2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.

[quigley 1372]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

Kamala is at the gates

I mean, it's Dobbs ("dog catches car"), but also, hopefully, America has figured out that they can have reality TV on TV and not in politics.

[BamaATL 16247]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

For some reason this got me, and not for any particular reason. I just got really sad thinking that women are going to save democracy, and it came to be that way because we treat them like fucking shitty second class citizens. Gimme 100 years of matriarchy. Maybe with Mayor Pete sprinkled in. 

It'll be a new world after this, because if you treat women poorly politically you do so at your own peril.  Once any political group realizes that they have power, they don't give it up, and the biggest take away from all this is going to be the realized power of women in politics; not just as a leader or leaders, but as a political group.  Moving forward, when candidates are selected, legislation, etc, the very first question Democrats need to ask is, "are women going to be happy with this?"  

I will tell you who is unequivocally going to struggle with this, Republicans.  

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

17 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

 

"Totally wrong the last time"

[checks notes]

[quigley 1372]

8 hours ago, BamaATL said:

A last bit of food for thought, what if Selzer is wrong?  But not in the way we all knee-jerked to, i.e. within her margin or error of 3; instead of 47 in Iowa it'd be 50.  

 

Now that friends, would be a lot of fun.  

 

Don't care. If Selzer's off by 5 and Trump wins IA by 2, Harris will win WI, PA, and maybe OH (!?!?). 

More importantly, Dems win Senate races in WI, PA, MI, OH. Osborn in NE has a good shot too based on the IA.

GOP needs to win Senate races in NE, MT, TX, and FL. Those aren't all independent of each other so I'd put the likelihood of Senate staying 50-50 as better than even.

Edited Sunday at 01:36 PM by quigley

[quigley 1372]

6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

It'll be a new world after this, because if you treat women poorly politically you do so at your own peril.  Once any political group realizes that they have power, they don't give it up, and the biggest take away from all this is going to be the realized power of women in politics; not just as a leader or leaders, but as a political group.  Moving forward, when candidates are selected, legislation, etc, the very first question Democrats need to ask is, "are women going to be happy with this?"  

I will tell you who is unequivocally going to struggle with this, Republicans.  

Pelosi's was most effective House leader since ??? forever???

She's a boss. Her words to Biden set this thing up. I would love for her to be remember as the greatest legislator of this generation (over that ghoul from KY).

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/03/swing-state-mrp-mega-poll-00186941

 

Quote

The British are a-coming. This time, they’re wielding a new polling technique with a huge survey sample that some say is more accurate than anything currently in widespread use in U.S. politics — and it’s tentatively predicting a Kamala Harris win.

Focaldata, a U.K. polling company, questioned more than 31,000 voters across the United States over the past month for an innovative type of survey called “MRP” that has become influential in Britain in recent years. The results were shared exclusively with POLITICO.

 

Quote

Combining the MRP results with their large-scale online swing state polling Focaldata assesses Harris is likely to take Michigan, with a lead of nearly 5 points, Nevada with a lead of about 2 points over Trump, and with a slight edge in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The Focaldata research suggests Trump just scraping past Harris in Georgia and North Carolina. The polling data and MRP modeling are split on Arizona.

 

Quote

Harris’ advantage comes in part from her strong appeal to older white women, a historically right-leaning group. Trump has made gains with younger Black and Hispanic men.

“Our MRP model has shown a Trump win throughout the campaign and only in the final update has it nudged Democrat,” said James Kanagasooriam, Focaldata’s chief research officer.

Even though the research points to a Democratic victory emerging from Tuesday’s election, the researchers remain wary of nailing their colors to the mast. That’s not unusual in a contest that’s become defined by the phrase “toss-up.”

 

Spoiler

“We are ‘lean Democrat’, but only by the barest of margins,” Kanagasooriam told POLITICO. “Even a polling error a third of the size seen in 2016 and 2020 would put Trump back in the White House.”

MRP — which stands for “multilevel regression and post-stratification” — is a statistical model that pollsters use to estimate state-level election results. It takes a massive nationwide sample and then uses demographic data to estimate seat or state-level outcomes.

The method — which gained the moniker of “mega poll” — burst onto the scene in the U.K. in 2017 by correctly predicting Prime Minister Theresa May would lose her majority in Parliament at a time when most polls suggested she would win big.

