608
Considering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from now
(sh.itjust.works)
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
608 points (94.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3576 readers
213 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The original comment to which you replied said "Millions of people stayed home. I really doubt Gaza was the reason for all of them."
We've agreed that millions of people did stay at home. So I don't see the problem. Yes, they often stay at home. That's the problem. When it's two of more of the same it's more understandable. But both sides have been pretty clear about what's at stake. And they still stayed home. That's it. And you've agreed that 1/3 of the people didn't vote.
Not sure how the op was untruthful or misleading or based in any way "off of feelings and emotions".
Millions of people chose to allow this to happen. And yeah, Gaza wasn't the reason.
Yeah the reason was that the public is tired, but no more then normal. Blaming this on voter turnout due to a single issue is..... silly. I agree with the first statement but not the idea that this election had low turnout, this was a referendum on the status quo. The result was clear (not one that will be good) and this post truth finger pointing just pisses me off, the race was not even close. Do you think if another 15 million people got off the couch they would have not voted for Trump? That is just about as arrogant as you can get.
Meh...dunno.. even the stupidest of the people I've spoken to have agreed that trump is bad and were outraged by some of the stuff he said/did. And people always claim that when people show up to vote, the Dems win. Not a fact I've bothered to check, but it does work for the past few elections.
Yes, I would agree in the past. But in this case 15 million votes would have to be very strategically placed to change the outcome (basically worse then the gerrymandering the Republican party is called out for). I don't think people are rationally looking at these election numbers and are just falling back to the old rhetoric. For fun try and put 15 million votes down and change the result.
Ok, I didn't look at the states that Harris won, because that would've taken longer and complicated things.
Only looked at states that trump won.
Interesting fact: if you strategically place 12 million more votes, you can win literally every single state and secure all votes.
Most fun way to win (imo): 1.5 million in Texas for 40 votes and then another 1.5 million in Florida for another 30.
Most efficient points/voter states:
Michigan needed 80k for 15 votes
Georgia needed 120k for 16
Pennsylvania needed 145k for 19
And Nevada needed 52k for 6
For a grand total of 400k you'd get 56 votes that could've taken Harris from 226 to 282 and would've secured the win.
Other close calls:
North Carolina needed 200k for 16 votes
Arizona needed 140k for 11
Yes, and see how you need to play god to do this? Now lets say you only have 10 mil and a republican can do the same thing with another 10 mil? What if you could only move votes around?
This election was lost from those close call states, true. They could have in hindsight won this by getting 80k people in buses in Michigan and Nevada, but they did not do that.
Oh, yeah, definitely. I think everyone's got their share of the blame. The whole thing is fucked.