Hell yeah! It’s time for another election. Who’s excited? I certainly am. Can’t wait for actual change to happen. Didn’t happen the last few elections, but I have a good feeling about this one. Absolutely everything is worse, but maybe if I keep showing up and voting for the same old garbage, we’ll be living in a utopia here soon. I can feel it in my bones! (That’s actually from the rickets because I can’t afford food for my family)
Our choices this year are the guy from Celebrity Apprentice who also owns a lot of tall buildings, and a lady who gleefully arrested so many people for dangerous things like weed possession and school truancy that she’s lovingly called “a cop”. Hell yeah. What a great lineup. One also loves tariffs (Trump) and the other bangs on about price controls (Harris). For anyone who’s ever read a basic economics book, both of those things are universally regarded as “not good” and don’t ultimately help the economy. So that’s cool I guess. Looking forward to the economy getting worse here soon. Might have to become a hooker.
The point of the article isn’t to remind you of how bad things are likely to get in the next four years because the U.S. has become entirely incapable of picking good candidates. It’s to give you my highly educated opinion on who is most likely to win this election. Keep in mind, if the candidate I choose loses, I shouldn’t be held accountable, because I’m some nobody on the internet. If the candidate I choose wins however, I will get to pretend I’m Nostradamus, and say “I told you so” for the next four years.
Why does my election prediction matter? I was right one of the two previously elections. I’m 1-1 with my election predictions over the last 8 years, which is far better than most people who were fielding predictions. Anyone remember this:
This is the election I guessed right. I had it at more like 35% Clinton, 65% Trump though. Most of these outlets were comedically wrong in 2016. They were so sure Clinton was going to win because she was so sure she was going to win. Hell, she was partially responsible for Trump being her opponent in the first place:
Her nefarious Disney cartoon villain plan backfired. She pointed an ACME brand cannon at her opponent, only to have it blow up in her face, and leave her looking like a soot-covered, Elmer Fudd. What a blockhead!
The 2020 election I got wrong because I didn’t have a clear vision of who was going to win. My crystal ball was cloudy. I was legitimately 50/50 on that election. In my view, it could have gone either way. That election was extremely close though, and it in fact could have gone either way. Come to think of it, I was like 50% right in 2020. I’m upgrading my record from 1-1 to 1.5-0.5.
All of this brings us to 2024. Who is going to win? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news (or good news), but this person will probably win:
Not Abraham Lincoln. The guy standing in front of the mountain of cheeseburgers. Former President Donald Deshaun Trump.
Why do I believe this? Because I’m extremely online and don’t live in an Echo Chamber™. I covered this topic back in either 2016 or 2020, I forget. The point I made was that a lot of these pundits are surrounded by people who think the way they do, and vote the way they do. If everyone you are surrounded by is pro-Clinton, why wouldn’t you think that Clinton is going to win? Even if everyone else in the world was anti-Clinton, you would still be under the impression that she had no chance of losing. Most journalists are completely surrounded by carbon-copies of themselves. Not a lot of diversity of thought or background in those environments.
Then there are the polls. Aren’t those reliable? Well, even the people running the polls don’t exactly view them as particularly reliable:
In the wake of everyone in the largely liberal polling industry having their wigs flipped by Hillary Clinton not winning in a landslide, they realized the polls weren’t as accurate as they had though. Something as simple as people of one political affiliation being less likely to respond or be honest on a poll could throw that entire poll off. I’m not sure if the pollsters accurately account for these sorts of things.
My predictions aren’t based on polls, because in my opinion, polls are just astrology for political science majors. There are too many flaws in the way that polls are conducted, and I don’t think they necessarily give an accurate representation of how a population will vote. I’ve seen multiple sources that put election polls at 60% accurate. That’s 10% greater than a coin flip.
My predictions are based on actual scientific data. Data that I’ve amassed from decades of working in a laboratory called “The Internet”. Youtube and Twitter are my beakers. Comments and likes are my empirical data. This analogy is corny.
The fact of the matter is this: Trump was president for 4 years and the world didn’t burn. We didn’t turn into a fascist state. As a matter of fact, Trump was a relatively milquetoast president. There are at least five Democrats alone that belong in front of Trump on a worst presidents list, one of whom Democrats continue to venerate to this day: FDR. The guy who ran concentration camps for Asians, instituted Jewish quotas in schools and industry, and was a legit admirer of Mussolini. All those things sound a little fascist to me. The “fascist” labels mean less coming from anyone who refuses to apply it to someone like FDR. These labels don’t scare off the average voter because they’re overused and essentially meaningless at this point.
Trump isn’t particularly sharp, lies a lot and has authoritarian tendencies. Kamala Harris embodies these things as well. Therein lies the problem. Harris isn’t some Obama-esque remedy to America’s ills. Putting aside that fact that he ended up being George Bush 2.0 in policy, Obama was intelligent, somewhat honest (for a politician), and wasn’t an optics nightmare. Kamala is unremarkable intellectually, dishonest, fake, not a good speaker, and comes across like she won a raffle at a state fair to get to be the presidential nominee.
