Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 10 2024 20:53 EnDeR_ wrote: As usual, you neglected to mention that migration also drives innovation and growth.
Researchers found that [quote]
It can be both a crisis (when mismanaged at the local level) and a huge boon (when integrated into society).
Further edit:
[quote]
You could sum up the impacts of immigration as 'short-term pain for long-term gain'.
You seem to be under an illusion where you think there is some either/or where we allow immigration or we don't. Do you think there's some connection with say offering an H-1B visa to an immigrant to work in the next tech startup in silicon valley and with millions of people pouring through the southern border? You can't have one without the other?
It's almost like immigrants have contributed so much per capita because America has the luxury of selecting the cream of the crop and recruiting the best and brightest from all around the world. You can't extrapolate from that success to conclude that a migrant worker who can't speak English is just as likely to create the next Fortune 500 company as Elon Musk, just because they are both immigrants.
Their kid might.
You always couch any talk of migration in purely negative terms.
Shrug. Kind of sounds like you're only hearing what you want to hear. You're quoting my post talking about America's ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world and responding with "You always couch any talk of migration in purely negative terms." Is "best and brightest" a negative thing? Is "letting in a tremendous amount of people" through a "big beautiful door" a negative thing?
Biden says if Congress gives him the authority he will shut down the border the same day. Biden says he had people working around the clock the address the border crisis.
The takeaway here is that the migrant crisis is fake news and we should be making migration even easier. Ok... Maybe your beef is with Biden then.
Your argument boils down to 'only the best and brightest contribute', presumably a small fraction of total migration, while the rest do not. In what way is this couching migration as a positive when you imply that 99% of migrants are a drain on resources?
I at no point said it that there are zero problems with migration or that it is fake news. I don't know how easy you think migrating into the US is, but I can guarantee you it's a shit deal, even for people on tech visas.
I still think you are just hearing what you want to hear. I didn't say 99% of migrants are a drain on resources.
Indian-Americans are the highest earners in all of the United States. They out-earn white Americans by far. The reason is because they come over already highly educated and they get well paying jobs in tech or in medicine. What you're trying to do is say "Look at this research that says Indians do quite well in America, that must mean if we import 2 million people from the slums of Calcutta that can't speak English it will be of great benefit to the United States."
Anyone can see the flaw in that logic and it's not disparaging to Indian immigrants to point out that flaw.
And yes... Some % of them will be a drain on resources. That's what these major blue cities are pissed about. They can't print money so the money they are spending on the migrant crisis has to come from somewhere else in the budget.
I know you didn't say 99% are a drain. You just said that only the "best and brightest" contribute, which is what the statement implies, if you don't like 99% and you want to specify "best and brightest" as the top 5%, the point stands with 95% of migrants...
You are hyperfocussing on the high-tech sectors. Migration, as a whole, over the last 100 years or so has contributed positively to growth and wage growth. Not just people coming in on tech visas, but also those coming in unable to speak English.
The article makes the point you're making. In the short-term, migration can depress wages and there are clear examples of this happening. But in the longer term, it's a net benefit for the country.
All you have to do is ask yourself is what is the better policy, the one where we let in a tremendous amount of people legally who will be productive from day 1 or the one where we let millions of people pour across the border with many ending up in homeless shelters and overwhelming local resources? You're trying to argue that the latter policy is better than some 3rd option where we don't let anyone in, which is something that nobody is proposing except for the caricature of evil Republicans you've been told about.
The problem is you don't care about which policy is better for America, and I don't blame you. You're not an American. If you're living across the world and you have any heart at all then you should favor letting millions of come into America because overall that's the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Why should you care if cities have to empty their coffers to pay for a migrant crisis that resulted from shitty policies? You've come in defense of Democrat border policies which everyone that's not a complete partisan hack will acknowledge have been a disaster.
When did I argue about letting more people in?
You said Republicans could learn a thing from Spain because they are making it easier to migrate, not harder. Perhaps we can find a happy compromise where we agree that Biden has been trash at managing the border and Republicans' rhetoric has been atrocious.
Apologies for not being clear, I was trying to highlight a world leader pointing out that migration has benefits and treating immigrants like people and help them settle is a good thing to do.
I will happily compromise by agreeing that Trump's handling of the border was horrific, his current rethoric abhorrent and Biden's echoing of hard right talking points is disgraceful. I will also happily agree that your immigration policies make immigrants feel unvalued and unwanted.
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
On October 12 2024 16:23 oBlade wrote: Here's your security: Jose Antonio Ibarra, the humane asylum seeker who killed Laken Riley, immigrated illegally from Venezuela, was released by DHS, assaulted a child and was arrested, was released again - paroled into US due to lack of detention space - which is not even a legal reason to parole an illegal immigrant into the US - applied for and received a work authorization, all this despite his criminal record, then murdered a college student.