At this year’s general election in the U.K., MRP surveys also dominated the polling coverage, with many predicting that Keir Starmer’s Labour would win a huge victory and the Conservatives would crash to a historic defeat. Even so, the MRP projections in the U.K. were mixed, with some a long way off the final election results.

Backers of the method say it is likely to be even more effective in the U.S. where there are only 50 states. In Britain, the MRP model needs to produce forecasts for 650 constituencies represented in Westminster’s parliament, a more complicated operation.

Focaldata has been working on the U.S. polls for months. According to swing state polls, conducted online among 10,992 voters earlier in October, Trump had a big lead on handling the most important issues facing the nation. Among the four in 10 voters who chose immigration as a top issue, Trump led Harris by 74 points as the best placed candidate to handle it.

He was also ahead on how he would deal with inflation and the cost of living, jobs, tax crime and national security. The vice president led Trump on climate change, abortion, democracy and healthcare, among other issues. But Harris’ strengths lay in areas that voters less frequently named as the top issues facing the country.

Focaldata’s two data streams – state-level polling and MRP modeling – produced marginally different results. The MRP results were slightly less favorable to Harris than polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, but better for her in Arizona and Nevada. The company thinks the likeliest outcomes are between the state polling and MRP modeling.

U.S. election pollsters in recent times have had a mixed record. They underestimated Trump’s support in both 2016 and 2020 and also largely missed the Democratic Party’s strength in the 2022 midterm elections.

This time, according to Focaldata’s research, the pollsters may be “herding” — clustering their results around the idea that the race is 50-50 in order to avoid looking like they’re wrong. Some analysts have suggested the polls could even be understating support for Harris.

Analysis by Focaldata showed clear grouping of poll results in the middle of the distribution chart, suggesting the contest is virtually tied. There was a strange lack of “outlier” results showing a clear win for either candidate that would normally be expected from time to time.

“We, along with others, have seen evidence of herding among pollsters at this election — likely out of fear of underestimating Trump for a third cycle in a row,” said Kanagasooriam. “The result is the current public polling is … displaying much too high levels of confidence in a close race when we are a normal-sized polling error away from a clear victory for either candidate.”

In other words, it is totally possible that the election isn’t going to be close at all, despite what the pollsters are saying.

Another British polling firm, YouGov, made the running with the use of MRP models almost a decade ago. They bucked the trend in 2016 by correctly predicting both the shock Trump win and the unexpected U.K. Brexit referendum vote to leave the European Union in the same year.

But their results were so out of keeping with expectations that YouGov didn’t trumpet them in the public, recalled Joe Twyman, who was working at YouGov at the time.

YouGov’s 2017 MRP that predicted the loss of May’s majority in the U.K. election of that year “suddenly convinced people who should have known better … that MRP was some sort of magic bullet, that it could see things that other polls couldn’t,” Twyman told POLITICO. In the elections that followed, more and more pollsters produced their own MRPs. But in fact, these models are just as fallible as more conventional polling, said Twyman.

“There are good MRPs and bad MRPs, just like there are good polls and bad polls,” he said. “Polling is about asking the right people the right questions in the right way at the right time, and if you get those elements wrong, if you’ve asked the wrong questions, then it doesn’t matter how good your MRP is, it isn’t going to fix it.”

 

[aggie08 20485]

16 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

You have more faith in white women than I do. Unfortunately. 

They aren't the absolute embarrassing disaster that white men are right now.

[quigley 1372]

7 hours ago, MrBig said:

I finally saw the whole clip and I don’t think he realizes he’s even doing the blow job with the mic. This could be the straw that breaks the homophobes backs. 

 

This clip + the almost falling while trying to get in a truck are how I want him to be remembered.

CLOWN. FUCKING. SHOW.

[BamaATL 16247]

6 minutes ago, quigley said:

 

Don't care. If Selzer's off by 5 and Trump wins IA by 2, Harris will win WI, PA, and maybe OH (!?!?). 

More importantly, Dems win Senate races in WI, PA, MI, OH. Osborn in NE has a good shot too based on the IA.

GOP needs to win Senate races in NE, MT, TX, and FL. Those aren't all independent of each other so I'd put the likelihood of Senate staying 50-50 as better than even.

I was talking about Sezler being potential light on her Democratic support, i.e, not Harris+3 but Harris +6.  But valid point nonetheless.  

