Will Trump's criminal cases send him to the White House? Some AI think so.

April 16, 2024

Artificial intelligence (AI) can predict that if the elections were next month, Trump's criminal cases would help him win a second term at the White House. At first glance, that prediction would seem to defy "common sense" and the logic of human intelligence. In what world is being a criminal defendant increases the chances of being elected President? In the world of politics. 

AI's prediction is based on correlating publicity with popularity. Trump is white Mandela in some support circles and circuses. From what happened in 2016, AI can predict that the criminal cases against Trump will only increase the media coverage on him, which will count as free publicity, significantly increasing his popularity among current supporters and luring independent voters. This is an easy prediction for AI because the media handed the White House to Trump in 2016, making him a viral candidate in everyone's minds. The natural split between two candidates is 50/50, but the one getting the most media attention (be it "positive" or "negative") ends up winning the contest most of the time. At least according to Creatix AI.   

At Creatix, we see today a 90% chance of Biden winning the popular vote in November. However, the popular vote doesn't matter; only electoral college votes count. In the race towards obtaining the minimum of 270 electoral college votes to win the election, we see Trump having a slight edge over Biden, with a 50.5% chance of winning the elections in November. 

Expiration Date and Sell by Date

The prediction above will be updated as we get closer to election night. It can change any time. Who knows what will happen in the country and to the candidates between now and November. Statistically, either candidate can drop dead anytime of natural causes and it would not be a medical surprise. Both candidates are males of Caucasian descent born and raised in the United States. 

The average lifespan for that an American homo sapiens is 73.5 years. Both Trump and Biden are past their expiration date and their sell by date. Luckily for the Nation they are the presumptive two options for the President, guaranteeing that none of them will somehow become a long-living dictator. Human history shows that young men are more dangerous in politics than old men. Both Trump and Biden are closer to their death bed and eternal rest than to their glory days. 

The Nation doesn't need either Trump or Biden. Anyone with an internet connection and a ChatGPT or equivalent AI digital assistant (DA) account can serve as President and do a good job at it. In the future, governments will rely on AI advisory councils to rule more effectively. This will be discussed in future Creatix articles, services, and products. 

Below let's explore a few observations on various topics including publicity in politics, independent voters, battleground states, the electoral college system, and more.

The Only Bad Publicity is No Publicity

The criminal case in New York against Trump is already increasing publicity for Trump, and will continue doing so for at least another month. This is bad news for Democrats if independent voters stay focused on the issues (e.g. illegal immigration, inflation, foreign wars, etc.) because Trump is perceived as a stronger candidate on the issues. It is good news for Democrats if independent voters opt to set the issues aside to focus on principles (e.g. what should be the moral character of the President of the United States). The problem for Democrats is that most independent voters are independent precisely because they care more about the issues of the year rather than the principles of the century. The elections will be most likely very close and will be decided by independent voters in seven battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin).

The phrase "the only bad publicity is no publicity" is often attributed to American showman and public relations pioneer P.T. Barnum. While there is some debate about its exact origin, the sentiment expressed in the phrase aligns with Barnum's philosophy of promotion and publicity. Barnum was known for his ability to generate attention and attract audiences through sensationalism, publicity stunts, and marketing tactics. There's also no definitive evidence that P.T. Barnum coined the phrase specifically in relation to politics, but rather in general about any promotion and publicity. 

The phrase "the only bad publicity in politics is no publicity" suggests that, in the context of politics, any attention, even if negative, can be advantageous. It implies that being talked about, even in a critical or unfavorable light, is better than being ignored or overlooked.

• In politics, name recognition and visibility are crucial factors in gaining support from voters, raising awareness of issues, and shaping public opinion. Negative publicity, such as scandals, controversies, or criticism, can generate media attention and keep candidates or issues in the spotlight, increasing their visibility and influencing public perception. However, it's important to note that while negative publicity may attract attention in the short term, it may also have detrimental effects on a politician's reputation, credibility, and electability in the long run. 

