Trump just won the election

[mikbone]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm obviously super biased, but I hope Tim Walz makes another run at the White House.

Pete Buttigieg in my opinion would have been a much better choice.

Tim Walz best quality is coming up with the commentary these guys are weird.  His political career was irrevocably harmed by that terrible debate.

[Phoenix_person]

42 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Pete Buttigieg in my opinion would have been a much better choice.

Pete underperforms with black voters, a demographic that's already on shaky ground for Dems.

42 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Tim Walz best quality is coming up with the commentary these guys are weird.  His political career was irrevocably harmed by that terrible debate.

The debate wasn't his finest hour, but I honestly have a hard time taking criticism like that seriously from Trump voters. He's lucky his debate was against an incoherent Biden instead of Kamala.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

Pete underperforms with black voters, a demographic that's already on shaky ground for Dems.

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Y’all might want to stop spending all your hope on polls and demographics and start listing to the concerns of the population.  Just sayin.

[Phoenix_person]

47 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Y’all might want to stop spending all your hope on polls and demographics and start listing to the concerns of the population.  Just sayin.

I agree, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Walz. At the end of the day, it was Kamala's campaign, not his. Walz governed the bluest state in a very red part of the country, was one of two DFLers EVER to represent MN-01, and there's a good chance that the next DNC chair will be Walz's current DFL chair. There were a lot of problems with the Harris campaign. Walz is far from perfect, but he was one of the few bright spots, imo.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I agree, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Walz. At the end of the day, it was Kamala's campaign, not his. Walz governed the bluest state in a very red part of the country, was one of two DFLers EVER to represent MN-01, and there's a good chance that the next DNC chair will be Walz's current DFL chair. There were a lot of problems with the Harris campaign. Walz is far from perfect, but he was one of the few bright spots, imo.

One of the things I worry about concerning the democrats in general is that they had no objection in supporting candidates that they had no part in selecting democratically.  That they are so tied to blindly following their party elites or blind hatred of the other party that despite all the accomplishments of Trump (like the Abraham Accords) they could not see that their party choice was worse (like bringing the country to the precipice of nuclear war.)

Trump has his faults but most of the country realized he was better than the democrat party offering.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 13, 2024 by Traveler

[Carborendum]

8 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I agree, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Walz. At the end of the day, it was Kamala's campaign, not his. Walz governed the bluest state in a very red part of the country, was one of two DFLers EVER to represent MN-01, and there's a good chance that the next DNC chair will be Walz's current DFL chair. There were a lot of problems with the Harris campaign. Walz is far from perfect, but he was one of the few bright spots, imo.

I find it fascinating that you're defending him in this manner. 

A lot of the liberal news sources were saying that Kamala's choice of running mate was a primary reason for her loss.  They didn't dare criticize Kamala herself.  It was Tim's fault. 

FTR, I couldn't really follow their logic on it.  But a lot of the leftist media was saying that.  A lot of the statements were repeats just like they all started saying "weird" all on the same day.

It was... well... weird.

[Carborendum]

I can't believe this.  We still don't have certainty on the House.

216 goes to Team Red.  There are 5 more that are looking promising.  But the remaining votes to be counted/reported are too great for such a tight spread.  We still don't know who is going to control the House.

And we still see only 70% reporting from just a few districts.  What on earth is holding them up?

[Phoenix_person]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A lot of the liberal news sources were saying that Kamala's choice of running mate was a primary reason for her loss.  They didn't dare criticize Kamala herself.  It was Tim's fault. 

I don't follow liberal media much these days. They're clearly more interested in hysteria than actual journalism, something they have in common with their conservative counterparts at Fox and Newsmax.

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But a lot of the leftist media was saying that.  A lot of the statements were repeats just like they all started saying "weird" all on the same day.

It was... well... weird.

Was it liberal media or leftist media, and what leftist media outlets are you following?

