The Dog

One caveat - as a white male, I'd argue this is still the case. It's still very much a white man's world. What's been happening is the right has used things like affirmative action and DEI as red herrings to make white men think that they are going to be excluded or replaced, when in reality it's just about leveling a playing field that even with those is heavily tilted in their favor.

White dudes for Harris organizer. I’ve seen a lot of questions about why white men—especially young white men—seem so angry, distrustful of the Democratic Party, or drawn to MAGA-ism. I've been studying this issue for awhile now and I wanted to share some thoughts. If we want to make inroads with white dudes, we need to understand what’s happening. First, economic opportunities are shrinking. Young men are struggling with stagnant wages and fewer job prospects, making it harder for them to gain independence, start families, or even feel secure in adulthood. That instability makes many susceptible to the MAGA whirlpool. Second, there’s a major education gap. Fewer men are graduating from college compared to women, which has serious consequences for their long-term economic and social stability. Kamala Harris is doing well with educated white men, but not with those who didn’t finish college. That difference impacts their prospects and feeds into larger societal issues, which is why we need to make it a lot easier for people to go to college without racking up debt. Third, we’re facing a mental health and social isolation crisis. Young men are lonelier and struggling with mental health issues at higher rates, partly fueled by social media and the erosion of traditional community institutions (churches, men’s groups, etc.). White men in America are four times more likely to commit suicide than any other group. This is a national crisis, and we’re barely talking about it. Fourth, there’s an identity crisis. Gender roles and societal expectations are shifting (which is a good thing!), and young men are left wondering where they fit in. Without positive role models, many gravitate toward toxic figures like Donald Trump, because at least someone is speaking to their frustrations—however inartfully (which is being generous). Democrats haven’t done enough to offer better alternatives, though I think we’re starting to, with people like Tim Walz, Pete Buttigieg, and Doug Emhoff stepping up as strong role models. Fifth, forming relationships—especially romantic ones—has become harder. Economic pressures and the rise of online dating have created new dynamics that are disincentivizing young men (and women, for that matter) from building meaningful connections. This only adds to their sense of isolation and fuels resentment, particularly toward women and those who are economically better off. Lastly, there's a deep cynicism and lack of trust in institutions. Many young men no longer believe the American Dream is for them, or that they have a place in a society that’s rapidly changing. The old American mythology is crumbling around them, and with it goes their belief in a stable future. That loss of trust is driving them toward more extreme solutions and making it harder for them to feel invested in collective progress. All of these factors—along with others I haven’t mentioned—are creating a perfect storm of resentment and frustration among young white men. But these issues are real and addressable. The problem is, for too long, Democrats have retreated from engaging in spaces where these men are, leaving them to only hear from one side. That’s why I’ve been pushing for @KamalaHarris to go on Joe Rogan and praising @PeteButtigieg for going on Fox News. We need to enter these spaces and have real conversations about the issues white men are facing. Will it win all of them over? No. But if we can win over even a small fraction, it makes it much harder for Trump and MAGAism to win nationally. We can’t keep acting like white men don’t have real issues. Everyone is suffering from something, and everyone deserves to have that suffering addressed by their government. If we address these issues with the same seriousness we give to other communities, we won’t win them all—but we don’t have to. We’re building a multicultural coalition to move this country forward, but we can’t ignore the real challenges young white men are facing.

it's not to rattle Vance. it's to rattle Trump and MAGA. MAGA already believes these kind of conspiracy theories - imagine if this one took hold. Wilson already trying to plant some seeds:

I don't think there's any question the Cleveland front office wants to move on from Watson - it's that Haslam won't let them. So if they are picking first it would require Haslam's blessing to take a QB. Carolina makes perfect sense to move on from Young and he's still on his rookie deal and they are likely to be picking first overall. They're horrible. As for the others - the only reason I don't think they take a QB at 1.1 is because none will be there and I doubt any of them trade up to the spot. I don't think there's any question that someone like the Giants are taking a QB for example but why trade up to the top spot and pay a premium? Nobody wants to give up a king's ransom like Carolina and get burned. Another team you didn't list that might make a play for a QB in the first round is the Steelers - both Fields and Wilson are gone after this year.

I should clarify - they aren't taking a QB in the first round and almost certainly not with the first overall pick IMHO. I also don't think anyone will take a QB 1/1 this year unless it's Carolina. Watson's contract is a great tanking mechanism since they are stuck with him for this year and next (barring injury). Trade away the older guys for draft picks and rebuild. Then launch Deshaun after 2025 and take the dead money hit.

It's also possible that being injured again contributed to that rather than his performance. The biggest question mark for Quinn is his inability to stay healthy. From that perspective it's reasonable to leave him out of first round mocks.

Some of these mocks have an insane amount of recency bias. Does Carolina take a QB and give up on Young? He's still on his rookie deal so trading him would be cheap cap-wise. Cleveland isn't taking a QB - they can't get rid of Watson until after next year at the earliest unless they can get some sucker to take him in a trade. And to make it Shadeur brings along potentially the worst helicopter parent in the history of the NFL.

grain of salt: 25th amendment trending. wonder why?

It's almost as if spending countless hours bashing vote by mail has consequences.

Streisand Effect?

Texas has been double-digit favorites in this game only twice before this since 1978: 1996 as a 21 point favorite (loss) 2005 as a 14 point favorite (win)

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

Ok so this is what an engagement farming tweet looks like. I'm just posting the screen shot so it doesn't get any more interaction: Now on face value you'd think that this means Nevada is overwhelmingly going to the GOP, right? But guess what? CLARK COUNTY HASN'T EVEN SENT OUT THEIR BALLOTS YET. Why even post this other than to panic troll Democrats?

Apparently Texas poll also dropping tonight. Dunno why but they doing it anyway. Phbt here’s the rest:

Regarding Quinnipac: Here is a long answer. So if you look at the spread of each pollster's results from survey to survey, in the same geography, Quinnipiac tends to be very high. Eg take the 9 point swing in 3 weeks compared to their last MI poll. It's fine if you get percentages moving by 4.5 points (margins by 9) between surveys on occasion, but it was 8 points before that in MI and 7 points poll-to-poll in their most recent national survey. This is high compared to other pollsters. Generally this indicates that something about the methodology is producing more noise than you'd expect based only on the sample size of the poll. And the answer is that they are using random digit dialing and doing a lot of weighting, so the MOE is about 30% higher than it would normally be per their own disclosure, and the low response rates and representativeness are also probably causing some sort of non-response that isn't captured by these statistics. None of this is to say that Q polls are inaccurate, but they are seemingly less reliable than other methods that do more work to equalize response rates on the sampling end or use other design approaches to decrease effects of weighting and other non-sampling biases.

Or they leave the top line blank or stay home. So at worst you get the same as convincing one D. At best you get double the benefit as you said.