Figures
-
Table 1 - Raw Votes & Voters 1980 - 2016
-
Table 2 - Exit Poll Percentages 1980 - 2016
-
Figure 1-A - Votes by Margin in Popular Vote 2012
-
Figure 1-B - Votes by Margin in Popular Vote 2016
-
Figure 2 - Charts By Gender Breakdown
-
Figure 3 - Charts by Demographic Breakdown
-
Figure 3-7 - Demographic Breakdown by Calculated Vote Totals 1980 - 2016
-
Figure 4 - 538 Swing-o-Matic Default Results
-
Figure 5 - 538 Swing-o-Matic Actual % Results for 2016
-
Figure 6 - MSNBC Swing The Election - Data
-
Figure 7 - MSNBC Swing The Election - Chart
-
Figure 8 - 538 Swing-o-Matic 2020 potential
So, having talked about it for about two years (or more), here is my Electioneering post, on why the Democrats have misunderstood their own understanding of the demographic breakdown of their own voters, and how their own statistics are fooling themselves, particularly in regards to white voters.
I've put the history of how I decided to look into this back in 2016 in the comments, along with why Trump's win in 2016 validated the Electoral College
Studying 2016
After discovering that the Democratic narrative about Trump's win in 2016 was wrong by the evidence of margins of votes, I decided to take a look at how the exit polls could tell me what happened.
In 2016, 538 released an app called the Swing-O-Matic which allowed you to play with the turnout and partisan lean for 5 demographics: Black, Asian/Other, Hispanic, White College Educated, White Non-College Educated. You can see from Fig 4 just how far off the Default results were using the 2012 data. I decided that I would try to play with the Swing-O-Matic's sliders until I got to the actual results of 2016. For each demographic, even for the collapse in black turnout which the pollsters said was hugely significant to the outcome, the result really didn't change. Hillary should have still won by a significant margin. Only a one or two states flipped. However, when I adjusted the sliders on the White Non-College Educated demographic, over half-a-dozen states flipped blue to red.
Suddenly, it was wildly clear, by Fig 5, what the hell happened. White non-college educated voters were absolutely decisive to winning Trump's election. All this crap about white women not voting Democrat, black voters not turning out, and Jill Stien was just horse shit. That didn't matter. Even if Trump won 50% of the Black vote in 2016, he still would have lost the election. White. Votes. Matter.
So... how the hell couldn't the Democrats have seen this?
I listened to some astonishing things in 2016. I listened to NPR announcers be audibly shocked that white men were the only demographic to have a decreasing life expectancy, as if they'd never considered that a possibility before. I listened as, over the past 2 years, I had heard that white people were not just making up fewer and fewer Americans, but that the actual percentage of the population seemed to be wildly changing. Supposedly the white population was decreasing, this was somehow a good thing, and that states that were too "old and white" like mine weren't going to matter in elections going forward. Again, NPR. I even heard claims that the whites in America made up as low as 53% of the population.
But that's wrong. They make up 73% of the population. The Leftists are sniffing their own farts about race.
So, I decided to tear apart all the results I could of the exit polls. I needed to see the raw vote totals instead of just what one percentage or another was each year. I decided that I could calculate something akin to the original raw vote totals from each demographic by party, through taking the total number of raw votes, finding the corresponding vote numbers for each demographic according to the exit polls, and then find each party's raw votes in each demographic by the split of each of those votes. I could do this all the way back to 1980, which was when I first found demographic exit poll breakdown. You can see these calculations in Tables 1, 2, and 3 above.
Something jumped out at me immediately. White votes absolutely fucking dwarf every other demographic. Not by a little either, but by everything. Donald Trump, damn near won the whole election on white votes alone, and that re-enforced my original point. But more than that, the Democrats basically haven't been able to reliably break 36 million white votes. And there's 98 million white voters out there. They need damn near 70 million votes to win anything!
Looking at Fig 3-7, you can see the serious problem that Democrats have with white voters. They need vast amounts of non-white voters to make up the lack of white votes. They need as many as they can get. Black votes are especially dire. They need significant & absolute majorities of every non-white demographic, and damn near the entirety of all Black turnout. All of it. Whites only made up 55% of all Democratic votes in 2016. Let me repeat that. They only managed half of 73% of the country. That is a fucking disaster. The Democrats are rabid race-baiters... because it's all they can do to win at all.
