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

[dcbc 14254]

1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

And then, it turns out there’s a surprising muse for the new dump-on-Trump approach. He’s a conservative who’s written for The Atlantic: George Conway. He used to be married to Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. And during his years of observing his ex-wife’s boss, he gathered an arsenal of insights about how to make fun of Trump in a way that gets under his skin.

And he tried them out before anyone else was doing it.

George Conway: The best way to hit the soft underbelly of his psychological disorders is to mock him. He cannot take mockery. It is the thing that makes him craziest, and the mockery diminishes him. It makes him look weak. And that’s, you know, the reason why his followers follow him—they think he is a strong man. And he is not.

 

I was completely unaware that George Conway divorced that piece of garbage.  Good for him.

[Js1 83356]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Collins ain’t stupid enough to say yes. It’ll be Kinzinger or maybe Mesa mayor John Giles, who endorsed Harris. 

Collins gives major “you can remove me from the senate when I’m dead” vibes. If the next Senate is 51 R, 49 D, she’s going to be the Manchin 

[Chopper 16620]

JD is viciously stupid.

https://www.threads.net/@aaron.rupar/post/C_S7ShYgqyL?xmt=AQGz16PCgGyyHM00REC5fIQLw29EhPD-lf6fpKPtd9wneQ

['stache 21564]

2 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Counter point, I think it doesn’t even move the needle.  He’s the weird couch fucker guy.  Turnip is the only one that matters.  No one was going to vote for this weirdo anyway.  Not a single turnip voter is going to change their mind.

Seriously. Nothing moves the needle for the hateful scum among us in this country. "She's a dumb cunt like that black bitch dei Kam-ala, childless whore, women should sit down and shut up."

There, justified, 48% in the polls. 

[Biff Tannen 45151]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Collins ain’t stupid enough to say yes. It’ll be Kinzinger or maybe Mesa mayor John Giles, who endorsed Harris. 

Can't she join Feinstein yet?  How fucking old is she?  Of all the shitbag congress critters that tend to stay in the background, she's one of the worst.

[mdmost 42459]

2 minutes ago, Chopper said:

JD is viciously stupid.

https://www.threads.net/@aaron.rupar/post/C_S7ShYgqyL?xmt=AQGz16PCgGyyHM00REC5fIQLw29EhPD-lf6fpKPtd9wneQ

Because apologizing is weakness. You have to push through all that liberal shit like being a man and owning up to a mistake then apologizing for it. Again, let them do this. The more they do it, the more average people see them for exactly what they are. 

[Js1 83356]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Can't she join Feinstein yet?  How fucking old is she?  Of all the shitbag congress critters that tend to stay in the background, she's one of the worst.

Collins? She’s a baby. Only 71. If she decides to run again in 26, she’ll only 79-80 at the end of her term. 

[dcbc 14254]

31 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Okay. But my asshole will find a reason to stay puckered between now and the election.

"Don't worry, the race always tightens up the closer you get to election day."

-Michael Dukakis 

[Chopper 16620]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Turnip speaking at Moms 4 Liberty tonight. This should go well and certainly won’t be filled with sound bites for negative campaigning 

https://www.salon.com/2024/08/30/trumps-getting-desperate-now-he-turns-to-failing-moms-for-liberty/

[dcbc 14254]

2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Not important but this is a very strange way to learn that there’s another Kate Upton.

[Gatorubet 29665]

18 minutes ago, Chopper said:

JD is viciously stupid.

https://www.threads.net/@aaron.rupar/post/C_S7ShYgqyL?xmt=AQGz16PCgGyyHM00REC5fIQLw29EhPD-lf6fpKPtd9wneQ

I bet you that either Tim Walz or Kamala - or both - will call that young lady.  It’s a combination of good people and good politics. 

[Chopper 16620]

18 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Because apologizing is weakness. You have to push through all that liberal shit like being a man and owning up to a mistake then apologizing for it. Again, let them do this. The more they do it, the more average people see them for exactly what they are. 

a) the way he always pronounces "willing to" as "willin' ta" is so unprofessional for someone running for VP, and along with the eyeliner he should get called out on it.

b) institutions like the NYT are controlled by white men who fail to recognize their own bias. That's one big reason Drumpf and Sofafucker can get away with and skate right past crap like this and a woman in the same situation could not. 

