Post New

For those thinking the race is over, perhaps the cult is celebrating just a bit too soon.

From Political Polls today:

Biden - 277 🏆 (Highest since 5/20)
Trump - 261

https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1813236824082...

And from 538 today:

UPDATED JUL. 16, 2024, AT 12:35 PM

Who Is Favored To Win The 2024 Presidential Election?

538 uses polling, economic and demographic data to explore likely election outcomes.

Biden wins 53 times out of 100 in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.
Trump wins 47 times out of 100.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election...

Umm. Stop believing there isn't a path to defeat the convicted felon rapist.

There is.

Umm. Stop believing there isn't a path to defeat the convicted felon rapist.

There is.

Of course. If you build an election model that relies in part on economic fundamentals, that model's going to show good things for Joe Biden.

Even though he's trailing in every national poll and every swing state poll. And even though he has historically bad unfavorability ratings, despite those chipper economic fundamentals. Because a signal aspect of this election cycle is that voters are not reacting to positive economic fundamentals with favorable views of the President.

While 538's model still thinks that acceptable GDP growth, low unemployment, and modest current rates of inflation are marks in Biden's favor, there's no sign whatsoever that the electorate is reacting to them that way or that they're going to any time soon.

It always fun to "unskew" the polls, to try to figure out why the voters' stated preferences don't match up to what we think the should believe. But I don't think too many people are going to take comfort from 538's election model.

Even though he's trailing in every national poll and every swing state poll.

Are those differences larger than the margin of error in the polls? If not, the poll is not showing a statistically significant lead for either candidate. Which would mean that commoneone is right. There is still a path for Biden to beat Trump.

As to models, they have the same limitations as polls. Using your example, the models may show that economic fundamentals have some predictive value when used in prior elections. Doesn't mean that is going to work every time. R-squared is never going to be 1.0. But they are a factor to consider.

If good quality polls say Trump has a small lead and good quality models say Biden has a small lead, that would seem to say that this is a very close race. Either candidate could win.

--Peter

Are those differences larger than the margin of error in the polls

In 4 of 6 swing state polls, yes, they are outside the margin of error. Sometimes wayyy outside, even double. It’s on the cusp in 1, and ahead in only Wisconsin (but within the MoE.)

In a head-to-head matchup, Trump leads Biden by 12 percentage points among registered voters in Arizona, by 10 points in Georgia, by 7 points in both Michigan and Arizona, and by 3 points in Pennsylvania. Biden leads Trump in Wisconsin by 2 points.
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/05/...

The typical margin of error is 3 points, plus or minus when you have a reasonably selected sample of 1000-1200 valid entries. One trick that 538 (and others) use is to combine polls; as you enlarge the sample base you decrease the MoE, so adding two polls with 1000 recipients each will bring the MoE down to 2% or so, and improve the confidence levels a couple points as well. Of course if one of the polls is methodologically verklempt you make things worse, not better.

I was just reading today that Reagan messed up his reelection debate in 1984, and folks were also worried about his age. Spoiler alert: he won.

But albaby isn't wrong that Biden needs to go on the offensive, painting convict Trump as the reprehensible corrupt felonious autocratic monster that he is, and reassuring the people that he is at least as fit (mentally) as convict Trump.

I'd love a VP debate. Harris would destroy Vance. She was a prosecutor. She can think on her feet. A debate would be right in her wheelhouse.

The election comes down to about 100,000 undecided voters spread across 5 or 6 swing states.

The national poll means nothing, other than Biden probably needs to get 6 or 7 million more votes than Trump nationwide to win the Electoral College because the small (usually Red) states are over represented.

intercst

The election comes down to about 100,000 undecided voters spread across 5 or 6 swing states.

Generally true. In fact, convict Trump is in trouble in Georgia for trying to "find" an additional 11000 votes for him. That's how tight it was. Just 11000 votes could have swung the election.

I'm not trying to minimize the problems of Biden. He has a tough fight ahead. But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion yet.

I was just reading today that Reagan messed up his reelection debate in 1984, and folks were also worried about his age. Spoiler alert: he won.

He had a terrific 2nd debate, and the first was not as bad as portrayed. Yes, he “lost” it by about 20 points according to contemporaneous polls, but Biden lost this one by 60.

Worse, while Reagan fumbled, he at least spoke words and had a strong close. Biden could barely get the words out, didn’t close well (to say the least) and reinforced the idea that he’s “too old.” Reagan was telegenic, he “read” well on the screen. Biden simply looks old. He also looked pasty and feeble.

The *picture* is at least as important as the words. I recall one of Reagan’s advisors commenting, while they put him in front of Arlington National Cemetery with flags in the background “It doesn’t matter what he says. It matters how he looks.”

I think that’s true, and unless they give Joe a hair dye job, some pancake makeup, and somehow get him used to ad lib speaking without wandering, nothing here is going to change.

(Spoiler alert: not gonna happen.)

Appearances are a big deal, yes. I didn't see the debate (don't need to...I'm voting against convict Trump no matter who it is). I wasn't even alive to see Nixon's first debate in the early 60s. I am told he didn't look good, while Kennedy was...well...golden-boy Kennedy. Nixon was crushed in the election.

