Way back in 2016, I was hearing that the contest between Clinton and Trump was close, but with Clinton in the lead. I was dismayed that we would have four more Democrat years. I distinctly remember driving to The Genesis Center in Buffalo, NY, US on election evening to help present an instance of an Alpha course, thinking about what I was going to do to cope with the lefty Democrat who was purportedly going to hold the highest office in the country.
But then I heard "Bauerle and Bellavia" on WBEN-AM paint a different picture, one of a likely Trump Electoral College victory. Granted, Clinton garnered more votes than Trump, but that's NOT the way the election works. As an aside, for those of you who want to abolish the Electoral College, I'll be with you as soon as all States dissolve, and we are just one country (with no quasi-independent states). Until then, each state must have equal representation, both in the Senate and in electing the President. It's not like all candidates did not know this going in, and therefore would try to claim the rules changed midstream (or are unjust). They had ample chances to allocate their efforts and resources according to how the EC works.
I can't determine, and honestly don't remember, what America wanted that they saw in Trump but not in Clinton. But we have seen the outcomes, both in the media narrative of who was the likely winner leading up to Election Day, and the final result.
Fast forward to the time in which I write this. The media were saying it was so close, that Harris/Walz had at LEAST an even chance of winning the election over Trump/Vance. This time 'round, it was a both a hefty popular vote advantage, and a landslide EC victory for Trump/Vance.
Poor ole prognosticator Allan Lichtman figuratively took another one on the chin, but this time worse. Pollstradamus got it all wrong with his thirteen keys. In his previous predictions, you could at least say he predicted EITHER the popular winner or the actual winner, which he has been wishy-washy about. This time 'round though, he predicted neither accurately. His explanation to CNN was that, basically, the electorate has gone nuts and has voted irrationally. Well...hmmmm...how about, no, your system may have been good enough to track the early elections, 1860 through 1980, and project public sentiment up until MAYBE through the end of the 20th Century, but it has been on increasingly shakier ground ever since.
Sorry, bud...you either need better keys, or better interpretation of your existing keys. Having seen the YouTube video of you explaining this election, and how it was going to go Harris' way, you went at it assuming Harris to be the incumbent. This totally ignores that either could plausibly be considered the incumbent. The time in office from 2017 through 2021 is plenty enough to consider Trump an incumbent of sorts in this election. You seem not to have weighted the 1892 election heavily enough, which pitted another former President against the sitting President.
I will have to give lefties some credit though for having optimism. If the Wikipedia page for Allan Lichtman at the time of writing this is accurate, we can see he would seem to be a lefty with very positive hopes:
In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, amid widening calls by Democratic Party representatives, members, voters, and supporters of President Joe Biden to withdraw from the race in favor of another candidate with "better chances", Lichtman called that demand a "foolish, destructive escapade", accusing "pundits and the media" of "pushing" Democrats into a losing choice. He added that those calling for Biden's resignation had "zero track record" of predicting election outcomes.
Perhaps his optimism needs a reality check though. Having seen multiple gaffes of the President, I find myself worried that we could face something unpleasant due to his incompetence. I think history will at some future time show that Joe Biden is running this country about as much as Woodrow Wilson was. The only question is whether it's genuinely Kamala Harris, Dr. Jill, or somebody else.
The same goes for the way the mass media try to shape public opinion. They're going to present the best picture of stories which is commensurate with their agendas in the hopes that the same is also at least true enough to attact the most audience. I saw one YouTube video where one of the big three TV networks with a news division was showing how Hispanic voters were overwhelmingly planning to vote Harris. I thought that was an awfully specific thing to show, instead of showing what PEOPLE IN GENERAL were planning to do. They would all appear to need some correction, something that would steer them closer to what more people would call the truth.
It's implausible (though not impossible) for me to know why history has unfolded the way it has. Maybe the pollsters themselves are being lied to; when they called some Trump voters, maybe they got told they were a Harris voter, perhaps just because the voters thought that's what the caller(s) wanted to hear. Maybe pollsters are just as left leaning as much of the mass media, and they skew who they poll in favor of the lefties.
So, in short, if lefties tell you the lefty is close to winning the Presidency of the United States, don't count on it. Recent history predicts otherwise.
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when the speaker or writer chooses not to follow those rules.
"Jeopardy!" replies and randomcaps really suck!