While climate policy wasn’t the star of this recent election, the results carry significant implications for the climate agenda. Voters weren’t casting ballots explicitly for or against green energy mandates, net-zero goals, or climate “emergencies.” Yet, indirectly, they sent a strong signal: the public isn’t fully buying into the costly, disruptive climate policies that have become a pillar of certain political platforms. As the dust settles, the reality is clear—the green agenda just lost substantial footing, and its backers will have to reckon with what that means moving forward.
Climate Policy as a Secondary Issue with Primary Ramifications
It’s true; voters in this election were concerned primarily with issues closer to home—economic stability, inflation, job security, and immediate energy costs. But even as climate policy took a back seat in the campaign discourse, its implications loomed in the background. In states where green mandates have been most aggressive, energy prices have soared, job sectors have been strained, and the promise of renewable jobs hasn’t materialized to the extent promised. These factors, while not always top-of-mind in election messaging, have clearly made an impression on the public.
What we’re seeing is a kind of indirect referendum on the climate policies that have dominated recent years. Voters may not have explicitly voted on green policies, but the growing awareness of the trade-offs involved is unmistakable. The failure of candidates most closely aligned with aggressive climate agendas shows an implicit but impactful rejection of policies that prioritize carbon cuts and renewables at the expense of reliable, affordable energy.
The Green Agenda Takes a Back Seat
For years, climate alarmism has driven policy without substantial public scrutiny. Climate mandates were passed through sweeping bills, and green energy was sold as the inevitable future. However, this election signals a turning point. The quiet but firm message from voters was that climate goals can’t overrun practical concerns, especially as they impact household budgets and energy security.
The hard truth is this: while voters might generally support the idea of a cleaner environment, they’re clearly unwilling to shoulder the disruptive and costly consequences that come with rushed climate policies. Skyrocketing energy bills, faltering grid reliability, and the disappearance of traditional energy jobs are realities that weigh heavily on ordinary Americans. People may want a healthy planet, but they also want heat in the winter, affordable gas, and the economic security that has long come from stable energy industries.
The Implications for Policymakers
For climate policymakers, this election result is a wake-up call to recalibrate. The defeat of the green agenda in the background of these results reveals the limits of popular patience for top-down mandates that affect daily life. If lawmakers are paying attention, they’ll see that policies need to be practical, affordable, and adaptable, not dictated by climate scenarios that, however dire they may sound, lack resonance with the average voter’s immediate concerns.
In a way, this setback offers policymakers a chance to focus on balanced, flexible environmental strategies that don’t overburden citizens. The public’s quiet rejection of extreme climate policy can become an opportunity to develop approaches grounded in technological innovation, market-driven solutions, and gradual, economically viable transitions.
The Rise of Climate Realism
What this election suggests is that the era of unchecked climate alarmism may be shifting toward a more pragmatic, “climate realist” approach. Without overtly campaigning against green policies, voters have essentially said they’re not ready to make the kinds of sacrifices these policies demand. They’re looking for solutions that work with, not against, economic realities.
For the climate realist movement, these results represent a subtle but notable victory. The public has, in effect, rejected the notion that immediate, radical changes are the only solution to climate challenges. Instead, the message seems to be: take a measured approach, one that respects economic priorities and job security while still working toward environmental improvements.
A New Path Forward
As we look to the future, it’s evident that climate policy advocates must adjust their strategies. The message from the voting booth is unmistakable: the electorate is open to responsible environmental policy but weary of climate policies that impose financial strain without clear, tangible benefits. The public’s voice in this election suggests they’d rather see a steady, innovation-driven approach that strengthens—rather than weakens—their communities and the economy.
This election, though not explicitly about climate, may go down as a turning point for climate policy itself. Voters signaled that they won’t accept environmental goals at any cost, especially when that cost is borne by the average household. It’s a call for a shift from alarmist narratives to a practical, results-driven approach that respects both the environment and the economy.
Kamala said it was a campaign to restore joy to Americans. And she delivered.
I believe that falls under “be careful what you wish for…you may get it.
And look, there will also be an “opportunity economy”, driven by snatching off the grasping fingers of bureaucrats and profligate politicians rewarding their homeboys in the green energy economy, and reducing taxes and disincentives for job creating business investment … unleashing American productivity … and restoring American leadership in technical innovation.
By definition, Capitalism is an opportunity economy. So her words basically meant nothing.
Ok so, FREE ENTERPRISE is an opportunity economic system, “Capitalism” is always associated with Cronyism and is a POWER dominated economic system.
Please use free enterprise for that system whereby the United States became the greatest economy in history.
Capitalism is only for Democrats, socialists and communists use to disparage the wealth and success of hard working entrepreneurs..
endrant
I prefer supply and demand, but Free Enterprise is equally good.
She claimed to bee a capitalist, which I guess explains why she wants to increase taxes on capitalists, but is worried there will not be enough capital to invest which is why she proposed reducing Biden’s tax on unrealized capital gains.
She’s a Marxist–enough said!
Opportunity Economics, which she never explained, equates to Command Economics, handing out money and government edicts to industries.
This is the most funny and true comment I came across recently. Cudos
“This election, though not explicitly about climate, may go down as a turning point for climate policy itself.”
Ironic how her loss enables this climate policy turning point, the real ‘new way forward’, a climate reset.
Just saw a great comment on a youtube…
“let’s take a moment to thank Kamala Harris for all her work and effort she put into convincing America to vote for Trump.”
Given a probable legislative majority, changing the underlying laws in some areas would be in order. Actual legislation dealing with wether CO2 is a “pollutant”, or setting limits on what area is covered by the Clean Water Act would do away with rulings by activist apparatchiks.