And, yes, Reagan was very comfortable in front of a camera. He always looked poised and relaxed. Even if he told stories about people that didn't exist getting medals that they didn't get.

I'd love a VP debate. Harris would destroy Vance. She was a prosecutor. She can think on her feet. A debate would be right in her wheelhouse.

For four years now, I've been fantasizing about a Harris-Trump debate. She would mop the floor with him. He knows that so he would never agree to it, even if Harris were to become the Democratic nominee. Particularly as long as Trump is ahead in the polls. He would have no reason to. We've seen that from him already in the Republican primaries, much as he likes to claim to "Fight".

Barring that, yes, I'd settle for Harris-Vance. But again, I suspect the Repubs would dodge as long as they are ahead in the polls.

...the Repubs would dodge as long as they are ahead in the polls.

I can't blame them. There is little upside if they are leading the polls, and a potentially huge downside if they flub it.

I am told he didn't look good, while Kennedy was...well...golden-boy Kennedy. Nixon was crushed in the election.

I saw that debate. Nixon had his usual scowl, enhanced by the 5 o’clock shadow he famously refused to cover with makeup. There’s a well known factoid about it: those who saw the debate on TV thought Kennedy won, and by a large margin. As TV was less prevalent in those days a lot of people listened on the radio, and (again) by a margin thought Nixon mopped the floor with him.

Pictures are important.

Harris-Trump debate. She would mop the floor with him .

I’m not so sure. Donald is also telegenic, and it clearly doesn’t matter what he says; he’s as much a word salad chef as Sarah Palin or the others. You’re being wrapped up in “what the logical arguments are” and that’s not how these televised debates are measured by the viewers. Remember that “Hee Haw” got better ratings than “Laugh-In” outside the most cosmopolitan areas, if you need a measuring device.

Donald is also telegenic, and it clearly doesn’t matter what he says; he’s as much a word salad chef as Sarah Palin or the others.

Palin was/is a nut, but I seem to recall her speaking better than convict Trump. She said some stupid things, but at least they were generally coherent. You can't really say that about convict Trump.

The election comes down to about 100,000 undecided voters spread across 5 or 6 swing states.

Maybe. But I saw someone say that this election was going to be decided on turnout--who can rally more of their supporters to actually get out and vote. I have a hard time picturing Biden as "That Guy". The shooting was awful in so many ways, and one of them is that I can't think of anything that would fire up Trump supporters--and probably "in betweeners", as few of them as there are--to get out and vote for him more than an attempted assassination.

If good quality polls say Trump has a small lead and good quality models say Biden has a small lead, that would seem to say that this is a very close race. Either candidate could win.

That would be the case if we had reason to believe that it was still a good quality model. But we know that the electorate isn't reacting to positive economic conditions the way it normally does. Typically, an incumbent presiding over a good economy is popular. Biden is not. He is singularly, extraordinarily unpopular. Which is a really powerful sign that economic indicators that are normally associated with doing well in elections are not likely to have the same value for the Biden race.

In 4 of 6 swing state polls, yes, they are outside the margin of error.

Thank you. I wasn't about to go looking for random polls with no idea of which polls were being discussed.

On other factor to consider is that I believe there is usually a bump in polls around the conventions for the party having the convention. Head to head comparison polling probably won't be useful again until a couple of weeks after the Democratic convention.

--Peter

I'd love a VP debate. Harris would destroy Vance. She was a prosecutor. She can think on her feet. A debate would be right in her wheelhouse.

I mean....maybe? I was just discussing that with Albabywife yesterday. I'm not so sure. A political debate isn't like a cross-examination - it isn't even like an ordinary debate. Harris did well in the first Democratic primary debate, but wasn't especially sharp in the next two.

Where she got into trouble, IIRC, was playing defense. Harris' days as a prosecutor are good training for landing a punch - but she's not used to defending herself. She had trouble when she was on the receiving end of a tough question.

Vance is smart and quick on his feet, so he's not likely to be a pushover. He held his own in his Senate debates, even though Ryan went at him guns a'blazin' - because he's really effective at dodging and changing the subject. Which is something prosecutors never have to deal with, because they have a judge to step in and force the witness to answer their questions.

It's a fun fantasy, imagining Harris cross-examining Vance like he was a witness squirming on the stand - but it probably won't happen that way. And Harris might have her own problems handling incoming fire from Vance on the border (which she was put point on), inflation, and (ironically) on crime - because she has to toe a fine line on that issue. If the Veep debate is before the second Presidential one, she also may have a tough time responding to questions about Biden's fitness.

The election comes down to about 100,000 uneducated voters spread across 5 or 6 swing states.

Fixed that for you.

Vance is smart and quick on his feet, so he's not likely to be a pushover.

Folks are forgetting that Vance...went to Yale law and ran their Law Journal there. Folks underestimating him do so at their own peril.

In fact...here's what one of Kamala's former staffers had to say about Vance before he was the pick:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/greatest-threat-former-...

Video here: https://x.com/alaynatreene/status/1802714326219821...

