And to answer your question, the video is a guest on the view who i don't know, saying the exact numbers i quoted. I was quoting the person on the view, which aired yesterday or something.
what's interesting, is instead of discussing what i said prior to the link, you chose to instead try and make me feel bad for linking a video.
Keep it classy, HN.
also what bias? I didn't make the stats up. Statements of fact cannot be insolent. If you disagree with the facts, then let's talk about that, and look for more data. However, what has happened in this thread is thinking i have an agenda, other than i think people need to hear what they were talking about - in that clip
The mentality that "it was real close to 50-50 and trump didn't get a majority of the vote and therefore we can keep on doing what we're doing" is what the video clip was talking to. It didn't work, and the tactics need to change if anyone wants to see change.
I don't care that people want to argue with me personally. But it's not doing themselves any favors, as it pertains to getting people elected they want to see in office.
Others had already rebutted your assertion at least as well as I could, so I didn't feel the need to repeat what had already been offered.
However, given your initial rationale:
>>note: not clicking that because you disagree with me is really doing yourself a disservice.
was a poorly constructed straw man. Which I noted. It wasn't that I was rejecting you, I was clarifying that I (and likely many others) come to HN to discuss matters of interest to us.
If I wanted to watch videos, I'd go to youtube and the like. I came to HN instead.
I'd point out that you didn't make clear that you were "citing your sources" with the video link.
Now that I know the source ("Stephen Somebody or other" who managed to get himself booked on some low-information blab fest to make his important pronouncement), my initial response, "[s]o tell me what you think, don't link to some rando on youtube," was spot on.
All that said, linking to video sources is absolutely reasonable. In fact, I've referenced stuff from videos several times.
But each time, I made sure to explain the context of the video, the text of the quote and, most importantly, who was being quoted.
As I did here:
The thought that the vote was "real close to 50-50" and "trump didn't get a majority of the vote" and "therefore we just need to do what we're doing and it'll work out OK in 2028 and the midterms" is what the video clip i linked was talking to.
Specifically, nearly every reply to my comment, other than yours, argued that "the number of counties that switched" is irrelevant, as if that happened by accident, as if your neighbors apparently changing from blue to red for the 2024 election isn't a bellwether of something else. Trump still got a plurality of votes. Asking "why" is something that needs to be done.
Nearly every comment assumed something about me, because i quoted a statistic. I knew, because i have been on internet forums for over a quarter century, that no matter how i phrased my comment, i was going to get downvoted and argued with.
Yes. Both of those things are true. Other folks correctly mentioned that.
>and "therefore we just need to do what we're doing and it'll work out OK in 2028 and the midterms" is what the video clip i linked was talking to.
Who said that? Not me. Not anyone else on this thread.
Rather, various folks rebutted[0][5][6] your assertion (whether you're quoting some rando or not) that "there absolutely is a mandate." Which is a ridiculous statement, as the current incumbent only received 1.5% more votes than his opponent. That's not a mandate, that's a squeaker.
What would constitute a mandate? Contrast the results with the 1972, 1984 or 1996 elections, which actually conveyed a mandate. Go ahead and compare the results of those elections (definitely mandate elections) with the 2024 presidential election where[4]:
Trump won the Electoral College with 312 electoral votes,
while Harris received 226...
Trump won the national popular vote with a plurality of
49.8%.
1984: "Reagan won re-election in a landslide victory, carrying 525 electoral votes, 49 states, and 58.8% of the popular vote. Mondale won 13 electoral votes: 10 from his home state of Minnesota, which he won by a narrow margin of 0.18% (3,761 votes), and 3 from the District of Columbia, which has always voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate."[2]
1996: "Clinton defeated Dole by a wide margin, winning 379 electors to Dole's 159 and taking 49.2% of the national popular vote to Dole's 40.7%."[3]
As you can see, 1.5% is a tiny margin compared with real mandate elections. So your youtube/The View rando is flat wrong about a mandate for Trump.
Which says nothing at all about future elections or election strategies for the Democratic Party. You're trying to put words in the mouths of others. Please stop.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43276767
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidentia...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidentia...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidentia...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43276365
[6] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43276669
Edit: Completed my comment. Apologies for any confusion after inadvertently posting an incomplete comment. Clarified prose too.
How many minutes did you spend writing all of this to me? The video i linked is less than 5 minutes long and it answers "rebuttals" you or anyone else has said.
you stop. :-)
I'm going to assume that you're operating in good faith and really don't understand (is English your native language?) not just being deliberately obtuse.
And more's the pity.