I found this neat website by some rightwing organization. If I look between 2017 and 2020, I see some similarly awful situations. Why didn't the Republicans care back then when they had a supermajority and Trump was all gung-ho about building a wall?
Michigan and Wisconsin do have RFK, Jr. on the ballot which does have the potential to differentiate them from states like VA, PA, GA as far as having a spoiling effect and in which direction.
On October 12 2024 16:23 oBlade wrote: Here's your security: Jose Antonio Ibarra, the humane asylum seeker who killed Laken Riley, immigrated illegally from Venezuela, was released by DHS, assaulted a child and was arrested, was released again - paroled into US due to lack of detention space - which is not even a legal reason to parole an illegal immigrant into the US - applied for and received a work authorization, all this despite his criminal record, then murdered a college student.
I found this neat website by some rightwing organization. If I look between 2017 and 2020, I see some similarly awful situations. Why didn't the Republicans care back then when they had a supermajority and Trump was all gung-ho about building a wall?
1) Supermajority doesn't mean what you think it does either - refer to the previous page. 2) Democrats controlled the House in the last 2 years of Drumpf's term. 3) Purging the Republican party of the influence of useless posturers, RINOs like Speaker Ryan, and the Cheneys of the world, has been the driving force behind the political realignment of the last 8 years. 4) What do you mean Republicans didn't care?
On October 10 2024 20:53 EnDeR_ wrote: As usual, you neglected to mention that migration also drives innovation and growth.
Researchers found that [quote]
It can be both a crisis (when mismanaged at the local level) and a huge boon (when integrated into society).
Further edit:
[quote]
You could sum up the impacts of immigration as 'short-term pain for long-term gain'.
You seem to be under an illusion where you think there is some either/or where we allow immigration or we don't. Do you think there's some connection with say offering an H-1B visa to an immigrant to work in the next tech startup in silicon valley and with millions of people pouring through the southern border? You can't have one without the other?
It's almost like immigrants have contributed so much per capita because America has the luxury of selecting the cream of the crop and recruiting the best and brightest from all around the world. You can't extrapolate from that success to conclude that a migrant worker who can't speak English is just as likely to create the next Fortune 500 company as Elon Musk, just because they are both immigrants.
Their kid might.
You always couch any talk of migration in purely negative terms.
Shrug. Kind of sounds like you're only hearing what you want to hear. You're quoting my post talking about America's ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world and responding with "You always couch any talk of migration in purely negative terms." Is "best and brightest" a negative thing? Is "letting in a tremendous amount of people" through a "big beautiful door" a negative thing?
Biden says if Congress gives him the authority he will shut down the border the same day. Biden says he had people working around the clock the address the border crisis.
The takeaway here is that the migrant crisis is fake news and we should be making migration even easier. Ok... Maybe your beef is with Biden then.
Your argument boils down to 'only the best and brightest contribute', presumably a small fraction of total migration, while the rest do not. In what way is this couching migration as a positive when you imply that 99% of migrants are a drain on resources?
I at no point said it that there are zero problems with migration or that it is fake news. I don't know how easy you think migrating into the US is, but I can guarantee you it's a shit deal, even for people on tech visas.
I still think you are just hearing what you want to hear. I didn't say 99% of migrants are a drain on resources.
Indian-Americans are the highest earners in all of the United States. They out-earn white Americans by far. The reason is because they come over already highly educated and they get well paying jobs in tech or in medicine. What you're trying to do is say "Look at this research that says Indians do quite well in America, that must mean if we import 2 million people from the slums of Calcutta that can't speak English it will be of great benefit to the United States."
Anyone can see the flaw in that logic and it's not disparaging to Indian immigrants to point out that flaw.
And yes... Some % of them will be a drain on resources. That's what these major blue cities are pissed about. They can't print money so the money they are spending on the migrant crisis has to come from somewhere else in the budget.
I know you didn't say 99% are a drain. You just said that only the "best and brightest" contribute, which is what the statement implies, if you don't like 99% and you want to specify "best and brightest" as the top 5%, the point stands with 95% of migrants...
You are hyperfocussing on the high-tech sectors. Migration, as a whole, over the last 100 years or so has contributed positively to growth and wage growth. Not just people coming in on tech visas, but also those coming in unable to speak English.
The article makes the point you're making. In the short-term, migration can depress wages and there are clear examples of this happening. But in the longer term, it's a net benefit for the country.