Edited August 30 by Chopper
typo

[Bullneck 18744]

5 hours ago, HenryJames said:

In any normal universe this would be satire.  

[TeeDubya 3328]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I just like to literally LOL at Nate Silver because he's so obviously putting his thumb on his model's scale.  

 

So, if I’m reading his post correctly; he’s modifying results of carefully constructed and sound quantitative survey based on what he *thinks*???

yeah, pretty sure that’s not legitimate data analysis 

 

[Biff Tannen 45151]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

In any normal universe this would be satire.  

They are fucking children.  

And I mean that both ways.

[texastough 1098]

22 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The more they do it, the more average people see them for exactly what they are. 

Maybe but it also encourages the other half of people to be even bigger dickheads

[BurntOrange&White 38877]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

And Vance isn't much better - people claim he's sharp, but for somebody with his education, and who was into Wall Street/Silicon Valley tech companies, he's a shit speaker.  He can't relate to the very people he claims he was a part of in his younger years, and the moment you toss out a comment like he did about "the haters", you've A) shown that people in the audience got under your skin and B) lost that audience as a result.

That's because he's a weird kid who didn't have any friends in the area he claims.

[Chopper 16620]

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I guess the CNN interview wasn't a bid deal last night.  Or at least I thought JD Vance's mean tweet buried it.

Anyway, I thought it was B-.  Bash drains all the energy out of a room.  

But ultimately, good practice for KH.

I thought Jamelle Bouie had a good take on it. tldw: She did fine. Tim did fine. The questions sucked and were asked primarily to get KH to respond to narratives set up by other journalists. He laid out how he would question a presidential candidate if he had the opportunity with questions aimed at how that person would conceptualize the presidency.

 

 

 

Edited August 30 by Chopper

[Pancho 42841]

32 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Collins? She’s a baby. Only 71. If she decides to run again in 26, she’ll only 79-80 at the end of her term. 

That’s a hard 71

Maxine Waters is 86 and has more pep than Collins

[MissingInAction 24416]

14 hours ago, South Austin said:

She’s going to get Mexico to pay for all of America’s IVF.

And my hookers and blow habit.

[atomheartbevo 89015]

39 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Because apologizing is weakness. You have to push through all that liberal shit like being a man and owning up to a mistake then apologizing for it. Again, let them do this. The more they do it, the more average people see them for exactly what they are. 

A VP candidate having fun at the expense of a Trump-supporting woman who nearly killed herself over the moment he's mocking should, in a sane world, lead to a lot of Republican women dumping Trump, especially since she's an anti-vaccine nutcase.

But he can't apologize, otherwise it's "Hello Vice Presidential Candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr.".

[Js1 83356]

11 minutes ago, Pancho said:

That’s a hard 71

Maxine Waters is 86 and has more pep than Collins

She white

[Js1 83356]

Harris is polling way better than Hillary was in 2016 and just a few tick below Obama in 2012.  In both those cases, the Labor Day average was less than 1 point from the final margin.  

I think people forget that 2016 was so weird - both candidates polled so low, due to high negatives, with a high number of undecided voters - but damn if the polls knew it was going to be a <2% race in the end.   

Or even 2008 - it was close after Labor Day, with McCain ahead in a bunch of polls through the first half of September.  It was not until late September that Obama pulled away for good. 

[TwiceHorn 30850]

18 hours ago, Chopper said:

History about the Electoral College I didn't know:

After the close 1968 election, the House voted 339-70 to amend the Constitution & abolish the Electoral College. Despite bipartisan Senate support, and  President Nixon's backing, segregationist southern Democrats & small-state Republicans blocked it. Required 2/3 majority.

via Stephen Wolf of The Downballot

Even had it emerged from the congress, I'm sure ratification would have been a long, hard road.

[Hefeweizen 5222]

10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

She white

White don’t crack isn’t really a thing.  I’m fucking cracking all over at 51.

[Dahobbs 17227]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Harris is polling way better than Hillary was in 2016 and just a few tick below Obama in 2012.  In both those cases, the Labor Day average was less than 1 point from the final margin.  

I think people forget that 2016 was so weird - both candidates polled so low, due to high negatives, with a high number of undecided voters - but damn if the polls knew it was going to be a <2% race in the end.   