Then there is the other ‘rulings by activist apparatchiks‘ effort begging to have a stake driven through the heart of it: the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits. At the present time in a GOP Senate minority, Senator Ted Cruz is somewhat limited in the scope of what he can accomplish. A Senate majority and retention of the House majority will remedy the situation:
Senate CST Committee / House Oversight & Accountability Committee Investigation into the Funding of Sher Edling, LLP’s Lawfare Against American Energy Companies
My preferred approach would be a RICO suit against Sher Edling and its funders. Treating such lawfare as organized crime might deter it.
Exactly! And if Democrats attempt to filibuster these changes, then Republicans can do exactly what Democrats promised to do, which is to limit the filibuster for legislation Pubs don’t need to kill it, but they need to modify the rule so that stuff can actually get done on a democratic basis, not tied up in Democrat obstructionism.
Using “reconciliation” they can ELIMINATE whole departments as a means to balance the budget.
The Democrats used reconciliation to pass the “Inflation Reduction Act” adding BILLIONS in spending but the Dems write the legislation so the the congressional budget office will rule that the bill WILL lower the budget over the time frame the bill specifies.
It is a SCAM around the filibuster BUT that can work both ways.
On Kudlow they already talked about stopping all future IRA spending.
Drain the Swamp. EPA & Justice Departments 1st. Declare all jobs in both departments open and have them submit their resumes explaining why they should work for the department.
By a billion pencils and a sharpener for every 10th person. Let them sharpen the pencils until they are assigned to a job.
Recommending a short story: Cowboy Chicken
Your list is too short.
The Trump Administration has a much better chance to undo hugely damaging laws and regulations pushing climate alarmist propaganda and idiotic renewable energy advocacy that in his last administration. But they need to do it quickly and make it a top priority which is in sink with improving the economy by lowering energy costs.
Climate change, green, renewable energy, and all the other horseshit has been ongoing in the background since 2012. I have not pursued it back further. I suspect it goes back into the 1970s, but that is my guess only.
Trump is back! Let’s celebrate that as far as energy realism is concerned. Perhaps he can visit the various departments of elite parasites in Washington as in the LA Police station in terminator. Then move on to the UN….
As a person who uses too many words I think there are too many above.
The true problem is that CO2 has no negative effects of human society, so the imposition of measures to reduce it, supported by subsidies that prefer economically and technically inferior ways of producing energy is a legalised fraud, justified on being a signatory to a fraudulent political agenda created by the parasitic elites at the UN, based on demonstrable lies about science and nature.
Just leave the UN IPCC while the US has a republican administration to pass it through and stop following this overtly regressive and fraudulent programme.
Most of the pollution is associated with combustion, that CO2 is not and never was. The pollution was already removed from the exhausts of the machines that produce it in Western countries, before net zero began. So we didn’t have a problem to solve. That is in Asia and will be later in Africa and India, but our remedies are already being adopted there. Better because their’s is our second generation technology. And the wealthier they get, the more pollution and waste can be managed, as we have already done, and cannot usefully do much more of.
The obvious direction now should be clear, in a rational economy.
That is to prefer and/or migrate to the most sustainable, lowest cost, and cheapest per unit sources of energy. This is hardly difficult to understand and the market can decide it for each and every application of energy. There are basic reasons of costed applied science we use clean gas for heating and generation, and were transitioning to nuclear for electricity where it is a clear winner on every measure, especially cost, sustainability environmental impact and safety. And can be built unobtrusively where its needed and done sensitively. Below the tree line is easy, Fan cooled and in sunken locations. No need for ugly brutal cooling towers (now with and steam based generation BTW) , etc.
We will use liquid hydrocarbons for vehicles for a long time to come, and uniquely for flight. Because they work best. Large ships can be nuclear, particularly bulk sea freight. Heat pumps when nuclear is pervasive and gas is becoming scarce and expensive, etc. It is much easier and cheaper to do what works best for less, with minimum environmental damage, IF we get the pseudo science of environmentalists out of the way of creating the prosperous developed economies they so hate us to get, but not them. They need a visit from the Trumpinator, who is as real as their ignorant beliefs. IMO
“We will use liquid hydrocarbons for vehicles for a long time to come, and uniquely for flight.”
This is important for people to grasp, for fundamental reasons of energy density, cost, and productivity. As crude oil becomes progressively more expensive to find, extract, and convert to saleable fuels, alternative carbon sources will become more cost-effective as starting material for chemical conversion to the desired properties – diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, LPG, you name it.
Therefore it is important to completely snap out of this fashionable misconception that a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere represents any risk at all to the climate or to the environment.
The Russians recently claimed that there 500,000 million metric tons of oil in the Antarctica basin. If this is true, we have nothing to worry about.
The world uses 100 million barrels of crude per day. Just do the math
Thing is, CO2 reduction has almost nothing to do with the environment. Its not that environmental goals are too expensive. Its that the goals don’t improve the environment. As when habitats are cut down to provide biofuels, or when corn is used to make ethanol, a second rate liquid fuel.
I’m for real environmental improvements, clean air and water, and would endorse lots of measures which people here would mostly object to, limitation of cars and traffic in cities, for instance.
But this nonsense of pretending CO2 is a pollutant, and that reducing or eliminating it is the top environmental priority, that is what has to stop. And the first step is to stop calling CO2 reduction an environmental goal.
Its not. And what it turns into is not even a climate policy. Its actually a US (and UK) energy policy, which will have no effects on climate, and will damage the environment, properly speaking.
“But this nonsense of pretending CO2 is a pollutant, and that reducing or eliminating it is the top environmental priority, that is what has to stop.”
Absolutely. Keep saying this. Incremental CO2 is not capable of driving the climate system, or any trend of climate-related metrics, toward a bad outcome.
