Still no evidence, and an increased propensity for aggression and ad hominems substituting said total lack of evidence, I see. Lots of fingers-in-ear denial and deflection as well.
Go ahead and sell me that bridge because there is a complete and total lack of evidence to support the claim. Can't really prove a counterfactual. Others made the claim she lost because of this; when asked for evidence, they always come up short.
Counterpoints:
Biden polled worse than Harris at the end. (White Guy polling worse than Black Woman). Hence the switch in the first place, even Biden agreed!
Michelle Obama has always polled higher than anyone against Trump (Black Woman polling better than White Guy).
Sexists bigots were already core Republican voters never voting for any D no matter who. The battle was lost elsewhere.
I have some insight as to why. As someone who canvassed, who actively spoke to Hispanic activists for Trump in person no less. Though I'll leave that alone considering its anecdotal nature unless you're interested.
Statistically, these groups -- men across the board -- are significantly less educated and thus susceptible to misinformation. They were explicitly targeted from GamerGate and onward.
If you break down exit-polling, you'll find a key factor in predicting how someone voted was in fact their education attainment and less so their gender or skin color.
Does that mean they were less likely to vote for Harris? Yes, but it also means they'd be less likely to vote for any Democrat. More importantly, those who are actual bigots voting on pretenses of skin color or sex were core maga already.
Put it another way: An Old White Guy Joe Biden was polling worse than Harris. At the same time, Reuters polling has always shown Michelle Obama -- female person of color -- to poll higher against Trump than literally anyone. Ever.
Most of the time they're a right-wing extremist pretending to be a leftist or enlightened centrist. If you start probing these tankies, you see they have a blind-spot the size of Putin's bald-spot for Chinese or Russian atrocities, and their goal is oftentimes just to try to divide-and-conquer the genuine left-leaning Americans and stop them from voting, which helps fascists.
If it was a binary choice between he and Collins who continues to simp for a rapist pedophile and promote atrocious actions like the Iran war, or enabling revocation of USAID that has already led to the death of thousands of children, yes I'm voting Platner who is only accused, not convicted. This is the logical and ethical thing to do.
and a bunch of male Democrats that identify as Latin or African American didn’t vote for her because she was a woman.
Uh, dude show me your evidence this was the reason lol.
I'm going to give you a hint: You won't find it. This is straight up bull fucking shit and 100% speculative.
I highly advise you not to make such blatant non-sequitur fallacies devoid of any supportive data. I can think of at least a half a dozen other reasons for why people voted or didn't vote the way they did that actually has data with infinitely less distance to connect the dots than what you're doing right now.
I think it has been debunked that a woman or person of color is why we lost. Key to note: Anyone who was a true sexist racist piece of shit was already core maga and never, ever going to vote for any Democrat.
People must remember that nobody has polled higher against Trump -- ever -- than Michelle Obama. IF she wants to run (and a big if), she would win. Just need a tad bit more charisma.
(If anyone has any evidence whatsoever beyond speculation or shoddy N=2 statistics, I'm all ears, but I have not found evidence).
I'll be shocked if AOC runs for president and not against Schumer.
If she doesn't then just vote Michelle Obama in, as there's really nobody else I can think of in a position to run by then. Not a leftist at least in the surface but she'd win in a landslide. Easily. And I'd prefer her over someone like Newsom or Shapiro..
But AI has a hallucination problem similar in the way every single human being in existence has an imperfect recollection hallucinatory problem. We have to distinguish accuracy from precision and take that with a grain of salt. I do wonder when the last time people here have used some of these later GPTs, because they absolutely have value and vast consensus of scientists agree.
How one regulates it, is of course another story that I agree with you on. I've already used AI successfully to combat far-right trolls though.
These datasets, along with the rules governing them, are a bit more complicated than weighing 4chan and wiki equally. They absolutely weigh peer-review journals and white-listed encyclopedia sources higher. Once they establish a baseline of credibility and identifying a certain grade-level of communication, along with identifying critical-thinking patterns (fallacies, formal logic, etc.)., then you can quite easily filter out the noise.
Every single time I've used a GPT to analyze a conversation with a Trump supporter and myself, it has identified their fallacies I had already identified, and rightfully pointing out fallacies of my own at times -- but almost always concludes their argument is far, far worse.
Has anyone tested the prompts on these? I'm kind of wondering if truth having a leftist bias could help inform people against the right-wing propaganda.
hahah buddy, I checkmated you two comments ago; you just haven't realized it yet.
Pee-wee chess, though, I get it. Still learning.