Holly Willoughby This will be a quick post about the absolute lolcow that is Allan Lichtman and how he horribly misjudged the 2024 US elections. I'm too tired to bother with headings and sheeit.

Allan Lichtman is an American historian and political analyst, best known for his development of the "Keys to the White House" model which he uses to predict the next US president. He has been correct 9 out of 11 times prior to 2024, and his model is regarded as very accurate. His method is based on a set of 13 true/false statements, or "keys," which take into account factors like the economy, the incumbent party's record, social unrest, and foreign policy issues. According to Lichtman, if six or more of these keys are false, the incumbent party is likely to lose the election; if fewer than six are false, the incumbent party is likely to win.

Prior to the 2024 elections he went on several talk shows bragging about his model and how confident he was that Kamala Harris was going to win. He gave Kamala Harris 9 out of the 13 keys to the White House.

Many people made fun of Allan Lichtman for being so confident, including Nate Silver. However, this did not dissuade Lichtman from sticking to his model.

Rightfully, folks are making fun of him for getting the prediction so wrong.

Here he is admitting he was wrong. What a cuck! He says he's going to take some time off to figure out why he was wrong

The Keys Missed pic.twitter.com/FzsVbKcXFf

— Allan Lichtman (@AllanLichtman) November 6, 2024

No more Allan Lichtman! Hand over the keys!

Ann Selzer is now pondering that her poll WAS right, but because of its release, Iowa voters got concerned Trump would lose and thus elected him by ~13 points, instead of choosing Harris by 3 points. pic.twitter.com/yhU2ihM3fv

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 7, 2024

!nooticers

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Jaime Harrison on Thursday responded to Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) accusations that the party has abandoned the working class, contributing to its loss of the White House and Senate on Election Day.

"This is straight up BS," Harrison wrote on the social platform X.

"Biden was the most-pro worker President of my life time- saved Union pensions, created millions of good paying jobs and even marched in a picket line and some of MVP's plans would have fundamentally transformed the quality of life and closed the racial wealth gap for working people across this country," he wrote, referring to Vice President Harris.

"From the child tax credits, to 25k for a down payment for a house to Medicare covering the cost of senior health care in their homes. There are a lot of post election takes and this one ain't a good one," he added.

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, issued a blistering statement on Wednesday asking whether "the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic party" will "learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign."

"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them," Sanders said, citing economic inequality across the country, the high cost of health care and U.S. support for the war in Gaza.

With results still trickling in, Harris appears to have lost the popular vote by more than 4 million votes, and Democrats lost key Senate seats that flipped control of the upper chamber into GOP hands.

A final call on the House is still up in the air, but Decision Desk HQ forecasts show Republicans with a strong chance of scoring a trifecta.

Sanders supported Harris along the campaign trail and said recently that he still considers her "progressive" despite her tacking to the center during a campaign that lasted about three months, after President Biden quit the race.

But his postelection rebuke of the party has sparked controversy as many in the party point fingers and search for answers about what went wrong on Tuesday.

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1glo2wn/what_we_can_learn_from_how_kamala_harris_lost/

I don’t want to get too sappy but I felt moved to give this word of encouragement to Kamala voters today pic.twitter.com/IZTuWooOYv

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 6, 2024

https://old.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/1glh435/removed_by_reddit/

https://old.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/1glgfok/ulpt_here_are_the_following_known_business_that/

https://old.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/1glnpfp/ulpt_request_how_can_i_annoy_my_christian_maga/

https://old.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/1glkfhn/ulpt_i_have_a_truck_full_of_latinx_i_drive_around/

https://old.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/1glewk1/ulpts_against_maga_supporters/

https://old.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/1gllzws/ulpt_i_met_a_closeted_guy_on_grindr_a_couple/

!oldstrags

!chuds !trump2024

We've just witnessed an extraordinary, devastating moment in the history of the United States. In 2016, we promised that our coverage of a Donald Trump administration would meet the moment -- and I think it did. Throughout those tumultuous four years we never minimised or normalised the threat of Trump's authoritarianism, and we treated his lies as a genuine danger to democracy, a threat that found its expression on 6 January 2021.

Now, with Trump months away from taking office again -- with dramatic implications for wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the health of American democracy, reproductive rights, inequality and, perhaps most of all, our collective environmental future -- it's time for us to redouble our efforts to hold the president-elect and those who surround him to account.

It's going to be an enormous challenge. And we need your help.

Last week, Guardian US media columnist Margaret Sullivan spelled out in black and white the threat to a free press from another Trump presidency.

