, as I should deserve it. — Manuel

I won’t. I hope you’re right.

Today’s the day we get 4 more years of the old degenerate climate-denying corporatist con man. It’ll do irreversible damage and lock in 50 years of a reactionary Supreme Court and judiciary generally— and put the brakes on the little climate policy we managed to pass— but hey, Americans are fairly stupid and easily brainwashed, and the Democrats should have known better. The lesson they’ll take away from this is that they should move farther to the right, which is insane.

Of course, we may not know the results tonight.

Quincy Jones

So it’s obvious to anyone paying attention, but just so it’s explicit and can easily be referenced:

If Trump loses (and I think he wins), he will claim victory before all votes are counted, scream about fraud and cheating without evidence, claim early votes or delayed counts (which are totally predictable) are illegitimate, and that the election was stolen from him again. Why? Because Trump is not psychologically capable of losing; that would make him a loser.

Given how obvious this is, and the fact that I’m calling it right now, you would think everyone would take these claims with a huge grain of salt— if not ignore them completely (the rational choice). The 2020 behavior is also quite enough to warrant waving it off as nonsense. But just watch — IF he loses, this is what will happen, and his gullible, irrational followers will go along with it.

Let it be noted. Quite pathetic, but clear as day. I’d bet anything on it.

Well, I can't think of another main reason. — javi2541997

Again, why you bother with climate-denying imbeciles is a mystery.

You can’t think of another reason because there is no other reason. Climate change isn’t true because of modeling, and the patterns we see aren’t due to some tilt of the earth’s axis, or el nino, or clouds, or volcanoes, or anything else people who know nothing about climate science want to claim it is.

The evidence is overwhelming, for those who are interested in the real world. For those too frightened you face it, motivated reasoning and Dr. Google will be enough to find ways to believe nothing is happening, both generally and specifically.

Don’t waste time— just get to work trying to replace fossil fuels and help brace for the disasters to come (of which there will be many more, and will only get worse).

Don’t see what the controversy is: Trump supporters ARE garbage. One of Biden’s few truthful statements. Too bad he walked it back.

Don’t waste too much time on climate-denying imbeciles. They’re embarrassed over and over yet continually come back anyway. Just trolling— or a learning disability. Either way, best to ignore.

If you want to learn something, check out Unenlightened’s posts— something can actually be learned in that case, rather than attempting to refute any child’s armchair ideas about science.

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? — javi2541997

Yes we should. But climate deniers never will. They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end.

Like I said: just stupid, stupid people.

there's only idiots raising their voices so high that it disturbs the public space — Christoffer

Absolutely.

Stupid, stupid people. That’s all it is.

“Don’t Look Up” captures it well.

m

:clap:

I think Cheney’s endorsement is revenge for being attacked and thrown out of office, which in turn was done because she’s as establishment as they come and thus one of the few who voted impeachment. Why? Because prior to this Trump attacked Bush and Cheney— why? Because Jeb Bush ran against him and never made nice afterwards. Etc. It’s like asking why Megan McCain is against Trump. There’s personal reasons. This praise for Cheney is ridiculous. Fuck the Cheneys.

Abortion and democracy may be what motivates people to get out and vote— but you don’t really know that, nor do I.

But as always, I hope you’re right about this.

It’s close because of the electoral college, which is a stupid and anti-democratic system, as the US constitution itself is mostly anti-democratic.

But the other reason it’s so close, in my view, is that a good portion of the electorate’s lives are crappy, which makes them angry — and they look for reasons and someone to blame. They want explanations and to make sense of the world, as we all do. The media fill that role now, where family friends and religion once did, and cater messages to these people, depending on where they live and what their interests are and how they get their information (radio? TV? Newspaper?).

So there’s huge gaps between women and men, rural and urban people, college educated vs not, etc. The left demonizes Trump (although they have a much better case for doing so), and the right demonizes “liberals” (and do it much more effectively). Both are devils to the other side.

Since the advent of social media, distrust in literally everything and anything that doesn’t conform with what your preferred information pipeline is telling you has become rampant. Thus Trump can say almost anything — even trying to overturn an election and saying he won even when he lost — and many millions will go along with it, or shrug it off.

If CNN says he’s a threat to democracy or whatever, or if there’s reports about some crazy thing he said, it’ll be ignored— because those sources have been undermined and discredited in their minds (“fake news,” “witch hunt,” etc), mostly by Trump himself.

If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that.