If CO2 is a pollutant per the EPA then why are there not 350 million people going to court for polluting?
Congratulations to Trump on his win in a free and fair election (as all US elections are).
Why did you forget about Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein all suing several states for their election laws and demanding recounts? Forgot all about butterfly ballots now, didn’t you?
Simon’s pals the marxo-democrats somehow lost 14 million votes that were counted in 2020.
Now that the election is over, we just relax and let Hitler the Second throw everyone into death camps and send the military to execute his enemies? Seems to me that if he really was such an existential threat, calling to concede would not only be wrong, but evil.
Popular vote claimed for 2020:
Biden – 81.3 million (52.3%)
Trump – 74.2 million (47.7%)
Total excl Others – 155.5 million
Popular vote 2024:
Harris – 67.2 million (48.3%)
Trump – 72.0 million (51.7%)
Total excl Others – 139.2 million
That’s 16.3 million missing!
Could we not speculate that 2020 was really:
Biden – 65.0 million (46.7%)
Trump – 74.2 million (53.3%)
Cheat votes – 16.3 million
Now potentially, my logic is flawed because we still have some votes being added to the 2024 tallies. Also, potentially there is a substantial difference in the number of ‘Other’ votes between the two elections. Maybe someone can sharpen the pencil to clear that up?
Fundamentally though, there is a strong case in my mind to say that this is evidence of dropbox fraud voting in 2020.
Hillary got about 66 million votes in 2016 also.
It would seem that there are 16 million dem ballots from 2020 in need of 16 million dem voters that only existed for Biden. There definitely was fraud thwarted in 2024, a serious forensics investigation is likely to answer questions that heretofore have been suppressed.
We need a national card called voter ID, with photo, with iris scan and with finger prints
The TSA and FBI has lots of that info
We need to build on that
The card has an orange color, meaning you are a citizen of the US.
The card has another color if you are not a citizen.
You do not vote without showing your card to have it scanned.
You vote in person only on Election Day
No early voting
No late voting
No machines, all hand counting by two people, a Democrat and a Republican, with other parties present for observation
Election Day is a paid holiday
And all NON citizens must provide DNA.
Every child born on the taxpayer’s dime must have DNA taken from them and the mother.
Then the pool of DNA is checked with criminals and aliens.
Then let the chips fall where they may. (underage mothers and “rapist” fathers discovered, etc.)
Wilpost,
My only concern would be that biometric data should not be stored in central databases where it could be leaked and abused.
In the system that I would advocate, there would not be a central database of voter biometrics, which is important for privacy protection. The card would hold the biometric data that allow the poll worker to autonomously verify that the card matches the person presenting it without storing or transmitting the voter’s private biometric data. The biometric data and other metadata such as a unique ID number and the voter name would be cryptographically signed by the voter registration authority to prevent fraud. The identity data would displayed to the poll workers so that they could mark the voter off the paper roll just as if they were reading the information off of a driver’s license or other ID. At least that’s the way I would do it.
To obtain the voter ID, the voter goes to a registration authority with their necessary documents to prove citizenship, age, and residency. They submit biometric data to an enrollment machine that does not store or transmit the data outside of the machine and id card’s chip. Then the registration clerk validates the identity and citizenship documents and keys in the voter’s legal name. The biometrics data, the unique id number, and the voter’s legal name are then cryptographically signed using the private key of the voter registration authority stored in the machine. The signed data is stored into the chip on the card.
Now the card with its identity data can be authenticated to the voter autonomously by any reader that compares voter-supplied biometric data against biometrics stored in the card. The card proves who you are and what your citizenship status is, but at this point not where you are authorized to vote. You never need a new voter ID unless it is lost or damaged.
The voter registration process would entail going to the local voter registration authority, inserting the voter Id into a verification machine and submitting biometrics to authenticate to the card.
The registrar extracts only the name and unique voter ID from the card. Then the voter desiring to register to vote, submits documentation proving residency. The voter address is keyed into the registration database and associated with the voter name and the unique voter id number extracted from the card. That information is stored into a local database of the local jurisdiction. It is also transmitted to the national database. The national database records one and only one current address for each unique voter id. So if you move and register in your new jurisdiction, you automatically lose authorization to vote in your prior jurisdiction.
Each jurisdiction would produce an official voter roll printed on paper to be used in the polling place. It would list the voters who registered in that jurisdiction but only if the address on file locally matches the current address associated with the voter id number in the national database.
When voting, the voter inserts the card, submits biometrics, and the national database is consulted. The name and registered address would be displayed to the poll workers.
Everything beyond that point would work the same as paper ballot voting. The voter id aspect would just replace the photo id with a biometrically validated voter ID card displaying the same info on a screen that would have been read from a driver’s license. Now the poll worker identifies the voter on the paper roll and crosses the voter off to prevent duplicate voting.
Note that if the polling place lost internet access and the voter id card verifiers couldn’t consult the national database, the user’s name could still be extracted from the card. There could be protocols to have the voter state their address and then the poll worker could find the registration record and cross off the name. In such a case, the paper voting roll would still prevent double voting.
Paper ballots could be marked in a way that they can be electronically scanned facilitating fast results, but stored to enable a hand recount.
If ballot scanners were not working, the paper ballots could all be counted by hand.
Technology should be used in a common sense way to make voting easy and efficient, but failure of the technology must not prevent voting securely. There would always be a paper trail.
Although I sympathize with the sentiment that we ought to have a voting day, I think this process could work equally well for in-person early voting. Early voting can be just as secure as election day voting and it reduces the need for absentee ballots that are more subject to fraud. The key thing is that we must eliminate mail-in ballots where robust voter id is impossible.
We have it. A driver’s License with True ID (or whatever the proper name is) that you need to have to board an airliner.
