HausOfPunk Posted October 20 Posted October 20 1 hour ago, Tovitov said: It does genuinely feel like election following has gotten a lot worse since 2016. We've gotten significantly less polling again(we had less in 2020 and even less in 2022 and now even less this year), a lot of which is done by partisan no name pollsters with dubious methodology. The amount of amateur commentators has increased exponentially because everyone's an expert now(not directed at anyone here btw, I'm refering to Twitter). Not to mention the betting markets actually having weight apparently. Win or lose, I think I might actually be done with election following after this year. I've been religiously following elections since 2008 with the original 538 blog and I don't think I can take another cycle of this. The bright side if Trump wins is that there won't be any more elections to follow. 1
Cesar Posted October 20 Posted October 20 1 hour ago, Communion said: And someone on here once told me it was bad that China executed its bad behaving billionaires. [Mariah voice] Get me Xi Jinping on the phone, case closed! I find it interesting how the US government had no issue taking out the leftist leaders yet, haven't done much to stop the lunatics on the far right spectrum, especially those funded by Russia They run up and down the media talking about the threat of China, when Russia seems to have more influence in the government 1 1
Communion Posted October 20 Posted October 20 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Blade said: every reason listed stabbing me like a knife Yeah it's over A lot of these are Silver's own prejudices and gobbledygook - there's no polling he could cite that shows voters concerned over "wokeness" in 2024 - but this part is frustrating: Quote Inflation hit a peak of 9.1 percentage points in June 2022. It has abated now, but prices remain much higher than when Biden took office, and voters are historically highly sensitive to inflation. Democrats can also plausibly be blamed for it given intensive increases in government spending during COVID recovery efforts. Because it exemplifies why leftists are confused why elected Democrats - or at least their supporters - think the current model of politics is do-able. Democrats with the current system have trapped themselves in a cycle of: Attempting a neoliberal form of progressive politics with expanding the social safety net through means-tested programs and subsidies - but because many essential industries are privatized and unregulated, the cost of even neoliberal progressive policy is steep and thus corporate greeds spikes deeply unpopular inflation; Voters find inflation unpopular? Okay, knee-jerk back to austerity politics and cutting "excessive" government spending - but as literally seen over and over the last 30 years, the Dem base finds that solution just as unpopular. Dems who cut the budget don't get anymore credit than Dems who increase the budget; Every other working government with highly developed economies understands the need to be able to: Address voters' basic cost of living needs and things they need to live (healthcare, housing, education) while; Being able to produce such societal benefits for their voters without bankrupting their own economy and government; Thus the vast majority of governments - at the very least - highly regulate things like the cost of healthcare to even taking over healthcare as an industry. The most popular policies of Biden's own tenure and which Harris is still running on is the collapsing costs of insulin! Like! Leftists become prone to viewing elected Democrats as *corrupt* because policies like M4A are not just deeply popular but would fix Democrats' political problems for a generation! Even nations in Europe voting in far-right parties who are *literal* neo-nazis find it hard to rally support for dismantling public healthcare infrastructure. Why would elected Dems not want to do popular policy that helps them unless being paid not to? Sweeping universal policies would *take away* huge costs on the vast majority of Americans and would finally give Democrats a form of stable ground to legislate form and yet we apparently will never get that because BC/BS needs billions of dollars. Dem partisans don't hate private insurers, they elect insurance heiresses! Edited October 20 by Communion 1
GhostBox Posted October 20 Posted October 20 (edited) 22 minutes ago, shelven said: Dems won the first Clark mail batch 45-26. I don't have the numbers for 2020's first day/mail dump, but overall, they won Clark mail 50-22. On the one hand, that difference doesn't seem so bad when you consider how much the GOP was against mail voting last time. But then when you look at yesterday's in-person Clark numbers, it really seems like the Dems need to have a higher mail margin than this to have a fighting chance. Anyways, I'll wait for Ralston's blog to update because he's way smarter than I am when it comes to all of this This isn't the best for Dems but could be worse. It's gonna be close. The Dems have to hope more mail ins come in to counter the in person gop votes. NV is kind a like GA. It's going to have its republican time (like 2020 GA) soon. Just when is the question. Edited October 20 by GhostBox
woohoo Posted October 20 Posted October 20 15 minutes ago, HausOfPunk said: The bright side if Trump wins is that there won't be any more elections to follow. I've been saying this. Maybe a second trump term will cause so much damage and suffering these idiots in this country will finally wake up to how vile this political system, especially republicans really are. 1