"Trump," she wrote, "poses a clear threat to journ*lists, to news organisations and to press freedom in the US and around the world." He has, for years, stirred up hatred against reporters, calling them an "enemy of the people" and referred to legitimate journ*lism as "fake news".

Kash Patel, a potential Trump pick for FBI director or attorney general, has said, "We're going to come after people in the media" and Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump presidency, includes plans to make it easier to seize journ*lists' emails and phone records.

We will stand up to these threats, but it will take brave, well-funded independent journ*lism. It will take reporting that can't be leaned upon by a billionaire owner terrified of retribution from a bully in the White House.

If you can afford to help us in this mission, please consider standing up for a free press and supporting the Guardian today from just £1 or $1.

The work starts now.

She had a 90 page plan backed by economists for a working class economy. Trump had ramblings about Haitians eating pets. What fricking else was she supposed to have done?

Literally nothing else she could have done.

!chuds !trump2024 lmao what a landslide

https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/President/

This is MAGA country. You're just living in it.

As of writing, the election isn't over yet. While Trump has won, there are still states yet to be counted - but it would take a miracle to alter the map. MAGA has won the hardest it has ever won since being established. More EVs then 2016, the popular vote, Senate seats flipped, and likely the House is staying red. After needing a lucky break from Comey in 2016, getting crushed by a Blue Wave in 2018, losing in 2020 and the Red Drizzle in 2022 that saw the Dems gain in the Senate, Trump has finally achieved a total victory. America looked at what Trump offered, and it collectively decided that Trump had the stuff. For this little longpost, I want to first observe why I think Trump beat Harris - what Trump did right, what Harris did wrong, then analyse the results of this crushing victory.

The Campaign Trail

Trump's campaign, by most standard metrics, has been butt and fries . He had far less money then Harris , even with Musk's backing, a much worse ground game and was always held in a lower personal estimation then Harris. He was generally agreed to have lost the debates , and his surrogates Vance and Musk are some of the few men to be less liked than Trump . And christ, Vance deserves his own section discussing why he was such an awful choice - Rubio and especially Burgum would have been far better choices. But he was clearly doing something right, as can bee seen by his tremendous margin of victory. I believe his strengths can be tied to 5 big things;

1. The media game

Be it going on livestreams with Zoomer dipshits or going on podcasts, Trump was tremendously cunning about his media outreach. He was sure to stick to mostly friendly interviewers, only attending one neutral to hostile interview with Vance, and cashed in on the good will of the various dipshits to earn credibility to a mostly untapped demographic to win the election.

Vance proved himself a capable campaigner on this front as well. While Trump was fricking with Adin Ross, it was Vance that'd be on TV and getting into details with interviewers. Vance's approval rating was the lowest in the entire race, and he was a constant punching bag for basically anyone with eyes and ears - but this actually worked in his favour, I believe. When the voter hears about this sick freak that fricks couches and wants battered wives to stay in abusive marriages, and sees a fairly articulate and affable conservative, Vance sprints over and leaps over a bar set in heck. Perhaps they don't like Vance, but they don't loathe him like they may have expected too.

He's still r-slurred btw

2. Constant association with policy

This is a slightly esoteric one. It's not the policy itself, but the fact he was constantly addressing policy gave him a real sense of legitimacy. Be it his 20% tariffs on everything, planned deportations, states rights on abortion, his constant rejection of Project 2025 and No-Taxes-On-Tips - the actual policy doesn't matter, voters simply felt comfortable with a man discussing issues. I want to go a bit deeper into this when I talk about Harris' weaknesses, but the short version is that Trump isn't the "Frick You" protest vote he was in 2016. He's considered a legitimate politician, and the policy discussions enhanced this image.

3. Memories of 2018

Trump's greatest strength was long considered to be his status as an outsider, but the problem with that is that you can't be an outsider after you win and govern like a pretty normal Republican - he didn't really drain the swamp, he cut taxes and failed to end Obamacare. However - times were decent in 2018. Prices were low, Afghanistan was less a current occupation and more a memory, and the rest of the world seemed at peace. The Trump Presidency was many years ago - what's remembered, it seems, is that the President made mean tweets while times were good and Joe Biden was a nice r-slur that fricked everything up.

In essence, the outsider's new strength is his status as an experienced insider.

4. RFK Jr and the nutjobs

But you can never forget your roots. Kennedy Junior's Quixotic adventure ended with him becoming one Trump's top guys, being given some kind of Health job in the future Trump administration, did a lot to rebuild bridges with Trump's insane person base. Now, they always made up Trump's base, but for those disillusioned with Trump following his presidency, Kennedy throws them a lifeline. Tulsi Gabbard does something similar, to a lesser degree.

5. Having a weak opposition.

Why Kamala lost

Because Joe Biden is unpopular.