Looking at Fig 3, the historical breakdown is fairly stark. Please note the collapse in white voters for Republicans in 1992. We'll be talking about Ross Perot very soon. But 2 things to note in the historical demographic break down are: a) Donald Trump had some of the largest numbers of non-white votes in Republican party history (not-racist confirmed), b) the change in 2016 in demographic numbers is very significant. Hillary lost nearly a million black voters. That is a bad loss that would have been a serious set back in every election. But this time, the fact that Trump gained 1.3 million white voters on top of that Democratic loss is the thing that blows everything else out of the water. The scattershot placement of those white voters is a ton of different states is what gave him the win.
Understanding 2020
Knowing what we know now, all I can say is that the Democratic situation is even more absolutely dire. Trump is absolutely have significant gains in Black, Asian, and Hispanic votes without question. Hispanic Catholics and Anti-Socialists will be turning out. Disaffected blacks, pro-masculine blacks, and blacks that have benefited from stronger immigration controls are going to push Trump probably past 15% of the Black vote. Asians who have been explicitly targeted by Democratic racial laws, are anti-China, and have seen the US improve relations with South Korea, India, and Japan are all going to be happy to support Trump. On top of that, Cop Kamalla and Crime Bill Biden will probably collapse black support even further for the Democrats. But none of that actually matters.
Take a look back at Table 3. Remember Ross Perot? Look at the split in 1992 in total white votes compared to both Dem & Rep white vote totals. That's a lot of white voters voting for an eccentric billionaire, running against a corporate establishment, and focuses heavily on fixing NAFTA. Gee, fucking remind you of anyone? Well, that's not the only thing. Due to their sheer size, white voters can swing by millions at a time. Even small percentage changes lead to many millions moving about. But white voters swung by 5 million votes or more 5/10 times since 1980. No other demographic even comes close to that. The depth in numbers that white voters will wing is pretty substantial too. Look at 2000-2008. 5 million gain. 8 million gain. 3 million gain. Whites can seemingly pour out of the woodwork.
Several groups have claimed that they expect over 150 million voters this year. That basically guarantees that there will be more than 100 million white voters for the first time in American history. A lot more than 100 million. Look at Table 3 again. 150 million voters would be an increase of 12 million voters from 2016. Do you really expect that to come from almost entirely blacks and hispanics? I don't think so. I think the number of hispanic voters might fall given the fact that immigration control has improved, and during times of economic hardship, the US undergoes an outflow of migrants. For blacks, you have a lot of Black National Socialists calling for revolution regardless of who wins. It is far more likely in my mind that blacks will have smaller turnout than in 2016, and so will hispanics. I'm willing to bet that we're looking at significant white turnout. Especially given the anti-white Black National Socialist rhetoric in their schools, jobs, and entertainment. Let's not forget that the Left has apparently abandoned the midwest, working class whites.
I think that we are looking at 8 to 12 million white voters... and I'm not sure that the Democrats are even get a third of that. They might even lose white votes. Let's split the difference between 8-12 and call it 10 million more white voters.... Literally no one is ready for 10 million more white voters.
Hey.
Hey.
Wanna see a whitelash?
That Swing-O-Matic from 538 has a decedent. MSNBC calls it the Swing-The-Vote, but it's basically the same thing. If we adjust for the 12 million more white voters that I expect, and 15 million total black and hispanic voters (which would be steady for hispanics and a loss for blacks), and we swing non-college educated white voters to the right a bit. We get percentages that look like Fig 6, note that even a swing of 12 million white voters, still shows only whites with 73% of the total vote, which would be very deceptive to anyone looking at only the relative measurements because it would be a 1-point increase in the vote share. But, like 2016, the effects are dramatic. For the map, see Fig 7 Minnesota is apparently in play if the Biden campaign's actions are anything to go on... but no one has said shit about the others. Virginia is supposed to be confirmed for Biden. Nevada is still supposed to be confirmed for Biden. Maine isn't up for discussion, nor is New Mexico. The Democrats are pretending that Ohio and Texas are in play... they've entirely lost the plot. They simply do not seem to recognize the disaster that is befalling them. Florida stays, Ohio stays, Pennsylvania stays, Michigan stays, Wisconson stays, Texas stays. And then states they aren't even prepared for are up for grabs.
Unfortunately, MSNBC doesn't give us any information on how close the individual states are. The 538 Swing-O-Matic can do that for us. The demographic information is out of date, so it's prediction off of my results are more in favor of Trump but it does tell us the states that are absolutely neck and neck... and it's all bad. Really bad. Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, even Illinois.