[Js1 83620]

28 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Oh yeah, they scared now 

[quigley 1372]

7 hours ago, Chopper said:

 

The way I learn that my vpn has connected to a Texas ip address is unmistakable. 

Don't fuck with pornhub.

[quigley 1372]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Yes, rotten bear road kill for breakfast in my house.

[Bozo_Casanova 25903]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

I’ll you you my Cheez-Its when you pry them from my cold, dead hands…

[Sawbonz 26892]

25 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

To be fair, White Women don’t have the best track record.

White women are like most people. They care the most about their own wellbeing. Can you think of any recent republican actions that negatively affect their wellbeing?

[quigley 1372]

12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/03/swing-state-mrp-mega-poll-00186941

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

“We are ‘lean Democrat’, but only by the barest of margins,” Kanagasooriam told POLITICO. “Even a polling error a third of the size seen in 2016 and 2020 would put Trump back in the White House.”

MRP — which stands for “multilevel regression and post-stratification” — is a statistical model that pollsters use to estimate state-level election results. It takes a massive nationwide sample and then uses demographic data to estimate seat or state-level outcomes.

The method — which gained the moniker of “mega poll” — burst onto the scene in the U.K. in 2017 by correctly predicting Prime Minister Theresa May would lose her majority in Parliament at a time when most polls suggested she would win big.

At this year’s general election in the U.K., MRP surveys also dominated the polling coverage, with many predicting that Keir Starmer’s Labour would win a huge victory and the Conservatives would crash to a historic defeat. Even so, the MRP projections in the U.K. were mixed, with some a long way off the final election results.

Backers of the method say it is likely to be even more effective in the U.S. where there are only 50 states. In Britain, the MRP model needs to produce forecasts for 650 constituencies represented in Westminster’s parliament, a more complicated operation.

Focaldata has been working on the U.S. polls for months. According to swing state polls, conducted online among 10,992 voters earlier in October, Trump had a big lead on handling the most important issues facing the nation. Among the four in 10 voters who chose immigration as a top issue, Trump led Harris by 74 points as the best placed candidate to handle it.

He was also ahead on how he would deal with inflation and the cost of living, jobs, tax crime and national security. The vice president led Trump on climate change, abortion, democracy and healthcare, among other issues. But Harris’ strengths lay in areas that voters less frequently named as the top issues facing the country.

Focaldata’s two data streams – state-level polling and MRP modeling – produced marginally different results. The MRP results were slightly less favorable to Harris than polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, but better for her in Arizona and Nevada. The company thinks the likeliest outcomes are between the state polling and MRP modeling.

U.S. election pollsters in recent times have had a mixed record. They underestimated Trump’s support in both 2016 and 2020 and also largely missed the Democratic Party’s strength in the 2022 midterm elections.

This time, according to Focaldata’s research, the pollsters may be “herding” — clustering their results around the idea that the race is 50-50 in order to avoid looking like they’re wrong. Some analysts have suggested the polls could even be understating support for Harris.

Analysis by Focaldata showed clear grouping of poll results in the middle of the distribution chart, suggesting the contest is virtually tied. There was a strange lack of “outlier” results showing a clear win for either candidate that would normally be expected from time to time.

“We, along with others, have seen evidence of herding among pollsters at this election — likely out of fear of underestimating Trump for a third cycle in a row,” said Kanagasooriam. “The result is the current public polling is … displaying much too high levels of confidence in a close race when we are a normal-sized polling error away from a clear victory for either candidate.”

In other words, it is totally possible that the election isn’t going to be close at all, despite what the pollsters are saying.

Another British polling firm, YouGov, made the running with the use of MRP models almost a decade ago. They bucked the trend in 2016 by correctly predicting both the shock Trump win and the unexpected U.K. Brexit referendum vote to leave the European Union in the same year.

But their results were so out of keeping with expectations that YouGov didn’t trumpet them in the public, recalled Joe Twyman, who was working at YouGov at the time.

YouGov’s 2017 MRP that predicted the loss of May’s majority in the U.K. election of that year “suddenly convinced people who should have known better … that MRP was some sort of magic bullet, that it could see things that other polls couldn’t,” Twyman told POLITICO. In the elections that followed, more and more pollsters produced their own MRPs. But in fact, these models are just as fallible as more conventional polling, said Twyman.