All you have to do is ask yourself is what is the better policy, the one where we let in a tremendous amount of people legally who will be productive from day 1 or the one where we let millions of people pour across the border with many ending up in homeless shelters and overwhelming local resources? You're trying to argue that the latter policy is better than some 3rd option where we don't let anyone in, which is something that nobody is proposing except for the caricature of evil Republicans you've been told about.
The problem is you don't care about which policy is better for America, and I don't blame you. You're not an American. If you're living across the world and you have any heart at all then you should favor letting millions of come into America because overall that's the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Why should you care if cities have to empty their coffers to pay for a migrant crisis that resulted from shitty policies? You've come in defense of Democrat border policies which everyone that's not a complete partisan hack will acknowledge have been a disaster.
When did I argue about letting more people in? My main beef is how one-sided this debate is. You all need to be reminded that you benefit from migration and you should do more to help integrate the ones you have. The fact that these two statements seem to be controversial tells you a hell of a lot about where we are. I am far from happy that centrist parties are adopting hard-right talking points.
I sympathize very much with you. You have repeatedly tried to point out that every time we talk about immigration in this thread, it instantly becomes more doom, more gloom, more fear-mongering. I'm afraid we're not gonna get much else for the next 4 weeks. Trumpers are going to be bashing the immigration angle literally non-stop, because it's essentially all they have.
The debate has shifted from trying to do the best by people to agreeing that people that say "all Mexicans are rapists" have legitimate concerns. It makes me depressed and it is the main reason why I cannot wait to start my new job in Spain - this stuff is burning me out.
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
Are we really trying to do statistical analysis based on n=1?
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
Are we really trying to do statistical analysis based on n=1?
Not really. Just pointing out that even with much larger leads than Harris has (especially since she's actually fallen behind lately) Democrats are 1-1. She's not just polling way worse than the Democrat that barely won, she's polling noticeably worse than the Democrat that flat out lost.
Well, i guess if you guys elect Trump again, you absolutely deserve what you get. Try not to draw too much of the rest of the world with you into ruin.
On October 13 2024 22:41 Simberto wrote: Well, i guess if you guys elect Trump again, you absolutely deserve what you get. Try not to draw too much of the rest of the world with you into ruin.
I'd still recommend not electing that moron.
I feel like you can take the inverse of those polls and get the same thing. Everyone expected Clinton and trump won. It's looking 50/50 with the tilt towards trump. So, why not think that, like Clinton, Harris actually wins, albeit closer than we'd like?
If I've learned one thing in almost 40 years in this country, white people keep their political leans very close to the chest.
On October 13 2024 22:41 Simberto wrote: Well, i guess if you guys elect Trump again, you absolutely deserve what you get. Try not to draw too much of the rest of the world with you into ruin.
I'd still recommend not electing that moron.
See, when you (Europe) signed onto the global economic system that is dependent on the US economy and the US military enforcing it, you signed on to follow it into ruin (and/or rationalize its fascism for your comfort).
Europe is basically just as culpable for this path to ruin as the US, especially when you consider the US itself is a product of Europe.
While I don't really agree with the "deserve what they get" mentality, it'd certainly equally apply to Europe in this context.
On October 13 2024 22:41 Simberto wrote: Well, i guess if you guys elect Trump again, you absolutely deserve what you get. Try not to draw too much of the rest of the world with you into ruin.
I'd still recommend not electing that moron.
See, when you (Europe) signed onto the global economic system that is dependent on the US economy and the US military enforcing it, you signed on to follow it into ruin (and/or rationalize its fascism for your comfort).
Europe is basically just as culpable for this path to ruin as the US, especially when you consider the US itself is a product of Europe.
While I don't really agree with the "deserve what they get" mentality, it'd certainly equally apply to Europe in this context.
That’s right, you Europeans should be collectively ashamed that you didn’t pressure your governments into disentangling your countries with the US, bucking the dollar and jettisoning their NATO bases, and taking a stand against US fascism. Think how much better a place the world would be now if that happened.
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
There’s assumptions baked into the analysis you’re giving here that I think are worth making explicit. They might be right, but I think they’re the most questionable part of what you’re arguing here and right now they’re kind of hidden under the hood.
Polls in 2016 showed a huge Clinton lead. But polls in 2016 were wrong! They had substantial correlated error in favor of the Democrat. It’s not that Clinton “had a bigger lead than this and still lost,” it’s that Clinton didn’t actually have that lead, it was an artifact of the measurement process. The canonical explanation was that polls needed to weight by education level.
But then polls in 2020 showed Biden with a huge lead, yet his actual margin of victory was pretty small. This after they tried to adjust their methodologies to avoid the mistakes of 2016. I’m not exactly sure why 2020 polls were biased in favor of the Democrat again, or even what the “canonical explanation” is that all the pollsters would try to fix this time around.
