The Race For 2024

[Swammerdami]

A question about the process after the election.
Why is there such a long time between the election and the coronation (early Nov - late Jan)?
In Aust. the new government is sworn in a couple of days after the election count is completed. Usually we have a new government in less than a week.
It that an historical reason?

It is NOT an answer to your question, but the U.S. Government has 4000 political appointees selected by POTUS. How many does Australia or the U.K. have?

During Trump's previous regime, federal law was changed to make it easier for POTUS to fire employees. In addition to the 4000 appointments, Trump allegedly plans to fire and replace tens of thousands of other "disloyal" workers.

During that first regime many of Trump's appointees were intelligent right-wingers who turned against Trump sooner or later. Don't expect him to make that "mistake" again.

 

[Toni]

I know we've discussed this before, but people far more qualified than me, have said that Trump has dementia. This article is from last March. Let me find some more.....

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-dementia-evidence-overwhelming-top-psychiatrist-1881247

There is "overwhelming" evidence that Donald Trump is suffering from dementia, a leading psychiatrist has claimed, amid speculation about the state of the former president's mental health.

Dr. Lance Dodes, a supervising analyst emeritus of the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute and retired Harvard Medical School professor, was among those recently quoted by Duty To Warn, which describes itself as an association of mental health professionals concerned about Trump.

"Unlike normal aging, which is characterized by forgetting names or words, Trump repeatedly shows something very different: confusion about reality," he wrote in a statement published on Friday, which referenced Trump's confusing Barack Obama with Joe Biden.

I’m certain that the entire leadership of the GQP is well aware of Trump’s dementia and mental illnesses and general failing health. However they are willing to use him as a cult leader/figurehead long enough to steal the election at which point I am confident they will Section 25 him and install JD Vance, who is many things but not in declining physical health or declining cognitively.

 

[TSwizzle]

I’m certain that the entire leadership of the GQP is well aware of Trump’s dementia and mental illnesses and general failing health. However they are willing to use him as a cult leader/figurehead long enough to steal the election at which point I am confident they will Section 25 him and install JD Vance, who is many things but not in declining physical health or declining cognitively.

It's like déjà vu all over again.

 

[Swammerdami]

Polymarket now shows 64½% - 35½% as the chances Trump or Harris will win the election. Betfair shows 60½% - 39%.

That was five days ago. Just now, despite the recent explicit displays of dementia and racism,
Polymarket shows 66.3% - 33.7%. Betfair shows 63.1% - 36.4%.

I show the Seven Swing States™ (and two other states), 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. The six poll numbers shown for each state are the weighted averages as of Sept 28, Oct 8, Oct 12, Oct 16 Oct 20, Oct 25, Oct 30. Fivethirtyeight weights polls by pollster reliability.

Minnesota +6 +6 +6 +5.8 +5.7 +5.5 +4.5 . . . . . . . . // 2

Michigan +3 +1.6 +0.7 +0.7 +0.2 +0.7 +0.5 . . . . . . .// 3
Wisconsin +2 +1.5 +0.6 +0.5 +0.2 +0.2 0.0 . . . . . . .// 2
Pennsylvania +1 +0.6 +0.3 +0.7 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 . . . . .// 4
Nevada +1 +1 +0.5 +0.7 +0.5 +0.1 -0.2. . . . . . . . . // 1
North Carolina 0 -1 -0.9 -0.9 -0.5 -1.2 -1.3 . . . . . // 3
Georgia -1 -1 -0.9 -0.9 -1.8 -1.5 -1.5 . . . . . . . . // 3
Arizona -1 -1.5 -1.4 -1.7 -1.9 -1.8 -1.9 . . . . . . . // 2

Florida -4 -4 -5 -5.1 -5.5 -6.0 -6.1 . . . . . . . . . // 6

 

[Derec]

How in the world do you think insinuating that a black person associates with the Klan makes any sense?

 

[barbos]

CNN turns on Harris?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Fourth Estate appears to be collapsing.

