I there any explanation for Trump's new speech impediment? A minor stroke or dental work or ???
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Wtf, that's out of order. And also ought to be illegal.
Ugh, be better.
Then again if it was Steve Bannon doing it we'd have books written about the genius manipulation of tech by the polticial gurus of the GOP.
I gotta say the former was growing on me over the last year, despite his abomination of a (highly effective) golf swing.
But his pandering to Trump....ugh. Also makes Trump look a pretty good golfer. Ugh some more.
Ezra Klein had Nate Silver on his podcast to discuss polls, methodology, the 2016 election lessons, and so on. It explains - even if unintentionally - why Silver left 528, why they differ from him, and what he means when he calls the progressive Democratic left the "indigo blob". He basically fell out with this establishment over the pandemic.
Excerpt:
[EK] Let me get us back to the election. Harris’s approval ratings have gone from significantly underwater to net favorable very fast. She’s now leading in head-to-head polls. More than that, there’s a real organic enthusiasm that has unleashed itself around her. She turns out to be very meme-able in a way I’m not sure people quite predicted. So what was missed here?
[NS] Maybe you really can meme your way to victory. I don’t know. I wouldn’t necessarily have thought that. There’s something about how it’s off-trend a little bit, and it’s kind of unexpected. And people are ready for a vibe shift. I think people in politics neglect just how annoying the pedantic, dramatic, no-fun tone of politics was. And if the worst Republicans can say about Kamala Harris is, oh, she laughs a lot — maybe it suits the mood after so many years of doom and gloom, so maybe it was just spontaneous and lucky.
Harris ended up choosing Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, as her V.P. pick. You made a case that it should have been Josh Shapiro. Why?
Pennsylvania, No. 1. There’s about a 4 percent chance in our model that Harris will lose the election because of Pennsylvania.
If you’re a probabilist, a 4 percent chance — because campaigns often don’t make a difference. If we go into a recession in the third quarter, then Harris will probably lose through no fault of her own. But in the worlds where campaign strategy can make a difference, then the V.P. being from Pennsylvania is a reasonably big upgrade. And the fact that he has demonstrated his popularity with this very diverse state that’s kind of a microcosm of the U.S. as a whole, and he’s 15 points above water approval-wise, that’s pretty powerful information to work with.
And another excerpt:
Tim Alberta in The Atlantic had a great piece on the way the Trump campaign was thinking about the race that came out after the debate, and they felt they had Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia completely locked up, and that the election was really a race in three, maybe four states. My understanding is Harris and her team think they have re-expanded the map. They think that Nevada, Arizona, Georgia are back in play. They think that North Carolina might be back in play. Do you think that’s true?
I think that’s right. Look at the voters that Biden was falling off with. Nevada is extremely diverse and it’s working class voters of color — big fall-off constituency for Biden. Georgia, you have tons of young professionals and tons of great colleges and universities and, of course, tons of Black voters — the same groups that he’s declining from a little bit. North Carolina has been interestingly close in the polls. Arizona is the one that doesn’t seem to have moved quite as much, though there was one poll with Harris ahead there.
But that’s right. I think the map has expanded, and it’s obviously plausible again now that she would win Georgia, especially with the Brian Kemp stuff not helping Trump one bit.
----------------------
So in this example, Nate Silver says there's a 4% chance Pennsylvania costs her the election and it's ominous, when another way to phrase it is, there's a 96% chance it does not cost her the election. But however you view this data point, Nate Silver we say he was right whatever the outcome was, if she loses PA and loses the election, he can claim it was in his prediction, and if she wins, he can say he predicted that too. Ultimately, he kind of distances himself from his own models, and goes on about it in his book and likens everything to playing high stakes poker. It's common to think of a 4% chance as being 4 in 100, or if you ran an experiment 100 times you would have 4 instances of this particular result. But if you ran it once, and didn't get the projected result, the next time you ran it, it is not a different odds of 4 in 99, the difference between deterministic and probabilistic. So when he gave Hillary Clinton something like a 71% chance of winning, his prediction house fell on him like a ton of bricks, even though he rationalized it by saying 29% chance for Trump proved he was right. I don't know, maybe I'm not getting what he's saying after all. At the end of the day, I think the article and its accompanying comments explain why Nate Silver really should not be paid attention to anymore.
This reader comments lays out some of it: Missing from this article is an explanation/disclaimer about Silver's current work. He's no longer merely a "statistician" or "gambler." He's a paid advisor to the "prediction market platform" aka the betting company Polymarket where participants (bettors) make monetary bets on things, including the 2024 US Presidential election, using cryptocurrency. Hence, he has a financial interest in promoting betting analogies, language, and reasoning as a means of talking about and analyzing social events and issues, including political elections. It is no wonder his comments are centered around concepts of betting, risk, and probabilities. Peter Thiel is an investor in Polymarket. Silver has an interest in promoting gambling on politics and pleasing his employers, which includes Thiel as part-owner of the company. He is not an academic or purely intellectual analyst; he’s in the business to make money off gambling on, among other things, elections.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-nate-silver.html
Excerpt:
[EK] Let me get us back to the election. Harris’s approval ratings have gone from significantly underwater to net favorable very fast. She’s now leading in head-to-head polls. More than that, there’s a real organic enthusiasm that has unleashed itself around her. She turns out to be very meme-able in a way I’m not sure people quite predicted. So what was missed here?