So this time polls show a tied race. Is that because Trump actually has a huge lead offset by the same poll bias as 2016 and 2020? I mean, maybe, it’s not exactly the obvious interpretation though. Polls wind up systematically biased this way or that for all kinds of obscure methodological reasons, and they can bias in either direction. 2018 and 2022 polls were not particularly biased in favor of Dems, for instance. Probably the simplest explanation I’ve heard of 2020 polling bias was that Democrats were more likely to pick up the phone because they were taking lockdown more seriously so they were at home more.
I mean, maybe there’s a Trump-specific effect. He’s especially known for inspiring “low-propensity” voters; perhaps a lot of Trump supporters are in population pools that pollsters don’t know how to access, and it’s usually fine because those populations usually don’t vote. Or maybe there’s something like a Bradley effect going on. Such an effect would have to basically skip midterms, but that’s not necessarily implausible.
But to be honest I don’t find the lazy pattern recognition approach very persuasive. “Democrats haven’t beat Trump when polling behind him”? Haven’t they only faced him twice and polled ahead of him both times? Couldn’t we just as easily say “Democrats have never lost to Trump when polling behind him”? Anyway those kinds of “has never” statements are all true until they aren’t, which is why people shouldn’t put too much stock in “a convicted felon has never won” or “a known rapist has never won”-type statements.
I guess the short version is, I’m not convinced pollsters’ complex statistical methodologies are going to give the right answer, but I’m a lot more persuaded by their methodology than the alternative methodology of taking their number, bumping it 3-4 points toward Trump because “everybody knows” polls are biased against him, and calling that the “true” number. Most of the time averaging polls and assuming a symmetrical possibility of systematic polling error is the best you can do.
On October 13 2024 22:41 Simberto wrote: Well, i guess if you guys elect Trump again, you absolutely deserve what you get. Try not to draw too much of the rest of the world with you into ruin.
I'd still recommend not electing that moron.
See, when you (Europe) signed onto the global economic system that is dependent on the US economy and the US military enforcing it, you signed on to follow it into ruin (and/or rationalize its fascism for your comfort).
Europe is basically just as culpable for this path to ruin as the US, especially when you consider the US itself is a product of Europe.
While I don't really agree with the "deserve what they get" mentality, it'd certainly equally apply to Europe in this context.
Yes, Europa is certainly at fault for not abandoning the institution that has lead to (one of) the longest periods of peace in Europe in recorded history.. /s
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
There’s assumptions baked into the analysis you’re giving here that I think are worth making explicit. They might be right, but I think they’re the most questionable part of what you’re arguing here and right now they’re kind of hidden under the hood.
Polls in 2016 showed a huge Clinton lead. But polls in 2016 were wrong! They had substantial correlated error in favor of the Democrat. It’s not that Clinton “had a bigger lead than this and still lost,” it’s that Clinton didn’t actually have that lead, it was an artifact of the measurement process. The canonical explanation was that polls needed to weight by education level.
But then polls in 2020 showed Biden with a huge lead, yet his actual margin of victory was pretty small. This after they tried to adjust their methodologies to avoid the mistakes of 2016. I’m not exactly sure why 2020 polls were biased in favor of the Democrat again, or even what the “canonical explanation” is that all the pollsters would try to fix this time around.
So this time polls show a tied race. Is that because Trump actually has a huge lead offset by the same poll bias as 2016 and 2020? I mean, maybe, it’s not exactly the obvious interpretation though. Polls wind up systematically biased this way or that for all kinds of obscure methodological reasons, and they can bias in either direction. 2018 and 2022 polls were not particularly biased in favor of Dems, for instance. Probably the simplest explanation I’ve heard of 2020 polling bias was that Democrats were more likely to pick up the phone because they were taking lockdown more seriously so they were at home more.
I mean, maybe there’s a Trump-specific effect. He’s especially known for inspiring “low-propensity” voters; perhaps a lot of Trump supporters are in population pools that pollsters don’t know how to access, and it’s usually fine because those populations usually don’t vote. Or maybe there’s something like a Bradley effect going on. Such an effect would have to basically skip midterms, but that’s not necessarily implausible.
But to be honest I don’t find the lazy pattern recognition approach very persuasive. “Democrats haven’t beat Trump when polling behind him”? Haven’t they only faced him twice and polled ahead of him both times? Couldn’t we just as easily say “Democrats have never lost to Trump when polling behind him”? Anyway those kinds of “has never” statements are all true until they aren’t, which is why people shouldn’t put too much stock in “a convicted felon has never won” or “a known rapist has never won”-type statements.
