I asked Grok AI to predict the 2028 presidential election map (machine style)

[C C]

As if Grok could ever be unbiased or less so than its mainstream rivals going the other way. But OTOH, there is no Bill Clinton of the 1990s to persuade Dems to move more to the right, and no Obama to renew that approach in the next century. Biden completely destroyed confidence in that public presentation by campaigning as a centrist and then veering so far from that after winning that he might as well have been bucking for DSA membership.

Here's another video that's a month old that pitted Kamala Harris against Vance in 2028. A narrower margin in the outcome: https://youtu.be/jxvNfrSN8zM
- - - - - - - - - - -

ELECTION TIME
https://youtu.be/delneY9k5Lw

VIDEO EXCERPTS: Over the past few months, AOC has emerged as a favorite to win the 2028 Democratic nomination for president. She's consistently trading places with Pete Buttigieg for third place in the polls. And according to the market odds on Kalshi, she is one of the clear front runners neck-and-neck with Gavin Newsome and Jon Ossoff.

In this video, I asked Grok AI to show me its prediction for the 2028 election in a matchup between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Republican favorite JD Vance. The vice president holds a solid lead in GOP primary polling and has a 42% chance of winning the nomination according to Kalshi. So today we will fill in the 2028 electoral map based on Grock's prediction for all 50 states. Jumping right into it, we'll begin by categorizing the safe states for both candidates...

[...] And so this is it. This is the 2028 electoral map based on Grock's prediction for a matchup between JD Vance and AOC. Vance would win 327 electoral votes while AOC gets just 211, the worst Democratic performance since Michael Dukakus in 1988. If you want to see the latest 2028 primary polls for yourself, make sure you check out my website at pollsmax.com. Thank you guys so much for watching.

Jaw-dropping results! ... https://youtu.be/delneY9k5Lw

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/delneY9k5Lw

[Yazata]

As if Grok could ever be unbiased or less so than its mainstream rivals going the other way.

Oh you of little faith...

In this video, I asked Grok AI to show me its prediction for the 2028 election in a matchup between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Republican favorite JD Vance. The vice president holds a solid lead in GOP primary polling and has a 42% chance of winning the nomination according to Kalshi. So today we will fill in the 2028 electoral map based on Grock's prediction for all 50 states. Jumping right into it, we'll begin by categorizing the safe states for both candidates...

[...] And so this is it. This is the 2028 electoral map based on Grock's prediction for a matchup between JD Vance and AOC. Vance would win 327 electoral votes while AOC gets just 211, the worst Democratic performance since Michael Dukakus in 1988.

Grok calls it just about the same as I would. (And I was pretty accurate in 2024.)

A critic might note that Grok has factored in a conservative trend in some of the closer states. I think that's accurate, but the democrats might want to contest it. They could argue that part of Trump's appeal was his anti-establishment insurgent persona. But now the Republicans would be the incumbent party while it's the dems who are posing as the anti-establishment insurgents.

While there may be some truth to that, I think that the democrat insurgents are simply on the wrong side of too many 80-20 issues: Open borders, soft on crime, the "trans" craziness...

There's a difference between anti-establishment and crazy... While the democrats (and MR) have done their best to portray Trump as crazy, the fact remains that his positions would have been mainstream democratic party positions in the JFK era. While Trump took on the establishment, he did so in the name of opposing an ever-leftward cultural drift and in defense of the American centrist mainstream. Hence the MAGA slogan.

Besides, just imagine JD and AOC competing in a Presidential debate. He'd simply destroy her.

[Syne]

I really hope it's not JD. The more I hear from him, the worse he is. I'm really hoping it's not a democrat-style coronation.

[Yazata]

I really hope it's not JD. The more I hear from him, the worse he is. I'm really hoping it's not a democrat-style coronation.

I support JD for the 2028 nomination. I'm not sure what he's said that I wouldn't like. But maybe I'm not following close enough.

He really won me over with that epic speech at the 2025 Munich Security Conference.

[Syne]

JD has been talking more government economic intervention and courting the antisemites.

Vice President JD Vance uses the concept of "worker dignity" to challenge traditional free-market Republican orthodoxies, arguing that economic progress should be measured by the stability and respect afforded to working-class families rather than gross domestic product or corporate profits.
- gemini

That seems to be a departure from meritocracy.

Vice President JD Vance faces sharp criticism from Jewish leaders and GOP donors who accuse him of mainstreaming antisemitic tropes and tolerating extremists, though Vance denies the accusations, maintaining that his foreign policy stances and immigration views are nationalist rather than prejudiced.
Criticisms and Controversies

Conspiracy Tropes: Critics point to Vance's appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, where he claimed elements within Israel's government secretly manipulated American public opinion to counter a U.S.-Iran agreement.