Or even 2008 - it was close after Labor Day, with McCain ahead in a bunch of polls through the first half of September.  It was not until late September that Obama pulled away for good. 

Something is wrong with your 2020 numbers. That math ain't mathing. 

[TexasEd 8017]

50 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

[Tuco 5048]

So, if I’m reading his post correctly; he’s modifying results of carefully constructed and sound quantitative survey based on what he *thinks*???
yeah, pretty sure that’s not legitimate data analysis 
 

If I understand it correctly, he’s not modifying the poll. He is explaining that his predictive model adjusts post-convention polling because the bump historically diminishes after a couple of weeks. If that is what has been observed the last few cycles, it seems like a reasonable approach. I personally don’t feel it will hold true this time, but who cares.

As far as I’m concerned, any story that says this is a coin flip is welcomed. The fear of a Trump second term is a huge motivator.

[WhatTheBuck 28613]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Kamala already said she'd have a Republican in her administration, and I'm guessing Liz wants it pretty bad.

I’d say Adam Kinzinger’s address at the DNC puts him at the top of the list of potential GOP candidates. I don’t know If he wants it or not. 

[Jive Turkey 12383]

11 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

New talking point just dropped.
 

Chuck Todd can go fuck himself.  he'd probably spend 30 minutes grilling Kamala about her McDonald's job not being on her resume and what this says about whether the American people can trust that she's being truthful.

meanwhile, this clown let Trump tell lie after lie without pressing him on anything in that disastrous 2019 interview. even if Kamala did an interview a week, she should tell Chuck Todd to get bent.

 

[atomheartbevo 89015]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’d say Adam Kinzinger’s address at the DNC puts him at the top of the list of potential GOP candidates. I don’t know If he wants it or not. 

Probably. Liz Cheney ain't evolving any time soon - she wants to see the GOP burn down and then be there to pick up the pieces and rebuild it in her father's image, whereas Kinzinger has a lot going for him and could easily evolve and continue his political career and not be stuck in the past.

[atomheartbevo 89015]

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Harris is polling way better than Hillary was in 2016 and just a few tick below Obama in 2012.  In both those cases, the Labor Day average was less than 1 point from the final margin.  

I think people forget that 2016 was so weird - both candidates polled so low, due to high negatives, with a high number of undecided voters - but damn if the polls knew it was going to be a <2% race in the end.   

Or even 2008 - it was close after Labor Day, with McCain ahead in a bunch of polls through the first half of September.  It was not until late September that Obama pulled away for good. 

One thing I'd like to know, and I'm not trying to be a smartass, is how much polling has changed over the last 3-4 years, now that many smartphones will flag political polls as spam, and people are constantly getting political polls mixed in with spam and scams in their texts.  Are the polls relying on dumbasses who answer unknown numbers flagged as spam?

[chainsaw 9656]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

One thing I'd like to know, and I'm not trying to be a smartass, is how much polling has changed over the last 3-4 years, now that many smartphones will flag political polls as spam, and people are constantly getting political polls mixed in with spam and scams in their texts.  Are the polls relying on dumbasses who answer unknown numbers flagged as spam?

Most good pollsters are already accounting for this. There's still enough data to know within the MOE what the electorate thinks

[Pato del Muerto 52094]

18 minutes ago, Tuco said:

If I understand it correctly, he’s not modifying the poll. He is explaining that his predictive model adjusts post-convention polling because the bump historically diminishes after a couple of weeks. If that is what has been observed the last few cycles, it seems like a reasonable approach. I personally don’t feel it will hold true this time, but who cares.

As far as I’m concerned, any story that says this is a coin flip is welcomed. The fear of a Trump second term is a huge motivator.

And didn’t it say that this manipulation is only present for polls that either are published or use data from the 2 weeks post convention?   It’s his attempt to smooth data through a unique but planned event and it will not be applicable shortly.  
 

I guess the question is why he feels the need to smooth an august bump when the bump is real. I guess his thing is meant to always be predictive of the eventual winner?

Edited August 30 by Pato del Muerto

[TexasEd 8017]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And didn’t it say that this manipulation is only present for polls that either are published or use data from the 2 weeks post convention?   It’s his attempt to smooth data through a unique but planned event and it will not be applicable shortly.  
 

I guess the question is why he feels the need to smooth an august bump when the bump is real. I guess his thing is meant to always be predictive of the eventual winner?