• Negative coverage, however, can erode trust, damage credibility, and alienate voters, ultimately undermining political success. Additionally, the idea that any publicity is good publicity may not hold true in all situations or contexts. Some forms of negative publicity, such as personal attacks, misinformation, or unethical behavior, may backfire and have serious consequences for politicians and their campaigns. It could end up fueling criminal prosecution.  

Ultimately, while generating media attention and staying relevant are important goals in politics, politicians must carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of different types of publicity and strive to maintain integrity and credibility in their public image.

Americans love the underdog 

The sentiment that "Americans love the underdog in competitions" reflects a common cultural theme in American society. The underdog, typically referring to the competitor or team that is expected to lose or face significant challenges, often evokes sympathy, admiration, and support from spectators and fans.

There are several reasons why this phenomenon may resonate particularly strongly in American culture:

• Rooting for the Underdog: Americans have a strong tradition of rooting for the underdog, often seeing them as symbols of perseverance, resilience, and the human spirit. Supporting the underdog can feel like cheering for the triumph of the human will against adversity.

• Meritocracy and Fairness: The idea of giving everyone a fair chance and rewarding hard work and determination aligns with American values of meritocracy and fairness. Rooting for the underdog can be seen as supporting the principle that success should be based on effort and ability rather than preconceived notions or advantages.

• Individualism and Independence: American culture celebrates individualism, independence, and the ability to overcome obstacles. Underdog stories often highlight individual achievements and the power of the individual to defy expectations and achieve greatness.

• Narratives of Redemption and Transformation: Underdog stories are often framed as narratives of redemption and transformation, where individuals or teams overcome adversity to achieve success. These stories resonate with Americans' belief in second chances and the possibility of personal growth and change.

• Entertainment and Drama: In sports and politics, underdog stories add an element of excitement, drama, and unpredictability to the competition. Fans enjoy the thrill of witnessing an upset victory or a surprising underdog triumph.

Overall, the cultural affinity for underdogs in American society reflects broader themes of fairness, individualism, and the human spirit. Underdog stories inspire and uplift, reminding us of the potential for greatness in the face of adversity.

Independent Voters Will Decide for Everyone

Independent voters in the United States are those who do not align themselves exclusively with any particular political party. Instead of identifying as Democrats or Republicans, independent voters choose to remain unaffiliated with a specific party and may vote for candidates from various political parties or based on individual issues.

• Unaffiliated with Political Parties: Independent voters do not register as members of the Democratic or Republican Party. They may choose to register as independents or with a third party, or they may simply not affiliate with any party.

• Moderate or Centrist Views: Independent voters often hold moderate or centrist political views, meaning they may not fully align with the platforms or ideologies of either major party. They may support policies from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum and may prioritize pragmatism and compromise over ideological purity.

• Diverse Demographic Profile: Independent voters come from diverse demographic backgrounds, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, income, education, and geographic location. They cannot be easily categorized based on demographics alone, as independent voters encompass a broad spectrum of individuals with varied beliefs and priorities.

• Swing Voters: Independent voters are often considered swing voters, meaning they may swing their support between different political parties or candidates from election to election. Their votes can be crucial in determining the outcome of elections, particularly in closely contested races.

• Disillusionment with Partisan Politics: Some independent voters may feel disillusioned or disenchanted with the two-party system and the perceived polarization of American politics. They may view both major parties as overly partisan or beholden to special interests and may prefer to distance themselves from partisan politics altogether.

• Focus on Issues: Independent voters may prioritize specific issues or policy positions over loyalty to a particular party. They may evaluate candidates based on their stances on issues such as the economy, healthcare, immigration, foreign policy, and social issues, rather than strict adherence to party lines.

• Electoral Influence: Independent voters represent a significant portion of the electorate and can have a substantial impact on election outcomes, particularly in swing states or competitive districts. Political candidates often target independent voters with messages and policies designed to appeal to their preferences and concerns.

