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.
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.
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.
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.