Might try to get tickets...
Can't see her announcing someone else in Philly, but who knows?Unless its deliberate misdirection, that sounds positive for Shapiro.
Rachel Anne Maddow (/ˈmædoʊ/ ⓘ, MAD-oh; born April 1, 1973) is an American television news program host and liberal political commentator.[1][2][3][4] Maddow hosts The Rachel Maddow Show, a weekly television show on MSNBC, and serves as the cable network's special event co-anchor.[5]Chist. I have no idea who this 'reporter' is and what she is saying may well be accurate, but it could not possibly have been delivered in a more irritatingly mannered way. Absolutely unwatchable.
The only people who think they are the same have not watched both. I watched some Fox News to see what the hell my cousins were so upset about, and it is absolutely nothing like what happens on MSNBC>What Fox does is outright lie, and pander to fearmongering and hatred. Their lies cost them almost a billion dollars and they still aren't done with the other cases. Is the substance of what Maddow reports on lies? I get not liking her personally, or her delivery. But, as long as she has her actual facts correct and sourcing on the stories it is not "Fox of the left".
When the GOP actually had schemes for false electors, when they literally spread election fraud lies far and wide for years. It is not hyperbole to report the seriousness of the future scheming, and the actual laws and party platforms they are promoting.
I think they should use creepy, because Trump is a creepy old man. They have ready-made excuses for why they are not bigots, why their comments about race are not racist, why their views on telling women what to do is not misogynist, and so on, but there is no defense for being creepy.That's true. Terms like racist, mysoginist etc., have been flagrantly overused to the point where the moral leverage of using them on Trump and his goons has largely been rendered useless. But terms like weird/odd/creepy etc., haven't really been used much, which is why they are more impactful in the present.
Kentucky is not in play at all, and even if it were, the VP isn't enough to get it. It's basically a dead loss in that state still, so they should work on bolstering the ground game in a state that is in play.VP pick very rarely flips a state on his/her own, sure, it may sound like Shapiro should be a slam dunk, but it's not always that simple.
Beshear appeals to people who are in the middle, not just in Kentucky, but other states as well i'd reckon, he is a solid pick, little for the opposition to attack him on.
He does that, btw, not in a blue dog-sort of way, he is not afraid to state his positions on things, in Kentucky, of all places.
Nate Silver had Hillary's chances of winning 2016 at 71.4% to Trump's chances of 28.6%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ . Silver's site that he started (and left) disagrees with his assessments. He admits there are a myriad ways to build a prediction model, and even then, the numbers don't mean what he (and others) claim they mean. https://newrepublic.com/article/155761/fall-nate-silver . He's also not the guru he thinks he is https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/the-sudden-shocking-fall-of-nate-silver .BTW, that’s a fair appraisal from Nate Silver given a limited amount of polls over the past week or so. I would imagine the new PA poll with Harris up by four wasn’t factored in yet. If the four point lead in PA is anywhere near accurate, then she is likely also doing better than expected in MI and WI as well.
Nate Silver had Hillary's chances of winning 2016 at 71.4% to Trump's chances of 28.6%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ . Silver's site that he started (and left) disagrees with his assessments. He admits there are a myriad ways to build a prediction model, and even then, the numbers don't mean what he (and others) claim they mean. https://newrepublic.com/article/155761/fall-nate-silver . He's also not the guru he thinks he is https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/the-sudden-shocking-fall-of-nate-silver .
OK. For my money, being wrong on several big things is relevant, and when his current prediction models are disputed by his own (former) company and other experts, it calls into question his conclusions. Point is, no one will know until after the dust settles.Whatever happend with him in the past isn't indicative of this latest forcast he's put out, which is completely in sync with most of the polls towards the end of Biden's run and a the few polls that have been taken for Harris over the past week. Therefore the 61% EC probability makes perfect sense given the preponderance of polling towards the end of Biden's run.
OK. For my money, being wrong on several big things is relevant, and when his current prediction models are disputed by his own (former) company and other experts, it calls into question his conclusions. Point is, no one will know until after the dust settles.
Vote early, vote often!Yes, we obviously won't know until the election. But if you were to ask me who is currently favored based on recent polls over the past couple of weeks; Trump would still edge it at this moment. Although much could change when the next batch of polls come out.
Silver showed two weeks ago that Biden had a higher probability of winning than Trump. The polls were completely at odds with that prediction.Whatever happend with him in the past isn't indicative of this latest forcast he's put out, which is completely in sync with most of the polls towards the end of Biden's run and a the few polls that have been taken for Harris over the past week. Therefore the 61% EC probability makes perfect sense given the preponderance of polling towards the end of Biden's run.
