Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I've heard some discussion that the pollsters have corrected for this, and may have actually over-corrected for it.

Real Clear Politics averages all polls, so taking the skewed both ways stuff. It’s why it was the only one saying Trump and Hil was a toss up. People here should learn from history.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Real Clear Politics averages all polls, so taking the skewed both ways stuff. It’s why it was the only one saying Trump and Hil was a toss up. People here should learn from history.

Trump has held a lead in PA throughout the year, consistently. And it hasn't changed much following Harris's entry. But it's never been terribly high (1-3 points).

That could indicate accuracy of the polls, or persistent inaccuracy of all of them.

The voters in PA tend not to be at all socially conscious, even in the cities. The Commonwealth has been such an economic laggard for so long and trends older demographically. Casey is seen like Biden. Old school moderate D, the kind who'll fight for the working class. Harris and McCormick are "others" (hedge fund manager, CA progressive). A good analogue for them is Dr. Oz. He was actually very moderate, but he was seen as a rich, ex-lefty foreigner. Fetterman disavowed his progressivism and crushed him by playing to the economically struggling average joe. Bizarrely, Trump somehow occupies that space. "Energy cheaper under Trump, and more fracking!" is a winner in PA.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I've heard some discussion that the pollsters have corrected for this, and may have actually over-corrected for it.

If that's the case, she'll beat Trump. But using Hank's favorite data, the RCP average (which is IMO the most accurate), Trump has retained this thin but durable lead in PA all along.

Baffling, because Joe was quite popular in PA. He was up 4+ points against Trump at this time in 2020. Idk how he lost that advantage, or if the loss of it as stated by polls was even accurate.

What polls don't take into account, however, is comparison of ground games. Harris' organization is far stronger than Trump's. And it is not at all trafficking in conspiracy theory to assert that nursing homes and elderly communities will be some of the most important precincts in PA. They are ancient, often credulous, and susceptible to the work of "bundlers," who nudge groups to mail-in vote for their candidate. The D and R foot soldiers bending Great Aunt Mae and Uncle Bert to vote in one direction during bingo at the adult day care facility may be the deciding factor. And in that game, Ds have a huge advantage. Philly will also have outrageous % turnout in deep blue districts, as will deep red precincts in suburban and rural precincts.

That PA may decide any election is perfect. An election no one wanted, with a pair of incompetent candidates, decided by a low information commonwealth filled with crooked county-level political machines.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What polls don't take into account, however, is comparison of ground games.

Most polling seems like an art of speculative content generation, not a science. The measurements they are taking are not falsifiable, so how can it be scientific? If a poll shows x +6% a month before Election Day, and x wins by 2%, how can anyone tell if the poll was right? If the final election results vary from the polls, it's attributed to things like ground games and weather and last-second decisionmaking, and this means that there is really no feedback mechanism to test a poll's accuracy.

There obvious is some use to tracking polls that apply the same methodology over times, in that they show shifts, but that value of those measurements is relative, not absolute.

This seems like something everyone knows on some level, but everyone wants the polls to be something they're not, so we collectively suspend disbelief.

[SEC_Chick]

I am inclined to just go with the Polymarket odds, since they pretty logically price in information that is not considered by the models.

I love me some polling information. Lord help me, I even subscribed to Nate Silver's Substack through the election. But all I can see is that this is going to be a total crapshoot and I fear that not picking Shapiro is going to be the 'If only Hillary had gone to Wisconsin' of 2024.

I'm used to being a small minority of my political coalition. I mean, once I became disillusioned with the grifting of the social conservative set I am basically have libertarian sympathies, but on foreign policy am a neocon on the scale of the most exaggerated caricature of Dick Cheney imaginable.

Now Dick and I are both Team Blue! TBH, I figure that I can personally have the greatest impact by giving my GOP acquaintances a permission structure to vote for Colin Allred. (or at least them sitting out because literally everyone hates Cruz)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Casey is seen like Biden. Old school moderate D, the kind who'll fight for the working class.

Please introduce them to Tim Walz.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Most polling seems like an art of speculative content generation, not a science. The measurements they are taking are not falsifiable, so how can it be scientific? If a poll shows x +6% a month before Election Day, and x wins by 2%, how can anyone tell if the poll was right? If the final election results vary from the polls, it's attributed to things like ground games and weather and last-second decisionmaking, and this means that there is really no feedback mechanism to test a poll's accuracy.

There obvious is some use to tracking polls that apply the same methodology over times, in that they show shifts, but that value of those measurements is relative, not absolute.

This seems like something everyone knows on some level, but everyone wants the polls to be something they're not, so we collectively suspend disbelief.

These days, the polls are almost all within the margin of error. They literally mean nothing beyond it is going to be very close.