The point to take away here is that Minnesota is a swing state, not Ohio. Not Texas. The battleground states are places the Democrats aren't even looking at. And the states that could surprise people, are ones they aren't even imagining are in danger. Oregon, Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Washington, New Jersey... Illinois? It's similar to the same fatal mistake that Clinton made. They were sure Ohio was the swing state. But it was Wisconsin, it was Pennsylvania. And now it's going to be even worse, because these demographic calculators don't tell you anything about how the people on the ground are effected by the riots. If Oregon flips, the political shock-wave will be devastating.
Get your fucking popcorn boys.
Electoral Majority of >350, and an indisputable popular vote win.
Questions
But Gizortnik, how will we know if "it's happening"?
Watch New Hampshire. Trump lost New Hampshire by a smaller vote margin than your local school levy. He lost by 2,736 votes. If the white vote swings hard for Trump, New Hampshire should be a solid win.
But Gizortnik, every good hypothesis should be falsifiable. What would make yours wrong?
I'd have to be completely wrong about white people. It would have to be massive minority voter turn in a scale that would be enormous. Bigger black turnout for Obama in 2008, bigger hispanic turnout than for Bush in 2000. That, and white people would have to just be dissolutioned with Trump, and a whole bunch would be going for Biden. ... I'd have to be fundamentally wrong about literally everything I just said.
But I don't see how that's possible. It must be my lying fucking eyes again. I live in a "swing state" according to the Democrats. But I also live in a red county with a majority white population. On Saturday and Sunday, when the building is closed, the Board of Elections parking lot is filled with people hand delivering early votes to a secure box. Do you know how long the early voting line was 2 weeks ago on a Wednesday? A half hour. A Trump convoy passed by my house for a second time today.
If I'm wrong, it is because I'm living in a bubble the size of my fucking county.
And Historically Speaking, platform to platform, Trump-Biden looks a lot like what happened with Nixon-McGovern and Reagan-Mondale.
I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 (I didn't vote for President at all): not because I didn't like what he had to say but because I didn't think he'd do any of what he said he would. I voted for him this year.
He's no longer a wild-card: like what he's doing or not, he is a known quantity. Given his legendary in-party approval ratings, seems like a lot of people are in the "like" camp; and it's the sort of approval that would cause people to crawl over broken glass to vote for the guy. Republicans haven't had that since Reagan, so it throws the "normal" models of voter turnout and enthusiasm out of whack.
The other thing is, especially in Blue states, people are to an extent using a vote for Trump as a proxy-vote against lockdowns and mask orders, and for a return to normalcy. Could be one reason why Trump's rallies are so huge: there's not really any concerts or sporting events you can go to, so Trump's the only game in town.
If voter turnout in Seattle is low, is high outside of Seattle, and Trump flips enough of the Union Dems he might have a chance at Washington. Enthusiasm seems higher for Trump than in 2016, but I don't know if it's high enough to flip the state. We also have a decent number of Yuppies who will vote Biden, so it becomes a question of Republican turnout and whether there are more defecting Union Dems or more Yuppies.
Yeah... I voted Hillary. I'm glad she lost, otherwise we'd be on our way to a real shooting war Civil War.
It's fucking unbelievable. The only comparison is Eisenhower. Trump's got much more approval in party than Reagan had.
That's one of the reasons the raw data is way more useful than the relative percentages. Take a look at the demographic information of Asians and Hispanics. Both have significantly increasing numbers of voters, but the Republican one is just a lower level. The relative statistics doesn't tell you any of that, it actually hides information.
Similarly, it seems like few votes are really swinging from one party to the other, it mostly seems like voters who align closer to one party or the other, either do or don't turn out. Again, you don't see that in the relative analysis.
I agree, this and the riots are real wild cards in how they'll effect states that shouldn't be even up for consideration. I think California will still go Blue, but it will be a lot closer than people expect with all these lockdown orders. Those huge private fireworks celebrations on July 4th, despite an explicit ban on them sends one hell of a message about the possibility of civil disobedience.
The union votes are absolutely huge, but I've still got to ask what the riots and unrest are doing to the Dems. It's probably galvanizing the Republicans and Independents, particularly in rural areas, but it might also be silencing Dem voters in areas effected by them.
