[Macros]

But seriously

Like you have 2 options on your ballot.

Very probable rapist, definite racist, multiple times bankrupt crook just convicted of fraud. Vs fucking anyone.

How is it even a contest America??

[Vengeance]

48% have serious lead poisoning

[Tiste Simeon]

Macros, on 21 July 2024 - 09:01 PM, said:

But seriously

Like you have 2 options on your ballot.

Very probable rapist, definite racist, multiple times bankrupt crook just convicted of fraud. Vs fucking anyone.

How is it even a contest America??

Don't forget most likely a pedo!

[worry]

There are significantly more registered Dems than Republicans in this country. There are significantly more people who vote Democrat than Republican in this country -- and believe me, the Dems aren't great, except in comparison to the GOP. We are distinctly aware of the two-party system. It's just that the electoral college is also a significantly conservative institution (which I do mean in a political way, but not necessarily a partisan way, though in terms of outcomes I guess that's moot because of the aforementioned two-party system). That's why it's a contest.

Though I tend to agree with amph that DJT isn't that strong a candidate. Like sure, 2/3 of Republicans like him a lot, the MAGAts. And a decent number will vote for any Republican no matter who. But if like say 85-90% of Republicans vote for him, and only 10-15% are turned off enough not to vote for him at all, who would have been happy to vote for any other GOP candidate. -- that's a significant number shaved off his margins. On the other hand, he also seems to uniquely attract some usually apathetic non-voters to vote for him, though I'm not sure how many in real numbers, so it does make predictions even harder (though worth remembering, the polls are broken, have been for a while, and the Red Wave we've been threatened with since 2016 has not materialized in any election since then).

This post has been edited by worry: 21 July 2024 - 10:33 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 21 July 2024 - 10:32 PM, said:

There are significantly more registered Dems than Republicans in this country. There are significantly more people who vote Democrat than Republican in this country -- and believe me, the Dems aren't great, except in comparison to the GOP. We are distinctly aware of the two-party system. It's just that the electoral college is also a significantly conservative institution (which I do mean in a political way, but not necessarily a partisan way, though in terms of outcomes I guess that's moot because of the aforementioned two-party system). That's why it's a contest.

Though I tend to agree with amph that DJT isn't that strong a candidate. Like sure, 2/3 of Republicans like him a lot, the MAGAts. And a decent number will vote for any Republican no matter who. But if like say 85-90% of Republicans vote for him, and only 10-15% are turned off enough not to vote for him at all, who would have been happy to vote for any other GOP candidate. -- that's a significant number shaved off his margins. On the other hand, he also seems to uniquely attract some usually apathetic non-voters to vote for him, though I'm not sure how many in real numbers, so it does make predictions even harder (though worth remembering, the polls are broken, have been for a while, and the Red Wave we've been threatened with since 2016 has not materialized in any election since then).

Quote

There was a wide gap between the perception of how well polls and data-driven forecasts did in 2022 and the reality of how they did … and the reality is that they did pretty well.

While some polling firms badly missed the mark, in the aggregate the polls had one of their most accurate cycles in recent history. [...] Media proclamations of a "red wave" occurred largely despite polls that showed a close race for the U.S. Senate and a close generic congressional ballot. It was the pundits who made the red wave narrative, not the data.

How Our 2022 Midterm Forecasts Performed | FiveThirtyEight

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 22 July 2024 - 01:17 AM

[worry]

I'll start listening to Nate Silver after my lobotomy.


Edit: Sorry, that was probably too snappish. It's the combination of polls and punditry that is excruciating, for sure, but Nate Silver has increasingly moved towards (embarrassing) punditry over the years too, so when he pretends to be above the fray it's galling.

This post has been edited by worry: 22 July 2024 - 01:59 AM

[Vengeance]

worry, on 22 July 2024 - 01:30 AM, said:

I'll start listening to Nate Silver after my lobotomy.


Edit: Sorry, that was probably too snappish. It's the combination of polls and punditry that is excruciating, for sure, but Nate Silver has increasingly moved towards (embarrassing) punditry over the years too, so when he pretends to be above the fray it's galling.

It isn't snappish enough. Nate was decent 16 years ago. His movement to the right makes sense when you realize that he is owned by Peter Theil. Nate has moved over to be another mouth piece for that scum bag.

[LinearPhilosopher]

i dont suppose someone here could point me towards a good primer on who Kamala Harris is, what are her views on things, policy objectives etc? I'm super sceptical of anything relating to US politics so I'd like some reccomendations as to whats a reliable source of political information

[Primateus]

So, with RFK Jr. and a potential challenge by Joe Manchin, I'm beginning to suspect that these people don't really understand what at least part of the problem is.