Overall, independent voters play a crucial role in American politics, contributing to the diversity of perspectives and the complexity of electoral dynamics. While they may not align with a specific party, their votes and opinions shape the political landscape and influence the direction of the country.

Electoral College

The United States is not a direct democracy. The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution for the indirect election of the President and Vice President. Under the Electoral College system, voters in each state cast ballots for a slate of electors who are pledged to support a specific presidential and vice presidential candidate. These electors, equal in number to the state's representation in Congress (senators plus representatives), then formally cast their votes for President and Vice President.

• State-Based System: The Electoral College operates on a state-by-state basis, with each state having a certain number of electors based on its total representation in Congress. This number is equal to the state's total number of senators and representatives.

• Winner-Takes-All (Except Nebraska and Maine): In all but two states (Nebraska and Maine), the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state receives all of that state's electoral votes. This winner-takes-all approach means that the candidate who receives the majority of popular votes in a state typically receives all of its electoral votes.

• Electoral Vote Allocation: The total number of electoral votes is 538, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, and 3 electors from the District of Columbia. A candidate needs to secure a majority of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

• Congressional District Method (Nebraska and Maine): Nebraska and Maine use a variation of the winner-takes-all system known as the congressional district method. Under this approach, the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district receives one electoral vote, and the overall statewide winner receives the remaining two electoral votes.

• Faithless Electors: While electors are generally expected to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, there have been instances of "faithless electors" who vote contrary to the popular vote in their state. However, faithless electors are relatively rare and have not typically affected the outcome of presidential elections.

• Contingent Election: If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (270 or more), the election is decided by the House of Representatives, with each state delegation casting one vote for President from among the top three candidates. The Vice President is elected by the Senate.

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between a popular vote and a congressional vote for the president. There was a distrust of executive power, a concern about having direct vote to elect the commander in chief, and a divide between slave-owning and non-slave-owning states. The Founding Fathers also feared that a popular election could allow a populist tyrant to win the presidency by appealing to the people's fears and prejudices. 

Critics of the Electoral College argue that it can result in discrepancies between the popular vote and the electoral vote, potentially allowing a candidate to win the presidency without securing the most votes nationwide. Proponents argue that the Electoral College helps to balance the interests of smaller states and prevents candidates from focusing solely on densely populated areas. The debate over the Electoral College continues to be a topic of discussion in American politics.

Battleground States, a Dynamic Political Landscape in the United States

Battleground states, also known as swing states or purple states, are states in the United States where the outcome of the presidential election is often highly competitive and uncertain. These states play a crucial role in determining the overall result of the election, as they can swing either Democratic or Republican depending on various factors such as demographic shifts, political trends, and candidate strategies. Battleground states are typically closely contested, with relatively small margins of victory for the winning candidate.

The specific list of battleground states varies from election to election based on factors such as changing demographics, shifts in voter preferences, and the political climate at the time of the election. However, some states are consistently considered battlegrounds due to their history of competitiveness and their potential to swing between parties. Here are some examples of battleground states in recent U.S. presidential elections:

Florida and Ohio, Two Former Battleground States Now Annexed to the Trump Land

Florida: Florida used to be the most well-known battleground state and the most significant one due to its relatively large population and its 29 electoral college votes. Only California (55 electoral college votes) and Texas (38 electoral college votes) have more electoral college votes than Florida. New York also has 29 electoral college votes. Florida has a history of close elections and has swung between Democratic and Republican candidates. However, it has been turning consistently Republican in recent elections. Many experts say that there is no likely path for Republicans to win the White House if the party does not win Florida. 

Ohio: Ohio has long been considered both a battleground state and a bellwether state, meaning its election results often mirror the national outcome. It has a diverse electorate and a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas. The state has recently become a Trump land, with Trump winning by wide margins both in 2016 and 2020. It would be very unlikely to see Ohio becoming a key battleground state this November, and can be safely counted for Trump. 

What Are the Key Battleground States for the 2024 Elections?