I think the bigger flashpoint might be Oregon where all of the same issues are in play, but there might be an angrier Republican and Independent blowback considering some of the crazy shit the Governor's office has been doing.
In 2016 I believe that only three counties (Puget Sound) in Washington state voted blue, the entire rest of the state was red zone.
If I recall there were lawsuits or something because several of the dem electoral college reps refused to vote Clinton, and voted for some indigenous person instead.
If you believe this map it was more than 3. But a lot of those counties were light blue. Tip some of them to light red, and tip some of the ones that were light red in 2016 to deeper red and it might be possible.
Clinton won all the urban areas in WA, and the college town county where Washington State University is. 11 counties in all. Everywhere else went mildly to deep red.
Oregon has the same problem, Portland and University of Oregon counties drag the rest of the state Democrat.
This all started because I was very interested in 2016 about how Donald Trump won the election when the polls were so wrong. I was also very curious about how Donald Trump could have won the Electoral Vote so significantly but have lost the popular vote in such a significant manner as well.
At the time, I was studying physics in college, and I had a bit of experience dealing with tabulating raw data. I had seen, first hand, how statistical analysis of raw data could be done poorly and lead people to incorrect conclusions, but if you had the raw data in front of you, you could troubleshoot where you went wrong. To my astonishment... no such raw data exists, only exit poll percentages. Worse, only relative percentages. It was actually telling us anything useful about the actual votes themselves. When I found the US Election Atlas, I found the vote breakdown of each state, down to county for elections, and I finally had some numbers to work with.
So I decided to first answer: "How did Trump lose the popular vote, but win the electoral vote, by such a significant margin?" The media, Democrat, and pollster narrative seemed to be that Donald Trump was just very coy about how he won very specific states, and snagged an electoral victory. This discrepancy between the popular vote and electoral vote is cited as why you need to abolish the Electoral College.
To test this theory, I decided to create a chart that would show me the vote margins from left-to-right, smallest-to-largest. Democrat votes would be positive, Republican votes would be negative, if the sum was a positive number, that was a margin for Democrats, if the sum was a negative number, that was a margin for Republicans. If we assume that the country was reliably voting Democrat until Trump squeezed out a win by electoral votes, we should see most of the margins in the blue segment. For example, we see in Fig 1-A that Obama continually maintained a steady line of popular votes in the blue segment of the chart, no matter how big a sudden Republican gain was. Alternatively, if the election had been highly polarized among the states, we should see the line on the chart oscillating like a sine wave back and forth between equilibrium.
But Fig 1-B shows us that isn't the case at all. Instead, what we see is a strong, steady gain in Republican margins right up until Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and California are calculated. Those four states basically account for the entire popular result to Hillary Clinton. The margins in those states, if you look closely, swing the popular result from 5 million votes for Trump to 3 million votes to Clinton. That's an 8 million marginal vote swing in absolutely rabid Blue states.
The popular vote result was not from a Blue American electorate. It was just from 4 rabidly Democratic ones, where Democratic voters were just pilling on their own wins. Trump couldn't win those 4 states under any circumstances. But those 4 states would have negated the popular vote win for Donald Trump for the other 46.
This is when I knew something had to be wrong with the narrative interpretation of the data. The narrative was that Trump had stolen the election. The data was showing us that he really had won it decisively.
To quote one of my physics professors:
Good post. Interesting read.
I would argue that America is most definitely not 73% white if you correctly understand that "white" is shorthand for European white. Media and academia are not talking about Hispanic or Arabic whites. Subtract them and we're at ~62% white as of ten years ago. That number has been going down by 4-5% every ten years for the last several decades. Take into account illegals numbering as many as 20+ million and it's entirely possible that America is already closing in on a non-white (European) majority inside of ten years.
And that's there argument too. That Hispanic or Arab white are fundamentally not part of the white voting block, and are therefore vote and think in totally different manners. However, I'm not willing to support that claim because it doesn't seem to mesh well with their own narratives, and it's why they are fooled by their own claims. When those same people admit that "Hispanic is a political affiliation" rather than a race or ethnic group, then they are basically throwing any concept of ethnic or racial demographic relationships out with any of these measurements. These are abstract political categories at that point, nothing more.
To be honest, that's not really a surprise when "Hispanic" and "Latino" are supposed to mean "everyone south of the Rio Grande in the Western Hemisphere". Hispanic/Latino doesn't represent anything of real value. These are statistics about abstractions on top of abstractions. The actual ethnic groups, genetic groups, culture groups, or religious groups are far more distinct and useful to understand, but it's not a useful feature of demographic statistics. FFS, the concept of "Asian" is ridiculous on the face of it.