Or, as I am hoping, they are very wrong and it won't be.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Most polling seems like an art of speculative content generation, not a science. The measurements they are taking are not falsifiable, so how can it be scientific? If a poll shows x +6% a month before Election Day, and x wins by 2%, how can anyone tell if the poll was right? If the final election results vary from the polls, it's attributed to things like ground games and weather and last-second decisionmaking, and this means that there is really no feedback mechanism to test a poll's accuracy.

There obvious is some use to tracking polls that apply the same methodology over times, in that they show shifts, but that value of those measurements is relative, not absolute.

This seems like something everyone knows on some level, but everyone wants the polls to be something they're not, so we collectively suspend disbelief.

Agreed. There's a desire to know the future, to plan for it.

I think the right underestimated how much dislike of Biden was due solely to age and apparent infirmity. Once he was replaced with a much younger person, any younger person, the Democrats were re-invigorated. I think this miscalculation upsets the right, because they realized they fucked up by agreeing to have the Biden debate so early. And they are also wrong about dislike of Biden being based mostly on inflation. Now they have the old man in the race and have to run against their prior argument that Biden was too old. On top of that, with a female candidate, the Democrats are poised to capitalize on a growing battle of genders among the voting public.

Hence, there's a lot of denial on the right at the moment. And it infects the way they spin the polls. "She can't be contender, let alone a favorite to win! How could this happen?" So they call it a "Harris Honeymoon." And who knows? Maybe they're right. But they sound pretty scared right now.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am inclined to just go with the Polymarket odds, since they pretty logically price in information that is not considered by the models.

.

Those markets changed quickly. (And I have had $330 (limit through my bookie) on the Dems since Biden dropped out.)

LessinMontana

[SlaveNoMore]

Today, on the sad anniversary of 9/11, I remind us all still around here from then of what a real-time source of information the GA boards were on that horrific day. Plated and others constantly reporting the status and whereabouts of friends and colleagues.

It all started simply with a post from a GA I don't even remember:

Dr Hathaway
September 11, 2001 06:14 am

Anyone watching the news? It appears two planes have crashed through both towers at the World Trade Center.

Prayers to the families.

Dr Hathaway

And so it began.

The Boards then became a prime outlet for mourning and compassion in those days and months following.

Thanks to the suggestions of some and the hard work of Legal and RT, those posts were archived for posterity and still exist.

The slogan "Never Forget" now seems cheap, as plenty of folks have forgotten, if not treat this day with disdain. "Some people did something." Or "Doing the 9/11."

I, for one, have not.

Never Forget. And may God bless the survivors and their families.

-K

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Today, on the sad anniversary of 9/11, I remind us all still around here from then of what a real-time source of information the GA boards were on that horrific day. Plated and others constantly reporting the status and whereabouts of friends and colleagues.

It all started simply with a post from a GA I don't even remember:

Dr Hathaway
September 11, 2001 06:14 am

Anyone watching the news? It appears two planes have crashed through both towers at the World Trade Center.

Prayers to the families.

Dr Hathaway

And so it began.

The Boards then became a prime outlet for mourning and compassion in those days and months following.

Thanks to the suggestions of some and the hard work of Legal and RT, those posts were archived for posterity and still exist.

The slogan "Never Forget" now seems cheap, as plenty of folks have forgotten, if not treat this day with disdain. "Some people did something." Or "Doing the 9/11."

I, for one, have not.

Never Forget. And may God bless the survivors and their families.

-K

Still here. Though I prospectively registered for the WTC fund. Can’t really do shit other than put your name on the list unless something goes wrong but… At least I’ll get emails.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If that's the case, she'll beat Trump. But using Hank's favorite data, the RCP average (which is IMO the most accurate), Trump has retained this thin but durable lead in PA all along.

Baffling, because Joe was quite popular in PA. He was up 4+ points against Trump at this time in 2020. Idk how he lost that advantage, or if the loss of it as stated by polls was even accurate.

What polls don't take into account, however, is comparison of ground games. Harris' organization is far stronger than Trump's. And it is not at all trafficking in conspiracy theory to assert that nursing homes and elderly communities will be some of the most important precincts in PA. They are ancient, often credulous, and susceptible to the work of "bundlers," who nudge groups to mail-in vote for their candidate. The D and R foot soldiers bending Great Aunt Mae and Uncle Bert to vote in one direction during bingo at the adult day care facility may be the deciding factor. And in that game, Ds have a huge advantage. Philly will also have outrageous % turnout in deep blue districts, as will deep red precincts in suburban and rural precincts.

That PA may decide any election is perfect. An election no one wanted, with a pair of incompetent candidates, decided by a low information commonwealth filled with crooked county-level political machines.

