The Race For 2024

[Derec]

That’s assuming that people would more likely vote for her if their guy is on the ticket, right? Isn’t that just playing in to the same identity politics that the Democrats always get accused of? “A woman on the ticket will get women votes.” “A black person on the ticket will get black person votes.”
Every expert I have heard chime in the subject says that the VP pick essentially does nothing, so it’s not clear to me at all that picking Shapiro would definitely have made a difference the way you are implying.

In a very close race, as battleground states like PA will be, choice of the running mate may matter. Even if the Veep candidate moves the needle just a little, it may be enough.
In PA Shapiro has the home state advantage - he is a popular governor there after all. And I do not think that is the same as selecting a running mate by race or gender.
I also think Shapiro would have been a better choice overall than the guy who basically got selected because he started a meme ("Republicans are weird") days before she made her selection. Walz certainly did not prove to be an inspired choice overall.

 

[ZiprHead]

So the Pennsylvania polls do not look very good.

Perhaps Kamala should have gone with Josh instead of the Knucklehead.

Even is not looking good?

Frankly I don't trust polls. Young people who avoid polls like the plague aren't counted.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That’s assuming that people would more likely vote for her if their guy is on the ticket, right? Isn’t that just playing in to the same identity politics that the Democrats always get accused of? “A woman on the ticket will get women votes.” “A black person on the ticket will get black person votes.”
Every expert I have heard chime in the subject says that the VP pick essentially does nothing, so it’s not clear to me at all that picking Shapiro would definitely have made a difference the way you are implying.

In a very close race, as battleground states like PA will be, choice of the running mate may matter. Even if the Veep candidate moves the needle just a little, it may be enough.

There should be historical data to address that hypothesis, yes?

In PA Shapiro has the home state advantage - he is a popular governor there after all. And I do not think that is the same as selecting a running mate by race or gender.

But it’s still making an assumption that people will be simple enough to be more likely to vote for Harris if their local politician is also on the ticket.

It’s a simplistic view of voting preferences. Perhaps correct.

I also think Shapiro would have been a better choice overall than the guy who basically got selected because he started a meme ("Republicans are weird") days before she made her selection. Walz certainly did not prove to be an inspired choice overall.

Yes, we have noted your opinion.

 

[ZiprHead]

That’s assuming that people would more likely vote for her if their guy is on the ticket, right? Isn’t that just playing in to the same identity politics that the Democrats always get accused of? “A woman on the ticket will get women votes.” “A black person on the ticket will get black person votes.”
Every expert I have heard chime in the subject says that the VP pick essentially does nothing, so it’s not clear to me at all that picking Shapiro would definitely have made a difference the way you are implying.

In a very close race, as battleground states like PA will be, choice of the running mate may matter. Even if the Veep candidate moves the needle just a little, it may be enough.
In PA Shapiro has the home state advantage - he is a popular governor there after all. And I do not think that is the same as selecting a running mate by race or gender.
I also think Shapiro would have been a better choice overall than the guy who basically got selected because he started a meme ("Republicans are weird") days before she made her selection. Walz certainly did not prove to be an inspired choice overall.

I think you support Shapiro for no more reason than he is a Jew. Your justifications are frankly bullshit. Is he your DEI choice?

 

[Derec]

Even is not looking good?

Even would make it a tossup, which is too close for comfort.

Frankly I don't trust polls. Young people who avoid polls like the plague aren't counted.

Polls are not simple random samples. They are fed through population and turnout models. I.e. pollsters try to account for discrepancy in response rates.

 

[Derec]

There should be historical data to address that hypothesis, yes?

The Overrated Vice Presidential Home-State Effect
Don't mind the pessimistic headline. The article shows that there is most certainly an effect.
Of course, a home-state running mate is not going to deliver a safe (for the opposing party) state, but in a purple state like PA home-state effect could well be the difference between carrying the state and not.
Note also:

Second, it may be that some types of vice presidential nominees produce more of an effect than others. Current governors or senators have produced a slightly larger gain on average (about 3 rather than 1.5) than those who were no longer in office, or who were U.S. representatives and therefore represented a Congressional district rather than the whole state.

Shapiro is a popular sitting governor.

But it’s still making an assumption that people will be simple enough to be more likely to vote for Harris if their local politician is also on the ticket.
It’s a simplistic view of voting preferences. Perhaps correct.

It does seem to bear out.

Yes, we have noted your opinion.