Silver showed two weeks ago that Biden had a higher probability of winning than Trump. The polls were completely at odds with that prediction.
Since then, Biden dropped, Harris is the presumptive nominee and her numbers are better than Trump’s. Yet, Trump now has more than 60% of winning?
I’m interested in how he can explain that.
Let’s put the popular vote aside and focus on the EC:That I would disagree with. Trump edging the EC but losing the popular, I can however definitely agree with.
Let’s put the popular vote aside and focus on the EC:
Biden was doing worse than Harris nationally and in swing states. Yet, Silver had him with more than 50% of winning while Harris is under 40%. That’s what I don’t understand.
From my purely anecdotal experience in the Southeastern PA part where my in-laws live and I've spent much time in the June-Sept summer period:BTW, that’s a fair appraisal from Nate Silver given a limited amount of polls over the past week or so. I would imagine the new PA poll with Harris up by four wasn’t factored in yet. If the four point lead in PA is anywhere near accurate, then she is likely also doing better than expected in MI and WI as well.
Absolutely amazing
Might try to get tickets...
From my purely anecdotal experience in the Southeastern PA part where my in-laws live and I've spent much time in the June-Sept summer period:
In 2016, Trump signs were everywhere and I don't think I couldn't more than 2 Hillary signs out of 100
In 2020, far fewer Trump signs, more Biden signs (tbf they're right next to Delaware)
In 2024 so far, more visual Trump support than 2020 but not at 2016 ubiquity. The signs/flags are bigger though many are Let's Go Brandon type and it's still early but will be interesting to see if any Harris support starts materializing, especially if she picks Shapiro.
Here is what I’n referring to, @Raoul .
Going to bed now, but would love to know more. I know that the model is not just based on polling, but still- it’s not clear to me what’s going on.
Silver showed two weeks ago that Biden had a higher probability of winning than Trump. The polls were completely at odds with that prediction.
Since then, Biden dropped, Harris is the presumptive nominee and her numbers are better than Biden’s. Yet, Trump now has more than 60% of winning?
I’m not saying that Trump won’t win. I’m just interested in how Silver can explain that.
Okay, then. Thank you.That's not Silver. That's FiveThirtyEight, which he founded but left in 2023.
I didn’t know that he left 538. Now that makes sense to me. Thank you.Are you sure about this? I recall Silver's model being extremely negative on Biden's chances over the last weeks. It's one of the reasons why he was dead-set on Biden not being the nominee.
It was the 538 model that claimed Biden would win but that's no longer his model.
Saw this a few mins ago:
Weird...
Weird...
I think the counterpoint would be that the messaging needs to be as influential to as many influencable people as possible. And that includes bringing down more of the potential "coolness" by successfully painting your opponent as weirdos (accurate) vs dangerous threats to democracy (also accurate).
The current 538 model is definitely a bit 'broken' though it's been doing all sorts of weird stuff.I didn’t know that he left 538. Now that makes sense to me. Thank you.
You must live in a swing state. God help you until November with those ads.FWIW: my NBC coverage of the Olympics this morning has a Harris ad every break. So the spend begins.
The ads are insane
Pretty much. It’s Democrats agreeing with Trump view on immigration.Isn't saying 'to fix the broken immigration system' contradictory as the Dems have been in charge over the last 4 years. They are essentially saying the broken system has continued under their governance.
Pretty much. It’s Democrats agreeing with Trump view on immigration.
Isn't saying 'to fix the broken immigration system' contradictory as the Dems have been in charge over the last 4 years. They are essentially saying the broken system has continued under their governance.
No, they are referring to what happened when Democrats and Biden proposed a bill on that would help with immigration and the border and the GOP in Congress, supposedly at the direction of Trump,. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ecurity-bill-campaign-border-chaos-rcna153607
Although some Democrats also didn't vote for it for different reasons including the California Senators, Cory Booker and Bernie.
So Beshear/Cooper/Shapiro ?
Most likely not Cooper, since he’s their only shot of a Senate seat in NC.
So Beshear/Cooper/Shapiro ?
Most likely not Cooper, since he’s their only shot of a Senate seat in NC.
Isn't saying 'to fix the broken immigration system' contradictory as the Dems have been in charge over the last 4 years. They are essentially saying the broken system has continued under their governance.