“There are good MRPs and bad MRPs, just like there are good polls and bad polls,” he said. “Polling is about asking the right people the right questions in the right way at the right time, and if you get those elements wrong, if you’ve asked the wrong questions, then it doesn’t matter how good your MRP is, it isn’t going to fix it.”

 

Thank you for posting this and including the whole article. Polling needs to change, and this is one way to do it.

However, this is "conducted online among 10,992 voters earlier in October"

My biggest questions are how they recruited this sample and what and how many variable they're setting the regression up for.

[Js1 83620]

4 minutes ago, quigley said:

Thank you for posting this and including the whole article. Polling needs to change, and this is one way to do it.

However, this is "conducted online among 10,992 voters earlier in October"

My biggest questions are how they recruited this sample and what and how many variable they're setting the regression up for.

Polling like the UK polls might be a good start. They clearly get it right pretty often. But there’s probably a lot less mistrust in their media than we have. 

[quigley 1372]

15 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I was talking about Sezler being potential light on her Democratic support, i.e, not Harris+3 but Harris +6.  But valid point nonetheless.  

I mean, if Harris swings IA 14 percent ( -8 to +6), you're talking Obama 2008 and Dems in the Senate 52-48 and House like + 40.

That would be a true repudiation of Trump-ism.

@G650 and @Bozo_Casanova and I would be arguing about policy rather and working together to save democracy

[Evil Bill Obrien 3024]

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

They can all pry the last bag of Cool Ranch Doritos from my cold dead hands

Still really funny to watch GOP all the sudden be 100% onboard with Michele Obama health initiatives for the totally wrong reason (Crazy ass RFK Jr)

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-media-outsourced-jobs-mexico-truth-social

 

Quote

Former President Donald Trump’s social media company outsourced jobs to workers in Mexico even as Trump publicly railed against outsourcing on the campaign trail and threatened heavy tariffs on companies that send jobs south of the border.

The firm’s use of workers in Mexico was confirmed by a spokesperson for Trump Media, which operates the Truth Social platform. The workers were hired through another entity to code and perform other technical duties, according to a person with knowledge of Trump Media. The reliance on foreign labor was met with outrage among the company's own staff, who accused its leadership of betraying their “America First” ideals, the person said.

 

Quote

The outsourcing to Mexico helped prompt a recent whistleblower letter from staff to Trump Media’s board that has been roiling the company.

That complaint, reported by ProPublica last month, calls for the board to fire CEO Devin Nunes, a former Republican congressman. The letter alleges he has “severely” mismanaged the company. It also asserts the company is hiring “America Last” — with Nunes imposing a directive to hire only foreign contractors at the expense of “American workers who are deeply committed to our mission.”

“This approach not only contradicts the America First principles we stand for but also raises concerns about the quality, dedication, and alignment of our workforce with our core values,” the complaint reads.

 

Quote

A Trump Media spokesperson said the company uses “two individual workers” in Mexico. “Presenting the fact that [Trump Media] works with precisely two specialist contractors in Mexico as some sort of sensational scandal is just the latest in a long line of defamatory conspiracy theories invented by the serial fabricators at ProPublica,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson declined to answer other questions about the company’s Mexican contractors, including how much they’ve been paid, how many have been used over time and how their hiring squares with Trump’s promises to punish firms that send jobs outside of the U.S. The Trump campaign did not respond to questions.

 

Spoiler

For a company of its prominence, Trump Media has a tiny permanent staff, employing just a few dozen people as of the end of last year, only a portion of whom work on the Truth Social technology.

Trump Media’s hiring of Mexican coders also prompted frustration within the staff, the person with knowledge of the company said, because they were perceived by staff to not have the technical expertise to do the work.

On its homepage, Truth Social bills itself as “Proudly made in the United States of America. 🇺🇸”

Both as president and in his campaign for a second term, Trump has criticized companies that send jobs abroad, particularly to Mexico. If elected, he has pledged to “stop outsourcing” and “punish” companies that send jobs abroad.

For example, Trump recently threatened agricultural machinery giant John Deere with tariffs if it went through with plans to move some of its manufacturing to Mexico.

“I’m just notifying John Deere right now, if you do that, we’re putting a 200 percent tariff on everything you want to sell into the United States,” Trump said.

He has made a similar threat against automakers building cars in Mexico, demanding they hire American workers and manufacture domestically. 

“I'm not going to let them build a factory right across the border,” Trump promised, “and sell millions of cars into the United States and destroy Detroit further."