Association and Rhetoric: Observers have criticized Vance for refusing to distance himself from figures like Tucker Carlson over controversial commentary, as well as past downplaying of extremist groups and events.
Immigration Framing: Vance has argued that the most effective way to address rising antisemitism in the U.S. is reducing immigration and enforcing assimilation, rather than examining domestic extremist networks.
- gemini

Mostly a lot of little things that all seem to lean toward wanting to covertly court antisemitic voters/views.
He's gotten where he is with good rhetoric, but I'm more concerned about his policy prescriptions.

[C C]

He really won me over with that epic speech at the 2025 Munich Security Conference.

He wouldn't get us into an unpopular war with massive economic effects during a midterm year that may still cost the GOP seats even with the DSA civil war transpiring in the Democratic Party. With Trump, in truly abysmal self-destroying fashion, getting himself impeached a third time if the Dems do gain control.

There shouldn't be any suspense to this at all, but the ___ war consequences are counteracting the ___ socialists. The capper will be if the Iranians walk out of this with formal, indefinitely extended control of the Strait instead of just temporary administration of it. As the condition it finally requires for Trump to extricate himself from this endless quagmire he was siren-song lured into.

[Syne]

Vance has been making sounds of making the US weaker since at least 2023, when he suggested the dollar not be the reserve currency. So it would consistent for him to make us weaker militarily as well, running headlong into his seeming extreme isolationism.

[Yazata]

I think that JD Vance, and President Trump much of the time when he's following his better instincts, can be called National Conservatives. It's probably the political philosophy that I'm closest to myself.

Here's excerpts from Grok's description (with highlighting and additional comments by me):

National Conservatism is a political ideology and movement that prioritizes the nation-state, cultural continuity, traditional social norms, and sovereignty over globalist, cosmopolitan, or liberal-internationalist frameworks.

Core Principles

Nation as the primary unit: Strong emphasis on national identity, borders, language, culture, and history as the foundation of political legitimacy and social cohesion. It views the nation as an organic community rather than a purely contractual or abstract set of individuals.

The basic idea is that communities can only succeed if what draws people together is stronger than what pushes them apart. And given that so much of our ethical belief is what the academics call 'socially constructed', the social dimension that shapes each of us really needs to be acknowledged and protected from those who would destroy it.

Sovereignty and non-interventionism (or selective intervention): Resistance to supranational institutions (e.g., certain aspects of the EU, UN, or global governance) when they are seen as eroding national self-determination. Foreign policy often favors realism over liberal idealism.

Foreign policy realism perceives nations as the primary actors each acting in behalf of its own interests. It's contrasted with foreign policy conducted on the basis of emotional feelings. Realism makes international behavior predictable and rational, as opposed to being a function of what each leader is feeling that particular day.

Foreign policy realism perceives the world as basically anarchical, in the literal sense of 'without a ruler', without a world government to which all the world's nations are subject. In contrast the 'liberal idealists' champion globalism by trying to create the missing world government. They emphasize international law without really specifying who writes that law and who enforces it. It's always just assumed that it will embody their own "liberal values". And somehow the United States has been drafted to be globalism's enforcer at our own expense.

The principle of sovereignty is based on the recognition of diversity. There are multiple cultures and traditions, not all of them consistent with one another. We can't just mix them all together and expect it to result in anything coherent. So let the Chinese do their thing, Islam another thing, and the West something else.

Cultural traditionalism: Defense of family, religion (often Christianity in Western contexts), and inherited customs against rapid social change, mass immigration without assimilation, and progressive cultural shifts.

Immigration can be a good thing when it's in the interest of the receiving country. Emphasis needs to be on whether the arrivals will be assets or burdens. And if that country's culture and traditions are to be preserved, immigrants will have to arrive in small enough numbers that the melting pot can assimilate them.

Economic nationalism: Preference for policies that protect domestic industries, workers, and communities—sometimes combining free-market elements with industrial policy, tariffs, or restrictions on immigration that is perceived to suppress wages.

Free-market arguments insist on treating people, especially migrants, as identical fungible work-units. Never mind that each of them has his/her own ideas, traditions and beliefs that might be wholly incompatible with the receiving country.

Free-market beliefs insist that offshoring strategic American industries to China is a good thing if China is a lower cost producer. It's why the United States doesn't have enough shipyards to construct a competitive navy and why so many of the world's most advanced computer chips come from Taiwan.

The reason why we won World War II wasn't because we had better soldiers. Germany and Japan had excellent soldiers. We won because we flooded the world with tanks, ships and planes. So what happens in the next war when China has all the factories?? I'm very much in favor of government policies that support and defend vital capabilities that we need to remain strong and competitive in the world. Even if it departs from free-market orthodoxy.

Critique of liberalism: Skepticism toward classical liberalism’s emphasis on individual autonomy, free trade absolutism, and open borders when these are seen as dissolving national particularity. It is distinct from both pure libertarianism and progressive leftism.

Both JD Vance and I see it as sort of a death wish that's driving the decline and eventual demise of Western civilization itself.

[Syne]

I think that JD Vance, and President Trump much of the time when he's following his better instincts, can be called National Conservatives. It's probably the political philosophy that I'm closest to myself.

