Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Election Postmortem... || Peter Zeihan" video.

  1. Nah he's doing a pretty good post-mortem here. Also he's originally Midwest i think from like Iowa or Missouri.
    1
  2. Well, to be fair, you predicted Biden would win. Kamala isn't Biden.
    1
  3. I know it's funny, but he's unironically correct here. At least about the groups that broke. I'm even inclined to believe him regarding the independents who still didn't vote for Trump because there were seriously slim margins and the margins he's breaking down by demographics are honestly pretty large by election standards. Thus completely offsetting the gains by the independents.
    1
  4. @LRRPFco52  Ultimately, he's looking from a factional point of view. While I'm inclined to believe you, I'm not entirely sure it's true. I think it's not quite the truth. I'm willing to believe unaffiliated voters did swing to Trump because of the conditions on the ground. However, first is that you're actually getting it wrong, and you're discussing the same group as he is. Peter mentioned that the majority of independents are leaning in one direction or another (and there are no registered independents, btw). So he was discussing the group who really doesn't have leanings because they're normies who get buyers remorse without having any real political leanings because they just don't care. They did break for Trump, but i can't tell you how much either direction. Their concentrations could absolutely matter in this case. However, I'd say that the 5 million vote difference between Trump and Kamala isn't actually from them. I think it'd be a much closer race if it was (and it still was a relatively close race). Though of course, the Amish are in fact indicative of the movement of unaffiliated voters. See, Peter's factional analysis is still correct in that most of the factions that traditionally voted Democrat did, in fact, break. Their traditional bases, often lifelong democrats, did all break for Trump in massive numbers. Even the black belt broke for Trump in certain areas. Thus, I'm more inclined to believe that the deciding vote in this election aren't actually from the purely politically unaffiliated, but more likely to be the breaking of the Democrat coalition, which is represented in spirit by Tulsi Gabbard and RFK. That's the group of previously "unaffiliated" voters who I suspect really swung this election.
    1