We probably won’t ever know how / why 2020 was such an anomaly for voting / counting results.
I recall reading that psephologists, actuaries, statisticians, etc were perplexed by the situation that the down-ticket votes for Biden were not equally supporting Democrat candidates.
I wonder if this same outcome will be indicated with the Harris vote counts, or will the 2020 down-ticket Dem candidates be a perplexing mystery for psephologists for ever more?
I think it is still possible to go back and do a forensic audit in a few states (MI, PA, AZ). It’s not that difficult.
Sure the story I recall was that there were reams of unfolded ballots with only the Biden/Harris bubble filled out.
The lack of a fold should have proven that they were fraud since they were supposed to be folded and placed in a security envelope which went into the outer mailer that had the voter information on it. How could they become totally flat after being unfolded?
Now even granting that was an urban myth, which I doubt, there’s still the question of why a person bothering to vote would not usually vote for most or all the offices on the ballot. The obvious answer is that they needed to process mass numbers of ballots in a short time and not wasting time on the down-ballot races makes sense.
Also not wasting time folding, putting into envelopes, putting envelopes into mailers, and putting bogus voter details on the outer mailer also makes sense, if you’re able to bypass the verification process at 2am and just introduce a ream of ballots into the counter. Just say oops someone accidentally threw out the mailers, sorry ‘bout that!
They only needed tens of thousands of ballots across a few corrupted polling sites in 7 swing states to eke out 2am victories and pull off what Biden called the most sophisticated voter fraud operation in history (the gaffe was accidentally speaking the truth, not misspeaking).
The other 16 million or so would have been mail-in ballots filled out over a period of weeks for people who were not going to vote because they died, moved away, or were fake voters registered by corrupt election officials then voted by ‘mules’.
Why didn’t they do it again? Apparently because they feared getting caught red-handed this time, and maybe because they knew Commie-la and Tampon Tim were so hopeless that they might as well concede and then talk about how their not cheating this time proves that they never ever woulda thunk to cheat evah!
Rich,
Not commenting about the legitimacy of those ballots (I agree that many like that seems suspicious), I know people who only voted for President. Only one bubble on the ballot. So in and of itself, that can certainly be valid.
As for the likeliehood of some form of fraud – if you refuse to investigate, you won’t find any wrongdoing, right?
I have read a peer-reviewed statistical analysis of the 2020 vote which said that fraud was almost impossible to detect statistically, but nevertheless they could identify some almost certainly fraud from the statistics. I noted the late surge in 2020 votes for Joe Biden in 2020 which Democrats claimed was natural, and looked to see if it recurred in the 2020 mid-terms or 2024. It didn’t. One argument is that there was a late surge in 2020 because Joe Biden urged Democrats to vote by mail. That seemed to be a strange request, because surely any vote is valuable not just by mail. There is an obvious explanation, namely that Joe Biden knew that mail fraud was planned and urged high volume mail voting to provide cover. I suspect that only a legal enquiry with witnesses giving formal evidence can resolve it.
Voter turnout can vary dramatically without this being evidence of fraud.The 2024 UK general election had an estimated 60% turnout, the lowest since 2001
This was down from 67% turnout in the 2019 election. Turnout has fallen significantly from historical highs – in 1950, voter turnout was 84%.
I don’t think anyone has made the argument that this showed that 2019 turnout was evidence of fraud.
In this last election in the US turnout was at 65% (of eligible). That’s not much lower than the 67% in 2020. Both were higher than the 59% in 2016.
There may have been decisive fraud in 2020, but I don’t think you can show it by the turnout figures.
This post was on the web:
2004 – 121,069,054 votes cast
2008 – 129,446,839 votes cast
2012 – 126,849,299 votes cast
2016 – 128,838,342 votes cast
2020 – 155,507,476 votes cast
2024 – 129,347,671 votes cast so far
One wonders where 26 million votes came from and disappeared to?
One possible explanation for the millions of missing votes is that a lot of people didn’t find either candidate particularly attractive and therefore abstained. Note that Trump’s vote was down as well, thogh by far less than the drop in Dems support.
https://t.me/ElectionHQ2024/12081
I have no issue with anyone using the legal system to challenge election results they consider may be suspect. And…those people you listed did what Harris did this today. They rang the victor to congratulate them?
The US justice system had a big issue with people challenging the result in 2020.
No they didn’t they heard them all. I guess you will be happy that Ukraine will now be handed over to Putin.
Simpleton… Clueless as always..
Did you ever figure out why Putin didn’t hand over the pee pee tape so Trump wouldn’t ever be elected? You’d think Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of the sale of Uranium One to the Russians would have made them pals.
Yawn. I never claimed the pee tape was real. there was plenty of other real stuff. Are you as a bigger moron as Derg?
Did you volunteer to fight in Ukraine? I guess not. I was told by my CO that, “No P-3 will land in China.” So why did a VQ P-3 land in China during Bush’s admin? They should have ditched.
Ukraine won’t be handed over to Putin, and Trump won’t pull out of NATO, either. Watch and see.
But how will Trump finish the way on day 1? I don’t think he will hand the whole country over but I think parts are going to Russia.
Trump and Zelensky and Musk were on a conference call earlier today according to news reports.
That bodes well for Ukraine support, imo. Trump isn’t running away from Ukraine, he is talking to the leaders.
Remember: In Ukraine’s hour of need, Obama and Biden sent Ukraine blankets and pillows. Trump sent Ukraine antitank weapons.
That bodes well for Ukraine support
Looks like the Houthis and possibly Hamas are standing down. At least moderating their stance a bit. What a dark era of peace we have to look forward to.
Ukraine should have taken the deal on the table in April 2022 then that Boris Johnson and Biden scuppered.