Yes, I have made most of these points before, but now Walz is kind of fumbling the ball, and the issue bears revisiting I think.
If Kamala Harris loses, her choice of running mate will most definitely be part of the postmortem. But luckily for her, the other side did not exactly knock it out of the park with their pick either.

 

[Derec]

I think you support Shapiro for no more reason than he is a Jew.

Bullshit. But I do think him being a Jew who is also pro-Israel is why he was so opposed by the radical fringe of the Democratic Party.
Anti-Israel activists cheer Josh Shapiro losing out to Walz in Kamala Harris veepstakes
He was just not acceptable to the Dem crazies, while Walz was.
Not that dissimilar to Vance. He was more acceptable to the GOP crazies than somebody like Nikki Haley.

Your justifications are frankly bullshit.

They are not.

• He would help with PA. He is not only from PA but also a popular sitting governor. Walz is not closely linked to any battleground states.
• Shapiro is a moderate, which would have provided an ideological complement to the quite left Harris.
• Walz has plenty of skeletons - lying about China, DUI and lying about it during his Congress run, releasing a child killer from prison, etc.

Among other issues. Why do you think these things are "bullshit"? Are you that "Walz-pilled" that you cannot abide any criticism of him any more than you can abide criticism of Harris?

Is he your DEI choice?

No. He would have been a far better pick. I think a Shapiro-Vance debate would not have had the "knucklehead" and "friends with school shooters" moments.

 

[Toni]

There should be historical data to address that hypothesis, yes?

The Overrated Vice Presidential Home-State Effect
Don't mind the pessimistic headline. The article shows that there is most certainly an effect.
Of course, a home-state running mate is not going to deliver a safe (for the opposing party) state, but in a purple state like PA home-state effect could well be the difference between carrying the state and not.
Note also:

Second, it may be that some types of vice presidential nominees produce more of an effect than others. Current governors or senators have produced a slightly larger gain on average (about 3 rather than 1.5) than those who were no longer in office, or who were U.S. representatives and therefore represented a Congressional district rather than the whole state.

Shapiro is a popular sitting governor.

But it’s still making an assumption that people will be simple enough to be more likely to vote for Harris if their local politician is also on the ticket.
It’s a simplistic view of voting preferences. Perhaps correct.

It does seem to bear out.

Yes, we have noted your opinion.

Yes, I have made most of these points before, but now Walz is kind of fumbling the ball, and the issue bears revisiting I think.
If Kamala Harris loses, her choice of running mate will most definitely be part of the postmortem. But luckily for her, the other side did not exactly knock it out of the park with their pick either.

Reportedly Shapiro was not certain he wanted the spot. Initially, I would have very much preferred Shapiro but I’ve actually been quite surprised at how well Harris and Walz work together, at least for the camera. I wasn’t enthusiastic about Walz but he’s really great—not in the debate but everywhere rise I’ve seen him. He’s funny and relatable and knows his stuff.

I can’t imagine Trump does more than tolerate Vance because he has no choice.

If Trump is elected, I don’t think he’ll last long in office. Thiel wants Vance. Vance will do as his overlords command and he didn’t shit his pants in public,

 

[unapologetic]

I don't consider Fox News to be part of the MSM establishment. They are a cable news network, set up in the mid 90s (I think) aren't they?

I don't consider Faux to be news. It is 90% right-wing OPINION. It is not fair. It is not balanced. But it is now 'mainstream'.
Cable IS mainstream. Most people get their TV from cable now. Including the legacy networks.

What kinda makes Fox News an outlier is the casual disregard for reality and ethics.

I agree.

In his particular form of psychopathy, lying has become completely routine for him. Perhaps he doesn't even notice that he's lying. The very concept of "speaking truth" doesn't map to any node in his limited intellect.

As I've said before, Rump has a COMPLEATE DISREGARD for the truth. He just doesn't care what is true.

Like I say, the full weight of the MSM is behind dopey Harris.

So what? the full weight of FauxNews is behind Rump. A totally biased media is the new norm, thanks to FauxNews.
Faux has proven, in court, that it does not need to be truthful. So it doesn't even try to be.
(And FauxNews is a major player in the MSM, no matter how much it pretends it isn't, or you deny it.)

 

[Swammerdami]

The three poll numbers shown for each state are the weighted averages as of Sept 28, Oct 8, Oct 12.
Harris' small leads in the Rusty Swingers are fading away -- is this due to Muslim voters turning against Netanyahu's enablers?

I show the Seven Swing States™ (and one longer-shot each for Red or Blue sometimes mentioned), along with latest poll averages as shown at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/ . The final number shown on each line is #EVs ÷5.