If that's the case he should give the poll results and then a separate column for predicted outcome.  It's dishonest to say "here is the latest poll" and subtract out the bump based on real events that people expect.  Should have done it for Trump getting shot at too, should he adjust for RFK dropping out?  Where does it stop?  Just report the results and then if you want to place a bet on the outcome that is different.   Like a line on a sporting event.

[Js1 83356]

1 minute ago, TexasEd said:

If that's the case he should give the poll results and then a separate column for predicted outcome.  It's dishonest to say "here is the latest poll" and subtract out the bump based on real events that people expect.  Should have done it for Trump getting shot at too, should he adjust for RFK dropping out?  Where does it stop?  Just report the results and then if you want to place a bet on the outcome that is different.   Like a line on a sporting event.

This.

Also I maintain he's doing this because of his work with the betting site.  It's....sketch. 

[LCHorn 2559]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

whereas Kinzinger has a lot going for him

I don’t really see where Kinzinger has a home right now that’s not the Democratic Party.  He’s going to be toxic to the right well after Trump is dead and gone.  

[atomheartbevo 89015]

2 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I don’t really see where Kinzinger has a home right now that’s not the Democratic Party.  He’s going to be toxic to the right well after Trump is dead and gone.  

Toss in that he's a pilot in the Air National Guard - the DNC is going after the military vote (helped by Trump shitting on the military).

[Pato del Muerto 52094]

18 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

If that's the case he should give the poll results and then a separate column for predicted outcome.  It's dishonest to say "here is the latest poll" and subtract out the bump based on real events that people expect.  Should have done it for Trump getting shot at too, should he adjust for RFK dropping out?  Where does it stop?  Just report the results and then if you want to place a bet on the outcome that is different.   Like a line on a sporting event.

agree. He doesn’t have to give away his algorithm, but a before and after of the data transformation should be expected, to show how different the transformed data is compared to the input data. 

[TexasEd 8017]

16 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

If that's the case he should give the poll results and then a separate column for predicted outcome.  It's dishonest to say "here is the latest poll" and subtract out the bump based on real events that people expect.  Should have done it for Trump getting shot at too, should he adjust for RFK dropping out?  Where does it stop?  Just report the results and then if you want to place a bet on the outcome that is different.   Like a line on a sporting event.

Sorry to quote myself but this plays into my real job where I manage a large annual survey with thousands of responses.  After the first 500 came in I noted the trends in the score over last year but also made a prediction that the scores would change as we got a larger sample size because the first 500 responses were from those most motivated to respond and not entirely typical of the larger population.  It played out the way I expected because I know the way this works, but it would have been wrong for me to ignore what the data was telling me at that point in time and only share my prediction.

[quigley 1345]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Collins gives major “you can remove me from the senate when I’m dead” vibes. If the next Senate is 51 R, 49 D, she’s going to be the Manchin 

I think she's up in 26 and will be 74. She only won 51% in 2020.

HOPEFULLY, her constituents will recognize that she's ignorant, willfully or otherwise.

@Biff Tannen

Edited August 30 by quigley

[Gatorubet 29665]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Harris is polling way better than Hillary was in 2016 and just a few tick below Obama in 2012.  In both those cases, the Labor Day average was less than 1 point from the final margin.  

I think people forget that 2016 was so weird - both candidates polled so low, due to high negatives, with a high number of undecided voters - but damn if the polls knew it was going to be a <2% race in the end.   

Or even 2008 - it was close after Labor Day, with McCain ahead in a bunch of polls through the first half of September.  It was not until late September that Obama pulled away for good. 

can somebody tell me how the polls handle the wave of new registrations? I assume the new registrants were not polled because they were not registered and therefore not likely voters.   Yet this wave of new voters registered solely because they want to vote in 2024, very much making them a likely voter.    

Do they merely assume that new registrants will be voting in accordance with the others who were polled?

[quigley 1345]

22 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Sorry to quote myself but this plays into my real job where I manage a large annual survey with thousands of responses.  After the first 500 came in I noted the trends in the score over last year but also made a prediction that the scores would change as we got a larger sample size because the first 500 responses were from those most motivated to respond and not entirely typical of the larger population.  It played out the way I expected because I know the way this works, but it would have been wrong for me to ignore what the data was telling me at that point in time and only share my prediction.

