Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, quigley said:

Silver wasn't that far off in 2016. At the end, 538 had the race at 70-30 for Hillary and definitely in the margin of error. 538 did a lot better than a lot of aggregators. His models did fine in 2018 also.

I lost faith in Silver when he started talking about the pandemic. He knows nothing about biologic systems, epidemiology, virology or an relevant modeling. Yet, he felt very comfortable spouting off bullshit. When presented with his errors, he refused to acknowledge them.

Smart people know enough to know where their expertise ends. His confidence talking about stuff he knows nothing about underminded my confidence in his ability to talk about anything.

I knew he was a dumbass hack when his response 2 years ago to the right wing trash polls skewing the averages (and being wrong) was “well the democrats could just do it too”

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, quigley said:

Smart people know enough to know where their expertise ends. His confidence talking about stuff he knows nothing about underminded my confidence in his ability to talk about anything.

This is exactly it. The most important thing to know is what you don't know. And if you can't admit that then your insecurity holds you back. And that's what Silver is, he's essentially a decently smart but terribly insecure quant who got famous in a niche market.

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

I knew he was a dumbass hack when his response 2 years ago to the right wing trash polls skewing the averages (and being wrong) was “well the democrats could just do it too”

i used to listen to the 538 politics podcast regularly. Clare Malone was an obvious no nothing, but somewhat entertaining. I lapped up Silver's and Enten's bullshit for years.

The "experts" here have better balance than those goofs.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BevoAbyss said:

Last week dropped my ballot in the mailbox of my "liberal" big city metropolis. Voted straight D.

Came of political age in the 80s and never voted for Ronnie Raygun, HW, W, or the MAGA Fuhrer.

For the remainder of my life, I cannot fathom voting R on anything. Ever. 

Me neither, and I'm not even a Democrat or a progressive. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
2 hours ago, wood said:

Also says illegals are, get this, flying into the country in planes, and just landing and infiltrating society no probs.

So I guess no more need for a wall.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

For the remainder of my life, I cannot fathom voting R on anything. Ever. 

27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Me neither, and I'm not even a Democrat or a progressive. 

Me neither, and I voted Republican in almost every Presidential election from 1984 through 2016. I'll carry the shame of that last one to my grave.

Edited by wood
  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yeah and they don't understand economics because their economics teacher was ... they weren't required to take economics. 

My economics teacher was a history teacher teaching another class. My government teacher was badass, though.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I hope the polls end up being WAY off. To the point of destroying the industry.

They're reporting data with a 2.5% response rate. Their margin of error is ENORMOUS.

When I see my friend who is part of PAC, I'll ask him how internal polling differs from public polling and why they're reluctant to share it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I bet at least 75% of this board has picked the winner of every election since 1984 except maybe 2000 and 2016. For the most part, picking winners of presidential elections is pretty easy. 

Yep, and the red flags from 2016 about Trump’s chances are not showing up.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yeah and they don't understand economics because their economics teacher was ... they weren't required to take economics. 

My sex ed teacher was also our linebacker and strength and conditioning coach.  Interestingly, when I look back upon it, he was surprisingly progressive on a lot of things, in particular on people being gay.  As a coach, complete meathead, as a teacher, I have to actually give him credit.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

"I love America.

Also, I hate literally everything about America."

Your love for America is based solely on how many flags you hug or bald eagle pictures you post on Facebook.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, locodos said:

I don't know what that means...

Kids over a certain weight couldn’t be ball carriers and had a sticker on their helmet to signify. For 6th grade it was 120 lbs. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 hours ago, Js1 said:

Bad national polls? Really? +3 in TIPP and YouGov and +5 Marist 

Oh I see, Trump’s pollster (Trump +3) and HarrisX, which is always very good for Trump (Trump +1) and the Tory company in the UK must count 5x as much 

The thing about a lot of polls, is that if they are really valuable, one way or another, the campaigns will not release them (if they’re commissioned by a campaign) or will buy them up so they aren’t released.  There’s a reason why most internal polling is never formally released and just hinted at  - campaigns don’t want to help the opposition. Campaigns, PACs, various political organizations do release polling data that is meant to either motivate their people to get out and vote, or to depress voter turnout with the opposition, and I wonder if that’s why it seems like here have been more Republican polls than Dem polls released. 

 I’ve got a friend at a private analytics company here in Austin (they used to do a lot of polling but now they mostly measure other metrics) and most of what they develop for various campaigns and politicians will never see the light of day, even though it would surprise/interest a lot of people.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

OK, this morning I woke up to the lovely Mrs. Canecutter bringing me coffee. I had just been dreaming something about being in Costa Rica feeding kibble to monkeys, so I told her about it.

She came back with a long detailed dream that she just had, where something big had happened, and she and I were crossing the country headed west to California, on scooters. Mine was a Ruckus covered in saddlebags.

We were financing the trip by selling off our silver to MAGA types with ashtray voices who were mocking us, saying "Y'all used to look down on us for buyin REAL money, now you wish you'd bought more yourself." We still had a handful of gold two-peso coins stashed away.

We were on scooters because by the time of the dream they no longer needed registration. We were on county highways because the US ones have cameras. We were going to California because it was affordable. All the jobs had gone. Except for one Chemistry job that she was going to take.

Unrelated, she thinks some of her East European ethnic Magyar crew might have been Gypsies who changed to something else in America.

image.jpeg.b5c5e85eba7c89afbecb8382babae806.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

This is exactly it. The most important thing to know is what you don't know. And if you can't admit that then your insecurity holds you back. And that's what Silver is, he's essentially a decently smart but terribly insecure quant who got famous in a niche market.

image.gif.ba77122747dd1b0e3c73866c4b8fb339.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You ever hear about diminishing marginal returns?

that's the number of attractive coeds enrolled as the course numbers get higher

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I've voted for more Rs than that since I could vote (1996) but as I said in a thread somewhere this week, I don't care about party. I vote based on values and principles. It's not my fault that in 2024 that means voting against a particular party in every race possible. That's their fault.

This got me thinking about how many candidates in partisan races I actually felt like I was voting *for* at any level. Maybe 3? And one of them would be the one Republican, which I came to regret. I just got that one way wrong. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

image.jpeg.bce66a52cd78da649133b2ab7712b0b5.jpeg

She’s on her way to being an Ernie Chambers/Terry Carpenter type hellraiser in the Unicameral and that’s great. If Vargas doesn’t get Don Bacon in NE-2 this time, I can see her taking it next time 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
11 minutes ago, Haphap said:

 

I've being waiting for them to drop an ad like this.

I'd be more specific and drop in Mike Johnson and Project 2025 references but I'm sure they tested inclusion of those things.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

Anyone buying that we are behind in Georgia?  

 

Meanwhile, apparently the Orange treasonist apparently couldn't fill a 5000 seat building in Phoenix.  

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Haha 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This got me thinking about how many candidates in partisan races I actually felt like I was voting *for* at any level. Maybe 3? And one of them would be the one Republican, which I came to regret. I just got that one way wrong. 

Look man, just say it. Just say Mackowiak. Wait, did he ever run for anything himself? I genuinely don't know, but I did find this picture of him:

ABCOM_202203_1000x1000_CharacterDimensio

(if he didn't suck I wouldn't post this)

  • Haha 3


×
×
  • Create New...