Here's excerpts from Grok's description (with highlighting and additional comments by me):

National Conservatism is a political ideology and movement that prioritizes the nation-state, cultural continuity, traditional social norms, and sovereignty over globalist, cosmopolitan, or liberal-internationalist frameworks.

Core Principles

Nation as the primary unit: Strong emphasis on national identity, borders, language, culture, and history as the foundation of political legitimacy and social cohesion. It views the nation as an organic community rather than a purely contractual or abstract set of individuals.

The basic idea is that communities can only succeed if what draws people together is stronger than what pushes them apart. And given that so much of our ethical belief is what the academics call 'socially constructed', the social dimension that shapes each of us really needs to be acknowledged and protected from those who would destroy it.

Can government socially engineer the society, or is politics mostly downstream from culture? Attempts at social engineering seems to be a major liability of left-wing ideology. I doubt that Republicans joining that push would help. Now, we can limit immigration to those most likely to assimilate, but we already seem to have a fairly critical mass of malcontents and wannabe revolutionaries. And Democrats exploit all the division to keep themselves in power. How do you draw people togther when there's so much incentive to divide and conquer?

Sovereignty and non-interventionism (or selective intervention): Resistance to supranational institutions (e.g., certain aspects of the EU, UN, or global governance) when they are seen as eroding national self-determination. Foreign policy often favors realism over liberal idealism.

Foreign policy realism perceives nations as the primary actors each acting in behalf of its own interests. It's contrasted with foreign policy conducted on the basis of emotional feelings. Realism makes international behavior predictable and rational, as opposed to being a function of what each leader is feeling that particular day.

Foreign policy realism perceives the world as basically anarchical, in the literal sense of 'without a ruler', without a world government to which all the world's nations are subject. In contrast the 'liberal idealists' champion globalism by trying to create the missing world government. They emphasize international law without really specifying who writes that law and who enforces it. It's always just assumed that it will embody their own "liberal values". And somehow the United States has been drafted to be globalism's enforcer at our own expense.

The principle of sovereignty is based on the recognition of diversity. There are multiple cultures and traditions, not all of them consistent with one another. We can't just mix them all together and expect it to result in anything coherent. So let the Chinese do their thing, Islam another thing, and the West something else.

The UN, ICC, etc. all need to be dismantled. It is true that their authority only exists on the back of US might, and without any benefit to the US.

Cultural traditionalism: Defense of family, religion (often Christianity in Western contexts), and inherited customs against rapid social change, mass immigration without assimilation, and progressive cultural shifts.

Immigration can be a good thing when it's in the interest of the receiving country. Emphasis needs to be on whether the arrivals will be assets or burdens. And if that country's culture and traditions are to be preserved, immigrants will have to arrive in small enough numbers that the melting pot can assimilate them.

How do you defend Western Christian values in a country where roughly half the people have been brainwashing into hating those values? Can you enshrine them law so well that the next bout of Democrats in power can't reverse them and push ever further leftward and globalist?

Economic nationalism: Preference for policies that protect domestic industries, workers, and communities—sometimes combining free-market elements with industrial policy, tariffs, or restrictions on immigration that is perceived to suppress wages.

Free-market arguments insist on treating people, especially migrants, as identical fungible work-units. Never mind that each of them has his/her own ideas, traditions and beliefs that might be wholly incompatible with the receiving country.

Free-market beliefs insist that offshoring strategic American industries to China is a good thing if China is a lower cost producer. It's why the United States doesn't have enough shipyards to construct a competitive navy and why so many of the world's most advanced computer chips come from Taiwan.

The reason why we won World War II wasn't because we had better soldiers. Germany and Japan had excellent soldiers. We won because we flooded the world with tanks, ships and planes. So what happens in the next war when China has all the factories?? I'm very much in favor of government policies that support and defend vital capabilities that we need to remain strong and competitive in the world. Even if it departs from free-market orthodoxy.

I'm not sure I'd call exploiting the labor market of poor countries a free-market principle. I definitely don't think it serves a nation to outsource anything vital to defense.

Critique of liberalism: Skepticism toward classical liberalism’s emphasis on individual autonomy, free trade absolutism, and open borders when these are seen as dissolving national particularity. It is distinct from both pure libertarianism and progressive leftism.

Both JD Vance and I see it as sort of a death wish that's driving the decline and eventual demise of Western civilization itself.

But does Vance have any solutions that distinguish him from anyone else, like Rubio, DeSantis, etc.?
He does seem to want more government control of the economy... which would leave it vulnerable to the next Democrat in power. Seems shortsighted.
Would he have simply let Iran get nuclear weapons? I haven't heard a good argument from him how he would stop that... other than his many failed attempts at negotiation.

Rubio has sanctioned ICC members. Granted, he's in the position to take such actions, but what would Vance do, if given the option? I don't know, and that's the problem. He's good at talking... until he makes socialist sounds about "worker dignity" or negotiating with Iran.

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_VqYm239JPs