"I think JD Vance would pose the greatest threat [to] Kamala Harris, in some respects. I mean he's an incredible debater," Etienne told CNN. "I think he has this quality that makes him seem palpable to that one to two percent that actually might vote or that is undecided, that will actually pay attention to the debates because most people don't pay attention to the debates."

Etienne, who also served as deputy assistant to President Biden after his 2020 victory, said Vance is "super smart," "quick-witted" and could pose a threat to Harris on the debate stage.

"I think he's just got a quality about him where he's super smart and sharp and quick-witted. I just think it's going to be a challenge to see the two of them face-to-face. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I think he's going to be the greatest threat," she said.

I think JD Vance would pose the greatest threat [to] Kamala Harris, in some respects. I mean he's an incredible debater," Etienne told CNN. "I think he has this quality that makes him seem palpable to that one to two percent that actually might vote or that is undecided, that will actually pay attention to the debates because most people don't pay attention to the debates."

I have no doubt that he is a great debater. The hallmark of a great debater is the ability to take any position and argue it with conviction and convince those in attendance of the righteousness of his cause. I was on the debate team in college, our only loss was against a team from Walpole State Prison in Walpole, MA. The topic was “the death penalty” and we were assign “in favor” and the team from Walpole, all convicts in for capital murder was assigned “against.” We debated at the prison, before an audience of inmates, so not truly a fair fight. But I digress.

The reason I am sure Vance is a good debater is because at one time, not so long ago, he said

“I’m a never Trump guy. I never liked him”
“My god, what an idiot”
“Trump is noxious”
“He’s reprehensible”
“He is the next Hitler.”

Heck, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in 2016 saying that “Trump is unfit for the nation’s highest office.”

Of course politics makes strange bedfellows, as the saying goes, but there’s also this:

As recently as 2020 he was praising solar energy and begged for a “clean energy future” to cure the “climate problem in our society.” Now he’s proposing a $7,500 rebate on gas cars and nothing on electrics. By coincidence, the oil lobby has become a large donor to his campaign. It would, it goes without saying be impossible for him to be Trump’s VP pick if he were still advocating solar power and alternate energy ideas. Debate king. Take any position and argue it with conviction.

He has also said he would have done what Mike Pence would not, that is to try to single-handedly nullify the 2020 election results, and point that is both extra-constitutional and sits well with Trump.

He strongly advocated a total abortion ban during his run for the Senate, but now aligns with Trump that perhaps that goes too far. He called Trump’s corporate tax cut “his signature failure” and railed against the attempt to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Now all those things are groovy.

He loved Mitt Romney’s attack ads which he quoted, saying “ too bad [the] party will do everything except admit that supply-side tax cuts do nothing for its voters.” In 2020 he tweeted that Ronald Reagan caused “the rise of China, the decimation of the American family, and a lot of tax cuts for the rich.”

There’s more. There’s really lots more, but the gist of it all is that Vance holds no positions and all positions as they are convenient. It was convenient to blame the Hillbillies for their own predicament and write a book about how they ought to be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but then he needed their votes and went all populist against big corporations and unions, even though he acknowledges that his family wouldn’t have made it without his father’s well-paid union job.

Vance. Second in line. No moral compass at all. Truly terrifying.

True, the modern "debates" aren't really debates. And the poorer the moderators, the less so they become.

But, as I recall, Harris cleaned up on Pence in 2020. Vance has a lot less experience. I'll take your word for it that he's smart (I don't know). I try not to prejudge anyone willing to support the convict, but sometimes it is difficult.

If Kamala had issues with defense, I'm sure she's being prepped so it doesn't happen again. I didn't vote for her in the primaries many years ago (I had issues with her prioritizing her record instead of justice in her old job), but I had no doubt she was very sharp.

Vance. Second in line. No moral compass at all. Truly terrifying.

You guys have played these cards too many times.

No offense, but the apocalyptic The End Is Nigh schtick isn't working anymore. That's why you don't see me bothering to respond to it anymore.

The GOP could nominate Mother Teresa and the left would claim she was a genocidal madwoman. It's just gotten so repetitive that voters are now numb to it.

Mother Teresa and the left would claim she was a genocidal madwoman.

She could've been a madwoman. There's evidence she thought pain was a redemptive act and I remember it was documented that people were dying in extreme pain in one of her houses and the painkillers in storage weren't touched.

Genocidal though? Nahh.

That's why you don't see me bothering to respond to it anymore.

As you bother to respond to it again.

But, as I recall, Harris cleaned up on Pence in 2020.

It's been awhile, but my recollection is that there wasn't much of anything significant to come out of the Veep debate in 2020. A few google searches shows the same - Harris was regarded as doing a little better than Pence, but not significantly. There were no real significant impacts to the race, no times when Harris' prosecutorial skills led to a serious blow being landed, no memorable or important moments at all.....

....except the fly. Remember the fly?

As you bother to respond to it again.

Nah, that was responding to a reply to me. ChatNPC and some of the others are whinging about all on their own.

....except the fly. Remember the fly?

Nobody watches the Veep debate unless something hilarious happens, like the fly!

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.