Minnesota +6 +6 +6 . . . . . . // 2

Michigan +3 +1.6 +0.7 . . . . .// 3
Wisconsin +2 +1.5 +0.6 . . . . // 2
Pennsylvania +1 +0.6 +0.3 . . .// 4
Nevada +1 +1 +0.5. . . . . . . // 1
North Carolina 0 -1 -0.9 . . . // 3
Georgia -1 -1 -0.9 . . . . . . // 3
Arizona -1 -1.5 -1.4 . . . . . // 2

Florida -4 -4 -5 . . . . . . . // 6


Harris needs 9 of the 18 #EVs ÷5 from the Seven Swingers.

Harris is down 54 to 45 at Betfair, and down 55 to 45 at Polymarket.

Yes, the erosion in Harris' strength is due almost entirely to Trumpist lies, but this just makes the future all the bleaker.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Even is not looking good?

Even would make it a tossup, which is too close for comfort.

Frankly I don't trust polls. Young people who avoid polls like the plague aren't counted.

Polls are not simple random samples. They are fed through population and turnout models. I.e. pollsters try to account for discrepancy in response rates.

I honestly have no trust in any polls anymore.

Polls conducted by right wing organizations will decide the results before they conduct a poll. The same applies to unobjective left wing polls, although they are much fewer in number.

Also, I don't know how true it is that young people don't participate in polls, but it's likely true that they don't answer their phones when it's not a person in their contacts.

Are seniors more likely to participate based on the notion that they have landlines and answer the phone like they're still living in 1975? I don't think so.

There's money to be made in polling. 538 is a good example of a massive scam that people fall for during every election cycle. Nate Silverman is a sleazebag. Back in 2012 he gained popularity by accurately predicting a lot of outcomes. He took all the credit he could for those predictions. Following that however, whenever they got it wrong, he/his organization would come up with this bullshit line of "We don't make predictions, we only present possibilities! You just don't understand statistics!"

When you provide every possible outcome, you can't be wrong, but 538, despite its claims of not making predictions, still sells itself as a predictor of outcomes.

Here's my prediction: either Harris or Trump will win.

Now give me money.

 

[laughing dog]

Even is not looking good?

Even would make it a tossup, which is too close for comfort.

Frankly I don't trust polls. Young people who avoid polls like the plague aren't counted.

Polls are not simple random samples. They are fed through population and turnout models. I.e. pollsters try to account for discrepancy in response rates.

Try is the operative term. And those attempts are based on statistical estimates. The results of opinion polls are really sophisticated guesses

 

[unapologetic]

Are seniors more likely to participate based on the notion that they have landlines and answer the phone like they're still living in 1975? I don't think so.

I got my first and only cell phone in 2020. After 2 years of spam calls, I don't answer it anymore. "leave a message or fuck off"*.
Most don't. The few that leave messages are easy to spot as bots.
I don't answer polls. Neither online, on the phone nor in RL. I presume they are really collecting data on ME.

* My real greeting says: "Hello. Due to the vast number of spam calls we get, we no longer answer this phone personally.
If you are a real human and need to talk to us, leave your name, number, the reason for your call, and the name of WHO you want to talk to.
And we will get back to you." When they don't know who I am, it's a cold call.

 

[Henry-Finland]

If Trump wins, the reputation and trust in USA will be pure garbage.

 

[bilby]

538 is a good example of a massive scam that people fall for during every election cycle. Nate Silverman is a sleazebag. Back in 2012 he gained popularity by accurately predicting a lot of outcomes. He took all the credit he could for those predictions. Following that however, whenever they got it wrong, he/his organization would come up with this bullshit line of "We don't make predictions, we only present possibilities! You just don't understand statistics!"

Okay.

Nate Silver (who as far as I know is a man, but who is not called Silverman) is no longer affiliated with 538, which he sold to ABC News.

He does still do his election prediction thing, but not at 538 - his blog is called "Silver Bulletin", and is at https://www.natesilver.net/

He started out as (and remains) a sports statistician; Elections are a minor sideline for him (which I understand is part of the reason why when 538 started to take up too much of his time, he sold it to ABC).

And he never claimed to make predictions. He presents the odds, and like any honest sports statistician, whether pundit, bookie, or tipster, he has always avoided making black and white predictions - an upset is always possible in sports or in politics.