I guess the short version is, I’m not convinced pollsters’ complex statistical methodologies are going to give the right answer, but I’m a lot more persuaded by their methodology than the alternative methodology of taking their number, bumping it 3-4 points toward Trump because “everybody knows” polls are biased against him, and calling that the “true” number. Most of the time averaging polls and assuming a symmetrical possibility of systematic polling error is the best you can do.
I mean part of the point of including the "no toss up" maps was that without bumping Trump's polling up at all, currently you end up with a Trump win with somewhere between 271 and 302 electoral votes.
Even in 538's model the single most likely outcome is Trump winning with ~312 electoral votes (sweeping the battlegrounds). Beyond that, the 4 most likely outcome buckets are Trump winning.
Personally I think whatever factors in their models that lead to outcomes of Harris winning by 200+ electoral votes are probably too heavily weighted and giving a false sense of a more even probability for winning than is accurate/reasonable.
To me the data screams Harris is on track to lose, but even I still lean towards her winning currently. But these last 3 weeks aren't a given and I think Trump's gotta be knocked off track somehow if she wants to hold him off.
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
There’s assumptions baked into the analysis you’re giving here that I think are worth making explicit. They might be right, but I think they’re the most questionable part of what you’re arguing here and right now they’re kind of hidden under the hood.
Polls in 2016 showed a huge Clinton lead. But polls in 2016 were wrong! They had substantial correlated error in favor of the Democrat. It’s not that Clinton “had a bigger lead than this and still lost,” it’s that Clinton didn’t actually have that lead, it was an artifact of the measurement process. The canonical explanation was that polls needed to weight by education level.
But then polls in 2020 showed Biden with a huge lead, yet his actual margin of victory was pretty small. This after they tried to adjust their methodologies to avoid the mistakes of 2016. I’m not exactly sure why 2020 polls were biased in favor of the Democrat again, or even what the “canonical explanation” is that all the pollsters would try to fix this time around.
So this time polls show a tied race. Is that because Trump actually has a huge lead offset by the same poll bias as 2016 and 2020? I mean, maybe, it’s not exactly the obvious interpretation though. Polls wind up systematically biased this way or that for all kinds of obscure methodological reasons, and they can bias in either direction. 2018 and 2022 polls were not particularly biased in favor of Dems, for instance. Probably the simplest explanation I’ve heard of 2020 polling bias was that Democrats were more likely to pick up the phone because they were taking lockdown more seriously so they were at home more.
I mean, maybe there’s a Trump-specific effect. He’s especially known for inspiring “low-propensity” voters; perhaps a lot of Trump supporters are in population pools that pollsters don’t know how to access, and it’s usually fine because those populations usually don’t vote. Or maybe there’s something like a Bradley effect going on. Such an effect would have to basically skip midterms, but that’s not necessarily implausible.
But to be honest I don’t find the lazy pattern recognition approach very persuasive. “Democrats haven’t beat Trump when polling behind him”? Haven’t they only faced him twice and polled ahead of him both times? Couldn’t we just as easily say “Democrats have never lost to Trump when polling behind him”? Anyway those kinds of “has never” statements are all true until they aren’t, which is why people shouldn’t put too much stock in “a convicted felon has never won” or “a known rapist has never won”-type statements.
I guess the short version is, I’m not convinced pollsters’ complex statistical methodologies are going to give the right answer, but I’m a lot more persuaded by their methodology than the alternative methodology of taking their number, bumping it 3-4 points toward Trump because “everybody knows” polls are biased against him, and calling that the “true” number. Most of the time averaging polls and assuming a symmetrical possibility of systematic polling error is the best you can do.
I mean part of the point of including the "no toss up" maps was that without bumping Trump's polling up at all, currently you end up with a Trump win with somewhere between 271 and 302 electoral votes.
Even in 538's model the single most likely outcome is Trump winning with ~312 electoral votes (sweeping the battlegrounds). Beyond that, the 4 most likely outcome buckets are Trump winning.
Personally I think whatever factors in their models that lead to outcomes of Harris winning by 200+ electoral votes are probably too heavily weighted and giving a false sense of a more even probability for winning than is accurate/reasonable.
To me the data screams Harris is on track to lose, but even I still lean towards her winning currently. But these last 3 weeks aren't a given and I think Trump's gotta be knocked off track somehow if she wants to hold him off.
That's a weird way of looking at 538's simulation when they conclude Harris is more likely to win. Whether I believe their methodology or not is another question, but you can't cherrypick one part of it that suits your narrative when they themselves draw the opposite conclusion from it. If you want to draw the opposite conclusion from their data you'll have to go into detail about why you're only using half of their methodology, what they did wrong and why their data supports your conclusion and not theirs. Or, you can just not use their data, point to a different poll and assert Trump is going to win.