[NS] Maybe you really can meme your way to victory. I don’t know. I wouldn’t necessarily have thought that. There’s something about how it’s off-trend a little bit, and it’s kind of unexpected. And people are ready for a vibe shift. I think people in politics neglect just how annoying the pedantic, dramatic, no-fun tone of politics was. And if the worst Republicans can say about Kamala Harris is, oh, she laughs a lot — maybe it suits the mood after so many years of doom and gloom, so maybe it was just spontaneous and lucky.
Harris ended up choosing Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, as her V.P. pick. You made a case that it should have been Josh Shapiro. Why?
Pennsylvania, No. 1. There’s about a 4 percent chance in our model that Harris will lose the election because of Pennsylvania.
If you’re a probabilist, a 4 percent chance — because campaigns often don’t make a difference. If we go into a recession in the third quarter, then Harris will probably lose through no fault of her own. But in the worlds where campaign strategy can make a difference, then the V.P. being from Pennsylvania is a reasonably big upgrade. And the fact that he has demonstrated his popularity with this very diverse state that’s kind of a microcosm of the U.S. as a whole, and he’s 15 points above water approval-wise, that’s pretty powerful information to work with.
And another excerpt:
Tim Alberta in The Atlantic had a great piece on the way the Trump campaign was thinking about the race that came out after the debate, and they felt they had Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia completely locked up, and that the election was really a race in three, maybe four states. My understanding is Harris and her team think they have re-expanded the map. They think that Nevada, Arizona, Georgia are back in play. They think that North Carolina might be back in play. Do you think that’s true?
I think that’s right. Look at the voters that Biden was falling off with. Nevada is extremely diverse and it’s working class voters of color — big fall-off constituency for Biden. Georgia, you have tons of young professionals and tons of great colleges and universities and, of course, tons of Black voters — the same groups that he’s declining from a little bit. North Carolina has been interestingly close in the polls. Arizona is the one that doesn’t seem to have moved quite as much, though there was one poll with Harris ahead there.
But that’s right. I think the map has expanded, and it’s obviously plausible again now that she would win Georgia, especially with the Brian Kemp stuff not helping Trump one bit.
----------------------
So in this example, Nate Silver says there's a 4% chance Pennsylvania costs her the election and it's ominous, when another way to phrase it is, there's a 96% chance it does not cost her the election. But however you view this data point, Nate Silver we say he was right whatever the outcome was, if she loses PA and loses the election, he can claim it was in his prediction, and if she wins, he can say he predicted that too. Ultimately, he kind of distances himself from his own models, and goes on about it in his book and likens everything to playing high stakes poker. It's common to think of a 4% chance as being 4 in 100, or if you ran an experiment 100 times you would have 4 instances of this particular result. But if you ran it once, and didn't get the projected result, the next time you ran it, it is not a different odds of 4 in 99, the difference between deterministic and probabilistic. So when he gave Hillary Clinton something like a 71% chance of winning, his prediction house fell on him like a ton of bricks, even though he rationalized it by saying 29% chance for Trump proved he was right. I don't know, maybe I'm not getting what he's saying after all. At the end of the day, I think the article and its accompanying comments explain why Nate Silver really should not be paid attention to anymore.
This reader comments lays out some of it: Missing from this article is an explanation/disclaimer about Silver's current work. He's no longer merely a "statistician" or "gambler." He's a paid advisor to the "prediction market platform" aka the betting company Polymarket where participants (bettors) make monetary bets on things, including the 2024 US Presidential election, using cryptocurrency. Hence, he has a financial interest in promoting betting analogies, language, and reasoning as a means of talking about and analyzing social events and issues, including political elections. It is no wonder his comments are centered around concepts of betting, risk, and probabilities. Peter Thiel is an investor in Polymarket. Silver has an interest in promoting gambling on politics and pleasing his employers, which includes Thiel as part-owner of the company. He is not an academic or purely intellectual analyst; he’s in the business to make money off gambling on, among other things, elections.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-nate-silver.html
Last edited:
Most likely a handler’s post but just look at the state of it.
You don't have a history of advocating for politicians that fight FGM, so you must either be for it or you just don't care.
If they were smart, they’d wheel out some medical expert to explain how it’s a side effect of being shot in the ear.