And frankly, IDGAF what Putin does with Ukraine as it’s none of my effing business, nor is it any of yours snowflake.
Try keeping our leftist nose out of everyone else’s business.
Pretending there were not real issues with the 2020 election is a mark of deep ignorance and denial.
Find that pee pee tape
Yo really are a simple fool aren’t you.
Oh dearie me…. .. Simon type a dozen rational words.
Then destroys it.
More news to keep our kiwi TDS friend here warm at night:
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2024/11/06/breaking-doj-set-to-drop-cases-against-trump-before-inauguration-n2181648
The Marx Stream Media is already crying about it:
Leticia James is very unhappy with Trump being elected. She spent a lot of time trying to prevent that from happening with her corrupt use of law enforcement.
Laticia is probably going to be the subject of a congressional hearing in the near future inquiring into her coordination with the Biden “Justice” Department in persecuting Trump.
Both she and that wacko judge should be disbarred.
‘…in a free and fair election…’
Vote totals by election (millions): Year / Rep / Dem
2008 / 59.9 / 69.5
2012 / 60.9 / 65.9
2016 / 63.0 / 65.9
2020 / 74.2 / 81.3
2024 / 71.9 / 67.0 (some votes still out, source BBC)
Simon, does anything strike you as odd, say, about 2020?
Seth Keshel is predicting a final tally of 77-78 million.
Trump has 72 million with only 83% of expected total counted.
If we assume say 95% of expected count, you get 82.6 million.
Time will tell the final count.
Making comments on partial count is a bit silly !
There are a lot more votes for both sides. You cant just point to the Democrats and cry foul. In Australia voting is mandatory so at least the counts are much more consistent.
From an outsider’s point of view, it looks like a great many people wanted Trump gone in 2020 and now they’ve experienced the alternative, have decided he was the best choice in 2024.
It looks like 20 million people showed up in 2020, and 17 million of them stayed home in 2024 despite the huge efforts of both parties to get people out to vote. Seems weird that the total number of voters hovers around the 130m mark for each election, except 2020 when it hits 155m. Smells fishy to me…
Does it also smell fishy to you that the Republican numbers should be so high in 2024 whereas the Democrat numbers have returned to typical voter turnout numbers?
I think a much more reasonable explanation is that the Democrats who previously wanted Trump out aren’t so sure anymore and have effectively “voted” by staying home.
No. Trump votes in 2024 were 2 million lower than 2020, at this point.
In 2020 the Democrat numbers increased by ~15M and the Republican numbers increased by ~11M from the table Frank gave.
As an outsider, I find it very difficult to understand how people can believe in cheating so strongly given the increases in numbers on both sides.
It’s plausible that they couldn’t just add 100% Biden votes to tallies as this would be too obviously fraudulent, so they had to add some lower fraction of Trump votes.
This is all kinds of crazy but thanks for the laughs.
That’s one possibility, albeit it would require a lot of co-ordination. What’s really odd to me is that The Messiah (Obama) saw a significant drop in his totals from 2008 to 2012, while a visibly failing Joe Biden pulled down the greatest vote count ever in 2020 without mounting a serious public campaign. Something else that’s strange is that in thousands of electoral precincts, including all of those in which she won, Harris never once exceeded Biden’s vote count. This seems highly unlikely, which to me suggests that there was a lot of fraud with the mail-in voting of 2020.
If there were fraudulent votes cast (by the Democrats) in 2020 to get to 74.2M then how do you reconcile that the numbers are about the same this year? Did the Democrats put in similar numbers of fraudulent votes against Trump and accidentally forget to add the fraudulent votes for Harris?
There are just so many biases at play here its fun to watch.
With only 83% counted.
Fair point, but +/- 20 million? At a time when covidophobia was at an all-time high? Although, I guess I just answered my own question. If you’re stuck indoors with nothing to watch but CNN & friends and a mail-in ballot comes through the post, I can see how the numbers might jump.
Enough with the 2020 election fraud.
What I see transpiring is exactly what most of us are against in climate alarmism… using statistics with data we can not verify to prove causation.
Lighten up Frances.
Despite all Democrat election shenanigans, perfected over the decades, the people showed up in such large numbers, the outcome was just TOO BIG TO RIG.
WE NEED TO KEEP THIS VIBE GOING, AS OTHERWISE WE WILL BE SCREWED BIG TIME.
It was a free and fair election like the last one. That’s how democracy works.
There is no way you can say that 2020 was a free and fair election.
There were a huge numbers of irregularities that were never investigated through the courts.
Its over now.. get over it. !!.
There is no doubt that illegal votes were cast in the 2020 election.
Only a State legislature can legally change voting laws for a State, but during the 2020 election, judges and State Secetaries of State were illegally changing the election laws under which votes are cast so all votes that do not follow State law are invalid votes and this is what Trump was challenging on January 6, the counting of illegal votes. Trump wanted those illegally elected electors rejected and for those particular States to do it over legally.
Of course, Vice President Pence, who was in charge of the counting, for whatever reason, wanted no part of this challenge. Not because it was illegal, because it was not, and has been done in the past, but because it would be very politically messy for Pence, and he would certainly bare the brunt of the criticism from the Left, and Pence chose not to put himself in that position.
Find the pee pee tape
You really are a simple fool aren’t you.
Even France doesn’t like our system. They went back to paper ballots and same day voting.
I think Trump wants to return the U.S. to paper ballots and same-day voting/counting. If France can do it successfully, so can the U.S.
Population of France versus population of USA? Have to take that into account. Not arguing. Just making a point.
What is really funny is that years ago on WUWT Simon admitted that electronic voting can be full of fraud — IIRC his home base of NZ doesn’t use them.
He is pure 100% troll.
Democrats say, “The 2020 election was the fairest election in history!” What was the second fairest? The statement is just nonsense.