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
There’s assumptions baked into the analysis you’re giving here that I think are worth making explicit. They might be right, but I think they’re the most questionable part of what you’re arguing here and right now they’re kind of hidden under the hood.
Polls in 2016 showed a huge Clinton lead. But polls in 2016 were wrong! They had substantial correlated error in favor of the Democrat. It’s not that Clinton “had a bigger lead than this and still lost,” it’s that Clinton didn’t actually have that lead, it was an artifact of the measurement process. The canonical explanation was that polls needed to weight by education level.
But then polls in 2020 showed Biden with a huge lead, yet his actual margin of victory was pretty small. This after they tried to adjust their methodologies to avoid the mistakes of 2016. I’m not exactly sure why 2020 polls were biased in favor of the Democrat again, or even what the “canonical explanation” is that all the pollsters would try to fix this time around.
So this time polls show a tied race. Is that because Trump actually has a huge lead offset by the same poll bias as 2016 and 2020? I mean, maybe, it’s not exactly the obvious interpretation though. Polls wind up systematically biased this way or that for all kinds of obscure methodological reasons, and they can bias in either direction. 2018 and 2022 polls were not particularly biased in favor of Dems, for instance. Probably the simplest explanation I’ve heard of 2020 polling bias was that Democrats were more likely to pick up the phone because they were taking lockdown more seriously so they were at home more.
I mean, maybe there’s a Trump-specific effect. He’s especially known for inspiring “low-propensity” voters; perhaps a lot of Trump supporters are in population pools that pollsters don’t know how to access, and it’s usually fine because those populations usually don’t vote. Or maybe there’s something like a Bradley effect going on. Such an effect would have to basically skip midterms, but that’s not necessarily implausible.
But to be honest I don’t find the lazy pattern recognition approach very persuasive. “Democrats haven’t beat Trump when polling behind him”? Haven’t they only faced him twice and polled ahead of him both times? Couldn’t we just as easily say “Democrats have never lost to Trump when polling behind him”? Anyway those kinds of “has never” statements are all true until they aren’t, which is why people shouldn’t put too much stock in “a convicted felon has never won” or “a known rapist has never won”-type statements.
I guess the short version is, I’m not convinced pollsters’ complex statistical methodologies are going to give the right answer, but I’m a lot more persuaded by their methodology than the alternative methodology of taking their number, bumping it 3-4 points toward Trump because “everybody knows” polls are biased against him, and calling that the “true” number. Most of the time averaging polls and assuming a symmetrical possibility of systematic polling error is the best you can do.
I mean part of the point of including the "no toss up" maps was that without bumping Trump's polling up at all, currently you end up with a Trump win with somewhere between 271 and 302 electoral votes.
Even in 538's model the single most likely outcome is Trump winning with ~312 electoral votes (sweeping the battlegrounds). Beyond that, the 4 most likely outcome buckets are Trump winning.
Personally I think whatever factors in their models that lead to outcomes of Harris winning by 200+ electoral votes are probably too heavily weighted and giving a false sense of a more even probability for winning than is accurate/reasonable.
To me the data screams Harris is on track to lose, but even I still lean towards her winning currently. But these last 3 weeks aren't a given and I think Trump's gotta be knocked off track somehow if she wants to hold him off.
That's a weird way of looking at 538's simulation when they conclude Harris is more likely to win. Whether I believe their methodology or not is another question, but you can't cherrypick one part of it that suits your narrative when they themselves draw the opposite conclusion from it. If you want to draw the opposite conclusion from their data you'll have to go into detail about why you're only using half of their methodology, what they did wrong and why their data supports your conclusion and not theirs. Or, you can just not use their data, point to a different poll and assert Trump is going to win.
I mean I'm not the type nor is their methodology available in that way, but it's just something I noticed. When they turn their 1000 outcomes into 100 you get this:
Harris wins an Electoral College landslide (350+ electoral votes) 17 out of 100 Trump wins an Electoral College landslide (350+ electoral votes) 4 out of 100 Harris wins the Electoral College with <350 electoral votes 35 out of 100 Trump wins the Electoral College with <350 electoral votes 43 out of 100
There's some sort of variables in there that leads to Trump being more likely to win a typical election (not a blowout) and Harris being way more likely to win if it was a blow out. It also seems to consider a Harris blowout win inordinately likely imo.