Arizona (11 votes), Nevada (6 votes), and Georgia (16 votes): These three states and 33 votes collectively will most likely decide the elections this November. Independent voters in these three states will most likely decide the elections for the whole country and the world.  

Michigan (15 votes): Michigan, with its industrial base and diverse population, is often considered a battleground state. It has historically leaned Democratic but has become increasingly competitive in recent elections, particularly in areas outside of the urban centers. In 2016, Trump unexpectedly won Michigan by a narrow margin of 0.23%, with 47.50% of the total votes over Clinton's 47.27%. In 2020, Biden won Michigan by 2.78%, a far closer margin than expected. Per exit polls by the Associated Press, Biden's strength in Michigan came from union households, which composed 21% of the Michigan electorate and supported Biden by 56% to 42%.

North Carolina (16 votes): North Carolina is emerging as a battleground state in recent years due to its growing population and demographic changes. It has a large number of suburban voters, as well as a sizable African American, growing Latino population, and many educated women. Trump won the state both in 2016 and 2020. Democrats are hoping to flip it this November.

Pennsylvania (20 votes): Pennsylvania is another key battleground state with a significant number of electoral votes. It has 20 electoral college votes representing an electorate that exhibits a diverse mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas. Both Democrats and Republicans have been competitive in Pennsylvania, making it a crucial state for presidential candidates. Joe Biden won in Pennsylvania, flipping a state Donald Trump won in 2016. 

Wisconsin (10 votes): Wisconsin is another Midwestern state that has been closely contested in recent elections. It has a sizable white working-class population and a mix of urban and rural areas. Donald Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by a narrow margin, highlighting its battleground status. Wisconsin was ultimately won by Biden by a narrow 0.63% margin over Trump, a far closer margin than expected. 

Who will win the U.S. presidential elections in November 2024?

If a candidate is chosen democratically by voters, even electoral college ones, democracy will win. Of course, one party will lose, but overall the democratic system wins. Democracy is not perfect; it's simply better than the alternatives from wars to monarchies and dictatorships. 

The presidential candidate who obtains at least 270 electoral college votes will become the next President of the United States. The 2024 presidential elections will be decided by a handful of independent voters in key battleground states. These independent voters know both candidates well. They know what to expect from a second term of either Biden or Trump. 

Independent voters typically care about concrete issues rather than abstract principles. If that holds true this year, Trump will return to the White House. If independent voters stay focused on issues over principles, Trump will win. Enough independent voters perceive Trump as a stronger and more effective leader handling security related issues (crime, immigration, terrorism) and to some extent also economic ones such as inflation and globalization. Granted that for some independent voters, social issues such as abortion, climate change, gun controls are important, and on those Biden is considered a better option than Trump. A key segment within independent voters are college educated women, and on that segment Biden leads over Trump.  

Independent voters will vote for whatever they perceive as more convenient to them. The criminal trial in New York against Trump, and the proceedings on the multiple other criminal charges pending against Trump, will keep Trump as a headline contender running on free publicity all day until election night. It is yet to be seen how these proceedings will play into the image or mirage of Trump as an effective problem solver. Is Trump a problem solver or a problem creator? Will Trump solve the problems that independent voters care about the most, or will Trump make those problems worse?

To Trump or Not to Trump: Problems vs Principles

Artificial intelligence (AI) can safely predict that the criminal cases against Trump will increase his popularity among current supporters. Independent voters in a handful of battleground states will decide the elections for everyone. If come November, these voters perceived themselves as having lots of problems, and thus in a lot of emotional pain due that perception, Trump will win because he is consider a stronger analgesic or painkiller than Biden. If these voters do not feel that much pain, Biden will win because not enough independent voters will see a need to "sell out" their principles to Trumpism in consideration of pain relief (PR). 

Let the people vote. The AI revolution will continue finding its way regardless of who is elected president. The best is yet to come regardless of transient human politics.

Stay to tune to Creatix, the creative advice matrix, helping someone (not everyone) enjoy the business life and the business of life. 

www.creatix.one