They were mentally ill to begin with
Posted on 11/02/2020 3:09:50 PM PST by aimhigh
There were 54.6 million more days of poor mental health among adults in states that voted for Hillary Clinton in December 2016, compared to October 2016, according to a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. No such increase in poor mental health following the 2016 US election was observed in states that voted for Donald Trump. The increase in average number of poor mental health days per person in Clinton-voting states largely persisted in the six months after the election.
Comparing states in which Trump had received the most votes with states in which Clinton had received the most votes, a team of researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, USA, and Duke University, Durham, NC, USA found that in Clinton-voting states, the average number of days on which adults reported experiencing poor mental health in the last 30 days increased by 0.50 days, from 3.35 days in October to 3.85 days in December 2016.
Brandon Yan, the corresponding author said: "The additional half a day per adult translated into 54.6 million more days of poor mental health in December 2016 alone for the 109.2 million adults living in Clinton-voting states."
The rise in poor mental health days in Clinton-voting states in December 2016 was primarily observed in adults aged 65 and older, women, and white individuals. No changes in poor mental health days were statistically detected among younger age groups, men, or racial and ethnic minority groups in December 2016 in either Clinton- or Trump-voting states.
In states that voted for Clinton, the authors also observed a 2 percentage point increase in the number of people who reported at least 14 days of poor mental health in the last 30 days in December 2016, compared to October 2016, while no such rise was observed in Trump-voting states.
Brandon Yan said: "It is notable that following the election the proportion of those with 14 or more days of poor mental health also increased, which may suggest that some individuals may newly meet diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder."
The authors analyzed data on 499,201 adults collected in 2016 and 2017 as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a joint state and federal annual household survey. By comparing each monthly cohort of survey respondents, they studied changes in three mental health indicators - total days of poor mental health in the last 30 days, 14 days or more of poor mental health in the last 30 days and being diagnosed with a depressive disorder - in Clinton- and Trump-voting states in the six months following the November 2016 election, compared to the six months before the election.
The authors also found that a 10-percentage point higher margin of victory for Trump in the state was associated with 0.41 fewer days of poor mental health in Trump-voting states. The inverse is also statistically true. In Clinton-states, a 10-percentage point higher margin of victory for Clinton in the state predicted 0.41 more days of poor mental health.
Overall, the findings suggest that the outcome of the 2016 election had a negative impact on mental health for voters of the candidate that lost the election. Brandon Yan said: "Depression rates - which were assessed by asking people if they had ever been diagnosed with a depressive disorder - also started rising in January 2017 in Clinton-voting states and in February 2017 in Trump-voting states. These increases in depression rates continued into the second quarter of 2017." The authors suggest that the rise in depression rates in Trump states suggests that there were likely other coinciding factors contributing to depression, such as rising opioid deaths which especially affected many states that voted for Trump.
The authors caution that the cross-sectional observational nature of the study does not allow for conclusions about cause and effect. Because the respondents' candidate preference and party affiliation were unknown, the authors relied on the candidate's margin of victory or loss in a state to assess which candidate's voters experienced changes in mental health.
Brandon Yan said: "Given our findings for 2016, primary care providers, mental health professionals, and the public should not overlook the potential effects from the 2020 election. Health care providers could play a proactive role in monitoring for clinically relevant signs of mental health deterioration and offering appropriate support and intervention following the 2020 election."
Quite a few will be “literally shaking” again tomorrow night.
How do you get more crazy than bat$#*+ crazy?
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women and pajama boys. Especially the crazy ones.
I enjoyed watching them cry. I remember sounding like Scut Farkus from A Christmas Story when he was taunting Ralphie.
We’re going to cut out their guts, and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.
It’s disturbing that they film their meltdown videos in their cars, often while driving. Yikes. Is it safe to drive while literally shaking? It cannot be.
L8r
“Elections Have Consequences “
or stupid is as stupid does
Eat your peas
When the jokes write themselves it’s just not that much fun!!!!
They were mentally ill to begin with
They certainly start with poor mental health.
Probably makes it worse.
Yes, the left didn’t exactly corner the market on mental health before the 2016 elections. If anything, it was liberating for them to let loose their deranged psychotic selves and lose the pretense of ever having really been stable psychologically.
Great quote by P.J. O'Rourke!
Whacked-out liberals remind me of the zombies in zombie movies, except they haven't resorted to eating us... yet. Wish our military could mow them down when they're rioting. The liberals are unhappy and useless, would be better off dead.
Is “poorer mental health” similar to “nucking futs”?
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
>> liberals just have poor mental health.<<
I submit there is NO scientific test that could discern the bad mental health of these people before or after the election.
Adding them tasty tears is just externalizing their insanity.
Tears last time, tantrums this time. Detroit and Chicago may never recover from this coming Wednesday.
A co-worker who is EXTREMELY liberal (her daughters marched in the BLM and women’s rights marches) and who is LILY white, whose husband works for an offshoot of the EPA as a tree hugger, errr forrester, (and yes she drives a suburu) literally collapsed her immune system after the 2016 election.
Her husband did the same.
I think they’re attributing their voting for Clinton to poor mental health.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.