Can't really know if it's some reasonable factor they could explain, or something that's obviously throwing off the data, because they don't share that information. I just don't think there's a nearly 1 in 5 chance Harris wins in a blowout given the current polling, lack of excitement/engagement I encounter anecdotally, Obama shaming and blaming Black men, and a host of other factors. Also, I think that if you adjust that down to something a bit more reasonable, Harris is doing worse than it initially appears when looking at the topline stat of Harris winning 53 vs Trump winning 47
After a candid and fruitful appearance on Andrew Schulz's Flagrant, his most compelling appearance since Theo Von's podcast, Drumpf has confirmed he'll be on the Joe Rogan Experience.
On Flagrant, Drumpf reiterated his belief in exceptions for abortion, that Arizona's abortion ban went too far, non-interest in deciding the issue at the federal level, unequivocal support for IVF, belief that nuclear weapons are the #1 world threat and regret that a denuclearization deal didn't go through with Russia and China, lack of recognition for the Abraham Accords and other successful negotiations and peacekeeping, as well as classic anecdotes about Don Jr, the PM of India, his parents and others. Boris Johnson also just admitted it's credible that the war in Ukraine would not have happened if Drumpf had been in office.
JRE is known for uncensored and unedited content and actual fact-checking with a guy called Jamie, rather than calling real laptops fake while engaging in deceptive partisan editing to make candidates look good (CBS) in a clip who can't make a coherent sentence, let alone speak for a 2-3 hours unscripted conversation.
On October 14 2024 01:26 oBlade wrote: After a candid and fruitful appearance on Andrew Schulz's Flagrant, his most compelling appearance since Theo Von's podcast, Drumpf has confirmed he'll be on the Joe Rogan Experience.
On Flagrant, Drumpf reiterated his belief in exceptions for abortion, that Arizona's abortion ban went too far, non-interest in deciding the issue at the federal level, unequivocal support for IVF, belief that nuclear weapons are the #1 world threat and regret that a denuclearization deal didn't go through with Russia and China, lack of recognition for the Abraham Accords and other successful negotiations and peacekeeping, as well as classic anecdotes about Don Jr, the PM of India, his parents and others. Boris Johnson also just admitted it's credible that the war in Ukraine would not have happened if Drumpf had been in office.
JRE is known for uncensored and unedited content and actual fact-checking with a guy called Jamie, rather than calling real laptops fake while engaging in deceptive partisan editing to make candidates look good (CBS) in a clip who can't make a coherent sentence, let alone speak for a 2-3 hours unscripted conversation.
Joe Rogan is a right-wing grifter. He spreads misinformation and knowingly platforms snake oil salesmen and propagandists. Between moderates and fascists, he's slightly closer to the latter.
On October 12 2024 15:59 pmh wrote: Somehow its difficult to get excited for this cycle. Bookies still have it as 50-50. I would give Trump around 80-90 to win. Maybe even win big. It does seem virtually guaranteed. Betting on Trump with close to 50% odds feels like free money. The best bet to make i think is Harris not beeing president in january. Its a bit more safe and you only lose little odds. Another interesting bet is Trump winning the electoral college with considerable margin , if you can find a nice one with good odds.
Still hoping for a miracle but its difficult to see the upcoming weeks unfold in a way that could make that happen.
Melania saying she is pro choice was quiet genious. Musk siding with Trump. Trump not doing anything to crazy. The brief Harris hype has burned out. The swingvoters wont make what will be perceived as a risky vote in todays crazy world. Its a bit odd seeing the history but in todays climate swing voters will consider Trump the safe option. They probably want a leader that is perceived by them to be "though" in this world. And he is an incumbent as well in some way,having prior experience.
Yeah, it's looking pretty dire for Harris. I think this image comparing 2024, 2020, and 2016 sums it up pretty well
Which gets you these October "no toss-up" maps:236-302 and 271-251 with both going to Trump.
Polls aren't votes, but Democrats haven't beat Trump when polling behind him.
There’s assumptions baked into the analysis you’re giving here that I think are worth making explicit. They might be right, but I think they’re the most questionable part of what you’re arguing here and right now they’re kind of hidden under the hood.
Polls in 2016 showed a huge Clinton lead. But polls in 2016 were wrong! They had substantial correlated error in favor of the Democrat. It’s not that Clinton “had a bigger lead than this and still lost,” it’s that Clinton didn’t actually have that lead, it was an artifact of the measurement process. The canonical explanation was that polls needed to weight by education level.
But then polls in 2020 showed Biden with a huge lead, yet his actual margin of victory was pretty small. This after they tried to adjust their methodologies to avoid the mistakes of 2016. I’m not exactly sure why 2020 polls were biased in favor of the Democrat again, or even what the “canonical explanation” is that all the pollsters would try to fix this time around.