 

Conservatives have their sock puppet sayings as well. Calling everything "woke" or "DEI", weaponizing "Christ is King" against Jewish people, etc. Honestly, it was kinda refreshing to see my governor just go around calling MAGA dip💩s and weirdos. Why should we always take the high road with a guy who communicates almost exclusively in ad hominem? Give him and his cult a taste of their own medicine, I say. I'm not saying it was a great strategy, but I don't think Trump true believers have much leeway to complain about Dems insulting them. Playing nice didn't get us anywhere.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

7 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't follow liberal media much these days. They're clearly more interested in hysteria than actual journalism,

That's something we agree on.

[NeuroTypical]

31 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Conservatives have their sock puppet sayings as well. Calling everything "woke" or "DEI"

lol I actually said "I now speak fluent woke" in Sunday's Elders Quorum.  The lesson was on how to be united and cast aside division.  Both in the church, and with humanity in general.  I briefly relayed my joining a diversity allies networking group, just so I could find the most different people I could possibly find, and see if I could love them the way Christ commanded me.   I was reinforcing Elder Bednar's point that getting to know people helps you love them.   

I don't know what a sock puppet is, or how it differs from a dogwhistle, but I really did find the experience analogous to having to learning a new language so you can talk to people.   

(And when I shared similar thoughts with the diversity ally people, I also phrased it in terms of "learning woke", and we all chuckled.)

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

The lesson was on how to be united and cast aside division.

That’s a sweet message, but I’m highly skeptical of all calls for unity-they mean “unite under my values.” In a church, sure that’s fine. In the real world of politics, it’s either incredibly naive or an outright lie to call for “unity.”

[NeuroTypical]

7 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

That’s a sweet message, but I’m highly skeptical of all calls for unity-they mean “unite under my values.”

We talked about it.   The call for unity absolutely was focused on the saints uniting as one, with one theology, one set of values.  But there was also talk (both in the lesson, and the discussion) about the things humans can and should unite on, and how that doesn't require agreement on things like religion or politics.

You couldn't swing a dead cat in October's General Conference without hitting a speaker talking about love and setting aside divisiveness and getting along and finding ways to respect people.

 

[Phoenix_person]

26 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't know what a sock puppet is, or how it differs from a dogwhistle, but I really did find the experience analogous to having to learning a new language so you can talk to people.   

It's a slightly nicer way of saying "sheeple". Dems ran with that "weird" thing in lockstep the same way MAGA does with "woke". It's just an overused robotic term that engrains itself in the party messaging. I thought the "weird" messaging was cute for, like, a week maybe. After that, it kinda seemed like forced regurgitation.

24 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

That’s a sweet message, but I’m highly skeptical of all calls for unity-they mean “unite under my values.” In a church, sure that’s fine. In the real world of politics, it’s either incredibly naive or an outright lie to call for “unity.”

This is my real issue with "DOGE" (and my eyes can't roll back far enough every time I see that). I'm all for reducing government waste and increasing efficiency, but it needs to be a bipartisan effort. I hear Dean Philips may have some free time soon.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

45 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

and finding ways to respect people.

I think this is the key. 

Of course, as a religion, we'd like people to be united under our same values.  And similarly in politics, we want our values to win out in free and fair elections.

But when all that fails, can we still try to find something that we can point to and say "I respect this about you" ?

[Carborendum]

Wow!  Some people are considering it newsworthy that Don Lemon quit X in protest of the election results.  I didn't even know he was still doing.. anything.

Also in the news... The Guardian is also quitting X.

[NeuroTypical]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Don Lemon quit X

Who?

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The Guardian is also quitting X.

Who?

[Phoenix_person]

47 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Wow!  Some people are considering it newsworthy that Don Lemon quit X in protest of the election results.  I didn't even know he was still doing.. anything.

Also in the news... The Guardian is also quitting X.

