The Race For 2024

[Swammerdami]

Outcomes:

• 43% - Trump wins outright
• 21% - Trump wins via cheating
• 16% - Harris wins but Trumpists protest and prevail or force anarchy
• 13% - Harris wins, Trumpists protest, but democracy prevails
• . 7% - Harris wins overwhelmingly, stifling dissent.

Both Polymarket and Betfair show the race as almost a coin toss, with Trump and Harris very slight favorites respectively.
Nate Silver's number is secret. (Any subscriber willing to divulge?) But latest polls show Harris gaining in NC and losing ground in PA and GA.

 

[bilby]

Outcomes:

• 43% - Trump wins outright
• 21% - Trump wins via cheating
• 16% - Harris wins but Trumpists protest and prevail or force anarchy
• 13% - Harris wins, Trumpists protest, but democracy prevails
• . 7% - Harris wins overwhelmingly, stifling dissent.

Both Polymarket and Betfair show the race as almost a coin toss, with Trump and Harris very slight favorites respectively.
Nate Silver's number is secret. (Any subscriber willing to divulge?) But latest polls show Harris gaining in NC and losing ground in PA and GA.

I don't subscribe to anything, but I can see Nate Silver's numbers at: https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

There are 'Subscribe' and 'Login' buttons at the top of the page, and a big red banner at the bottom saying "This page is for paid subscribers only", but the numbers can be seen without clicking either, at least on my phone.




So these are pre-debate numbers.

 

[blastula]

Yesterday, Silver had Trump favored at 61.3%.

Meanwhile, 538 has Harris at 55%.

 

[Politesse]

538 has hit upon an interesting way of trying to visually explain what statistics and probability are to people who don't understand them.

 

[Swammerdami]

Outcomes:

• 43% - Trump wins outright
• 21% - Trump wins via cheating
• 16% - Harris wins but Trumpists protest and prevail or force anarchy
• 13% - Harris wins, Trumpists protest, but democracy prevails
• . 7% - Harris wins overwhelmingly, stifling dissent.

Both Polymarket and Betfair show the race as almost a coin toss, with Trump and Harris very slight favorites respectively.
Nate Silver's number is secret. (Any subscriber willing to divulge?) But latest polls show Harris gaining in NC and losing ground in PA and GA.

I don't subscribe to anything, but I can see Nate Silver's numbers at: https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model...

So these are pre-debate numbers.

IIUC those are the poll results that he feeds into his prediction algorithm. To see the OUTPUT of his prediction algorithm one must subscribe, or as blastula has done find his (pre-debate) prediction (61.3%) posted, e.g. via Xwitter.

I am NOT one who puts Mr. Silver on some special pedestal. But his reputation as a reliable predictor seems to be better than that of his competitors.

My own numbers that you quoted -- showing the combined chance of fascist take-over or chaos as 80% -- are just silly (and most of us hope, pessimistic) guesses.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps they think that prosecution was politically motivated. And given that it was pushed by far-left DA Alvin Bragg, and that both his predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office and the US attorney both declined to prosecute this case seems reasonable.

Also, I posted this before:

 

[aupmanyav]

Why I want Kamala to win? Not because her election will benefit India in any way (US-India relations are not based on personal relationships - she has been anti-India many a times), but for the sake of USA.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why I want Kamala to win? Not because her election will benefit India in any way (US-India relations are not based on personal relationships - she has been anti-India many a times), but for the sake of USA.

The left-wing / moderate-wing have lost. Social justice and rights will retrract a few decades, at least. We are just trying to keep the tourniquet on. McConnell successful stole a SCOTUS chair, Trump named three far-right justices. That is that. We are seeing the fruits of these labors at the end of last SCOTUS's term. A Trump win will hasten the demise. A Harris win while holding a 50-50 tie in the Senate will keep us on life support, with lots of long nights.

 

[Elixir]

Yesterday, Silver had Trump favored at 61.3%.

Meanwhile, 538 has Harris at 55%.

My fear is that they’re both right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday, Silver had Trump favored at 61.3%.