Trump owns nearly 60% of the social media company, a stake worth around $3.5 billion at the stock’s Friday closing price — more than half of the former president’s net worth.

The results of the election are widely seen as a major factor in the future value of the company. As the Nov. 5 election draws closer, Trump Media’s stock price has fluctuated wildly even as little or nothing has changed in the company’s actual business, which generates scant revenue. The stock closed Friday down 40% from its recent peak on Tuesday. Despite that drop, it has still nearly doubled since the beginning of October.

One Trump Media board member, Eric Swider, offered a defense of relying on foreign labor in a statement to ProPublica from his lawyer.

“President Trump maintains an America First policy, which includes prioritizing American workers. Trump Media, however, is a global multi-media company. For a global multi-media company to utilize subcontractors, which in turn may utilize coders located in a foreign country, is a practice common to the industry,” the statement said. “Such global multi-media companies like Trump Media would have no right to control the employment decisions of its subcontractors, which may employ workers in a multitude of different countries in addition to the United States.”

Swider, a businessman based in Puerto Rico, serves on the board alongside better known figures such as Donald Trump Jr. and Linda McMahon, the former Trump cabinet member who is now co-chair of his transition team.

The outsourcing to Mexico is not the only instance of Trump Media relying on foreign workers. ProPublica previously reported that the company used a foreign firm to source labor in the Balkans.

Nunes, for his part, is quoted in a new book about Truth Social, “Disappearing the President,” boasting about his ability to keep costs down at Trump Media, though he didn’t mention outsourcing.

“Nobody grew as fast as we did. I don't think there's any other example even close to us out there, especially with as little money as we spent,” Nunes said. “Don't forget that. We built this for a fraction of what these other companies were built for.”

 

[quigley 1372]

9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Polling like the UK polls might be a good start. They clearly get it right pretty often. But there’s probably a lot less mistrust in their media than we have. 

I know even less about UK politics than US politics, but there are significant hurdles using national surveys in the US. We don't think FL votes like OH or that NV votes like TN. Sample plus the locality of races here may make extrapolating their methods harder.

[Mdhorn 5837]

Just now, Evil Bill Obrien said:

 

They can all pry the last bag of Cool Ranch Doritos from my cold dead hands

Still really funny to watch GOP all the sudden be 100% onboard with Michele Obama health initiatives for the totally wrong reason (Crazy ass RFK Jr)

Plus, which billionaires investments/products are Republicans repudiating, which should be the true litmus of anything they spout.  They're a Billionaires first party.   

[hookem2010 2554]

Not sure if it's been posted because I wasn't looking for it, but Smithley had a PA drop yesterday.

400k D/R

479 D+I/R

So I'm guessing that just leaves mail-in trickling in over the weekend.

[troph 24028]

Having been on a 4 month health journey due to a health crisis and getting really familiar with some of the cellular processes needed to beat systemic health issues (we are all vulnerable to) I can say fuck all that crap ban it all. It will slowly kill you for sure. I’d already given up most shit food but the hidden added sugars (outside the whacky keto crap I’ve found exactly one cereal with close to zero added sugar) are one of the top enemies to our health. 

[Bozo_Casanova 25903]

amazing referance

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1852921202567688416.html

 

Quote

🧵I see the takes saying that the abortion ban explains Iowa, and I agree it does partially. August 2024 is the first total ban in decades. But what else happened that could move even people who wanted a ban? 

I'll tell you—Iowa has been unable to recruit OBGYNs. In the last few months, areas that previously had OBGYNs don't. 

Iowa's Jasper County's sole delivery center, MercyOne Newton, stopped providing labor and delivery services on Oct. 15, forcing expectant mothers to go elsewhere.

 

Quote

The data show that it will not be the only location. Iowa struggles to recruit all types of doctors, not just OBGYNs. In a country where some states threaten prison time if they disagree with your assessment, successful people with money don't choose to go there. 

The state's OBGYN program saw a steep decline in interest (especially for a specialty). If you're risking prison, you're not doing it live in Iowa. 

Before the ban, most OBGYNs who had trained in Iowa had left.

 

Quote

According to a 2022 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Iowa has the nation's lowest per capita ratio of OBGYN providers to Medicare beneficiaries.

That was BEFORE Roe was overturned. Somehow, even though Iowa was one of the worst, it got worse.