Nate Silver: 50-50 but gut says Trump.
John Mearsheimer: “My guess is Harris wins popular vote but Trump eeks out a victory in the seven swing states.”

Guess I’m not so crazy after all :rofl:

Former president Donald Trump’s years-long effort to restrict mail balloting and early voting has skidded into reverse in North Carolina, with the Republican presidential nominee demanding the kind of easier voting access that he labeled fraudulent when Democrats pushed similar measures during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/21/trump-voting-north-carolina-helene/

Election fraud! :lol:

:up:



I voted three days ago against fascism.

That’s two more says earlier than you, so…

No, it's not. His odds have been going up rapidly across betting markets generally since the start of October. Averages about 59% overall now. — Baden

Over the past two weeks, the chances of a Trump victory in the November election have surged on Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market. Its bettors were giving Trump a 60% chance of winning on Friday, while Harris’s chances were 40%. The candidates were in a dead heat at the start of October.

Trump’s gains on Polymarket have cheered his supporters, and they have been followed by the odds shifting in Trump’s favor in other betting markets. Elon Musk flagged Trump’s growing lead on Polymarket to his 200 million X followers on Oct. 6, praising the concept of betting markets. “More accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line,” Musk posted.

But the surge might be a mirage manufactured by a group of four Polymarket accounts that have collectively pumped about $30 million of crypto into bets that Trump will win.

Seems others have followed suit.

Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation. If they were truly following the polls, unless they have some secret knowledge, there’s little reason to put the chances at 60%. True, they could be imbeciles— but I think the WSJ’s argument is convincing. Even though I think he’ll win, I wouldn’t bet on it— and certainly not give it those odds.

Yeah but it isn’t for that reason. It’s actually due to about four people. Hence the article I posted. 60/40 is a lot by this election’s standards.

Whether Harris needs 3% to win is disputable now, given inroads Trump has made in Florida, New York, and California. Nate Cohn has written about this well. His electoral edge is probably slipping.

Yeah I still think he’s going to win, but it’s because Harris is a dud. Not because of the polls.

I don't see how Polymarket is anything but a betting market for bettors looking to earn a buck. — BitconnectCarlos

That’s really all it is. I don’t see how they have any special insight otherwise.

This should help explain why the polymarket odds are so skewed now.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/betting-election-pro-trump-ad74aa71?mod=mhp

Is Kamala 2024 Clinton 2016?

You always got the sense that the Democratic Party resented having to learn anything from losing in 2016.

There’s no doubt that all the excuse-making that followed — blaming Russia, James Comey, the media, anyone but Hillary Clinton and her campaign — was the party’s desperate attempt to avoid taking responsibility for letting Donald Trump win and to assuage anger from their rank and file, lest they hold the party leadership accountable.

But tell a lie incessantly enough, and you start to believe it. And you can’t help but feel that Democrats really do believe that they ran a great campaign that would and should have won, if only it hadn’t been for the dastardly villains who pulled the rug out. This year, they seem determined to prove that thesis.

At first, there were hopes that Kamala Harris’s ascension to the Democratic candidacy was going to bring some kind of new, exciting vision to the election fight, possibly combining Joe Biden’s early, halting economic populism with the personal charisma, optimism, and history-making aspects of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Gone was the “basement strategy” of hiding the candidate from unscripted media. So were the by now stale warnings about Republicans threatening democracy and dictatorship, in favor of the new, deflating label of “weird.” Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” suggested she’d lead the country not just out of the morass of Trumpism but in a different direction from Biden’s disastrous last two years.

So much for that. For weeks now, it’s been clear the Harris campaign has decided that it’s going to rerun the Clinton 2016 strategy on the off chance that that year really was a fluke, and that Trump really is so hated that Americans will have no choice but to vote for his opponent. It didn’t work in 2016, but this time . . .

What does that look like in practice? It looks like dropping the “negative” label of weird and performing civil disagreement instead. It looks like giving up on exciting the party’s progressive flank — actively thumbing your nose at them, in fact — and explicitly pivoting to trying to win over Republicans instead. It looks like rolling out white papers and policy positions that few will read, while rarely talking publicly about what you would actually do when given the chance at a public forum. Like running to Trump’s right on immigration and foreign policy, even calling Iran, absurdly, the country’s most dangerous adversary and suggesting you might launch a preemptive strike on it.