Exit polls divide the voting blocks into non-Hispanic white and Hispanic (all). This needs to be accounted for when comparing it to the population of the U.S., it also is important when finding trends within States that are heavy in non-Hispanic whites.
You can't just extrapolate the exit polls to the 73% white population number which includes white Hispanics and Arabs
As for Arabs, they are 52% Democrat, 26% Republican, and 22% Independent
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-poll-suggests-arab-americans-politics-are-similar-to-other-minority-voters/
More relevant information you can dive into
White birthrates on political spectrum:
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/among-whites-conservative-libera/
White birthrate by State:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/13/states-birth-rate-2017/
Here's a collection of polling data.
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/02/non-whites-of-every-stripe-vote-democrat/
The exit polls don't do that by the counts that I've been using so I don't know where you got that from. Furthermore, I don't need to know what the baseline population is. The base numbers I'm working off from are raw vote counts. Those votes are separated into percentages white versus hispanic in the exit polls. Not white hispanic and white non-hispanic. In fact, the only numbers that they've been using recently was to separate out white college educated and white non-college educated.
The rest of that stuff isn't relevant, or is stuff that are already in what I've written.
Interesting analysis, thanks for that.
As a Europoor I'm hoping for a biblical Trump landslide where fucking California turns blood red, just because at that point I'll hear the autistic screeching all the way over here. I'm not here for any more cringe compilations, I want to see TYT's studio turn into that scene from Event Horizon while they livestream everything because noone's sane enough to turn the camera off anymore.
However I can't help but wonder how much cheating Democrats will get away with. The reports have been coming in for ages, and let's face it, Broward Country will probably still be "discovering" truckloads of ballots on Christmas Eve 2021.
On the other hand I also wonder how much they shot themselves in the foot with their insistence on mail-in voting. I saw an article somewhere, saying that, ahem, certain demographics that are more likely to vote Democrat are having trouble correctly filling those ballots out. And on top of that, didn't the Supreme Court just tell them to fuck off if they want to keep counting mail-in ballots after the election is over? Of course, the cheating could just make that irrelevant.
Oh and I just remembered - a few years back some states made some kind of a "pact" where they promised to give their electors' votes to whoever wins the popular vote in all of them, or something of the sort - basically to screw their own voters and go around the Electoral College. What happened with that, could it be a factor? It's been in the news briefly in like 2018 and I haven't heard of it since.
Honestly, I think you're going to get it.
For Europe, I think there's even better news. I'm expecting his re-election to cause a preference cascade in the US among our population. As with Communism only a few decades ago, this preference cascade may collapse many other Leftist systems. It doesn't mean that everything will change. But a savage blow may be dealt over the coming years.
These numbers are potentially suggesting that it's not going to be enough. The voter fraud may be targeting entirely the wrong states. Let's just straight give Biden Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida due to fraud. What the hell happens if the Dems lose Oregon, Minnesota, and Illinois? This is the value of attacking the enemy in the places they don't expect: their counter-attacks are completely inappropriate and expose themselves to disaster.
Worse, I don't think we should be giving up those states so easily. Even with significant voter fraud, mass voter turn-out favoring Trump (which is what they are getting wrong) means that the Dems have to pump millions fake ballots out to stay ahead of the genuine numbers.
Simply put: Even as the most fraudulent vote in American history, I don't think it will be enough
Badly. Very badly. It took me about 15 minutes to understand how to even assemble the damn envelope correctly. A ton of votes are not going to be usable. Worse, they actually thought that the postal service would be their key to final victory. Who the hell relies on the post office? Of course they're going to lose the mail! They always do!
That was my biggest concern. The Interstate Popular Vote Compac. They wanted to end-run the Constitution. They didn't have enough states to sign onto the Compac, but I did worry that there would be Free Electors that would just choose to vote against whatever their state decided. In previous SCOTUS cases, the vote of the electors was part of the 1st Amendment, you can't tell someone how to vote. I actually concur with that assessment... But the most recent Supreme Court did not. SCOTUS ruled (I think last year) that Electors can't defy the rules that State Legislature sets for them in order to vote. That means that without all of the states signed onto that compac, there can't be "Free Electors". They have to vote the way the legislature tells them to. That basically killed that scheme.