Meanwhile, 538 has Harris at 55%.

My fear is that they’re both right.

I'm getting mixed signals, giving me both reason to be optimistic... and depressed. Generally, my rule of thumb is 50%. We are seeing Harris reach that in some points in battleground states. I'm having a hard time thinking Harris wins Wisconsin (she is polling well there recently) but loses Pennsylvania. Hard to think Walz would have that positive of an effect there verses PA. And Harris is polling decently in North Carolina, fishing close to 50. I can't comprehend losing PA and winning NC. Losing PA requires Harris to pull off NC and GA or NC, AZ, NV.

Arizona is fading, but Gallego is up 6+ points on Lake and swimming near 50. Yes, Lake sucks, but Lake is a Trump clone. Nevada is the worrying with it being near a tie, with both candidates closing on 50. Nevada has been pretty close in the last couple elections, so maybe this isn't as big of a deal. The polls had Biden up 5 or so points, won by 3. They got Biden's number about right. So is this a case of the polls are more accurate for Trump and Harris is potentially leading or is there a bias against Trump that'll see him pop up another 3 pts? There is reason to feel comfortable with Harris's number overall... but as long as it is 50 or greater. Polling generally has captured the Democrat well. The other side of things, again the Democrat Senator in Nevada is cruising with a close to double digit lead and at 50.

So mixed signals galore!

 

[Toni]

Yesterday, Silver had Trump favored at 61.3%.

Meanwhile, 538 has Harris at 55%.

My fear is that they’re both right.

I'm getting mixed signals, giving me both reason to be optimistic... and depressed. Generally, my rule of thumb is 50%. We are seeing Harris reach that in some points in battleground states. I'm having a hard time thinking Harris wins Wisconsin (she is polling well there recently) but loses Pennsylvania. Hard to think Walz would have that positive of an effect there verses PA. And Harris is polling decently in North Carolina, fishing close to 50. I can't comprehend losing PA and winning NC. Losing PA requires Harris to pull off NC and GA or NC, AZ, NV.

Arizona is fading, but Gallego is up 6+ points on Lake and swimming near 50. Yes, Lake sucks, but Lake is a Trump clone. Nevada is the worrying with it being near a tie, with both candidates closing on 50. Nevada has been pretty close in the last couple elections, so maybe this isn't as big of a deal. The polls had Biden up 5 or so points, won by 3. They got Biden's number about right. So is this a case of the polls are more accurate for Trump and Harris is potentially leading or is there a bias against Trump that'll see him pop up another 3 pts? There is reason to feel comfortable with Harris's number overall... but as long as it is 50 or greater. Polling generally has captured the Democrat well. The other side of things, again the Democrat Senator in Nevada is cruising with a close to double digit lead and at 50.

So mixed signals galore!

Minnesota and Wisconsin are kind of like two siblings. They have a great deal in common in terms of geography, demographics, culture, and cultural roots. Heavily Northern European and Scandinavian immigrant populations continue to have a strong influence. Walz would likely be a plus for them:

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps they think that prosecution was politically motivated. And given that it was pushed by far-left DA Alvin Bragg, and that both his predecessor in the Manhattan DA's office and the US attorney both declined to prosecute this case seems reasonable.

And they forget his disparagement of the police during the January 6 insurrection along with his promise to pardon the convicted insurrectionists?

The cognitive dissonance of Magatards and their apologists is truly fascinating.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday, Silver had Trump favored at 61.3%.

Meanwhile, 538 has Harris at 55%.

My fear is that they’re both right.

I'm getting mixed signals, giving me both reason to be optimistic... and depressed. Generally, my rule of thumb is 50%. We are seeing Harris reach that in some points in battleground states. I'm having a hard time thinking Harris wins Wisconsin (she is polling well there recently) but loses Pennsylvania. Hard to think Walz would have that positive of an effect there verses PA. And Harris is polling decently in North Carolina, fishing close to 50. I can't comprehend losing PA and winning NC. Losing PA requires Harris to pull off NC and GA or NC, AZ, NV.

