news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Vermillion]

Nate's exhausting. 

 

And that's not copium on my end either.

 

The justifications for these wild swings are ludicrous.

[Relampago.]

Nate S. is very obviously trying to overcompensate for a Trump 2016-2020 situation yet again. It's a bit cringe how he's doing it, weight unreliable R polls so high, but I'd rather go into Election Day thinking we're underdogs and being surprised when we win versus what happened in 2020 or even worse, 2016. 

 

I still get flashbacks to 2020 when Miami-Dade and Broward numbers started pouring in and it looked so Joever  

[Lightbringer007]

1 hour ago, FameFatale said:

Regarding the shooting today in Georgia 

 

 

A LITERAL CHILD?????????? My god

[Communion]

3 hours ago, JBJT2786 said:

I'm literally pointing out my selfishness and ya in here like " well you're in denial from world issues"

You're not getting it. The entire point is that your self-preservation doesn't compare to the horrors inflicted on Palestine. By goodness, I'm speaking of the self-grandizing done to frame one's self as choosing a "tough but sensible" path to "protect themselves and their loved ones".

 

Is Donad Trump going to kill 67 Million Americans if elected? Will one-fifth of America perish under Trump as Gaza is rushing towards?

 

If not, I think there's something to be said about Americans not insulting those their country oppresses by trying to conflate the luxuries and comforts of living within the belly of the beast with being a victim under American hegemony. 

 

This is the issue with the "don't shame people" rhetoric and people wanting to be able to vote for whoever without the ramifications staring back at them. The vast majority of Americans will not know what it's like to fear being genocided. The American identity is not the protagonist in the world's story, whose feelings and inner monologie define the parameters and perspective of the conversation. The American is the antagonist and the *warranted* discomfort and guilt of such is the contradiction Americans must reconcile with and live under. 

Edited September 4 by Communion

[Sannie]

 

If you guys are interested in a poll aggregator that doesn't include obvious bunk pollsters, follow VoteHub.

 

[FameFatale]

 

[BeenTheShit]

Love seeing that more and more Republicans are openly admitting they will vote for Kamala. 

 

[FameFatale]

 

[Blade]

32 minutes ago, Relampago. said:

Nate S. is very obviously trying to overcompensate for a Trump 2016-2020 situation yet again. It's a bit cringe how he's doing it, weight unreliable R polls so high, but I'd rather go into Election Day thinking we're underdogs and being surprised when we win versus what happened in 2020 or even worse, 2016. 

 

I still get flashbacks to 2020 when Miami-Dade and Broward numbers started pouring in and it looked so Joever  

I'm not even against him serving RCP and throwing them in the average and weighing R/D leaning polls the same as others but why weigh the non partisan polls like CNN down when they're recent? Only old polls should be weighted down  

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Sannie said:

don't get to sit in a gilded tower

You're a citizen of the richest empire of the world. You live within the imperial core. People across the Global South die and their family's lives are uprooted for generations so you can have seasonal produce all year round in grocery stores, cheap technology built by others, and limitless consumption of goods. 

 

There's no place you can go in this country that makes you less responsible for your tax dollars being used to rape and slaughter Palestinian children. 

 

You are a liberal American Democrat. The world is not unfair to you. You are not inconvenienced by anyone besides elite politicians and can't look past your own privileges as an American to for once punch up instead of down. 

[Relampago.]

I think a really interesting question, and honestly one that would be more pertinent to the topic at hand would be: If Donald Trump was completely pro-Palestine, pro-Ceasefire, pro-Arms Embargo, etc., would you vote for him?

 

In this situation, it would give people the choice to vote for the salvation of Palestinians at the cost of potentially losing some rights and freedoms, among many other things.

 

What's difficult right now is that if we don't vote for Harris, Palestine still suffers whether she wins or Trump wins. While a vote for Harris supports genocide regardless, not voting for her in a Trump victory gets the same result, if not worse, since Trump has made it clear he would allow Israel to "finish the job". There's no hope whether or not we vote for either or, or not at all. This question of Trump supporting Palestine would make the question of "Would you sacrifice your own comforts for others across the globe?" more interesting.

 

Honestly, I might. I would have to think on it, but right now Trump is clearly not an option. However if I'm being honest, I don't believe things like Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia are truly at risk first and foremost because they were ruled with the 14th Amendment in mind, unlike Roe v. Wade and the "penumbras" argument that was bound to fail eventually. On the other hand, I would have to sit and think about what other effects Trump may have on women, trans people, and many other groups as well. 
 

Ultimately, it would be a hard choice, but Trump showing support to Palestine would be such a crazy stance that it would necessitate me taking a long look at him and what direction he might intend to take the country. And moreover, it would be a wake up call to Dems that their status quo of destroying the Middle East with rainbow bombs and BLM fists isn't going to fly so easily anymore now that people have options— and they're choosing that other option. But I'm not a single issue voter, and if Dems could still differentiate themselves enough from Trump in other ways after feeling the pressure of him moving left, then I would stick with that side, but if they still don't move… I would be very tempted.

 

Curious to hear other thoughts. 

Edited September 4 by Relampago.

[Sannie]

17 minutes ago, Relampago. said:

I think a really interesting question, and honestly one that would be more pertinent to the topic at hand would be: If Donald Trump was completely pro-Palestine, pro-Ceasefire, pro-Arms Embargo, etc., would you vote for him?

 

In this situation, it would give people the choice to vote for the salvation of Palestinians at the cost of potentially losing some rights and freedoms, among many other things.