And it may not have worked anyway. In 2016 there were several cases of Free Electors. Most of them switched from Hillary Clinton to Trump or a 3rd party. They were dragged back into line by the courts, but it doesn't change the effect that the Democrats were the ones hurt by Free Electors, not Trump. The same thing might have happened in 2020 if it had been allowed. Imagine Biden winning in Arizona, and a bunch of electors voting Trump anyway. lol
Yeah, that's what I'm really hoping for with this election. Well, that and Cenk Uygur clawing his own eyes out on TV.
Anyway, fingers crossed. I'm gonna go stock up on booze and make a bingo card.
I wish you good fortune and success.
There was a gotcha on my ballot. Right on the back, after you seal it. It says you have to sign (again, I think, IDK) the ballot. I'm lucky I saw it. I don't know who this helps but there are going to be a shitload of people that didn't sign the outside of the ballot.
Yeah, I had 3 sets of instructions with mine. You were actually supposed to fill out the ballot, then put the ballot in an identification envelope (where you signed it), and then put that in a return envelope. Smartly, they did put a checklist on the outside of each envelope to make sure you did what you were supposed to, but the fact that I got the ballot with incorrect folds so that it wouldn't fit into any of the envelopes wasn't a good thing. I had, when I left the BOE:
I definitely spent 45 minutes walking myself through the thing before I touched the ballot.
That's a lot of material but I will just add some anecdotal evidence to the theory-
Two white male adult members of my family age 46 and 68, who have never voted before in their lives, became registered voters for this election. Neither of them is voting for Biden.
I have similar anecdotes. Low information and politically uninterested individuals basically only voted after they came to me and asked me what the heck was going on every 4 years. They became unemployed from covid, which allowed them to become... medium information voters, and fans of Steven Crowder. Guess who their voting for?
I saw an interesting observation the other day that the "souls to the polls" initiatives the Dems normally have getting people to vote after attending church services aren't getting near the turnout this election as they have in years past because...people aren't attending in-person church services.
It also was for black congregations. How popular do you think transgenderism and godless communism looks to those people?
Where did you put your real money? I made a basic Trump bet.
More gold & silver.
I tried to bet on the election, but it was too late, and I don't have a crypto wallet yet. That shit is confusing as fuck.
If you watch today's episode of Beauty & the Beta, she talks about having her coinpurse account shutdown and all the subsequent trouble. She's done with crypto.
I mean, this is kinda the problem. You shouldn't be just storing value in wallets. You use the currency to transfer it to assets. That's why I'm okay using a crypto to buy stuff, but not to hold anything. You'd honestly be better off with stocks at that point. Most of the stocks you choose won't just zero out.
I mined one block of 50 bitcoin back in the late aughts when GPU mining became a thing and I had a rig with dual video cards. Did it more or less for shits and giggles. I sold them all when the price doubled that of gold. Used the money to buy another 60 acres of farmland.
Damned Kulaks
No, but really, that's entirely sensible.
Crypto is dumb.
Bitcoin is still a fiat currency.
It's nothing but a glorified pyramid scheme. The people telling you otherwise just hope to get others to buy in so they can profit more before it collapses.
Bitcoin has the 51% problem and China controls most of the mining operations. You can fork it when something like that happens, but now people are comfortable with moving en mass to the latest money update. The next update can be whatever the Cathedral wants.
It doesn't meet the definition of a pyramid scheme. It's not really fiat either.
Dumb might be more correct.
It's absolutely fiat.
Bitcoin has a cap, has no real-world value, and is heavily controlled by central-banking consortiums.
In regards to being a pyramid scheme, that's because everyone with half a brain knows the golden days aren't gonna last forever. As soon as confidence drops the value is going to plummet or maybe even disappear entirely. So those who bought in now need to keep recruiting and keep morale high so their investment doesn't die.
Ergo a pyramid scheme.
That's true of all investments though. If no one wants a thing, there's no demand for it, and it doesn't have value.
That's not a pyramid scheme. A pryamid scheme would involve you selling worthless things to take someones money, and then telling the people you sold the crap to to sell those things to other people.
People who are fucking around with BitCoin aren't selling BitCoin to other people for US Currency. What's driving the price up is people buying it without more to sell. A pyramid scheme would require that all the people wanting BitCoin would get it, and then sell it to someone else.
If that happened BitCoin would zero out within hours.