I think the ground game is going to be what wins this thing, and the Rs are in serious trouble in money, organization, and well, their candidate.

In 2020 in Texas, the Ds stayed home and called and texted for fear of Covid. The Rs were knocking on every fucking door they could. Biden lost in places he absolutely should not have because of that. It was a lesson we needed to learn, and hopefully we're overcorrecting on that. If there's anything good to come out of Beto running for three straight cycles is we have an outstanding ground game built up now, and a very comprehensive registration drive. Everyone seems to have been reinvigorated by the switch to Harris, and Allred is actually campaigning now. Which is of course hampered by our own government trying to do everything it can to prevent people from voting. I have no illusions that Harris will win Texas, but maybe Allred will beat Cruz, with the high profile endorsements form Texan by way of Wyoming Republicans and, well, everyone hates Ted Cruz.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am inclined to just go with the Polymarket odds, since they pretty logically price in information that is not considered by the models.

I love me some polling information. Lord help me, I even subscribed to Nate Silver's Substack through the election. But all I can see is that this is going to be a total crapshoot and I fear that not picking Shapiro is going to be the 'If only Hillary had gone to Wisconsin' of 2024.

I'm used to being a small minority of my political coalition. I mean, once I became disillusioned with the grifting of the social conservative set I am basically have libertarian sympathies, but on foreign policy am a neocon on the scale of the most exaggerated caricature of Dick Cheney imaginable.

Now Dick and I are both Team Blue! TBH, I figure that I can personally have the greatest impact by giving my GOP acquaintances a permission structure to vote for Colin Allred. (or at least them sitting out because literally everyone hates Cruz)

I think that any pollster with an interest in a gambling company probably has some conflict of interest issues to work through. My impression with Silver these days is that he's not just the owner, he's a customer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think the ground game is going to be what wins this thing, and the Rs are in serious trouble in money, organization, and well, their candidate.

In 2020 in Texas, the Ds stayed home and called and texted for fear of Covid. The Rs were knocking on every fucking door they could. Biden lost in places he absolutely should not have because of that. It was a lesson we needed to learn, and hopefully we're overcorrecting on that. If there's anything good to come out of Beto running for three straight cycles is we have an outstanding ground game built up now, and a very comprehensive registration drive. Everyone seems to have been reinvigorated by the switch to Harris, and Allred is actually campaigning now. Which is of course hampered by our own government trying to do everything it can to prevent people from voting. I have no illusions that Harris will win Texas, but maybe Allred will beat Cruz, with the high profile endorsements form Texan by way of Wyoming Republicans and, well, everyone hates Ted Cruz.

Josh Marshall had an interesting post the other day where he said that there are really two Trump campaigns. One is basically Trump himself, although Laura Loomer is along for the ride this week. He does his appearances and the debate and calls into Fox and other people (with the other campaign) may try to tell him what to say and what not to say, but good luck with that, because he's just doing his thing. It works to get his base excited, maybe, but.

The other campaign is the one run by his campaign managers, who are trying to run a more traditional campaign with TV spots, other advertising, a ground game, etc. Their efforts are focused on the swing states, so if you live somewhere else, you may not see them as much. They are very focused on talking about immigration and the economy, and on trying to avoid the issue of abortion. Trump himself does not always play along, which is of course a problem.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Josh Marshall had an interesting post the other day where he said that there are really two Trump campaigns. One is basically Trump himself, although Laura Loomer is along for the ride this week. He does his appearances and the debate and calls into Fox and other people (with the other campaign) may try to tell him what to say and what not to say, but good luck with that, because he's just doing his thing. It works to get his base excited, maybe, but.

The other campaign is the one run by his campaign managers, who are trying to run a more traditional campaign with TV spots, other advertising, a ground game, etc. Their efforts are focused on the swing states, so if you live somewhere else, you may not see them as much. They are very focused on talking about immigration and the economy, and on trying to avoid the issue of abortion. Trump himself does not always play along, which is of course a problem.

I'd say there's an overt effort by his campaign in Rust Belt states, which are not socially conservative or "in the cult," like the deep red states, to say, "Don't listen to him... Just pay attention to the economic policies." The pitch is effective, because no one in PA likes anything about him, but it does like his energy and economic policies.

However, it has limitations. That debate embarrassment is a bridge too far for many pocketbook voters. Even the most coldly rational tax voters I know had a "WTF was that?" reaction. The cats and dogs thing can never be unseen. If there were any question Trump and Vance were weird going into the debate, it's now settled.

I didn't watch much of it, but I did happen thru the family room while my wife had it on and I heard the comment live. The thing was surreal. For a moment. Then there's the shrug... "That's right. I forgot. He's fucking crazy."