So this time polls show a tied race. Is that because Trump actually has a huge lead offset by the same poll bias as 2016 and 2020? I mean, maybe, it’s not exactly the obvious interpretation though. Polls wind up systematically biased this way or that for all kinds of obscure methodological reasons, and they can bias in either direction. 2018 and 2022 polls were not particularly biased in favor of Dems, for instance. Probably the simplest explanation I’ve heard of 2020 polling bias was that Democrats were more likely to pick up the phone because they were taking lockdown more seriously so they were at home more.
I mean, maybe there’s a Trump-specific effect. He’s especially known for inspiring “low-propensity” voters; perhaps a lot of Trump supporters are in population pools that pollsters don’t know how to access, and it’s usually fine because those populations usually don’t vote. Or maybe there’s something like a Bradley effect going on. Such an effect would have to basically skip midterms, but that’s not necessarily implausible.
But to be honest I don’t find the lazy pattern recognition approach very persuasive. “Democrats haven’t beat Trump when polling behind him”? Haven’t they only faced him twice and polled ahead of him both times? Couldn’t we just as easily say “Democrats have never lost to Trump when polling behind him”? Anyway those kinds of “has never” statements are all true until they aren’t, which is why people shouldn’t put too much stock in “a convicted felon has never won” or “a known rapist has never won”-type statements.
I guess the short version is, I’m not convinced pollsters’ complex statistical methodologies are going to give the right answer, but I’m a lot more persuaded by their methodology than the alternative methodology of taking their number, bumping it 3-4 points toward Trump because “everybody knows” polls are biased against him, and calling that the “true” number. Most of the time averaging polls and assuming a symmetrical possibility of systematic polling error is the best you can do.
I mean part of the point of including the "no toss up" maps was that without bumping Trump's polling up at all, currently you end up with a Trump win with somewhere between 271 and 302 electoral votes.
Even in 538's model the single most likely outcome is Trump winning with ~312 electoral votes (sweeping the battlegrounds). Beyond that, the 4 most likely outcome buckets are Trump winning.
Personally I think whatever factors in their models that lead to outcomes of Harris winning by 200+ electoral votes are probably too heavily weighted and giving a false sense of a more even probability for winning than is accurate/reasonable.
To me the data screams Harris is on track to lose, but even I still lean towards her winning currently. But these last 3 weeks aren't a given and I think Trump's gotta be knocked off track somehow if she wants to hold him off.
That's a weird way of looking at 538's simulation when they conclude Harris is more likely to win. Whether I believe their methodology or not is another question, but you can't cherrypick one part of it that suits your narrative when they themselves draw the opposite conclusion from it. If you want to draw the opposite conclusion from their data you'll have to go into detail about why you're only using half of their methodology, what they did wrong and why their data supports your conclusion and not theirs. Or, you can just not use their data, point to a different poll and assert Trump is going to win.
I mean I'm not the type nor is their methodology available in that way, but it's just something I noticed. When they turn their 1000 outcomes into 100 you get this:
Harris wins an Electoral College landslide (350+ electoral votes) 17 out of 100 Trump wins an Electoral College landslide (350+ electoral votes) 4 out of 100 Harris wins the Electoral College with <350 electoral votes 35 out of 100 Trump wins the Electoral College with <350 electoral votes 43 out of 100
There's some sort of variables in there that leads to Trump being more likely to win a typical election (not a blowout) and Harris being way more likely to win if it was a blow out. It also seems to consider a Harris blowout win inordinately likely imo.
Can't really know if it's some reasonable factor they could explain, or something that's obviously throwing off the data, because they don't share that information. I just don't think there's a nearly 1 in 5 chance Harris wins in a blowout given the current polling, lack of excitement/engagement I encounter anecdotally, Obama shaming and blaming Black men, and a host of other factors. Also, I think that if you adjust that down to something a bit more reasonable, Harris is doing worse than it initially appears when looking at the topline stat of Harris winning 53 vs Trump winning 47
If you want to discard some data you have to do it by bias, not by result. If the 15% most Harris optimistic simulations result only in blowouts and the 15% most Trump optimistic simulations result in 1/3 blowouts and 2/3 normal wins, it doesn't make logical sense to discard all blowouts and just the blowouts. It's the same model, they aren't pre-drawn into regular election and crazy election. What you should understand from that is that 2/3 of the time the inverse of a bias that gives Harris a landslide win only gives Trump a regular win.
None of this matters much though, 53/47 is a virtual tie. Even in an 80/20 scenario the candidate with 20% winning wouldn't necessarily mean the model was wrong, we only get one go at the election.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IpuVn90.jpeg)
