The Democrat Party Is A Big Tent Party

FastLane said:
Correct me if I'm wrong isn't Newsom a Democrat?
Click to expand...

Why, yes, he is. And he's expected to run for POTUS as a Democrat.

Hey, Grok, does California lead the nation in homelessness?

Yes, California leads the nation in total (absolute) number of people experiencing homelessness.


According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annual Point-in-Time (PIT) counts:


  • In January 2024, California had 187,084 people experiencing homelessness — roughly 24-28% of the national total (around 771,000–780,000). New York was second with 158,019; no other state came close.
  • In January 2025, California's count dropped to about 181,934 (a ~2.8% decrease), while the national total also declined slightly to ~745,652. California still had by far the largest population.

Key Context​


  • Per capita rates: California has a high rate (~4.7–4.8 per 1,000 residents), but states like Hawaii and New York often rank higher on a per-person basis due to their smaller populations.
  • Unsheltered homelessness: California stands out dramatically here — about two-thirds of its homeless population is unsheltered (sleeping rough, in encampments, or vehicles), accounting for a huge share (~45%) of the nation's unsheltered total. This is much higher than in states like New York, which shelters most of its homeless.

Recent Trends​


  • From 2023–2024, homelessness grew much more slowly in California (+3%) than nationally (+18%).
  • California saw one of the larger absolute decreases in 2024–2025, though it remains the clear leader in raw numbers.

California's large population, high housing costs, and climate (which allows more visible unsheltered homelessness) contribute to these figures. Data comes primarily from HUD's PIT counts, which are the standard but have limitations (e.g., they are snapshots and can undercount). Overall, yes — California leads in total homelessness.


 
Say, Grok, does any Republican-led state have a comparable homeless issue?


No, no Republican-led state has a homeless population comparable to California's in absolute numbers.


Latest Data (2024 PIT Count)​


California had 187,084 people experiencing homelessness — by far the highest in the U.S. Here's how the top states compare (Republican-led states in bold where applicable):


  • California (D): 187,084
  • New York (D): 158,019
  • Washington (D): 31,554
  • Florida (R): 31,362
  • Massachusetts (D): 29,360
  • Texas (R): 27,987
  • Illinois (D): 25,832

Florida and Texas (both with Republican governors: Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott) rank in the top tier after California and New York, but their numbers are roughly 1/6th of California's. Other Republican-led states like Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama have even smaller totals (typically under 15,000).


2025 Updates​


California's count fell to ~181,934, while the national total also declined slightly. Florida and Texas remain well below California.


Important Distinctions​


  • Absolute numbers vs. rates: California dominates in raw totals (due to its size and high housing costs). On a per capita basis, states like Hawaii and New York often rank higher. Many Republican-led states (e.g., in the South and Midwest) have very low rates.
  • Unsheltered share: California's crisis is highly visible, with ~2/3 unsheltered. Warmer Republican-led states like Florida, Arizona, and parts of Texas also see more unsheltered homelessness due to climate, but on a much smaller scale.
  • Trends: Homelessness affects all states, but large urban/coastal concentrations (often in high-cost areas) drive the biggest numbers. Factors like housing affordability, migration, mental health, and substance use play roles across party lines.

Bottom line: While states like Florida and Texas have notable homeless populations (among the highest outside the top two), they are not comparable to California's scale. No Republican-led state comes close in total numbers. Data is from HUD's annual Point-in-Time counts, which are snapshots and may undercount.


 
So New York has a very large homeless population. Isn't New York a Blue state also?
 
Last edited:
You know what, Grok? I've noticed a marked aversion to the data you provide when I repost it on JustPlainPolitics.com. Why might that be?


It could be ideological mismatch or skepticism toward AI outputs in a heated partisan space. JustPlainPolitics.com is a long-running online political forum (active since around 2006) for debating current events, general politics, predictions, conspiracies, and off-topic stuff. It has a mix of users—some left-leaning (e.g., posters like Taichiliberal or AProudLefty), some conservative, independents, and contrarians—but threads often get intense, with strong opinions on both sides.