I can't figure out if I have any better trust in crypto anyway. I have it set up and with a very tiny amount in it, but still it's just magic electronic money. I like it's concept as a cash replacement in such a way that most people used cash, meaning an anonymous untraceable exchange of funds. I just don't trust it to hold up at all in a collapse of the world economy type scenario. Not that I totally trust gold in that respect, but at least it's stood the test of time.
I need to get into gold and silver more, perhaps in the physical sense. I've always operated under the assumption that I was totally screwed if the US dollar collapses, but I think I'm getting to where I've built up enough funds to move on from that mindset.
I've actually said for years that Crypto will probably be used in a local economic collapse. Particularly in Africa. In Africa, many people have cell phones. A lot of payments are even made through them. If another Zimbabwe style hyper-inflation took place, I'd bet that people would simply move their money into a crypto currency and start trading with that while the government collapses. A version of this actually occured in Venezuela when the currency collapsed there and people were storing their money in video-game credits in WOW.
I don't look at gold and silver as an investment, but as a store of purchasing power. I have two silver bullets I bought for about $150 and they're worth a lot more now. Making money off of these things would involve just shifting from one asset class to another. However, if I just sit around with dollars in my bank, I'm actually losing money from perpetual inflation, and not by a small amount either.
We're all totally screwed if the US dollar collapses, even me. If the dollar dies without Trump being able to replace it, I'm not trading in Silver, I'm trading in wood and copper. However, if the US dollar gets hurt (which it will) Silver and Gold will preserve the purchasing power you have now.
Here's what I would do as a recommendation to people who are nervous. Go out and buy Silver coins as gifts for your friends, and buy a stash for yourself. Spend $200 on it. Then, watch two things happen: a) Your friends will cherish the silver you buy them because they will almost instinctively recognize it's value. b) Watch, as time goes on, what you can buy with your little stash of silver, regardless of what the price is.
This should teach you two things. One, that people do have an understanding of value when it's placed in their hands, so it's not like your investments will mean nothing. Two, that no matter what the markets are doing, the value of your silver can be transferred into a different asset because your silver always has some purchasing power.
Optimally, currency should always have purchasing power, but we are probably entering into a time where inflation will start to spike and we'll be looking at people being confused by numbers going up, but the actual value of those dollars going down. Meanwhile, your little silver pieces seem to "adapt" to the crazy market while they sit there and do nothing. This is because your silver is preserving your purchasing power for some period of time, and probably better than your currency is. That's why gold & silver are money. It's a store of value.
To make gains on holding gold/silver, it involves exchanging them with other asset classes, but that can be something I can explain at another time. The primary reason I have gold/silver as money is because I know that the purchasing power of that money will hold up far better than the fiat currency we currently have.
That assessment of crypto makes a lot more sense with it being an independent avenue for transactions and not for investment. I think that's why I've been wary of just dumping it full of money.
I do think I'm going to go with some silver and/or gold for a lot of reasons you mention. Mainly the first point really--I want a store of purchasing power. Particularly something with a universal underlying intrinsic value.
Same.
Well, that's why leftists fucked up the immigration policies of all "white countries" so that the foxes run the gates to the henhouses and make sure only properly democracy- and Western culture-hating pieces of two-legged shitpests get in.
What they want is a dependent population that can become a reliable voting block using a kind of party-boss system.
But the interesting takeaway here is that plan is out of desperation at this point. They might have done it originally to gain a small edge, but now it's become a crutch that will cause them to collapse if it ever looses steam.
This is why Trump winning over minority voters is so important, it collapses that system. Trump wouldn't win with 50% of the black vote in 2016 because that would only help him in places that he was basically going to lose anyway without white voters. What it does do is break the Democrat coalition. It puts them on the defensive. They need absolute unanimity from their racialist coalition. Trump doesn't need 20% of the black vote, but the Democrats have no choice but to need over 85% of the black vote. Trump is on the offensive.
Did you factor in our worse halves trying to screw us over now that they have a chance at getting a woman in power that's as biased as they are?
See Fig. 2, just for you.
The trend doesn't show that the party votes are all one sided, but we are in a time of notable polarization between men & women.
Now I'm curious, could Trump win with these numbers :
70% of white men. 25% of black men. 55% of Hispanic men.
35% of white women. 5% of black women. 15% of Hispanic women.
Notable polarization is because Trump is promising to fix the damage, while the left promises to force "equality".
One thing is for sure, if women are the cause of a Trump loss, it will almost certainly wake up the damn tradcucks.