If my grandmother had balls she would be my grandfather
Big incel energy
It is interesting. To me Trump is unintentionally the funniest, most absurd human ever. Nothing about him and the level of power he's managed to achieve makes any sense.
He's a wrecker.
Most absurd human ever, he's up there, funniest, that's an insult to the legions of seriously comedians out there such as Billy Connelly
I thought those would be 100% overlapping circles after his LIV move. Both are complete tools.
Yes, it seems incredibly dodgy. One wonders if our MSM friends at CNN and MSNBC will be covering this.
Losing Luntz doesn't bode well for Trump...
So, Evangelicals for Harris is a thing...
Luntz hasn't exactly been complimentary of Harris either in terms of his focus groups being able to name what her policies are, and whether she will get strong union support (not the union leaders, the actual members who make up most of the numbers).
Those two issues are obvious & could be seen a ways off.
If those are the two main negatives of Luntz's focus groups, they pale in comparison to what the tweet states.
Why is nobody talking about climate change and what to do about it? It's the biggest issue of all, an existential problem for the whole country and the planet. Maybe the candidates are ignoring it because the voters just don't care. It does not seem to rank high in lists of the most important concerns of voters.
you basically answered the question yourself
The point being the tweet is a cherry picked take on one thing he said, which doesn't offer any balance on his overall comments about different aspects of the race.
For instance, here's Luntz last night talking up Trump's union support, a critical demographic in the rust belt.
And here's Luntz a few days ago suggesting a majority of his focus group members know literally nothing about Harris' policies, which is suggestive they are simply gravitating to her because of race and gender and because she's not old.
Thus the enthusiasm tweet.
Union support also isn't a gotcha as we have seen what has transpired in the past two presidential elections. This isn't new.
Fair enough. I didn't hear her talking about it as much as other issues at her rally last week, as if she was not pushing it as a big reason to vote for her.
Well rated polling firm:
Harris enthusing independents as well as Democrats looks to be a good sign (especially given the drop in registered Democrats).
Same mob has Harris +5 among registered voters. I like the way this is laid out:
Harris enthusing independents as well as Democrats looks to be a good sign (especially given the drop in registered Democrats).
Same mob has Harris +5 among registered voters. I like the way this is laid out:
Probably because they haven't figured out how they will be able to
SCOTUS basically shot down the majority of Biden's attempts to put climate change measures in place when they ruled that agencies like the EPA don't have the authority to determine what the regulations should actually be, this is more widespread than the EPA, it essentially covers all federal entities in some shape of form and is the GOP way of making 'smaller' government and little or no regulation
The price of gasoline is a very sensitive point in the US, it doesn't matter who is in charge, if it goes above a certain level the current President is blamed, even though they have
Trump doesn't believe in climate change of course, he'd have you believe that wind turbines, or windmills as he calls them, causes cancer and that we should be using oil for the next 4-500 years
Bringing cringe to new heights.
For once the Republicans are right: feck your feelings, Biden.
Two GOP power grab constitutional amendments we crushed in WI last night. This bodes well for Nov. hopefully we are seeing the death spiral of the GOP stranglehold on state politics.
Godspeed you!
Very good for the Dems
New voter registration bodes well for Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/upshot/democrats-voter-registration.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/upshot/democrats-voter-registration.html
Things are looking incredibly good (albeit a long way still to go), despite Harris seemingly not doing anything except for managing not to be a very old man?
I guess the danger now is that Harris refrains from saying or doing anything at all in terms of interviews or policy, for fear of somehow interrupting this continuously improving upward trajectory in the polls, and that this inaction will have the unintended consequence of inviting Trump to fill the information void, ultimately enabling him to surge ahead again?
It’s impossible to know what these polls say about the outcome in November. However, based on these surveys, it’s fair to say that there was real desire among significant parts of voters to see a different ticket than what we had 3 weeks ago.
The fact Trump will get over 70 million votes is just so bizarre.
I know politics isn’t for everyone and most people don’t interact much, but even then... The question is: what happens when Trump is replaced in the future by someone just as bad but competent? How do you fix this issue of voters not turning up and being so low on information?
I know politics isn’t for everyone and most people don’t interact much, but even then... The question is: what happens when Trump is replaced in the future by someone just as bad but competent? How do you fix this issue of voters not turning up and being so low on information?
That's why Dems shouldn't start prematurely celebrating.
Everything that has happened with Harris so far has been propelled by the momentary euphoria of a younger candidate, combined by the historic nature of the possibility that a black woman may get elected.
No interviews have been given, no coherent policy platform has been published, and so all we have to work with someone whose popularity 3 weeks ago was in the high 30s and is now only at 41.9% in the FiveThirtyEight popularity average.
It all feels a bit artificial at this point, especially since she has offered up no policies that anyone could criticize her with. Once they come out and she is forced to defend them through interviews, the Republicans will have a mountain of subject matter to suppress her favorability with - which at the end of the day is all that matters.