[Mezla PigDog]

I'm disappointed that I feel this way but if they want a candidate to beat Trump, isn't a middle aged white man the better option?

I say this because the mass voting population are arseholes, not because I think a woman of colour can't do a kick ass job of being POTUS.

[Primateus]

Hmm, now it is reported that because Biden dropped out and the Republican party spent a lot of money on attack ads, Trump wants that money back.

Caveat Emptor, says I.

[worry]

He's a crybaby and more than a bit shook, so that's pretty good news. Already trying to weasel out of the next debate. ActBlue also had its second-best fundraising day in its history, so maybe there's more enthusiasm for her than I thought, or at least folks are feeling relieved to get past the flagging Joe narrative.

[Macros]

I did have the though, how likely would it be that Trumpalump would say something that can't be excused away to Kamala in a debate. To the point there would be absolutely no wiggle room, in voting for him you are voting for a clearly (I say with no wiggle room, not that there is any in my mind) racist piece of shit. And how many people would still vote for him anyway

[Tsundoku]

Warning: Parody

USA politics are moving quite fast.

I'd vote for her though. Has to be better than Trump.

Like This Post If You Think Sydney Sweeney Should Be The Next President Of The United States

https://www.betootaa...-united-states/

--------------------------------------

Also:

The more things change, the nmore they stay the same.

Elderly, Confused Man Still Running for President

https://theshovel.co...-for-president/

A 78-year-old man who believed he beat Barack Obama in a Presidential election and confused Nikki Hayley with Nancy Pelosi is surprisingly still running for office, despite clear signs of cognitive decline.

Experts have expressed concern at the sharp mental deterioration of the septuagenarian, who earlier this year referred to his wife as ‘Mercedes’ rather than Melania, often goes on strange rambling tangents, and fell asleep at his own criminal trial.

He has also confused Jeb Bush with George W Bush, mixed up the President of Hungary with the President of Türkiye, and thanked supporters for coming to a rally in South Dakota (he was in Iowa).

Last month he bragged about passing a cognitive test, then confused the name of his doctor with a member of Congress. In the past he has referred to the country Argentina as a person, said that Mexicans ‘don’t speak languages’ and described his policy for the country’s missile defence system as “Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding … Boom. OK. Missile launch. Woosh! Boom.”

Most concerning, the man still believes he won the 2020 Presidential election.

Medical professionals say it is inhumane to allow a man who is so obviously struggling with cognitive decline to continue running for President.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 22 July 2024 - 10:12 AM

[Tsundoku]

A bit more seriously, a centre-ish perspective from Australia.

https://www.news.com...77180cea02fc2fd

Democrats listened to voters who were desperate for an alternative. And it might just save them
Any praise for Joe Biden’s decision to step aside comes with some massive caveats. But even so, it represents a historic moment in politics.

Samuel Clench

July 22, 2024 - 11:11AM

Analysis

Any praise that follows comes with the following caveats.

Joe Biden should never have run for re-election. He should have been challenged. He, his White House staff, and a great many senior Democrats have serious questions to answer about the cover-up of his true state. And by clinging on for so long, refusing to acknowledge reality, he has disrespected the people he was supposed to serve.

Now the positives. Mr Biden has, belatedly, put his country above his own ego. In the narcissistic world of politics, that is more impressive than it should be. And the Democratic Party has at last done what the Republican Party couldn’t. Recognising that its presidenital nominee was unfit, it has forced him out.

This would be more encouraging, as signs go, if it had happened before the June debate that scuppered Mr Biden’s campaign so irrevocably. And we all recognise that, had Mr Biden been leading in the polls, it probably wouldn’t have happened at all.

Still. Compare the actions of former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose influence was paramount in convincing Mr Biden to quit, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to those of Republican congressional leaders Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, who so angrily condemned Donald Trump in the wake of January 6, 2021 only to shuffle back on bended knee, chastened and subservient, weeks later.

For the better part of a decade, elected Republicans have privately acknowledged that Mr Trump is laughably unsuited to the presidency, while publicly remaining steadfastly loyal to him, lest their actual, honest opinions of the man endanger their ambitions.

There are true believers in the Republican caucus, usually identifiable by either their inflammatory opinions or shameless hypocrisy.

The Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Lauren Boeberts fall into the former category. Their personality boils down to “I love Trump no matter what he says”. Mr Trump’s recently announced pick for vice president, J.D. Vance, is in the latter.