A lot of people are, myself included. I'm actually fairly upset with myself for breaking one of the Cardinal Laws of the internet: Don't feed the trolls. Doomscrolling is an easy coping mechanism during election season, but certainly not a healthy one. And at the end of the day, X (I'm finally ready to stop calling it Twitter, that's not what it is anymore) actively rewards trolls via ad revenue sharing. THAT'S why things have gotten so much more heated over there under Elon. Professional trolls and grifters are farming ragebait for engagement, and I fell for it along with many others in both parties. Wherever Fuentes is currently hiding (his address got leaked online), he's still doing victory laps because he knows a big revenue sharing check is coming from Elon. I'm not going to participate in that toxic nonsense anymore.

 

ETA: And no, I don't think it's newsworthy that anyone specific is leaving. I'm more curious what the total loss of activity (and ad $$$) will be over the next few months.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

A lot of people are, myself included. I'm actually fairly upset with myself for breaking one of the Cardinal Laws of the internet: Don't feed the trolls. Doomscrolling is an easy coping mechanism during election season, but certainly not a healthy one. And at the end of the day, X (I'm finally ready to stop calling it Twitter, that's not what it is anymore) actively rewards trolls via ad revenue sharing. THAT'S why things have gotten so much more heated over there under Elon. Professional trolls and grifters are farming ragebait for engagement, and I fell for it along with many others in both parties. Wherever Fuentes is currently hiding (his address got leaked online), he's still doing victory laps because he knows a big revenue sharing check is coming from Elon. I'm not going to participate in that toxic nonsense anymore.

That's really interesting.

I can't really speak to that with any authority since I've never had an X account.

[mikbone]

Even NBC threw in the white towel.

[Phoenix_person]

11 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Even NBC threw in the white towel.

By... reporting the news??? I know media bias is real, but c'mon.

[Carborendum]

I'm not sure which ones NBC is counting.  But the AP is still saying 216.  The razor thin margins that are leaning red are overshadowed by the remaining votes to be counted. 

There is a district in CA that is probably good to call.  But that only takes us to 217.

Maybe the statistical analysis has been done to provide a probable outcome that I'm not aware of.  I'm just looking at the votes and percent reporting.

I'm also surprised at how many districts the Republican may win only by plurality.

OK, it seems like CNN and CBS also agree with NBC.  But for some reason AP has a different take.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Maybe the statistical analysis has been done to provide a probable outcome that I'm not aware of

As a stat guy, we are useless now. We all thought Kamala would preform much better than what she did. 

For now stat guys are useless.  

[Phoenix_person]

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK, it seems like CNN and CBS also agree with NBC.  But for some reason AP has a different take.

Most people on my side will tell you AP is the one to go by.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Carborendum]

12 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Most people on my side with will tell you AP is the one to go by.

Yeah, the reason I went with AP as my go-to source was that they actually gave the vote breakdown and percent reporting.  The other sites only gave the final results.  That wasn't all that assuring.

So, according to AP, there is still a chance you're side would win the house.

Also note: NPR is also calling it for the Repubs.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

50 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

As a stat guy, we are useless now. We all thought Kamala would preform much better than what she did. 

For now stat guys are useless.  

I've been trying to explain to some Democrats I know that Trump's win was functionally a foregone conclusion, but *only* if you paid attention to what people were actually saying, which in turn meant turning off the mainstream news networks and engaging with people both in person and on social media. 

Anyone who did so realized that large swaths of multiple demographic groups were feeling alienated by modern society and unheard by the Obama / Biden / Harris machine. For example, there are a *lot* of people, men and women alike, who saw those trendy "The future is female!" t-shirts (et al) and asked "if the future is female, then what place will men have in that future?". Or whenever people brought up their concerns over inflation, Harris (et al) would frequently punt or offer a non-answer instead of giving a concrete solution. 

Cue various individuals coming in, seeing this void, and offering themselves up as a way to fill that void. This has led to a backlash against not just the Democrats but the larger progressive movement, which Trump was able to tap into. 

I - and others - tried to warn those we know who are Democrats that this was coming, but far too often they refused to listen or just presumed themselves the betters of anyone who didn't vote as they did.