"While USA TODAY will not endorse for president, local editors at publications across the USA TODAY Network have the discretion to endorse at a state or local level," USA Today spokesperson Lark-Marie Antón told Fox News Digital.

"Why are we doing this? Because we believe America's future is decided locally – one race at a time. And with more than 200 publications across the nation, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions," the spokesperson added.

Donald Trump caused a riot on January 6th. That alone disqualifies him, regardless if the GOP had no balls to hold him accountable. And the Press is kneeling before Trump.

I feel like Chavez is about to win.

 

[bilby]

Just now, despite the recent explicit displays of dementia and racism,
Polymarket shows 66.3% - 33.7%. Betfair shows 63.1% - 36.4%.

I would just like to point out that while the "traditional" polls have a lot of major flaws and problems, there is an even bigger flaw with such systems as Polymarket and Betfair, in any scenario in which bad-faith actors are happy to spend large sums of money to distort public perceptions.

Market based election predictions should work well, as long as everyone who puts money in, does so in the expectation of getting even more money out, once the results are known.

If somebody with very deep pockets (say, the autocratic ruler of a major natural gas exporting nation, as a purely hypothetical example) were to back a candidate with the intention of distorting the results, rather than from a genuine belief in that candidate's chances of winning, then the numbers thrown up would be completely unreliable.

It would be an excellent investment for the leader of that enemy state if, for a few measly rubles dollars, he could cause chaos if his less preferred candidate wins, by pointing to the Polymarket and Betfair "predictions" as compelling evidence of a massive fraud, or "stolen election".

And if his preferred candidate does eke out a win in the electoral college, then our foreign influencer still wins - not only does he get the POTUS he wanted, but he also gets a big sack of cash.

Risking a few lousy million, as a hedge against a stable transition of power for the President who will seriously fuck his shit up if she hasn't got major domestic strife to deal with, seems like an excellent investment, as part of a diverse portfolio of divisive and disruptive strategies to keep the US from bringing her full might to bear on assisting Ukraine any hypothetical neighbour that our hypothetical autocrat might wish to defeat militarily.

 

[Elixir]

Just now, despite the recent explicit displays of dementia and racism,
Polymarket shows 66.3% - 33.7%. Betfair shows 63.1% - 36.4%.

I would just like to point out that while the "traditional" polls have a lot of major flaws and problems, there is an even bigger flaw with such systems as Polymarket and Betfair, in any scenario in which bad-faith actors are happy to spend large sums of money to distort public perceptions.

Market based election predictions should work well, as long as everyone who puts money in, does so in the expectation of getting even more money out, once the results are known.

If somebody with very deep pockets (say, the autocratic ruler of a major natural gas exporting nation, as a purely hypothetical example) were to back a candidate with the intention of distorting the results, rather than from a genuine belief in that candidate's chances of winning, then the numbers thrown up would be completely unreliable.

It would be an excellent investment for the leader of that enemy state if, for a few measly rubles dollars, he could cause chaos if his less preferred candidate wins, by pointing to the Polymarket and Betfair "predictions" as compelling evidence of a massive fraud, or "stolen election".

And if his preferred candidate does eke out a win the the electoral college, then our foreign influencer still wins - not only does he get the POTUS he wanted, but he also gets a big sack of cash.

Risking a few lousy million, as a hedge against a stable transition of power for the President who will seriously fuck his shit up if she hasn't got major domestic strife to deal with, seems like an excellent investment, as part of a diverse portfolio of divisive and disruptive strategies to keep the US from bringing her full might to bear on assisting Ukraine.