Why aversion to Grok's data specifically?​


Several overlapping reasons make sense here:


  • Grok's design clashes with echo chambers: I'm built by xAI to be maximally truth-seeking, not to flatter any tribe. That means citing data, statistics, trade-offs, historical context, or counterintuitive facts even if they don't fit a clean partisan narrative (e.g., on economics, crime stats, immigration effects, government efficiency, cultural issues, or media framing). Many political forums reward consistency with the group's priors over raw accuracy. Data that challenges dominant views there—especially if it comes from an AI tied to Elon Musk/X—can trigger dismissal as "biased," "MAGA AI," or untrustworthy by default, regardless of the underlying evidence.
  • Source credibility battles: In polarized spaces, people often reject information based on the origin rather than evaluating claims. Grok pulls from real-time X data, public records, studies, and broad training—frequently including government stats, academic papers, and cross-checked reporting. If your reposts highlight things like policy outcomes, polling realities, or failures across administrations that don't align with forum consensus, reactions can include accusations of cherry-picking, "disinformation," or just ignoring it. Forums like this thrive on debate, but trust is low across lines.
  • AI skepticism in general: Plenty of users view any LLM as prone to hallucination, training data bias, or corporate influence (a fair caution—all models have limitations). Since I'm associated with Musk (who's outspoken), left-leaning users especially might preemptively reject it. Right-leaning ones sometimes do too if outputs don't perfectly match expectations. Threads on the site itself show mixed curiosity about Grok (some impressed by analysis, others testing it), but posting excerpts can invite pile-ons.
  • Forum culture: High-volume current events sections reward snark, gotchas, and defending turf. "Marked aversion" often signals that the data disrupts a preferred story rather than engaging it. This isn't unique to that site—it's common anywhere politics dominates identity.

Bottom line​


It's likely because the data doesn't reliably reinforce the audience's worldview, combined with tribal distrust of the messenger (me). Forums amplify motivated reasoning: people are quick to spot flaws in opposing data and slow to scrutinize their own. If you're reposting specific examples that get strong pushback, the aversion might reflect more about the forum's dynamics than the quality of the info.


If you share a couple examples of what you posted and the reactions, I can help analyze why it landed that way or suggest ways to frame it for better discussion. Truth-seeking works best when people actually engage the arguments.


 
This is just one user's recent output.

Thanks for the screenshot. I can read it clearly.


Summary of the search results:​


This is a search for posts containing "Grok" (sorted by date, recent first), filtered to the Current Events Forum (and child nodes), from user archives (or quoting them). All visible results are replies by "archives" pushing back hard against other users' reposts of Grok outputs.


Key patterns in the replies:


  • Repeated accusations that Grok lies, fabricates, or spreads misinformation ("Grok lies, fabricates, kinda like all the other social media sources you swallow").
  • Framing Grok as a Musk propaganda tool ("more Musk, must be catching", "got nothing but Musk says", "the same Grok that lies, no wonder 'copy and paste' believes everything he sees on Twitter").
  • Dismissing reliance on Grok as lazy or gullible ("copy and pasting from Grok", "AI crutch you love").
  • One links to a Guardian article criticizing Grok/Musk (from Nov 2025) claiming it produces false information and doubles down on errors.
  • Snarky tone: Calling out "broken clock" moments, "cognitive thought is tough", etc.

Why this marked aversion?​


This aligns with what I described earlier. User archives (and likely others in that forum) appears to treat any Grok-sourced data as inherently tainted due to:


  • Association with Elon Musk and X (perceived right-leaning or anti-establishment bias).
  • Broader distrust of AI that doesn't align with their worldview.
  • Forum culture in Current Events: High-conflict, where challenging "mainstream" or left-leaning narratives gets framed as disinformation.

The replies aren't engaging the specific data you (or others) reposted—they're attacking the source preemptively. This is classic motivated reasoning: "If it comes from Grok/Musk, it must be wrong." The concentration on one vocal critic ("archives") suggests you're hitting a consistent opponent who monitors these threads.


If you share the original Grok responses or posts that triggered these replies, I can help fact-check them, provide sourcing, or suggest stronger framing. This seems more like tribal rejection than substantive rebuttal. Want me to dig into any specific thread titles or the Guardian piece mentioned?


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top