Arizona is fading, but Gallego is up 6+ points on Lake and swimming near 50. Yes, Lake sucks, but Lake is a Trump clone. Nevada is the worrying with it being near a tie, with both candidates closing on 50. Nevada has been pretty close in the last couple elections, so maybe this isn't as big of a deal. The polls had Biden up 5 or so points, won by 3. They got Biden's number about right. So is this a case of the polls are more accurate for Trump and Harris is potentially leading or is there a bias against Trump that'll see him pop up another 3 pts? There is reason to feel comfortable with Harris's number overall... but as long as it is 50 or greater. Polling generally has captured the Democrat well. The other side of things, again the Democrat Senator in Nevada is cruising with a close to double digit lead and at 50.

So mixed signals galore!

Minnesota and Wisconsin are kind of like two siblings. They have a great deal in common in terms of geography, demographics, culture, and cultural roots. Heavily Northern European and Scandinavian immigrant populations continue to have a strong influence. Walz would likely be a plus for them:

Oh fer sure. *dollops five gallon of ranch dressing onto french fries*

And that was one of the reasons Walz was picked, I just had the mindset that a good ole midwestern boy would work for PA as well, in the suburbs. That Harris is doing better in Wisconsin than Pennsylvania is busting up my model.

 

[Toni]

Yesterday, Silver had Trump favored at 61.3%.

Meanwhile, 538 has Harris at 55%.

My fear is that they’re both right.

I'm getting mixed signals, giving me both reason to be optimistic... and depressed. Generally, my rule of thumb is 50%. We are seeing Harris reach that in some points in battleground states. I'm having a hard time thinking Harris wins Wisconsin (she is polling well there recently) but loses Pennsylvania. Hard to think Walz would have that positive of an effect there verses PA. And Harris is polling decently in North Carolina, fishing close to 50. I can't comprehend losing PA and winning NC. Losing PA requires Harris to pull off NC and GA or NC, AZ, NV.

Arizona is fading, but Gallego is up 6+ points on Lake and swimming near 50. Yes, Lake sucks, but Lake is a Trump clone. Nevada is the worrying with it being near a tie, with both candidates closing on 50. Nevada has been pretty close in the last couple elections, so maybe this isn't as big of a deal. The polls had Biden up 5 or so points, won by 3. They got Biden's number about right. So is this a case of the polls are more accurate for Trump and Harris is potentially leading or is there a bias against Trump that'll see him pop up another 3 pts? There is reason to feel comfortable with Harris's number overall... but as long as it is 50 or greater. Polling generally has captured the Democrat well. The other side of things, again the Democrat Senator in Nevada is cruising with a close to double digit lead and at 50.

So mixed signals galore!

Minnesota and Wisconsin are kind of like two siblings. They have a great deal in common in terms of geography, demographics, culture, and cultural roots. Heavily Northern European and Scandinavian immigrant populations continue to have a strong influence. Walz would likely be a plus for them:

Oh fer sure. *dollops five gallon of ranch dressing onto french fries*

And that was one of the reasons Walz was picked, I just had the mindset that a good ole midwestern boy would work for PA as well, in the suburbs. That Harris is doing better in Wisconsin than Pennsylvania is busting up my model.

Ah, Wisconsin isn’t really the rust belt like Pennsylvania is. In the end people tend to vote their pocketbooks. I don’t know why people believe anything that Trump says but tariffs can make imports more expensive, boosting sales of domestic products. In years past. But these days, for better or worse, lots of parts for lots of goods are manufactured overseas, which would also drive up the prices for domestic manufacturers which are also passed along to consumers. Basically tariffs are very regressive taxes that everyone pays.

Busting up monopolies would help consumers more. Making billionaires and multi-millionaires pay their fair share of taxes would help everyone—even if the Uber rich don’t agree.

We all benefit from stability.

 

[Elixir]

is this a case of the polls are more accurate for Trump and Harris is potentially leading or is there a bias against Trump that'll see him pop up another 3 pts?

In 2020 I think a lot of people were afraid to admit they were voting for Trump. This time a lot of people are probably afraid of admitting they’re abandoning the insane clown felon, due to his threats against anyone who supports his opposition.