Kamala Harris is also no Hillary Clinton. Clinton was intelligent, had a huge amount of political experience, and was optically presidential. Despite all that, even Hillary lost. There’s not a single metric by which Kamala is “better” than Hillary, except maybe age. Being unable to fathom Harris not connecting with voters outside of the blue-no-matter-who Democrat voters is kind of delusional. Luckily, thanks to the internet we can see how the average non-partisan potential voter sees these candidates. I present to you, YouTube presidential interviews.
Let’s see how Kamala is being received among the normal people of the world, outside of the curated, political theater of the mainstream media. First up is the Breakfast Club:
Half a million views in 2 weeks, and not a single positive comment in the comments section. That’s not looking too great. How about Club Shay Shay, whose Katt Williams interview from earlier this year is currently at 82 million views:
1.5 million views in a week is a lot better, but most of the comments are still ragging on Kamala. See how the the reality of her popularity is completely different than an outlet like CNN would have you believe? Let’s see what kind of numbers JD Vance is pulling:
4.4 million views is significantly more than any Kamala interview, and JD Vance isn’t even the one running for president. That’s pretty bad. The comments are also overwhelmingly positive. Let’s check out Joe Rogan:
Yep. 14 million views. For reference, the average Joe Rogan episode pulls about 1-1.5 million views on Youtube. You’ll notice a lot of comments under these interviews about Vance being more “likeable” than the media was portraying him. Here’s a tweet from one of Kamala Harris’s staffers engaging in a massive cope session over this interview:
Whatever gets you through the day and earns you that paycheck, Ammar. So how are Trump’s interview numbers? First up, let’s check out the Flagrant podcast:
7.7 million is not too shabby. Most of the comments are positive. Another thing to point out, is that a lot of these Youtube comments acknowledge that podcasts do a better job of presenting candidates to them than the heavily-edited, puff-pieces mainstream media presents. Let’s see how Trump fared on Rogan:
Those are some mighty numbers. 45 million views in 10 days is quite impressive. Unfortunately we don’t have a Kamala Harris interview on Joe Rogan for comparison, because Harris’s handlers won’t let her go on any program where they can’t dictate the topics and edit the final product. She’s that much of a P.R. disaster.
I’m sorry, but Kamala Harris is just a terrible candidate, and the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves if they lose this election. First they spent two years lying to the American public about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, then they replace him with someone who was polling so badly leading up to the 2020 election, that she had to drop out:
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg all would have been better selections for vice president. I’m legitimately curious as to what went on behind the scenes that led to three far more popular candidates getting passed over in favor of Kamala Harris. I’m sure it had a lot to do with the constant obsession the Democrat party has with the tokenism of firsts:
Taking all these “firsts” into account would explain why Harris, polling at a 2-3% favorability rating, beat out a bunch of other candidates who were polling significantly higher. The symbolism was ultimately more important than the favorability ratings to them.
Now, views on Youtube videos might not be the best metric for which way an election is going to go, but lets look at some alternatives. The Democrats got a lot of big-names celebrities to endorse Kamala.
Hell yeah. Lady Gaga and the dude from The Hangover… and The Hangover II… and The Hangover III. Solid endorsements Madam Vice President. Everybody thought for certain that these two individuals were going to vote for Trump. Who else do we have…
Cardi B? Aw hell yeah! That’s a WAP, that’s a WAP, that’s a mom’s spaghetti. This is also a surprise. I thought for certain that Cardi B was gonna vote Trump. I mean, celebrities endorse Democrats 99.9% of the time, so who would have though a celebrity would endorse the Democratic candidate.
The Avengers? No frikkin way duuuuuude. Marvel movies are my entire personality! I wasn’t even going to vote, but because a bunch of rich actors endorsed one of the candidates, I’m totally voting this year. Even the Hulk is endorsing Kamala? If this guy is endorsing Harris, count me in:
Ah yes. I love those dictators who are Democratically elected into office, do their term, then get voted out. I too have read zero history books and don’t know what words mean. Guys like this are just the liberal version of someone’s Fox News watching QANON grandfather. He believes EVERYTHING, uncritically, all the time. Sir… log off the internet and go spend time with your family. Who’s next?