““The 2020 election was the fairest election in history!”
No Democrats didn’t say that. Chris Crebs the man Trump put in charge of maintaining election integrity said that the elections were secure and fair.
Really?
Yep.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-results-security-chris-krebs-60-minutes-2020-11-29/
You’re delusional.
Did you find that pee pee tape?
now how did Biden get more votes than Obama 😉 how come Kamala didn’t have more votes than Biden in any district 😉
You really are a simple fool aren’t you.
I don’t think Simon is really congratulating Trump for the win. Probably he will go marching tomorrow and try to burn everything down–mostly peaceful.
I’m not happy he has won, I think the world will be a darker less stable place for it…. but if you are genuinely supportive of democracy, you need to acknowledge when the other side does better than your team. That’s how it works. Then you lick your wounds and move on.
It would be hypocritical to condemn Trump’s efforts of overturn the last election, then turn around and do the same thing. Nope, he won fair and square. End of story.
That’s very good of you. I’m impressed.
This side of the Atlantic they’re still trying to wrap their heads around the result.
International media has picked up on Emily Maitlis’ on-air meltdown during Channel 4’s election night coverage.
https://order-order.com/2024/11/06/maitlis-achieves-global-fame-with-trump-meltdown/
We’ll have to get back to you…
“This side of the Atlantic they’re still trying to wrap their heads around the result.”
*************
Just Stop Oil protesters have already chimed in on the U.S. election results by spray painting a U.S. embassy wall in London with their usual orange paint. Looks as though they were arrested by the London police….
Climate protestors spray paint London’s US embassy claiming election ‘bought by big oil’ – YouTube
I might get snipped for this, but I am about ready to tell those two that they can insert their spray nozzles where the sun doesn’t shine…..vigorously.
I have this question for the JSO guys: If we phase out fossil fuels, what fuel do you propose for firetrucks?
Or their paint sprayers?
Update:
In a statement after Mr Trump claimed victory over Democrat Kamala Harris, Mr Khan said: “I know that many Londoners will be anxious about the outcome of the US presidential election.
“Many will be fearful…
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1972386/sadiq-khan-donald-trump-us-election
Maybe Khan should think more carefully about who he makes enemies of.
My fear has gone because Harris got her arse severely kicked. Goodbye Cackles.
The poor woman is dumb
She is certainly not qualified to be president.
That would have been a real Idiocracy.
First day sees an executive order restoring the Federal permits of the XL Keystone pipeline is my guess.
XL is likely dead. Two reasons.
The Keystone XL pipeline was originally intended to transport oil from the Alberta tar sands to a pipeline terminal in eastern Nebraska, from which it could be shipped by existing pipelines to refineries along the Mississippi River.
Even if the USA doesn’t really need Alberta “tar” anymore (it is low-quality crude with high sulfur and very little distillate), the planned XL route passes close to the Bakken reserve in North Dakota and eastern Montana, and Bakken crude is relatively light and sweet (low sulfur) with much better yields of fuel-grade products than Alberta “tar”.
If the Keystone XL pipeline was re-activated by a second Trump administration, it could be profitable in transporting Bakken crude to existing refineries, at a lower price per barrel than transporting it by rail (although this would make Warren Buffett unhappy).
Much of the Bakken crude is under Native American tribal land, and some of them may want to make money selling their crude into the pipeline.
A lot depends on the margins by which Trump gets the Senate and holds the House. If substantial, then a lot can be done legislatively (then hard to undo)rather than executively (Biden showed how easy to undo)—like fix the CAA ‘pollutant’ definition to exclude CO2. Like remove raptor exceptions to wind turbines. Like legislatively force proper permitting of off shore wind turbines to save migratory whales.
There will be many calls, including probably from Trump, to nuke the Senate filibuster rules.
I have mixed feelings about this: Pure principles vs doing what’s needed to permanently root out the Marxist ideology driven administrative state.
Don’t forget that reconciliation bills are not subject to filibuster. Spending on the Inflation Creation Act could zeroed out by a simple majority of both houses.
Yep — reconciliation
For those not clear on what a filibuster is:
“The Senate tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question. Prior to 1917 the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as “cloture.” In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the 100-member Senate.”
A “filibuster” is a procedural rule, not a Law, of the US Senate.
IMO the filibuster has been watered down horribly. As I understand it, the way it is (usually) done now is that a Senator simply says “I filibuster” and it goes until cloture or s/he yields. (I may be wrong on that but I’m fairly sure) The old way used to be that they had to speak the entire time, like Rand Paul did a few years ago.
😎
Ever see Jimmy Stewart’s “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”?
When Democrat Sen. Byrd filibustered against the Civil Rights bill, he didn’t have to go through that.
PS That was his last movie before he enlisted and flew combat missions in WW2.
His first movie (I think?) after WW2 was “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
I have not seen it – probably should go on my list!
Predicting Trump is a wasted activity. You’re usually wrong. He circumvents the obvious paths to achieve results.
Energy policy was a top issue. Trump endorsed drilling for energy self sufficiency. He opposed Electric cars.
Correct Walter. The Left noticed that Trump was referring to the Green New Scam in his rallies and tried to fire up their base accordingly.
Wait, are telling me the Green New Deal is a scam?
More of a crime against humanity than a mere scam
I wonder where Elon sits on this.
He didn’t. Elon became his biggest supporter, and is promising to do to the federal bureaucracy what he did to Twitter (remember him entering HQ after the purchase carrying a sink?) before renaming it X.
Trump never opposed EVs per se. He said many times they have a market segment. What he opposed was Biden’s EV mandate.
And cheap Chinese EV’s swamping the market.
Not that US buyers will be buying theirs either.