He'd absolutely win with those numbers. Thing is, I think the numbers for both white & black men are substantially higher. White women is also higher. But black women might still be lower.
Women are not going cause a loss for Trump, frankly, only Trump could cause his own loss.
How do you know that those 10 million are primarily turning up for Trump, and not turning up because they hate Trump with a burning passion?
We all live in our little bubbles, both online and in the real. If you visit thedonald, they're expecting a huge blowout for Trump. If you visit r/politics, they're expecting a huge blowout for Biden. Who is right? They can't both be right. Your county as you acknowledge is also a bubble. This sub is a bubble (although one forced on us).
Let me give you a few counter-observations:
You say the media polls were hugely wrong, but that's not entirely the case. 538 gave Trump a 30% chance to win on election day. That's better odds than flipping heads a coin twice. So while the polls may have been off, they weren't actually hugely off and well within the margin of error. And the polls this time are a far wider for Biden than they were last time.
You said that Trump might get 15% of the black vote... but last time was Hillary, and this time it's Obama's VP and Kamala Harris who is actually black herself.
Visiting the relatives in middle-ish washington (near the cascades) should be solidly red. But I'm seeing a far more Biden signs than there were Hillary signs in 2016. Anecdote for sure, a bubble... but still.
Mate, I hope you are right, but I fear you are engaging in wishful thinking. Mostly, I think you are underestimating how much people HATE Trump and are turning up to vote purely for that reason when they ordinarily wouldn't.
Man, I don't know who's right, but I know for sure that r/politics is wrong. They've been very consistent in that for the last half a decade, the average poster there is either fifteen years old, or not American, or crazier than a shithouse rat - often some combination of these.
The average poster there isn't a real person.
Most are either bots or shill accounts.
This is why I added my "falsification" question.
Like I said, I'd have to be completely wrong about white people. If they were all voting for Biden, this would be a massive break with tradition. White voters would have to be trending in the opposite direction. It would have to be as dramatic a turnout for white voters to Obama in 2008. Biden would be getting nearly 45 million white votes. White voters would have to feel abandoned by Trump, not do I not see that, I see the literal opposite.
This is the point of my post. The polls were off in their assessment of white turn-out, and a nearly margin-of-error shift in that white turnout is what gave Trump the victory. Nate Silver didn't see it from his data because he didn't want to. It's his website I used to make all this.
Those things aren't better for the Democrats. I saw a lot more black support, or even any support for Hillary. Blacks, particularly the racialist identitarian Leftist base, aren't even interested in voting for Biden. The Black National Socialist movement wants a revolution, not the author of the Crime Bill and a prosecutor. Most of Trump's gains in percentage, will be loss in raw black voters for Democrats.
You'll note that Washington wasn't in my prediction. It's a possibility that Washington could happen, and I'd put money on it, but only $20. I'd put $200 on Trump winning. (I literally tried, but I couldn't do it because I tried to late)
I think you might be underestimating how many normies have turned around for Trump, and how most people are apolitical until the Leftist politics starts yelling in their faces... that's when they decide to vote Trump.
That's the thought process that has me all twisted on the election right now. While I was already well down my thought process of America is totally doomed and we're just delaying the inevitable, the events of the last couple years has unintentionally forced everyone into a bubble, regardless of what side. I even quit participating in things that should be totally apolitical have either become political or divided in the same type way. I've disconnected from so much just because of the mindset of "X (non-political thing) is factually good because of Y (list of opinions)". Basically I got tired of opinions being sold as fact.
So, while my gut this time around goes with a Trump victory, I'm very cautious that I've been duped by being more isolated to one side of the discussion.
Title is kinda racist. Replace "White" with "Black" in an equivelent post, and you'll see what I mean. Try to come up with a less divisive titles. Stop trying to widen the chasm between black and white.
The title of the post is fine. What's racist is the willful ignorance by the left in their effort to balkanize races for the establishment's own political party boss system, while using a Black National Socialist movement to fund their campaigns and re-institutionalize racialism into both the American cultural zeitgeist and it's political and legal institutions.
I'm not tolerant of the intellectual class' desire to become the final arbiters of race in a modern United States of Lyncherdom. The chasm between white and black Americans is intentionally constructed by establishment and leftist forces for political power and protectionism based on race. The purpose of racial justice is that division.
After all, the Holocaust was the most successful Racial Justice program in History.