Basketball man is voting for Kamala too? She really got every famous person out here giving her completely honest and completely non-paid endorsements. Since you can’t watch the video he posted here, it’s a Democratic propaganda ad that has back-and-white footage of police arresting and hosing black people during the civil rights movement. Sound clips from Donald Trump are overlaid that have nothing to do with the footage. Stuff like him saying “Ah, I love the old days”, and him making pro-police statements. Solidly edited video though. The type that would probably sway a very impressionable person. I mean, just look at that screen grab. David Duke supports Donald Trump? Can you believe that? I hope not, because he’s actually voting for Jill Stein:
David Duke is a pro-Palestinian guy, not because he cares about the Palestinians, but because he wants Israel to no longer exist. It is full of Jews after all, and the KKK sure loves the Jews. Trump and Harris are both far more pro-Israel, while Jill Stein is more of a two-party solution candidate. She’s critical of Israel, which is good enough for David Duke, since there is no explicitly anti-Israel candidate. Richard Spencer on the other hand is voting for Kamala Harris:
For anyone who forgot about Richard Spencer, he was the Nazi from the “Punch a Nazi” movement who disappeared from the media the second he announced he was a pro-Biden guy. Funny how that works.
As I already mentioned, celebrity endorsements are largely pointless, because a celebrity announcing that they are voting for a Democrat is about as surprising as finding out a fat kid loves candy. Finding out prominent white supremacists and Nazis aren’t endorsing Trump is probably more of the surprise here.
The thing that really pushed me into believing that Trump has a really good chance of winning this election, was witnessing the absolute desperation the Democrats stooped to in the final week. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this level of panic in an election before.
First, The Atlantic, a publication owned by Steve Job’s billionaire ex-wife Laurene Powell-Jobs, who is also a major Democrat donor, released a hit piece on Trump:
It’s the same predictable stuff every time. It’s never “Trump secretly admits to eating babies”, or “Trump poops standing up”. It’s always the same trite attempt to link him to Nazis somehow. Why does this stuff fool Democrats so easily? For the record, this article was written by the same Jeffrey Goldberg who wrote an article back in 2020 claiming that “anonymous sources” told him this:
That’s sounds pretty bad and would be a big deal if it were verifiable. Merely making a claim and telling your readers “people told me this, but I can’t tell you who” is barely journalism. How about I write an article stating “Numerous Hollywood actors told me that they secretly hate Kamala Harris, and are being paid to endorse her.” Would the Atlantic print that? Wouldn’t my lack of evidence seem a bit suspicious? Jeffrey Goldberg seems to have a pretty predictable beat as a reporter, but if Trump wins, he’ll get to write all sorts of dubious hit pieces for the next four years, so good on him.
Finally, just a few days ago, one of the most desperate political things I’ve ever seen happened. This is what sealed the deal for me that Trump has a really good chance of winning. This is the kind of low that could only happen if a party was really scared they might lose.
Oh my god you guys! Trump is a dictator and fascist (they absolutely love that word). He must have said something really bad if these two sociopaths are grilling him for it. These two historic liars are accusing him of “threatening violence” against Liz Cheney (The Democrats suddenly love the Cheneys now if you hadn’t heard):
So Trump the fascist dictator is threatening Cheney with violence. If only there were a way we could easily fact check this, but alas, it’s 1805 and television hasn’t been invented yet. If only we could simply watch a video of him and see what he actually said. Luckily for you, I’m from the future and have a transcript of what he said:
To anyone who isn’t severely mentally handicapped, or a complete liar (Cheney, Clinton, etc.), it’s obvious what he was talking about. “…they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying ‘oh, gee, well let’s send, 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’ He’s talking about politicians who send people off to die in wars for their own personal gain, something Democrats used to at least pretend to be against. ‘Let’s put her with a rifle, standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. Okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.” He’s saying if she wants to send people to war, she should have to go as well. Another sentiment a lot of Democrats used to at least pretend to be in favor of.
That party has become absolutely terrible in the last 15 or so years. It’s no longer the party it was, or pretended to be, back in the 2000-2008 era. Imagine hopping in a time machine and telling a Democrat from 2008 that their party would be pro-Dick Cheney in 2024. Imagine telling them how openly pro-war that party would become; that they became terrible on the economy, and public safety. They’d probably understand why Democrats are no longer the default party for a lot of younger people, who appear to be largely either pro-Trump or leftists now.
If Trump wins, his two terms are up, and the Republicans can go back to running some boring guy in a business suit, who at least acts civil and doesn’t call everyone names. Maybe the Democrats will eventually move on from being a party intent on leading the US into becoming some dangerous, third world tent city because they call everyone fascist who questions their increasingly terrible economic and social policies.
Regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc, people ultimately want to live some place safe. They don’t want to have to deal with terrible policies that increase the likelihood of their property being broken into or stolen, or their family or selves harmed. They don’t want their cost of living to skyrocket, only to be constantly gaslit into believing that “actually the economy is great”. Democrats really need to focus on righting course in this regard, if they have any hopes of continuing to win elections by any decent margin. Otherwise I guess they can continue to avoid self-reflection and just call everyone names, like children do.
Lastly, I kind of find it funny that Tim Walz and JD Vance are far more normal and relatable than either Trump or Harris. Imagine an alternate timeline where those two were our presidential candidates and not the others ones. I guess that would be kind of boring though.