Okay, Democrats would say, but what about some of Harris’s policy announcements? Like her housing platform, for instance, which pledges to build three million homes and to give first-time homebuyers a grant of up to $25,000? Or what about her recent announcement that she would expand Medicare to cover home care services, vision, and hearing? Doesn’t that point to a different, more progressive policy–based direction than Clinton’s 2016 run, even if she barely talks about it?

The answer to which is, not really, because this platform is actually a major step backward from the Biden years. It’s true the sitting president often seemed reluctant to run forcefully on the populist agenda he had taken up as a way to make nice with Bernie Sanders voters, but that agenda was fairly ambitious: among other things, it featured universal pre-K, free community college (for two years), childcare subsidies, paid leave, Medicare expansion, and a more generous child tax credit. Everything but the last two are now out in Harris’s day one agenda.

What I was saying earlier.

When Trump wins they have no one to blame but themselves.

:up:

Roevember 21 — 180 Proof

What does this mean?

It’s remarkable how much time and effort silly things like this take up within “philosophy.” Still kind of fun as a game I guess.

“Everyone’s mad here. I’m mad; you’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?”
“You must be — or you wouldn’t have come here.”

That being said this strategy isn't that really much different from Trump's to be honest — Mr Bee

You’re right. It isn’t fair, really, but because he’s been a lying degenerate clown for so long, any bullshit he spews is shrugged off.

You stick with those MAGA-GOP talking points — 180 Proof

Well there’s no need to get nasty. :gasp:

Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?
— Mikie
Like taking candy from a baby. :yum:
— 180 Proof
I (technically) have won this bet but lost the other one that Diaper Don wouldn't be the GOP nominee. — 180 Proof

Yeah, you did. I was as shocked as anyone. What did we end up betting? $10 to charity of choice? Let me know and I’ll pay up. I’d forgotten about that.

Needless to say, I hope you’re right here too.

Anyway — he’s within the margin of error in swing states and is down with black men by a lot compared to 2020. Women could save the day if they come out strong — but will they? Will it be enough? I have doubts.

I’ve seen enough. Ready to make my official prediction:

Trump wins.

Which is unbelievable and sad, but so it goes. Looks like men aren’t ready for a woman president, yet again. But it’s more than that — it’s that she has no message.

She could have run with a strong and consistent message of taxing the rich to pay for popular programs. Instead she’s raced to the “middle,” on the advice of the most pathetic intellectual weaklings known to man, and desperately tried to appeal to conservative voters. She’s done so with climate change and fracking, on guns, and on war. She doesn’t answer questions directly. She regurgitates the same lines like “hopes, ambitions, and desires.” There’s barely been any policy proposals, and the ones that have been proposed are “eh.” They’ve once again left Bernie and progressives in the cold— and they’ll pay for it, especially among the Gaza crowds.

The DNC strategy at this point is to lay low, appeal to the middle, say as little as possible (see any of the uninspiring, friendly interviews she’s done), and bring it back to how bad Trump is and was. It’s a terrible strategy and a terrible candidate. They even defanged Tim Walz, who is now left with endlessly talking up school lunches — which is all the party allows him.

So the democrats put up another loser in the 4th quarter and will blow it try again against the worst candidate and former president in history. 4 more years of Trump’s climate denial and federal judges (given that republicans are going to win the senate), which will do generational damage, and the further destruction of institutions that do any good for regular people.

It feels like 2016 again: no real enthusiasm for the Democrat. There was none in 2020 either, but it was a pandemic and we were sick of Trump. That was motivation enough — plus Biden, a man, also hadn’t fully degenerated into the shell he is today, and still had a little Obama fairy dust on him from his years as VP. The electorate’s memory is also poor and rose-colored, and usually rebel against whoever is in office.

So despite what the polls, or Allan Lichtman, or Bill Maher, or Nate Silver or anyone else says, I think Trump will win at least one of the blue wall states — Michigan? — and that will be all he needs, as he will carry Georgia and North Carolina and Arizona.

Maybe some good comes out of it. Who knows. I hope I’m wrong — but I won’t be.

Ps. Sorry @180 Proof. I’ll put money on it.

Ethel Kennedy. 96. It amazes me she was still around.

Speaking for myself, I respect every pro-Isreal Jew who openly, vigourously denounces and opposes the mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies of the US/Nato-backed Netanyahu regime. — 180 Proof

The truly pro-Israel Jews are those who don’t want to see Israel destroyed. Which is exactly what they’re doing with these policies.