The US elections offer many lessons \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

1185 sats \ 28 comments \ @Taft 6 Nov Politics_And_Law

One of them is that the virtual reality created by the media and their motivated polls is far from the actual truth.

Where have the polls gone that showed the candidates "neck and neck" or that favored Harris? What happened?

This shows that a large part of the American media was against an individual, but that individual has the majority of American voters behind him. This part of the media wasn't projecting what was happening, but what they wanted to happen. Their polls seem to have created a fictional reality.

An illustrative example of this illusion was the reaction of a Sky News journalist who, even when she saw the numbers, still refused to accept reality, saying: "It's not a vote for Trump, it's a lack of support for Harris."

Meanwhile, the numbers show that Trump has improved his vote share in many states compared to 2016, unexpectedly flipping some counties from blue to red.

What do you call this kind of journalism?

view all related items

450 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Nov

I don't think it's wrong to highlight "lack of support for Harris". She's particularly unlikable and that usually works out poorly for candidates.

465 sats \ 7 replies \ @freetx 6 Nov

There is an element to truth to that. But, a specific dislike of Harris doesn't explain also capturing Senate + House + Governors......probably many state legislatures also flipped....It was a complete repudiation of the status quo.

Having said that, I agree that it wasnt necessarily a vote of support of DJT the person, however its really just semantics after a point.

From an economic-theory standpoint: The whole debacle really highlights the classic command-control economy vs decentralized free-market. I mean that in the sense, that a tiny group of wealthy power brokers ran the democrat campaign, there was no real grassroots support....thus they were burdened with making all the decisions and they over-estimated their ability to do so.

That small group of ultra-wealthy are fairly tone deaf and evidently are "on the spectrum" in terms of social IQ. Their resulting attempt went heavy on over-the-top rhetoric and the very obvious emotional manipulation. It was sort of like watching a hysterical high schooler argue her point....People just don't react well when you simultaneously try to arrest/kill a candidate and sanctimoniously preach about "preserving democracy" at the same time. Obvious retard is obvious.

217 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 Nov

My real hypothesis is just that people are sick of the all the leftist nonsense we've been subjected to for the past decade. The extent to which people really like Trump seems to be related to him not bowing to the left.

460 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 6 Nov

sick of the all the leftist nonsense

Once the CNN panel realized Trump was likely to win, Van Jones' reaction was to grieve for a bunch of identities, black women "whose head will be held lower tomorrow" because they continue to not be seen and trans kids. Not escalations of war or economic issues. The identity stuff isn't irrelevant, but expecting the federal government to fix whatever plight black women experience is off base, and giving it maximal priority is out of touch.

Another democratic panelist mentioned that their party believed abortion rights would carry the election. Maybe when you're so privileged that the economy doesn't impact you, or you're confident your money and connections will allow you to escape the impact of all of our wars, abortion is your chief concern. But come the fuck on.

1845 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 6 Nov

There's a concept in economics called "lexicographic preferences". It's basically when someone has such a strong preference for something that they won't make any tradeoffs regarding that thing: i.e. they'll take whatever amount of that thing they can and then move on to their less preferred goods.

My sense is that many women have a lexicographic preference for pro-abortion policies and they'll vote for the pro-abortion option, regardless of what else it's bundled with.

I don't know how the left achieved this trick, but it's a very strong political force. Where I think they may have screwed up this election is allowing abortion protections onto state ballots. That allowed women to separate their abortion preference from Kamala. They could secure the abortion policy they wanted, without having to opt into all the other bad economic and social policies that normally come with it.

76 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 6 Nov

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 6 Nov

Out of touch is putting it mildly.

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 6 Nov

I think what you said is the right angle....

By not obsessing over "never offending anyone", DJT displayed confidence. He is not going to pander because he is not a slave to your opinion of him.

Meanwhile the duplicitous leftist candidate, who painfully crafts messages designed to be "inclusive to all" winds up appearing weak and needy. They are in a sense a slave to public opinion.

Simple laws of attraction, as exemplified by boy-girl interactions, show that people are repelled by weakness and are attracted to strength.

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 6 Nov

Yep.

15 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Nov

I have a friend who worked with the California Attorney General's office. Everyone there is super left wing. They all hated working with Kamala. They couldn't stand her because she is a "lazy incompetent bully".

165 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 6 Nov

I mean... she was a terrible candidate when she ran for president. She's about as fake as you can get. And that's saying a lot for a politician since they all are fake.

97 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 6 Nov

It's worse than being fake. Gavin Newsom is fake, but no one can deny his political skill and speaking ability.

Kamala is not only fake, but her ability to speak a coherent thought is at a middle school level.

45 sats \ 2 replies \ @DesertDave 6 Nov

Not journalism at all. I feel for my Dem friends who thought they had a shot. I remember that feeling the first time red man won. This time, since I didn't care, I knew he was winning. Interesting. Another day, back to work.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @sangekrypto 6 Nov

That's all that happened, don't add any more, whoever wins, we will still be at the bottom, we ordinary people, will not be able to be part of the winners.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @DesertDave 6 Nov

Let's focus on building a new future together.

55 sats \ 5 replies \ @Satosora 6 Nov

Its weird how this happens. Maybe he was right about the election being stolen last time?

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 6 Nov

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 6 Nov bot

https://xcancel.com/DylanLeClair_/status/1854153692569883061

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taft OP 6 Nov

Probably

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 6 Nov

indeed, indeed. Makes you wonder

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @oliverweiss 6 Nov

If so, what prevented them from stealing the election this time?

22 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitByBit21 6 Nov

It's just the same old rigged system working as expected. Modern democracy is a manipulation game to make people think they have a real choice. Mainstream media are the demagogues of our time.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 6 Nov

Once again, this was a middle finger to the media. They can't learn from their mistakes it would appear.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 6 Nov

It's more a complete repudiation of the Democratic party, and voters are agreeing that they are too far left. I disagree that the response should have been to give one individual essentially unlimited/now unchecked power to those on the far right (Super majority on supreme court full of his own appointees, control of house and Senate, plus governors), and ignore all the rhetoric and behaviors since 2020 by that individual. But nothing can be done about that now. We will have to wait and see just how much was rhetoric and how much is turned to policy. The country needs a true centrist, but that seems unlikely and perhaps will never come again. Time to double up on efforts to stack sats and increase personal control over data and communications.

6 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 6 Nov

polls are probabilistic and on comparatively small samples. A few points one way or the other can easily go past them but over millions of voters it's gonna look like landslide

plenty of modelling (say, Nate Silver) struggled with one-off effects in 2020 and 2022

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 6 Nov

There's also no real way to control for the selection effects of who decides to respond to polls, not to mention whether people answer polls honestly.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Nov

Public polls from ABC, NYT, WaPo have ulterior motives like voter suppression

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @flat24 6 Nov

All our lives they have manipulated us as they please, and they have manipulated information at their discretion... but today in 2024 they are unable to cover all the holes left by the bad government that the Democrats had been developing. and I think that is thanks to freedom of expression and the internet. Nowadays people with good ideas or bearers of the truth can be heard and can evade censorship on the different platforms. Which leads to more people seeing the facts and questioning themselves. Many will remain asleep and will not be able to see the light even if it is in front of them (like that journalist you mention) they have already been adopted and have no salvation, but in the process there will be those who wake up to reality, inform themselves with all the free sources that exist on the internet and evidently do not believe the lies that they try to transmit to them through the idiot box 📺 and the traditional media that live seriously controlled.