Having previously blasted Mr Trump in withering terms, not least by quite seriously comparing him to Adolf Hitler, Mr Vance has since decided that sucking up as obseqiously and relentlessly as possible is the best available method of career advancement.

The Republicans are a party of Reeks, I suppose, is what I’m saying. No principle is too dear to be jettisoned, should Mr Trump demand it. No policy matters more than his satisfaction. No measure of self-respect is too great a price for his approval.

This is what distinguishes Trumpism from a normal political movement; what makes it more of a personality cult than a purpose-driven cause. Mr Trump is the cause.

In that context, it is frankly a relief to find that top Democrats care more about their broader goals than they do about coddling an old man and indulging his delusions.

It was obvious, within hours of Mr Biden’s announcement today, that Kamala Harris would take his place as the Democratic nominee. Most of the Vice President’s potential rivals have already fallen in line behind her.

She’s an imperfect candidate, if one wishes to put it mildly, often awkward and even offputting in her public appearances. And she starts the race against Mr Trump at a clear disadvantage in the polls.

But the fundamentals of the contest favour her. No longer is the 2024 election a choice between two cranky, ranty, unpopular, borderline incoherent old men. It’s now between one such man and a woman 20 years younger.

It’s between a former prosecutor, on the one hand, and on the other a convicted criminal with a lifetime of scamming, cheating and lying behind him.

Politically, Ms Harris has never won anything outside California, where it’s not exactly hard to win as a Democrat anyway.

Last time she took a shot at the presidency, in 2020, her campaign flamed out quickly. She’s certainly not a preternaturally gifted politician. And she’s a coastal candidate, at a time when the election is going to be decided largely in the Rust Belt and the Midwest. So there are clear weaknesses for Mr Trump to exploit, and he’s coming off a healthy head start.

But as a trump card, so to speak, the Democrats can point to their own sanity. To the fact that they have at least, so very late in the day, listened. Voters told them near-unanimously that Mr Biden was too old; that he could no longer prosecute the case for re-election, let alone do the job for another four years. And they responded by getting rid of him.

Since 2016, voters outside the inner Trumpian bubble have been telling the Republicans that their fealty to Donald Trump is strange, alienating, unacceptable. His approval rating has been underwater, in the same sense that the wreck of the Titanic is underwater, for years. And the Republicans’ response has been to do ... nothing. Nothing at all.

Mr Trump is often hailed as a “fighter”, politically, because he is willing to say things that piss off the other side. When he rose after being shot at during a rally in Pennsylvania a week ago, his message to the crowd was: “Fight, fight, fight!”

Yeah. Well. It’s easy to “fight” the other team with an adoring crowd in your corner, cheering your every move. It’s much, much harder to confront the rot on your own side. That takes real fibre, real leadership. And the Democrats have finally shown it. It might just save them.

----------------------------------------

I think he's underestimating the galvanising effect the ear nick will have on the die hards etc, but since apparently registered Dems outnumber registered registered GOP voters across the USA - not necessarily only in the coastal strips - all they need to do is just get out and vote. And get involved in state politics, local electoral committees, local judicial elections etc and tear out the GOP weeds that have been put in place at all levels over the last decade since those Tea Party morons changed everything.

[Tiste Simeon]

Macros, on 22 July 2024 - 09:41 AM, said:

I did have the though, how likely would it be that Trumpalump would say something that can't be excused away to Kamala in a debate. To the point there would be absolutely no wiggle room, in voting for him you are voting for a clearly (I say with no wiggle room, not that there is any in my mind) racist piece of shit. And how many people would still vote for him anyway

I'd suggest 99% would vote for him regardless.

I had a friend - one of my closest friends for a long time, he was American but lived in Cardiff when I did. He was even one of my groomsmen at my wedding. He moved back to the States and was closer to his boomer Fox News loving evangelical conservative parents and in 2016 we started falling out. I'll admit I didn't always react to his nonsense with grace and patience but in my defence he was beginning to spout a load of nonsense. Eventually he blocked me on everything because I kept challenging everything he said and he accused me of hatred (hah!)

We've not spoken since and sometimes I grieve the loss of the friendship, but also I'm angry at him. It's complicated.

I'd like to think if Trump spewed outright racial slurs at Harris on live TV he might be persuaded not to vote for him. I never thought of him as racist. But then who knows? I've no idea what is going on in his brain.

And that's the 1% I'm thinking that might change their views should that happen. People like him, maybe.