This is the honest way to look at data so that you avoid introducing bias.

[Tuco 5048]

If that's the case he should give the poll results and then a separate column for predicted outcome.  It's dishonest to say "here is the latest poll" and subtract out the bump based on real events that people expect.  Should have done it for Trump getting shot at too, should he adjust for RFK dropping out?  Where does it stop?  Just report the results and then if you want to place a bet on the outcome that is different.   Like a line on a sporting event.

He is not reporting on, or explaining, the polling. He’s explaining why the model shows Trump with a very slight lead despite what most people would intuitively believe when looking at the polls. I doubt he includes the other factors (like Trump shooting) because he doesn’t have past experience to base it on.

I will say I took a quick look at the rolling average from 2020 and it’s difficult to see any bump and subsequent decay. But, the conventions were back to back, the candidates well know, and you can’t split the polling out by polling spans. Maybe it’s something that made sense 15 years ago, but so much has changed with voter engagement it’s a guess to say it’s still valid.

[The Dog 43408]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

can somebody tell me how the polls handle the wave of new registrations? I assume the new registrants were not polled because they were not registered and therefore not likely voters.   Yet this wave of new voters registered solely because they want to vote in 2024, very much making them a likely voter.    

Do they merely assume that new registrants will be voting in accordance with the others who were polled?

They don't as they aren't in their database to call/contact. I mentioned this yesterday that large number of new registrants can really fuck with polling accuracy - we saw that in 2016 and likely will see it again this year.

[Gatorubet 29665]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Maybe it’s something that made sense 15 years ago, but so much has changed with voter engagement it’s a guess to say it’s still valid.

it seems an unreasonable take to think that the tremendous amount of enthusiasm, coupled with the tremendous amount of new registrants from deep democratic demographics (young, black, women), coupled with record setting campaign contributions to the democrats - is something that will blow away by a puff of air in a few weeks after the convention - and to conclude from that you knock a couple percentage points off Harris despite those facts. 

 

[Js1 83356]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

They don't as they aren't in their database to call/contact. I mentioned this yesterday that large number of new registrants can really fuck with polling accuracy - we saw that in 2016 and likely will see it again this year.

I don't think that was why 2016 was so "off"

The data showed both Trump and Clinton hovering around the low 40s, which means you had almost 20% undecided.  They were double haters and a big chunk broke towards Trump after the Comey letter.  Double haters favor Harris this time. 

There's a lot less undecided around this time.  Siena/NYT explained partially why their polls were off in 2020 - people they called who didn't complete the survey weren't counted, even though they indicated a vote for Trump ("I'm voting for Trump!" followed by hanging up).  They are counting those as a Trump vote this year. 

[fuggled 576]

7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

They don't as they aren't in their database to call/contact. I mentioned this yesterday that large number of new registrants can really fuck with polling accuracy - we saw that in 2016 and likely will see it again this year.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what database are they working from?  Wouldn't newly registered voters be on the voter rolls? 

[The Dog 43408]

5 minutes ago, fuggled said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what database are they working from?  Wouldn't newly registered voters be on the voter rolls? 

voter registration information (but not who you voted for) is public record. They probably get a file from each states' secretary of state office. People registering this late won't be in the data sets unless they keep them updated constantly (which costs money.)

For a large state like Texas the file costs several hundred dollars for each request. 

Here's the request form for Texas: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pi.pdf

Edited August 30 by The Dog

[Js1 83356]

5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

voter registration information (but not who you voted for) is public record. They probably get a file from each states' secretary of state office. People registering this late won't be in the data sets unless they keep them updated constantly (which costs money.)

For a large state like Texas the file costs several hundred dollars for each request. 

Here's the request form for Texas: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/pi.pdf

Also we are talking about who gets through likely voter screens.  Usually a combo of "did you vote in 2016/2020, if eligible" and "how excited are you to vote?"

Remember that Trump is dominating with "non-voters" - these people don't really show up to the polls.  Not at the level or intensity of, say, women, or college-educated suburban voters, or the olds.  The GOP is really banking on these non/infrequent voters to show up in November, while utilizing zero ground game to do that.  Democrats typically invest in making sure those same types of infrequent voters (young + POC voters who don't vote in midterms) actually show up.