And regulations that are a defacto ban on ICE vehicles. Both need to be repealed.
Trump 1.0 vs. Biden / Harris 1.0
******************
Trump 1.0:
CO2 remained a “pollutant” for all four years
Deficit spending 2018 through 2021 FY
Almost $8 trilli
Average Real GDP Growth rate for 2017 through 2020 was +1.6%
**************************************
Biden/Harris 1.0
US set record for oil production
US set record low real price for natural gas
Deficit spending 2022 through 2025 FY:
Almost $7 trillion (assuming an almost $2 trillion estimate for 2025 by CBO)
Average Real GDP Growth rate for 2021 through 2024 was +3.3% (assuming a 2024 estimate of +2.6%)
******************************
Trump 1.0 was FAR from the best ever.
Biden/Harris’s 1.0 was FAR from the worst ever. I
It seems to me that predictions of the future are consistently biased by politics and wishful thinking, so they rarely match reality.
In the spirit of Howard Cosell:
Down Goes Harris
Down Goes Harris
Down Goes Harris
Another TDS afflicted soul crying in his Wheaties.
That sounded like a concessionary word salad
You must be SOOOO much fun at parties, RG.
At a kid’s graduation party you probably would point out all the times the graduate didn’t get an A.
After the best man gives a toast to the married couple, you’d nitpick the praise as lacking context.
What year was COVID?
Richard failed to mention Covid and the pandemic.
Any economic gains that took place during the Biden-Harris administration were because, despite Covid, Trump gave them a growing economy.
Mr. Greene just proved Milton Friedman wrong about the cause of inflation. Friedman said that excessive government spending (debt) caused inflation. But Mr. Greene shows us that isn’t so. Trump spent more and had very low inflation and Biden spent less but had high inflation.
This should shatter Econ 101 books.
Man in tights.
A key part of this is:
A. What did Trump learn from his first term mistakes and successes?
B. What did the slime dwellers learn from theirs?
We can hope that Trump will be able to get that drain hose hooked up to a high capacity pump discharging into the sewage treatment plant. Please don’t bet your farm on it.
Those of you who have not read Robert A. Heinlein’s “The Star Beast” are urged to do so paying particular attention to the attitudes and actions of the Right Honorable Henry Gladstone Kiku, Permanent Undersecretary for Spatial Affairs. Mr. Kiku clearly exhibits the classic bureaucratic attitude: Politicians come and go and are primarily a nuisance to the proper conduct of government.
Oh well. Dump all Democrats. Declare open season on bureaucrats (No bag limit; license not required).
Always hilarious to see someone forget about the pandemic.
I don.t think he forgot.
Trump was not President in 2020 or 2021.
Instead of following through on her promise to drink Draino if the Republicans won, Bette Midler chickened out and deleted her twitter account:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/bette-midler-deletes-her-x-account-after-implying/
Not very good taste in champagne.
Missing from Rotter’s piece is the fact that first, the green energy policies have no connection to our climate and secondly, the green energy policies have no connection with improving or helping our environment.
This needs to be made clear…
It should be made clear that CO2 is not a pollutant and that removing it from the atmosphere does not make the atmosphere “cleaner” since it did not make the atmosphere dirtier in the first place.
Kamaliar became Kamaloser
Only a dingbat could campaign as a new way forward and then agree with everything Biden did. She contradicted herself.
Kamaliar was not helped by Joe “garbage” Biden and Liz Cheney
Trump was helped by Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy. If they both get positions in the Trump 2.0 administration:
Musk has a huge financial conflict of interest with a conservative climate and energy policy — such as the EV mandates and EV tax credits effect on Tesla profits.
Robert Kennedy is a leftist crackpot whose on\ly claim to fame is his correct criticism of Covid shots. In the past, he was an environmental wacko and there is no indication he has changed.
Trump 1.0 had Republican control of the House and Senate in 2017 and 2018, yet CO2 remained classifie as a pollutant during Trump 1.0.
Trump 2.0 in 2025 and 2026 could be deja vu all over again.
Translation from Greene Gaslighting:
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
It will be very difficult for the Democrats to play stalling tactics with Russian hoaxes, lawsuits , indictments, covid viruses etc etc..
… so Trump will be able to get much more stuff done.
But always beware to what the Democrats will try anyway.
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]”The hard truth is this: while voters might generally support the idea of a cleaner environment, they’re clearly unwilling to shoulder the disruptive and costly consequences that come with rushed climate policies. Skyrocketing energy bills, faltering grid reliability, and the disappearance of traditional energy jobs are realities that weigh heavily on ordinary Americans. People may want a healthy planet, but they also want heat in the winter, affordable gas, and the economic security that has long come from stable energy industries.”[END QUOTE]
Voters did want a cleaner environment back in the 1970’s through 1990’s, which led to practical laws limiting emissions of sulfur oxides, particulates, lead, and nitrous oxides, where practical technologies exist to reduce emissions by >95% at a nominal cost to the consumer. Nobody on the political right is advocating for the repeal of these laws, which have succeeded in reducing emissions while increasing industrial output.
The global-warming / climate change movement latched on to the idea of CO2 as a “pollutant” to try to ban all combustion of fuels containing carbon, although CO2 is exhaled by all animal life (including humans) and is required for plant growth, which supports all other life on earth.
The influence of CO2 on climate has been greatly exaggerated relative to other natural causes of climate change which cannot be controlled by human action. Anti-warming activists have also overlooked the benefits of increased CO2 concentrations in the air, such as increased plant growth rates and crop yields.
The Biden-Harris administration’s knee-jerk executive orders and massive spending bills have had a negligible impact on the climate, but have resulted in wasting trillions of dollars and caused rampant inflation, which has made most Americans poorer, and resulted in major industries relocating to China, which has very little regulation of any form of pollution.