 

[Elixir]

tariffs can make imports more expensive, boosting sales of domestic products

Uh… no. Not unless there’s price regulation. If imported commodity widgets go up from $1 to $1.15, domestic $.99 widgets will go up to $1.14, maintaining their competitive edge while boosting profits. Once that price hike spreads through the entire consumer sector, what you have is no change in trade balance, but lots of inflation.
The billionaire’s $500m yacht will cost another $75m if made domestically, but Mr Billionaire doesn’t care; he’ll just get it built in Korea.
Trumpsuckers don’t get the fact that billionaires are not hurt by inflation. Tariffs just make them richer.
The price of groceries isn’t a significant fraction of their cost of living, and the VAST bulk of their wealth is not in cash, it’s in holdings that will go up in value right along with the inflation that cripples the poor and middle class, who need to CASH paychecks to pay expenses.

 

[Toni]

tariffs can make imports more expensive, boosting sales of domestic products

Uh… no. Not unless there’s price regulation. If imported commodity widgets go up from $1 to $1.15, domestic $.99 widgets will go up to $1.14, maintaining their competitive edge while boosting profits. Once that price hike spreads through the entire consumer sector, what you have is no change in trade balance, but lots of inflation.
The billionaire’s $500m yacht will cost another $75m if made domestically, but Mr Billionaire doesn’t care; he’ll just get it built in Korea.
Trumpsuckers don’t get the fact that billionaires are not hurt by inflation. Tariffs just make them richer.
The price of groceries isn’t a significant fraction of their cost of living, and the VAST bulk of their wealth is not in cash, it’s in holdings that will go up in value right along with the inflation that cripples the poor and middle class, who need to CASH paychecks to pay expenses.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in what I wrote: increased prices via tariffs on foreign goods will include parts, bits, pieces, chips, etc. that are used in the manufacture of domestic products increasing the price of domestic products over what they would be without the tariffs.

YES tariffs are inflationary. That is how they hurt everyone (except the billionaires for whom an extra few or hundred million is chump change and they can afford to look anywhere they want to for better prices.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pennsylvania is "Alabama with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia on the ends". What swings the state is the suburb voters.

Tariffs suck. I don't know why the Biden Admin hasn't done anything with them. The wealth since Reagan has definitely 'trickled up' and stayed up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

tariffs can make imports more expensive, boosting sales of domestic products

Uh… no. Not unless there’s price regulation. If imported commodity widgets go up from $1 to $1.15, domestic $.99 widgets will go up to $1.14, maintaining their competitive edge while boosting profits. Once that price hike spreads through the entire consumer sector, what you have is no change in trade balance, but lots of inflation.
The billionaire’s $500m yacht will cost another $75m if made domestically, but Mr Billionaire doesn’t care; he’ll just get it built in Korea.
Trumpsuckers don’t get the fact that billionaires are not hurt by inflation. Tariffs just make them richer.
The price of groceries isn’t a significant fraction of their cost of living, and the VAST bulk of their wealth is not in cash, it’s in holdings that will go up in value right along with the inflation that cripples the poor and middle class, who need to CASH paychecks to pay expenses.

Price regulation works well in areas the Government is footing the bill. Health care, construction, should be military industrial complex. But overall? Price hikes only work if corporations conspire together, and that already isn't legal.

Yes, prices would be nice if they were lower, but the Government can't exactly set prices across the board. I think Toni is closer, in that consolidation isn't helping. Yes, we get some benefits. Google has given up Google Earth, which is a remarkable product for us proles. They've expanded fiber optic availability. But in the end, when there are fewer choices, prices and ingenuity suffer. And finally, some prices needed to go up. People need to be paid. Consolidation led to other methods of cutting costs, labor. Overall, regulating prices is tough because prices are a final line item after a lot of production that contains many variables.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yesterday, Silver had Trump favored at 61.3%.

Meanwhile, 538 has Harris at 55%.

Silver is owned by Polymarket now, no longer independent. It's basically a gambling site.