There are other reasons I'll get into, but that's the main one. She couldn't define herself as an agent of change, and that killed her stone dead. Joe Biden is associated with high prices and global instability, and as his Vice-President she was linked inexorably to that. No election is ever decided by a single event, but if it was, then it was this..

Definition was Ha-Ha Harris' problem in general. She never stuck to her guns on anything except abortion. She's the Democratic warrior fighting to ensure "We're not going back!" while promising to put a Republican in her cabinet, she loves policing and was prosecutor but don't worry she supports reform, she wants to crackdown on the border but in a progressive way unlike mean old Trump - it was just a mess of a talking out of both sides of her mouth. The consequences were simple - progressives were depressed by her flip flopping from her 2020 stances, while Independents she was courting were turned off by her flip flopping without an actual plan, and the conservatives she was courting by touting that fricking Cheney endorsement were worried about her 2020 stances.

Her lack of commitment meant that she was very easy to paint. Dropping Joe for Kammie could have been more than swapping an r-slur for a less r-slurred r-slur, but the Republican's admirable messaging discipline (they managed to go from President Biden's inflation to Vice-President Harris' inflation very smoothly) and her lack of concrete positions let the Republicans paint her as anything they liked.

Her Vice-Presdential pick was perfect - Walz remained the most popular person in the race, and honestly he was underutilised. He's fine giving speeches, but if Harris was refusing to give interviews, then it should have been Walz. Maybe picking Shapiro could have saved Pennsylvania, but even if it did, that still doesn't get her past 270 while pissing off other states even more.

As for the Gaza shit in general - to the degree it mattered, it ties back to Joe Biden. The average voter vaguely supports Israel, but isn't that invested in the war. The war is like Afghanistan - just another example of Biden causing problems where there were none before. The specifics don't matter. Not at all, as I'll get into later.

The question emerges from this - could Harris win? Was Trump's victory certain? The answer may surprise you.

The Results

The results are bad for Harris. She's the first candidate to lost the popular vote since John Kerry in 2004, who was the first to lost the popular vote since Dukakis in 1988 - and unlike Kerry, Kammie doesn't have an excuse like 9/11 to justify her piss poor results. The main reason Harris lost the popular vote are her poor results in safe blue areas. For comparison;

• Biden won New Jersey by 57%, Harris won it by 51%

• Biden won Illinois by 57%, Harris won it 53%

• Biden won California by 63%, Harris won it by 57%

• Biden won New York by 60%, and Harris won it by 55%

And despite what leftists hope , this can't be tied to Jill Stein and the Greens . Of the above mentioned states, Stein was only on the ballot in California and New Jersey, and she didn't do so well in the states that she managed to frick up her margins. While the precise results are being counted, looking at the key swing states;

• The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Pennsylvania are 130,487, Stein won 33,544 votes

• The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Georgia are 130,487, Stein won 18,162 votes (which means she came in 4th, after Chase Oliver)

• The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in North Carolina are 130,487, Stein won 24,289 votes

• The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Wisconsin are 29,634, Stein won 12,266 votes and came in 4th after RFK Jr

• Even in Michigan, Stein's best state, the difference is 81,750 and Stein only got 44,642 votes.

• The difference of votes between Trump and Harris in Arizona are still being counted, and has technically not been called for Trump, but as of now Stein is also behind Oliver there.

These results are a horror story. Harris is losing popularity in her safest spots, the left didn't cost her anything - the American people just liked Donald Trump and his platform a lot more. It looks like a devastating defeat for Harris at first glance... but what if, for fun, we add just 2% to Harris, in every state. Just a small upgrade. How does she do?

A measly 2% does not change the shocking collapse in safe areas. But it does massively alter the electoral college - Harris actually wins with just a 2% change, while still in all likelihood losing the popular vote. Despite the seeming dominance Trump's victory has presented, the coalition he's built is a bizarrely fragile one. It's difficult to see this coalition surviving social media and 24 hours news cycles... but that's J.D Vance's problem.

Why are people about 15million votes, it was less that 1 million that mattered because the only states that changed were the swing states.

Am I because I literally can't wrap my head about why the other 15 million matter, it's like "woo kamala lost 6 million votes but she still won california so those don't matter in the first place". good job you still won new york, it was closer sure but you still won it

Like I get it from a "kamala sucks" pov but you don't need to quantify that with a large useless number

I don’t want to get too sappy but I felt moved to give this word of encouragement to Kamala voters today pic.twitter.com/IZTuWooOYv

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 6, 2024

It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.

While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change.

And they’re right. pic.twitter.com/lM2gSJmQFL

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 6, 2024