In the political arena, the media have a stupidly unrealistic grasp of statistics, and it was into that void that he stepped in 2012 - and by treating elections like the sporting contests they really are, he was able to outperform all the traditional psephologists. Who have since adopted his approach, leaving him just one of many.

And he is absolutely right - people don't undertand statistics, or percentages, or arithmetic, or how Jewish weather lasers work.

People are dumb. And they expect statisticians to make accurate and unequivocal predictions (which is impossie), and they get mad when they are caught out betting on an 80:20 outcome and it turns out to be that one occasion in five when the underdog triumphs.

Nate Silver isn't a sleazebag (or if he is, he isn't for the reasons you outlined); Your deeply inaccurate idea of the imaginary Nate Silverman is a sleazebag - and he exists due to the half-remembered criticisms of him you heard from the folks he out-performed in 2012, and who have never forgiven him for upsetting their little psephological fiefdom.

I don't think Silver is anything very special today, as his ideas have been built in to his rivals' systems now. I have never met the man, and he could be a huge sleazebag for all I know. But your attack on him seems unwarranted, based on what you posted here.

Of course he is milking his successes for all they are worth - that's what sports and election pundits do. That's his job.

 

[bilby]

If Trump wins, the reputation and trust in USA will be pure garbage.

So you're saying it will only decline a tiny little bit?

 

[TSwizzle]

I don't consider Faux to be news. It is 90% right-wing OPINION. It is not fair. It is not balanced. But it is now 'mainstream'.

Well, stop watching it if you don’t like it.

So what? the full weight of FauxNews is behind Rump.

Fox News is an outlier in this regard.

 

[Henry-Finland]

No matter the community or country, the level of education ultimately reflects everything.

Let’s take a nation: any nation, people's average IQ (which doesn’t measure everything, of course) is exactly 100.

Group 1: Let’s take the wealthiest decile: they can afford to educate their offspring regardless of IQ.
So, we’re left with 90% of the population.
Group 2: If education is expensive, then (presumably) the brightest 10% of this group will manage to get educated, even if it means going into debt.
Group 3: The remaining 80% enters the workforce, including both the less bright and the "Einsteins."
If we summarize, group 1 (those who have lots of family money/resources) = about half with an IQ below 100 and half above 100. However, education can raise even the less intelligent members’ IQ and knowledge base. As a result, they end up with good jobs and positions (thanks to family connections and good education). So, our bosses are either quite stupid or quite bright.

Group 2 is likely to have an IQ above 100, as they wouldn’t succeed otherwise. Some of them may drop out during their education, but those who make it are probably more capable, on average, than group 1.

Group 3 consists of both the less intelligent and the Einsteins, who may never get a real chance. One Einstein might be painting fences, another working as a construction worker or gardener, etc. The less intelligent portion—these are the ones who become Trumpists.
They never read books, and their worldview is shaped by simplistic, populist narratives from TV and what the guys speak at work.

Conclusion:
Due to expensive education, not everyone has the same opportunities, and many talented young people never get the chance to study.
From the perspective of a nation, this is an enormous waste. For demagogues and populists, it’s an ideal playing field.
We saw this in Europe in the 1930s, and now we see it in democratic countries everywhere.

Yes, you guessed it: I am for free education because our competition comes from e.g. China where education is regarded highly. We might have some 20 - 30 years left before they overcome us. With Trump, some 10 - 15 years max. - and "His Stupidness" affects the whole democratic world.

 

[ZiprHead]

Even is not looking good?

Even would make it a tossup, which is too close for comfort.

Frankly I don't trust polls. Young people who avoid polls like the plague aren't counted.

Polls are not simple random samples. They are fed through population and turnout models. I.e. pollsters try to account for discrepancy in response rates.

So, guessing.

 

[bilby]

I posted this in another thread, but it probably belongs here:

The disinformation campaigns from the minor local election campaign in some backwater called the United States of somewhere or other, are now affecting important electoral decisions in major internationally important polities, such as the great state of Queensland, where we have our election on Saturday October 26th, after a gruelling twenty-six day campaign.

Apparently a bunch of anti-vax loonies calling themselves "My Place Australia" are now up in arms, because they say the election is threatened by hackers who are attacking voting machines supplied by Dominion, and are attempting to steal the election.

These nupties appear not to care, or perhaps merely to refuse to believe, that no voting machines of any kind have ever been used in any Australian election.

This is the kind of international stupid that results from the untargetted nature of the Internet. Russian trolls post propaganda aimed at people in the Sunshine State, but it winds up on the feeds of people who live in a completely different Sunshine State.