GhostBox Posted October 20 Posted October 20 11 minutes ago, woohoo said: I've been saying this. Maybe a second trump term will cause so much damage and suffering these idiots in this country will finally wake up to how vile this political system, especially republicans really are. I bet every country with a dictator now thought this same thing once upon a time 💀 2
GhostBox Posted October 20 Posted October 20 Whether Harris wins or not I hope this election proves we don't need election season to last sooooo long. 💀
woohoo Posted October 20 Posted October 20 10 minutes ago, GhostBox said: I bet every country with a dictator now thought this same thing once upon a time 💀 Exactly. We might end up the Dictator trump but don't think for 2 seconds in my suffering will I not find a little joy in watching all the magas wonder why the tiger bit their face off when they kept petting it and encouraging it I guess is what I was trying to say. 2
Relampago. Posted October 20 Posted October 20 1 hour ago, shelven said: He's in bed with the man who essentially hand-picked Vance to be Trump's VP. No matter how much Silver throws tantrums at people on Twitter about how Thiel's involvement in Polymarket is totally disconnected from his election analysis, you'll never convince me that anyone is capable of remaining completely impartial when they're basically being bankrolled by someone with a clear and open interest in what you're analyzing. For what it's worth, I actually think his model itself is relatively neutral (I attribute stuff like his stupid prolonged convention bounce to him just being stubborn, not an intentional choice made from bias), but the way he talks about his model clearly comes from a person who knows that his life will be better under Trump. And I'm not even getting into the ethical implications of him constantly tying his model talk to the very betting site that he's employed by, which arguably influences how people bet on that site. All of this. I don't think he's rigging his model to push any certain narrative, and I appreciate the work he's doing, but it's so clear he's abusing the influence he has over people who are worried about their literal lives. It's more than just data, we don't see people like Cohn, Morris, etc. acting the same way even if they do get touchy and annoying about things. It's just very clear Silver has a vested interest in keeping the "Trump wins" narrative going. 2
Rotunda Posted October 20 Posted October 20 MAGA has been told to vote early so I'm not trying to fixate on early voting data this time. 5
woohoo Posted October 20 Posted October 20 2 minutes ago, Rotunda said: MAGA has been told to vote early so I'm not trying to fixate on early voting data this time. This, I've always been an early voting data person because it's actual votes but it doesn't always paint a clear picture, it just kinda lets us know where dems are and where they need to be by Election Day. I'm not feeling dread about PA as much as I am NV and WI and MI. But also, pandemic is over. A lot of dems could switch back to Election Day votes and republicans could canibalize their e-day vote. The thing is we won't know until that day 1
Communion Posted October 20 Posted October 20 If only there was ever an equal voice on the Democratic side that spoke of the very same failures of the political establishment that ushered Trump into power but spoke to the opposite audience - the people MAGA as a populist movement intentionally leaves out. I wonder why one never manifested sometime around late 2015... 1
GhostBox Posted October 20 Posted October 20 (edited) He's been ahead in 2 recent polls that's it so far 😂 Edited October 20 by GhostBox
Blade Posted October 20 Posted October 20 Ignoring the EV, I always predicted NV would be likely be red. It's a mini Florida in the west. People moved there from California to escape the "strict" covid rules. Kamala really has 3 things that kind of all need to work out perfectly for her to win and we have shaky data on these scenarios at best. Polling error is already large on the toplines, it's much worse in subgroups. 1. Make gains with white women, possibly even win them for the first time in over a decade (or longer, idk I just know Clinton and Biden both lost them) 2. Make gains with college educated voters. Enough to offset the losses from the gains Trump will make with non-college voters. This is the scenario NYT has evidence of. I saw a segment where the electorate was going from 40% college educated to 41% in 2024. In a supposedly tight race that 1 point advantage matters. 3. Actually get these Republicans and Republican leaning Independents that she's trying so hard to get. David Plouffe and others who will not be named seem to think their data supports this happening. I'm skeptical of this one the most. I mean we saw Clinton try to do this and it failed miserably. If she gets all 3, she should win somewhat comfortably in the swing states. If she gets 2/3 I think it'll be super close with a Trump edge. If only one or NONE materialize she's absolutely done for. 1 2
GhostBox Posted October 20 Posted October 20 13 minutes ago, Save-Me-Oprah said: Trump actually working the fryer, I'm crying Rich people always love to pretend to be a poor worker for a day.
Recommended Posts