 

Quote

The consequences for Iowa will be long-lasting and dire, even if it is reversed because now the possibility exists where it was only theoretical before. 

Places where you can't have babies aren't easy places to have a family. People with options will choose elsewhere, and many other things in society decline as talent leaves. For example, the value of your home depends upon the idea someone else would buy it. But what if the most successful people aren't there anymore? What if they leave? One can imagine a more diffuse version of what happens with "White flight." 

 

 

Quote

First, they will lose providers. Those who have the means will move to where providers are. From there, quality of education declines. Businesses that want the best employees want to be able to say, "Come here because we have good schools, good hospitals, etc." But lately, Iowa has gutted its schools, and now its minimally existent OBGYN amenities are about to dive. 

All of this is now on the minds of even those who approved the ban. Many of them are women who have multiple children. And if you have children, you know things can go wrong unpredictably. You know that a seemingly limitless range of things can go wrong in pregnancy, labor, and delivery. And now you realize you may be far away from help when it happens. 

 

 

[Js1 83620]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

amazing referance

It was good enough in 16 and 20.  Nobody in the polling and pundit world gave it this much scrutiny then. 

[Sawbonz 26892]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

Trump calls into Fox & Friends seemingly weekly.

I thought cable and online only media were exempt 

although how many people watch SNL over the air these days? 10?

 

 

[BamaATL 16247]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

amazing referance

Does this mean we are going to get pictures of Tricia Helfer and Katee Sackoff in the thread now?  

[HenryJames 65563]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Harris is not losing white women 

[Valmy77 12809]

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Again, how fucking stupid is this guy? Does he really think Trump is going to let him ban any of this stuff?

[chainsaw 9668]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I thought cable and online only media were exempt 

although how many people watch SNL over the air these days? 10?

 

 

4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Does this mean we are going to get pictures of Tricia Helfer and Katee Sackoff in the thread now?  

Yes but also the weird NXIVM girls (would've)

[WBT 20278]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It was good enough in 16 and 20.  Nobody in the polling and pundit world gave it this much scrutiny then. 

It's actually good to have data points using the same methodology from '16 to now.  The post upthread showed she underreported Trump by 2 points in 16 and 1 point in 20.  A similar miss here is still fantastic for Kamala.

Contrast that with 90+% of pollsters that have at best fiddled with their weighting to try to fix past Trump underreporting and at worst are just herding to the middle as cya. 

Only time will tell if their adjustments are actual improvements.  It would be nice to see more polls that don't change methodology as a control.  But polling isn't cheap.

[TexasHooch 5088]

Something just occurred to me.  I've voted against Trump 5 times now- 3 generals and 2 primaries.  I'm getting more and more optimistic that I'll never have to do it again.

[quigley 1372]

12 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

They were pleased when trump dumped billions on farmers after his tariffs raw dogged them. 

If you know farmers, they HATE that shit.

Small farmers are independent people who WANT TO FARM. They're smart, self-sufficient problem solvers who don't like being told what to do.

And they don't want handouts.

[chainsaw 9668]

1 minute ago, TexasHooch said:

Something just occurred to me.  I've voted against Trump 5 times now- 3 generals and 2 primaries.  I'm getting more and more optimistic that I'll never have to do it again.

The average/median American just wants never to have to hear about or see him again.

Just now, quigley said:

they don't want handouts.

could've fooled me

[UTGrad98 2221]

1 minute ago, TexasHooch said:

Something just occurred to me.  I've voted against Trump 5 times now- 3 generals and 2 primaries.  I'm getting more and more optimistic that I'll never have to do it again.

Not even close to being true. 2 more presidential elections at least. They will Darth Vader him if they have to. 

[South Austin 51681]

Just now, UTGrad98 said:

Not even close to being true. 2 more presidential elections at least. They will Darth Vader him if they have to. 

Yup. Unless he’s dead, he’s running in 2028.

[Pato del Muerto 52114]

8 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Again, how fucking stupid is this guy? Does he really think Trump is going to let him ban any of this stuff?

No McDonald’s on that table 

[Sawbonz 26892]

57 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/03/swing-state-mrp-mega-poll-00186941

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

“We are ‘lean Democrat’, but only by the barest of margins,” Kanagasooriam told POLITICO. “Even a polling error a third of the size seen in 2016 and 2020 would put Trump back in the White House.”