Exactly that kind of fuckery has been going on at Predictit. Coincidentally, it mirrors the price of DJT money-laundering stock 100%.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Donald Trump caused a riot on January 6th. That alone disqualifies him, regardless if the GOP had no balls to hold him accountable. And the Press is kneeling before Trump.

even if he didn’t cause it the fact that he did nothing about it for hours (and probably made it worse with his tweets) alone disqualifies him from

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Donald Trump caused a riot on January 6th. That alone disqualifies him, regardless if the GOP had no balls to hold him accountable. And the Press is kneeling before Trump.

even if he didn’t cause it the fact that he did nothing about it for hours (and probably made it worse with his tweets) alone disqualifies him from

No, he caused it. We know he caused it. We know he knew he lost. It was unprecedented, he should have been removed from office. Instead conservatives feigned surprise and then started bleating out whatever bullshit Hannity and Ingraham were paid to shill, even after desperately pleaing with Trump privately to stop the riot. Trump support and handwaved Anti-DNC behavior has become performance art.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. We have all the testimony to support it, including Trump trying to force his way to getting himself to the US Capitol.

 

[TSwizzle]

Cackling Kamala, incapable of answering a question;



Nora: You have not been clear on what restrictions you would support re abortion.
Cackling Kamala: blather about Roe v Wade
Nora: So you do support restrictions after viability?
Cackling Kamala: Roe v Wade
Nora: (ffs will you answer the question dammit!) Yes but Roe v Wade had restrictions
Cackling Kamal; TRUMP!! TRUMP!! TRUMP!!

Harris is clueless, she offers nothing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People are iffy on the economy. I really don't get it. The Dow is up a lot, wages went up, unemployment low.

What is really odd is the right-wing is up in arms about how expensive groceries are... but if a minority complains about the price groceries, those people aren't working hard enough.

I've lived through 2021 to 2024. I managed through the same inflation. I put food on the table, roof over the head, warm in the winter, mildly comfortable in the summer, no problem saving cash for retirement and available capital. So, should the people who are struggling shut up and work harder, or does that only apply to shaded skin folk?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Donald Trump caused a riot on January 6th. That alone disqualifies him, regardless if the GOP had no balls to hold him accountable. And the Press is kneeling before Trump.

even if he didn’t cause it the fact that he did nothing about it for hours (and probably made it worse with his tweets) alone disqualifies him from

No, he caused it. We know he caused it.

I didn’t disagree with this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Meanwhile Washington Post won't endorse candidate.

The editorial board wants to but the Beez is afraid of the Orange Meany.

For The Post, more outrage from readers who say they’ve canceled After Friday’s announcement that The Washington Post was no longer going to endorse a presidential candidate, subscribers and journalists are responding with anger and dismay.

And, crucially, subscription numbers, which had tumbled since the end of the Trump administration, were ticking up ever so slightly.

That momentum came to a halt over the weekend, after Friday’s surprise announcement by Publisher William Lewis that The Post’s editorial section would cease its long tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate — a decision he made public just 11 days before Election Day.

The outrage at the decision has been swift — from Post readers, journalism leaders, politicians and dismayed employees. A cancellation movement swept through social networks. Instead of using an internal analytics tool to check traffic to their own stories, some Post journalists used it to chart the soaring number of subscribers visiting the customer account page that allows them to cancel their subscriptions. (A Post spokeswoman declined to provide cancellation numbers Sunday, and Lewis did not respond to an interview request.)

On social media, sharing screenshots of Post subscription cancellation confirmations became more than just a thing. It was a political statement primarily coming from the American left, enraged by reports in The Post and elsewhere that the newspaper’s editorial writers had drafted an endorsement of the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, over her Republican opponent, former president Donald Trump.

Jeff Bezos responds to the lack of endorsement kerfluffle.

Opinion The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media A note from our owner.

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

No, Jeff. It's crazy ass right wingers who no longer trust real journalism. And being even more accurate isn't going to change that. They want their beliefs validated, not challenged.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

My woke Antifa communist ballot has been counted.

 

[ZiprHead]

Those righties are such nice people.

 

[Swammerdami]

Just now, despite the recent explicit displays of dementia and racism,
Polymarket shows 66.3% - 33.7%. Betfair shows 63.1% - 36.4%.

I would just like to point out that while the "traditional" polls have a lot of major flaws and problems, there is an even bigger flaw with such systems as Polymarket and Betfair, in any scenario in which bad-faith actors are happy to spend large sums of money to distort public perceptions.