The point is moot though, I suspect. Harris was an accomplished public prosecutor and Trump is a convicted felon as well as moronic smooth brained knuckle dragger with an over inflated ego. She would eat him alive in a public debate. His team will know this and all sorts of lame excuses will be forthcoming to avoid any such debate.

[amphibian]

LinearPhilosopher, on 22 July 2024 - 03:25 AM, said:

i dont suppose someone here could point me towards a good primer on who Kamala Harris is, what are her views on things, policy objectives etc? I'm super sceptical of anything relating to US politics so I'd like some reccomendations as to whats a reliable source of political information

The wiki page is shockingly good, much better than many mainstream media articles.

https://en.m.wikiped...f_Kamala_Harris

One thing to note overall - she was a very conservative California Attorney General in terms of what she was for and against. Her movement to the left overall did happen, but not that much. She's sorta been the kind of person who doesn't lead the line leftward, although she'll support some of it from the center.

Very much a safer political player and probably not as gifted a politician as Biden in terms of getting things through Congress.

[Primateus]

Macros, on 22 July 2024 - 09:41 AM, said:

I did have the though, how likely would it be that Trumpalump would say something that can't be excused away to Kamala in a debate. To the point there would be absolutely no wiggle room, in voting for him you are voting for a clearly (I say with no wiggle room, not that there is any in my mind) racist piece of shit. And how many people would still vote for him anyway

I'm thinking it won't change much, if anything at all. Most of his followers are just that, followers. And most of them are unlikely to want to be the ones to say it, even though they're likely to believe it. But a great many will definitely be okay with having someone else say it for them. And when it's their beloved führer who's saying it? Why, that's just even better.

[Abyss]

LinearPhilosopher, on 22 July 2024 - 03:25 AM, said:

i dont suppose someone here could point me towards a good primer on who Kamala Harris is, what are her views on things, policy objectives etc? I'm super sceptical of anything relating to US politics so I'd like some reccomendations as to whats a reliable source of political information

here's everything you need to know: she's not Trump

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 22 July 2024 - 01:30 AM, said:

I'll start listening to Nate Silver after my lobotomy.

Edit: Sorry, that was probably too snappish. It's the combination of polls and punditry that is excruciating, for sure, but Nate Silver has increasingly moved towards (embarrassing) punditry over the years too, so when he pretends to be above the fray it's galling.

One great thing about predictions and aggregated polling data posted publicly before the event is that they can easily be objectively evaluated without their validity being obscured by the usual statistical sleights of hand and errors. His assessment of the aggregated polling data is correct.

Vengeance, on 22 July 2024 - 03:17 AM, said:

It isn't snappish enough. Nate was decent 16 years ago. His movement to the right makes sense when you realize that he is owned by Peter Theil. Nate has moved over to be another mouth piece for that scum bag.

You mean Polymarket hiring him? That happened last week, so it almost certainly wasn't influencing what he wrote before that. It's unfortunate that, in Polymarket's Class B funding round, Thiel was the lead investor, and so may try to exert influence over Silver through that. And there are obvious major issues with unrestricted prediction markets:

Quote

Although prediction markets can work well, they don't always.

Spoiler

[...] The weakness of prediction markets is that no one knows if the participants are simply gambling on a hunch or if they have solid reasoning for their trade, and although thoughtful traders should ultimately drive the price, that doesn't always happen. The markets are also no less prone to being caught in an information bubble than [...] speculators during the tulip mania [...]

In fact, Tetlock found, some people can predict the future pretty well: people with a reasonable level of intelligence who search for information, change their minds when the evidence changes, and think of possibilities rather than certainties.

https://daily.jstor....iction-markets/

Those are qualities we should strive to cultivate. One nice thing about prediction markets is that, over time, they tend to reward virtue (... though luck is still a major part of it).

It's a bit of a surprise they'd even hire Silver, since he points out major issues with unrestricted prediction markets in his upcoming book. Especially when applied to politics.

I don't think Silver has had a "lurch to the right". He recently described himself as a "center-left liberal"; whereas back in 2012 he said he was "somewhere between a libertarian and a liberal, [...a] kind of Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision." And by "liberal" he really does mean "Mitt Romney" (as a "classical liberal" in the Enlightenment sense). Unlike Thiel, who backs Trump, Silver has explicitly said he supports Biden and the Democrats over Trump even while calling for Biden to drop out.

And I don't think Silver's "center-left (classical) liberal" ideology fundamentally compromises his takes on polling accuracy. While I'm generally opposed to libertarian and "classical liberal" ideology, I do agree with him about the importance of empiricism and valuing the empirical search for truth and scientific reality over partisanship.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 22 July 2024 - 04:18 PM