 

What's difficult right now is that if we don't vote for Harris, Palestine still suffers whether she wins or Trump wins. While a vote for Harris supports genocide regardless, not voting for her in a Trump victory gets the same result, if not worse, since Trump has made it clear he would allow Israel to "finish the job". There's no hope whether or not we vote for either or, or not at all. This question of Trump supporting Palestine would make the question of "Would you sacrifice your own comforts for others across the globe?" more interesting.

 

Honestly, I might. I would have to think on it, but right now Trump is clearly not an option. However if I'm being honest, I don't believe things like Obergefell v. Hodges or Loving v. Virginia are truly at risk first and foremost because they were ruled with the 14th Amendment in mind, unlike Roe v. Wade and the "penumbras" argument that was bound to fail eventually. On the other hand, I would have to sit and think about what other effects Trump may have on women, trans people, and many other groups as well. 
 

Ultimately, it would be a hard choice, but Trump showing support to Palestine would be such a crazy stance that it would necessitate me taking a long look at him and what direction he might intend to take the country. And moreover, it would be a wake up call to Dems that their status quo of destroying the Middle East with rainbow bombs and BLM fists isn't going to fly so easily anymore now that people have options— and they're choosing that other option. But I'm not a single issue voter, and if Dems could still differentiate themselves enough from Trump in other ways after feeling the pressure of him moving left, then I would stick with that side, but if they still don't move… I would be very tempted.

 

Curious to hear other thoughts. 

I think if you were talking about virtually any other Republican politician, sure, but Donald Trump is a pathological liar who would absolutely, 100% not be telling the truth if he were to come out in favor of Palestine. There is no way anyone could in good faith be like, "well, okay, maybe he'll do the right thing." He won't. Donald Trump has never done the right thing. Ever. And we know thanks to his first administration, his decisions are not dictated by what he personally wants to do, but rather what the people around him want to do by telling him "doing this will make you more popular". And even then, the popularity a pro-Palestinian stance would bring would come primarily from the left, and he hates the left so he'd have no continuing reason to keep a pro-Palestinian stance. He would go back on that stance the moment he felt he needed to (see his recent abortion flip-flop). There would be no "maybe he'll take us in a better direction". His decisions are never interlocking, there's never an overarching narrative with Trump. One decision does not affect the next. It is all decision after decision that will do one thing and one thing only: benefit Donald Trump. A pro-Palestine stance would not bring him long-lasting benefits so it'll be out the moment something else comes along.

 

But if we boil the choice down to these two very direct, basic options: "people dying elsewhere but not dying here" or "people dying elsewhere", I'm choosing the latter while understanding it's bad and selfish. And as objectively bad and selfish as that choice would be, I think selfishness is entirely justified when it comes to your own safety and the safety of people around you. This election and the people who will take power are what tip the scales for me. If we lived in "normal Republican" times, I'd definitely think differently.

Edited September 4 by Sannie

[Sannie]

 

 

 

But the content you made just so happen to fall in line with Russian talking points? OK.

[Relampago.]

44 minutes ago, FameFatale said:

 

"Is Hannibal Lecter a real person"

 

Open the schools NOW!

[shelven]

I think Nate Silver's problem boils down to the fact that deep in his gut, he doesn't actually believe what he logically preaches about how polling error isn't predictable across election cycles and past error isn't indicative of future error. He knows his model suffered in 2020 because of bad polling and even though he ironically made the best 2016 model out of every major model out there, he still gets scapegoated for the failures of electoral horserace analysis in 2016. He's probably freaking out at the thought of being the political world's punching bag for a third presidential cycle in a row, so his decision-making with his model and his analysis is subconsciously guided by a belief that there will be another polling error in Trump's favour so that he can't be blamed again if Harris loses. 

 

None of this is a defense of him, since he makes a stupid amount of money doing this and that should come with not letting your own personal biases and anxieties get in the way of your job. But it's pretty clear he believes Trump is going to overperform the polls even if he rationally knows there's no reason why that should be a more likely outcome than any other polling error.

[BeenTheShit]

 

[FameFatale]

23 minutes ago, BeenTheShit said:

 

I'm shocked there isn't a few more names on that list. They spit off the same talking points. Like Charlie Kirk, Steven Crowder, Tucker Carlson… etc. 

[Sannie]

39 minutes ago, shelven said:

I think Nate Silver's problem boils down to the fact that deep in his gut, he doesn't actually believe what he logically preaches about how polling error isn't predictable across election cycles and past error isn't indicative of future error. He knows his model suffered in 2020 because of bad polling and even though he ironically made the best 2016 model out of every major model out there, he still gets scapegoated for the failures of electoral horserace analysis in 2016. He's probably freaking out at the thought of being the political world's punching bag for a third presidential cycle in a row, so his decision-making with his model and his analysis is subconsciously guided by a belief that there will be another polling error in Trump's favour so that he can't be blamed again if Harris loses. 

 

None of this is a defense of him, since he makes a stupid amount of money doing this and that should come with not letting your own personal biases and anxieties get in the way of your job. But it's pretty clear he believes Trump is going to overperform the polls even if he rationally knows there's no reason why that should be a more likely outcome than any other polling error.

I wonder if the money aspect is what fuels it all. If he can piss both sides off, that means more money for him.

[BeenTheShit]

3 minutes ago, FameFatale said:

I'm shocked there isn't a few more names on that list. They spit off the same talking points. Like Charlie Kirk, Steven Crowder, Tucker Carlson… etc. 

This is probably just the beginning and I'm sure there will be more people exposed as the investigation continues.

[FameFatale]

 

[FameFatale]

 

[Vermillion]

@Communion

[Vermillion]

 

[Sannie]

Cackling at the MAGAs having to use the easily-manipulated betting markets because ever GOP polling firms have Kamala ahead.

[Vermillion]