The Trump campaign’s plan to “drill, baby, drill” and end the “green new scam” is a return to energy sanity, taking advantage of fracking technology to provide reasonably-priced energy for all Americans, and possibly export LNG to European countries who may fear losing access to Russian natural gas.
Hopefully, the second Trump administration will quickly lift restrictions on export of LNG and drilling in ANWR, allow drilling on Federal land and increased drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and withdraw the USA from all international agreements on CO2 emissions, since they favor the largest emitters (especially China). These agreements have never been ratified by the Senate, so they are not binding on the USA.
‘People may want a healthy planet’
CO2 does not make the planet unhealthy. Removing or adding CO2 does not affect the physical health of humans or the planet. Adding CO2 may affect the mental health of certain individuals.
Regarding climate change and other beauties, during his rallies (which total 900 since 2016) Trump said explicitly, among others, that he will end the insane green new deal, that what he will ensure is clean air and clean water, that he will end all electric car mandates and that he will impose high tariffs on batteries or EVs from Mexico (China) to the US.
The important thing is what this implies and, therefore, what he DID NOT SAY (or what he “implicitly” said): he will allow CO2 to rise without restrictions, he will eliminate all subsidies for renewables as well as all green taxes including the job-killing carbon tax and he will cancel all payments to the UN for its global warming programs (end of the Paris Agreement again?).
That is enough. With this, the US is on its way to glory, as he promised and will, just as he did during his previous term, fulfil.
The US also needs to balance its trade with China. That could be inflationary in the USA but will also hurt China.
Although it looks like those of us in Washington State may have to move elsewhere to escape the climate craziness here.
Hopefully Trump can crush climate craziness everywhere. I’m wondering if Wokeachusetts will be able to continue with its Net Zero Plan.
the states cant do the “climate craziness” without the fed gov’s funny money bankrolling it
Oh, that’s what I want to hear!
Removing the waste and consumer theft related to UN climate agenda will take the hand brake off the US economy.
This is Perplexity AI’s view on the greenhouse effect:
I don’t do the AI stuff, but it might be fun to see what it says about why Kamala lost so big. 😎
This is the response to “why did Harris lose the 2024 presidential election?
Who needs talking heads?
I disagree with #2 and #7. When Kamala Harris took over from Joe Biden and got a surge in the polls that put her well in front of Donald Trump, I thought – thank goodness there’s enough time for that lead to disappear.
What do climate action, EPA measures, pandemic strategies, and similar all have in common? They all are policies based on activism, advice, ‘science’ based in turn on modelling of one kind or another. And we know that many of such models are faulty, incomplete or not fit for purpose in general. Congress ought to pass a proper law requiring that when public policy is based on ‘modelling’ those models are properly and truly independently vetted, not ‘peer-reviewed’ because that is not good enough.
Ed, I’ll “go you one better,” as we say in my neck of the woods: No policies based on the current Science. We know that the current understandings produced by the scientific method are incomplete, and many of them are wrong – but we don’t know which ones.
If you look through your telescope and see an asteroid hurtling toward Earth, then we will base government policy on Science. Otherwise, no.
I once read: Models are always wrong, but sometimes they are useful.
Rather like the 70% of Brexit leave voters who see green measures as a force for ill, though climate policies were not mentioned nor was the fact that 20% of the total EU budget is spent on climate matters.
Trump and his Republican majorities are going to squelch the army of overzealous regulators in EPA, DOE, NMFS, and so forth, restoring common sense environmental regulation, and much less of it. SCOTUS is now safe from the threat of a Democrat coup against it and our Constitution, so they will continue to squelch government exercise of powers that it does not actually have … and we can hope that President Trump will get the opportunity to replace a couple of the radical lefty diehards who may not want to stick around for the leftwing trouncing to come.
Government elimination of subsidies of wasteful green energy programs is a surety. Trump and his Republican Congress can and will now defund all of the massive programs that Biden and his Dem Congress created with Kamala Harris help as the 51st vote in 2021-2022. Look for a rapid streamlining of new nuke plants and much increased nuclear energy, and killing off all of the wasteful wind and solar tax credits.
It is not going to be an attack on the environment or the planet – it will be a restoration of sanity that profligate Europe can look to as a model for how to rescue their nations from the madness of green energy programs.
Read an interesting observation elsewhere. If Biden hadn’t stolen 2020, Trump would have been saddled with an obstructive Congress and media. Instead, the past 4 years under Biden were awful. Which led to what appears to be a clean sweep trifecta. Full ‘control’ of Congress. Which means Trump can accomplish a lot in the next two years. Maybe the 2020 Biden steal was part of God’s greater plan to really finally fix things.
A bit to go still on Congress:
https://www.perplexity.ai/elections/2024-11-05/us/house
Lefty climate luvvies in meltdown..
I never watch the left wing media but I tuned in CNN and MSNBC the day after the election to see their reactions. It was about as I expected: All gloom and doom about the future under Trump. These leftist really are mental cases.
The six leftist on “The View” all dressed in black for their show. They are all mental cases, too.
one thing is different this time. The Left is not calling Trump an illegitimate president. They acknowledge he was legitimately elected by winning both the Electoral College vote and the Popular vote. That’s a good thing. For everyone.
Tom Hanks has announced that he is leaving the country because he’s afraid he will be thrown in federal prison. (Hmm.)
But many other people NOT likely on the diddy list fear the same. They actually believe that they’re going to be locked up or thrown into death camps for believing differently than Trump. Some don’t want to live in a Trump presidency they’re saying they’re considering doing something about it, and I don’t mean leaving the country.
The media hysteria has fed this sickness. They really believe the nightmare scenarios they’ve dreamed up. I don’t understand how such people can function in life at all.