MRP — which stands for “multilevel regression and post-stratification” — is a statistical model that pollsters use to estimate state-level election results. It takes a massive nationwide sample and then uses demographic data to estimate seat or state-level outcomes.

The method — which gained the moniker of “mega poll” — burst onto the scene in the U.K. in 2017 by correctly predicting Prime Minister Theresa May would lose her majority in Parliament at a time when most polls suggested she would win big.

At this year’s general election in the U.K., MRP surveys also dominated the polling coverage, with many predicting that Keir Starmer’s Labour would win a huge victory and the Conservatives would crash to a historic defeat. Even so, the MRP projections in the U.K. were mixed, with some a long way off the final election results.

Backers of the method say it is likely to be even more effective in the U.S. where there are only 50 states. In Britain, the MRP model needs to produce forecasts for 650 constituencies represented in Westminster’s parliament, a more complicated operation.

Focaldata has been working on the U.S. polls for months. According to swing state polls, conducted online among 10,992 voters earlier in October, Trump had a big lead on handling the most important issues facing the nation. Among the four in 10 voters who chose immigration as a top issue, Trump led Harris by 74 points as the best placed candidate to handle it.

He was also ahead on how he would deal with inflation and the cost of living, jobs, tax crime and national security. The vice president led Trump on climate change, abortion, democracy and healthcare, among other issues. But Harris’ strengths lay in areas that voters less frequently named as the top issues facing the country.

Focaldata’s two data streams – state-level polling and MRP modeling – produced marginally different results. The MRP results were slightly less favorable to Harris than polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, but better for her in Arizona and Nevada. The company thinks the likeliest outcomes are between the state polling and MRP modeling.

U.S. election pollsters in recent times have had a mixed record. They underestimated Trump’s support in both 2016 and 2020 and also largely missed the Democratic Party’s strength in the 2022 midterm elections.

This time, according to Focaldata’s research, the pollsters may be “herding” — clustering their results around the idea that the race is 50-50 in order to avoid looking like they’re wrong. Some analysts have suggested the polls could even be understating support for Harris.

Analysis by Focaldata showed clear grouping of poll results in the middle of the distribution chart, suggesting the contest is virtually tied. There was a strange lack of “outlier” results showing a clear win for either candidate that would normally be expected from time to time.

“We, along with others, have seen evidence of herding among pollsters at this election — likely out of fear of underestimating Trump for a third cycle in a row,” said Kanagasooriam. “The result is the current public polling is … displaying much too high levels of confidence in a close race when we are a normal-sized polling error away from a clear victory for either candidate.”

In other words, it is totally possible that the election isn’t going to be close at all, despite what the pollsters are saying.

Another British polling firm, YouGov, made the running with the use of MRP models almost a decade ago. They bucked the trend in 2016 by correctly predicting both the shock Trump win and the unexpected U.K. Brexit referendum vote to leave the European Union in the same year.

But their results were so out of keeping with expectations that YouGov didn’t trumpet them in the public, recalled Joe Twyman, who was working at YouGov at the time.

YouGov’s 2017 MRP that predicted the loss of May’s majority in the U.K. election of that year “suddenly convinced people who should have known better … that MRP was some sort of magic bullet, that it could see things that other polls couldn’t,” Twyman told POLITICO. In the elections that followed, more and more pollsters produced their own MRPs. But in fact, these models are just as fallible as more conventional polling, said Twyman.

“There are good MRPs and bad MRPs, just like there are good polls and bad polls,” he said. “Polling is about asking the right people the right questions in the right way at the right time, and if you get those elements wrong, if you’ve asked the wrong questions, then it doesn’t matter how good your MRP is, it isn’t going to fix it.”

 

FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!

[Francisco 2.0 32213]

6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The average/median American just wants never to have to hear about or see him again.

could've fooled me

 

Oh, if only we were so lucky.  He can lose Tuesday, fail in every legal attempt to get him back into the Oval, and we will still hear from him daily until either he is banned from using any sort of telecommunication device, the media ignores him completely (lol jk), or death.

And in death, his message will still be broadcast in some way, shape or form ("If Trump were alive/in office/whatever that would have never happened").

We are stuck with him, in one way, shape or another, until each of our demise.  We can only hope that he is never in any position of power, at any level, ever again.

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 02:41 PM by Francisco 2.0

[Valmy77 12809]

I have been operating under the assumption we have to beat back Trump one more time.

