Election Day celebrations and despair thread (political games)

[Magical Realist]

I had very minimal expectations for this election. At the very least I just wanted someone who had enough focus and mastery of the English language to make sense and to express intelligently understood ideas and issues. That literally could've been anybody except for Trump. As he gets older and more prone to gibberish, I predict alot of people will start to regret their vote in this election.

Here's what Trump said when asked what his specific proposals for child care were:

"Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, you know; I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka, who was so impactful on that issue.… But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that because the childcare is childcare, couldn’t, you know, there’s something you have to have it, in this country you have to have it.”

[Syne]

I had very minimal expectations for this election. At the very least I just wanted someone who had enough focus and mastery of the English language to make sense and to express intelligently understood ideas and issues. That literally could've been anybody except for Trump. As he gets older and more prone to gibberish, I predict alot of people will start to regret their vote in this election.

Here's what Trump said when asked what his specific proposals for child care were:

"Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, you know; I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka, who was so impactful on that issue.… But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that because the childcare is childcare, couldn’t, you know, there’s something you have to have it, in this country you have to have it.”

If you can't manage to follow his point, you're obviously suffering from extreme ADHD, where you're attention cannot span more than a few sentences at a time.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/kWzSQkDXLNM

And unlike Kamala, he does actually make a point. He literally says that childcare is relatively not very expensive compared to the kind of money the country will be taking in.
Trump already doubled the child tax credit when he was in office.

[Magical Realist]

“My job is to analyze policy,” CNN commentator and Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell posted on X. “I can't even find a complete sentence in this.”

“Calling Trump's remarks at the NY Economics Club incoherent gibberish is not a biased attack. It is a completely rational observation,” senior business analyst, Stephanie Ruhle posted on X. “He did not speak in coherent or complete sentences. And when he did, proposals like (tarriffs - childcare) do not make sense.”

https://www.salon.com/2024/09/06/incoher...-response/

[C C]

I had very minimal expectations for this election. At the very least I just wanted someone who had enough focus and mastery of the English language to make sense and to express intelligently understood ideas and issues. That literally could've been anybody except for Trump. As he gets older and more prone to gibberish, I predict alot of people will start to regret their vote in this election. [...]

I can't find the video anymore, but there was one (maybe dating back to DT's first term) where Walter Williams showed a skeptical Thomas Sowell that Trump actually behaved in a more constrained and reasonable fashion in his thirties than in his senior years. Generating the hypothesis that Trump is the reverse of most people -- he started out mature and became adolescent as he got older.

But then there is the alternative proposal that Trump deliberately, incrementally engineered the notorious facade of "Donald Trump" over the decades. Similar to how John Wayne remade himself into the "John Wayne" persona everyone knows after those numerous cheap B-movie westerns he made during the 1930s. The early stages of that are addressed in the video here: How Donald Trump created Donald Trump

Either way -- whether he regressed naturally or it is an artificial product -- the results seem to be a successful political pheromone for attracting a following. (At 78, though, any signs of elderly cognitive decline would likely be just that. A separate or added issue to the trademark DT character role.)

How he was then: 1980 interview of Donald Trump ... https://youtu.be/s9c45q5kPt0

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/s9c45q5kPt0

Entire 1987 CNN interview ... https://youtu.be/A8wJc7vHcTs

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/A8wJc7vHcTs

1988 interview via Oprah Winfrey ... https://youtu.be/SEPs17_AkTI

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/SEPs17_AkTI

[Syne]

“My job is to analyze policy,” CNN commentator and Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell posted on X. “I can't even find a complete sentence in this.”

“Calling Trump's remarks at the NY Economics Club incoherent gibberish is not a biased attack. It is a completely rational observation,” senior business analyst, Stephanie Ruhle posted on X. “He did not speak in coherent or complete sentences. And when he did, proposals like (tarriffs - childcare) do not make sense.”

https://www.salon.com/2024/09/06/incoher...-response/

Leftist moron reading, and worse believing, an overtly leftist rag.

But even this rag gives a fair summary of what he said:

Trump answered by saying he “would do that,” and then proceeded to highlight the work of his daughter Ivanka and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who worked on a paid family leave plan during his administration. Despite Saujani’s question about lightening the hardships working parents, especially women, face to stay in the workforce, Trump maintained that his economic proposals would act as a catch-all solution
- https://www.salon.com/2024/09/06/incoher...-response/

Only to then contradict understanding Trumps meaning (by citing some moron on X):

“I can't even find a complete sentence in this.”
- https://www.salon.com/2024/09/06/incoher...-response/

So moron leftists contradicting themselves.

[C C]

Since the overall election isn't actually over:

House update:

201 Democrat seats ...... 212 Republican seats

Achieving 218 is the magic number.

[Yazata]

RealClearPolitics has the current state of the House of Representatives at 214 Republicans and 205 Dems. (218 needed for a majority) So the R's need to win 4 more, and the D's still need 13.

It appears to me that of the small number of House races that still haven't been called, there are seven in which the Republican currently leads.

So I'd say that the chances of the R's holding the House are currently looking very good.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/electi...024/house/

[Syne]

It would be nice to have an election that's an unmistakable mandate from the people... instead of referendums on (or often against) particular political personalities.
If the House lead holds, it's clear that a majority of US people want the economy and illegal migration given top priority.

[Yazata]

As of Saturday morning Nov 9, the R's are at 216 House seats called, the D's at 208. 218 are needed for a majority, so the R's need 2 more, the D's need 10.

I still see 7 uncalled House races where the R is leading, albeit some just fractionally with lots of votes left to count. I still think that it's looking good for the Republicans to retain the House majority and hence the Speakership.

[Yazata]

And polling...

Most of the polls once again undercounted Trump voters by 2-3 percent, just as they did in 2016 and 2020. Supposedly they had adjusted their samples and models, but this year's polling performance doesn't show it.

The most accurate poll this year was relatively little known Atlas Intel, which predicted that Trump would win the popular vote and sweep all the swing states winning 312 electoral votes. But Atlas Intel was widely dismissed as a minor poll and as an outlier, because it's results didn't match those of the democrat-leaning "quality" polls (which proved to be significantly off).

It wasn't a fluke either, since Atlas Intel was the most accurate pollster in 2020 too.

Another top performing poll this year was Rasmussen. Despite the fact that Rasmussen had been thrown off the 538 polling average on the grounds that it was too "partisan". (And the New York Times isn't?? Or 538 itself, for that matter?) Rasmussen too was dismissed as an outlier because it didn't conform to the polling consensus.

Rasmussen came within half a point of calling the popular vote, while 538 was off by 5 1/2 points...

Tuesday wasn't a good day for the polling industry, which loves to pretend that they are "scientific" (statistics!) while avoiding the fact that how they weight their samples is all intuition.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1854544657570492894

https://www.themidwesterner.news/2024/11...-industry/

https://nypost.com/2024/11/03/us-news/he...trump-win/