Market based election predictions should work well, as long as everyone who puts money in, does so in the expectation of getting even more money out, once the results are known.could be so used.

I think millions of dollars bet would be needed to change Polymarket's odds significantly. And I'll guess VERY few voters pay attention to those odds. Someone spending money to influence the election would have much more logical plays. Whiule the effect you describe might play a SMALL psychological role, I think the big bets on Trump are by people who mainly just think they're making a money-making wager.

True, the election's losers may point to "evidence" of fraud, e.g. polls not matching results, but it seems very unlikely they would think the prediction markets could serve as such evidence.

For less money, criminals could subvert the results of polls! That would serve their purposes much more effectively.

Exactly that kind of fuckery has been going on at Predictit.

IIUC it takes MUCH less money to influence Predictit's odds. It is more of a play-toy compared with a casino like Polymarket.

Coincidentally, it mirrors the price of DJT money-laundering stock 100%.

NOT a coincidence. The price of DJT stock right now is a prediction of whether DJT will win the election. (If he does, the company is likely to prosper.) DJT stock is rising for the same reason the odds at Polymarket are rising -- people think Trump's chances are better than they thought a few weeks ago.

 

[bilby]

Meanwhile Washington Post won't endorse candidate.

The editorial board wants to but the Beez is afraid of the Orange Meany.

For The Post, more outrage from readers who say they’ve canceled After Friday’s announcement that The Washington Post was no longer going to endorse a presidential candidate, subscribers and journalists are responding with anger and dismay.

And, crucially, subscription numbers, which had tumbled since the end of the Trump administration, were ticking up ever so slightly.

That momentum came to a halt over the weekend, after Friday’s surprise announcement by Publisher William Lewis that The Post’s editorial section would cease its long tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate — a decision he made public just 11 days before Election Day.

The outrage at the decision has been swift — from Post readers, journalism leaders, politicians and dismayed employees. A cancellation movement swept through social networks. Instead of using an internal analytics tool to check traffic to their own stories, some Post journalists used it to chart the soaring number of subscribers visiting the customer account page that allows them to cancel their subscriptions. (A Post spokeswoman declined to provide cancellation numbers Sunday, and Lewis did not respond to an interview request.)

On social media, sharing screenshots of Post subscription cancellation confirmations became more than just a thing. It was a political statement primarily coming from the American left, enraged by reports in The Post and elsewhere that the newspaper’s editorial writers had drafted an endorsement of the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, over her Republican opponent, former president Donald Trump.

Jeff Bezos responds to the lack of endorsement kerfluffle.

Opinion The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media A note from our owner.

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

No, Jeff. It's crazy ass right wingers who no longer trust real journalism. And being even more accurate isn't going to change that. They want their beliefs validated, not challenged.

Does this fool genuinely believe that by intervening and ordering his editorial staff not to publish as they normally would, he is going to increase his newspaper's credibility?

Does he really think that the best way to combat a false perception of bias, is to give an undeniable demonstration of bias in the opposite direction to that which was alleged?

Those who fight reality lose, and it is a reality that Donald Trump (convicted felon and thief of classified documents, amongst many other faults far too numerous to list), would be a worse President than Kamala Harris, (black woman who occasionally laughs).

If enough people fight that reality, they, and their entire nation, and indeed the entire world, will lose, bigly.

 

[Derec]

However they are willing to use him as a cult leader/figurehead long enough to steal the election at which point I am confident they will Section 25 him and install JD Vance, who is many things but not in declining physical health or declining cognitively.

Why do you think he would have to "steal" the election? Right now, the polls are in his favor. He is leading in most battleground states, and even nationwide, he has narrowed the gap with Kamala Harris. In some polls (like the recent NY Times/Sienna) he is even with her, and at least one has Trump ahead.
I fear he will win the election fair and square like he did in 2016. And Democrats yet again have no one else to blame but themselves, nominating a flawed candidate.