But seeing the extent his fanatical fanbase is, particularly the Evangelical Christians, I am not entirely sure we won't see him again in 2028 at age 80 or whatever. He is God's anointed to these people.

Which baffles me. There are many things I have thought about Donald Trump over the course of his time as a celebrity but 'beloved and revered by Christians' was not one I ever thought I would see.

He isn't even born again or anything. This isn't even George W Bush saying "it was ok that I did cocaine, I have found God and been forgiven but your ass is going to prison." No, he is still the same sleazebag.

 

[quigley 1372]

12 hours ago, Js1 said:

Trump internals allegedly only have him up 5 in Iowa. So that still is pretty bad for them 

If they have Trump up 5 in IA, Harris wins and Dems likely keep Senate (maybe just Osborn, but I'll take it).

[BamaATL 16247]

3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I have been operating under the assumption we have to beat back Trump one more time.

But seeing the extent his fanatical fanbase is, particularly the Evangelical Christians, I am not entirely sure we won't see him again in 2028 at age 80 or whatever. He is God's anointed to these people.

Which baffles me. There are many things I have thought about Donald Trump over the course of his time as a celebrity but 'beloved and revered by Christians' was not one I ever thought I would see.

He isn't even born again or anything. This isn't even George W Bush saying "it was ok that I did cocaine, I have found God and been forgiven but your ass is going to prison." No, he is still the same sleazebag.

 

A - he won't be alive

B - It's one thing to lose closely and make the argument you can win again, lose in a blow out and run again is sort of like putting up Walter Mondale another time.  The big money is not doing it, and they will demand big changes.

C - he's had coattails the past four years, which has helped protect him because of the potential, after a blowout, everyone with power is going to walk away from that, because they will be concerned for themselves first, not him.  

[SydneyCarton 47486]

9 minutes ago, quigley said:

If you know farmers, they HATE that shit.

Small farmers are independent people who WANT TO FARM. They're smart, self-sufficient problem solvers who don't like being told what to do.

And they don't want handouts.

Yeah, I’m calling bullshit. While that may be how they view themselves, and while that may be what they say out loud, their fucking voting record tells an entirely different story. Same as they bemoan immigration while they 100% fucking need it to survive. 
 

Farming is already heavily subsidized, and they cashed those fucking checks and voted for Trump and against policies in their own self interest. They are their voting record. 
 

You, me, and everyone else lose who’s sat on this thread and pointed out that people who vote for trump at this point have to be racists on some level…we don’t get to apply a different criteria to fucking farmers. They are how they vote. 

[South Austin 51681]

3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Which baffles me. There are many things I have thought about Donald Trump over the course of his time as a celebrity but 'beloved and revered by Christians' was not one I ever thought I would see.

It’s less baffling when you understand that a large portion of those people are not Christians in any resemblance of Christ.

[Fudge Nuggets 18995]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

For some reason this got me, and not for any particular reason. I just got really sad thinking that women are going to save democracy, and it came to be that way because we treat them like fucking shitty second class citizens. Gimme 100 years of matriarchy. Maybe with Mayor Pete sprinkled in. 

That would be awesome, provided we don't go full idiot and put the likes of Marge and Boobert in charge.  I feel confident the broads wouldn't be as stupid as we dudes when it comes to selecting effective representatives.

[quigley 1372]

12 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

Feel like this tweet fits with Huck’s post.  Gee Ryan, I wonder what could cause seniors to turn on Trump?

 

It's true that we don't know any of the methods for Selzer's polling.

That said, she's seen a MASSIVE shift just this cycle:

- this summer: Trump ahead big when it was Trump-Biden

- August: Trump up 4

- October: Harris up 3

Rather than this election being won because of abortion only, I would contend that the deciding factor would be abortion plus candidate quality. Harris has run a great campaign and tacked to the center. Trump has set himself on fire in new and exciting ways and tacked to the right.

[chainsaw 9668]

Tester, Osborn, Allred, DMP

[Gap03 3191]

6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Man, fuck this douche.

[Valmy77 12809]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

It’s less baffling when you understand that a large portion of those people are not Christians in any resemblance of Christ.

I mean there always is that. Evangelicals are not real Christians in some sense, at least not this 75% of them that seem to be in the Trump bubble.

But it is still bizarre and blows my mind. It would be one thing if they were holding their nose and voting for him because they just hate abortion that much...but no. They see him as some kind of divinely favored figure. Despite everything.