aquascoot wrote Yesterday at 4:45pm:


Barron told Donald to do these podcasts to reach the younger audience.

Kamala refused to go on Rogan she only appeared on democrat friendly programs that wouldn't ask hard questions.

Indeed gents.

The left don't seem to have the equivalent.
And they are all a bit in awe of rogan

Rogan may be the best communicator I have heard.
Most of his guests don't interest me.

Sam Harris is perhaps the best anti Trump podcaster.
But he hates Islamic extremists with a passion and the left don't want to know him

aquascoot wrote Yesterday at 6:20pm:

Rogan doesn't consider himself a right-wing conservative.

No, not even close. Over 80% of all voters in the USA election attest to having made up their minds before September!!
Basically the contest was already over and the whitewash coverage by the dying legacy "main-stream" leftist, biased, media and useless pollsters had no clue, AGAIN.
There were plenty of hints regarding that reality. Virtually no-one had Trump winning the Kamala debate and all the media promulgated the line Harris smashed him.
Despite that, even their own polls afterwards showed almost no movement to her.
That's because almost all minds were already made up and the unheard, abused, berated and censored voting MAJORITY weren't budging.
Everyone keeps looking at the "Gimmicks" and missing the real underlying truth.
Basically the last 2 months barely had any effect.

MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 9:21pm:

True, most polls failed yet again.
The only major polling group to at least predict a Trump win, also happened to be the most accurate polling group in Bidens 2020 win: AtlasIntel
You can bet the "Left" billionaires will be targetting gaining control of that data analysis group.
They seem to be the only major polling organisation capable of actually performing.

Source: https://atlasintel.org/poll/usa-national-2024-1710

goosecat wrote Yesterday at 9:23pm:

I like Lichtman's take on pollsters and polling characterising the machinery of it as the Pollster-Media-Political complex.

The money to be made by pollster and media companies during an election cycle drives the false paradigm of a two-horse race running neck-and-neck to the finish line... only to find that, far from a photo finish, the winner won by 3 lengths and they all likely knew it.

Politicians buy into it as it keeps their message fresh in the mind and reduces complacency a predicted 'done-deal' imposes.

The modern-day exception would be that of Clinton in 2016, indicating that pollster and media companies just churned out garbage in Clinton's favour due to her gender, and its ground-breaking relevance, challenged only by an L Ron Hubbard-esque conman.

Lichtman's greatest flaw in the interpretation of his keys, I believe, was his decision that:

There was 'no social unrest'. As a young man of the 50s and 60s, Lichtman measures social unrest as riots, upturned cars, looted shops, burning buildings, tear gas and water cannons. He said as much citing the 60s and BLM riots. He is a social-media illiterate - relying on his son to get him through his podcasts, so discounted that Millennials and Zoomers are likely to use social media to express deep dissatisfaction - unrest - without leaving the house. That and his discounting of peaceful protests because, in his words, 'they were nothing like the civil rights, Vietnam and Watergate protests of the 60s or the more recent BLM - George Floyd protests'.

That would have brought his keys from 9-4 in Harris's favour to 8-5.

Lichtman then determined that 'no foreign policy failure' went to the Democrats, calling Ukraine a foreign policy success. That and the Afghanistan pullout fiasco which he didn't bother with at all.

Had he called either one of those a foreign policy failure, as at least one of them could have been called, that would have brought his keys from 8-5 to 7-6 - which would have predicted an incumbent party loss, which it was,

Lichtman will be giving his post-mortem tomorrow, so I'd be interested in what he fesses up to.