- 37,331
- 32,155
Let me guess, they got offended being told that? lololol
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 25,824
- 46,727
Seems like you just come in here to “both sides” stuff and most folks don’t have the patience for it anymore at this point
MakeNTGreatAgain
Supporter
- 8,798
- 9,313
this is kinda wishy washy
the afghan government in place was no better than the taliban tbh
- 23,875
- 48,260
Didn't you get the memo?
Everyone on X makes 6 figures, ESPECIALLY in the Black community.
- 5,348
- 3,513
- 151,164
- 202,580
- 26,175
- 23,119
So let me get this straight: having major issues with imposing higher tariffs on all imports and with Harris's tax policies is considered a problem because I'm taking a neutral stance?
And the phrase 'at this point' is frankly hilarious. There are a few people here willing to shed light on why certain things make sense or don't, and those conversations are appreciated. However, some just clown around and are dismissive because they disagree. So what if some people come in here with ideas from social media and lack policy knowledge? Why are some so quick to bash them and insult them for it? I'm not playing the in-between game—I'm just pointing out what I don't agree with.
- 92,706
- 128,927
kdawg
Staff member
- 11,186
- 12,832
Has anyone looked into the strange coincidence of fry cook and legal education suddenly being important?
- 34,115
- 29,457
Trump pulls ahead in Nates Silvers model
For all those laughing at Trump's strategy.
It's an incredibly close election and Trump can still win.
dismissing what he's doing is foolish.
- 64,966
- 196,177
We all have to remember....
- 33,521
- 27,219
Will ever get to the point where we all (reasonable people) accept this electoral college BS is a relic we should/need to leave in the past
- 37,331
- 32,155
A friend messaged me asking if I agreed with the VP's tax proposal. I said 'yes'. They then responded with 'aren't you scared that would eventually trickle down to us?'
First of all, what has ever economically 'trickled-down' to us for our benefit? Nothing.
Second, you're a licensed doctor that makes great money, so I see your concern lol. BUT, you aint making more than $100Million. So relax.
First of all, what has ever economically 'trickled-down' to us for our benefit? Nothing.
Second, you're a licensed doctor that makes great money, so I see your concern lol. BUT, you aint making more than $100Million. So relax.
- 34,115
- 29,457
you talking about the taxing unrealized gains thing?
im seeing more and more normie people talk about this negatively,
this is all anecdotal, but it feels like it's not working out that well politically.
- 5,082
- 7,585
I guess I don't understand how to read this, because I'm seeing that Harris is projected to get more votes (both popular AND electoral) but lower EC probability. WAT?!
Trump pulls ahead in Nates Silvers model
For all those laughing at Trump's strategy.
It's an incredibly close election and Trump can still win.
dismissing what he's doing is foolish.
- 9,617
- 20,713
Pennsylvania may be a problem for Harris
The Electoral College/popular vote gap is increasing in post-DNC data.
www.natesilver.net
"Some of this is because of the convention bounce adjustment that the model applies to polls that were conducted during or after the DNC. It assumes Harris’s polls are somewhat inflated right now, in other words — just as it assumed Trump’s numbers were inflated after the RNC. While there’s a solid basis for this empirically, you could argue we’re under unusual circumstances because of her late entry into the race. So if you want to treat all of this as a little fuzzier than usual, I don’t really mind that. The good news for Harris is that if she merely holds her current numbers for a couple more weeks, she’ll begin to track up again in our forecast as the model will become more confident that she’s out of the convention bounce period."
"Now, all of this could change quickly with one or two high-quality polls showing Harris ahead in the Keystone State. The model is relying more heavily than I’d prefer on the Emerson College poll as it’s the only fully post-DNC/RFK data point"
- 1,393
- 2,974
You and I play a game. With equal probability of occurring either:
You win 2:1
You win 3:1
I win 7:1
My expected number of points is (1+1+7)/3 = 3
Your expected number of points is 2
But you’re expected to win 66% of the times.
- 5,082
- 7,585
- 64,966
- 196,177
I am just guessing
-But the highlighted part under "Electoral College Probability" is a measure of the ratio between how many times the model predicted a Trump win vs how many times it predicted Harris.
The model runs all kinds of different election scenarios. And a winner based on which scenario plays out
-The predicted electoral votes is a measure of central tendency. Either the median outcome, or my guess an average of all the results
-Basically if Nate's model ran for different scenarios 1000 times
524 of those times it had Trump winning the election, 473 of the time it had Harris.
But Trump's wins probably contained more small margin wins, and Harris' predicted wins might contain some blowouts.
So if you average all the outcomes, Harris' average of electoral college votes is higher.
It is like a race. Trump wins the race more times. But the times Harris wins, she wins by a bigger margin.
I realize I might have confused you more, and for that I apologize
aepps20
Supporter
- 42,525
- 90,732
GOTV and getting more of your voters to the voting booth is the only way. Models, polls and all of that other stuff is helpful but the real work begins and ends with how strong your GOTV machine is and how many of your voters actually vote.
- 12,477
- 35,056
- 14,659
- 25,968
- 64,966
- 196,177
It almost was eliminated under Nixon, but I think it got filibustered and a Dem senator chicken out breaking it
Actually in 2000, the early prediction was Bush would win the popular vote and lose the EC. Some conservative pundits wanted a push to change the constitution before the election.
But the opposite happen, the partisan split happen differently than people expected, so they dropped it
I really don't see it going away in such partisan times to be honest
Actually in 2000, the early prediction was Bush would win the popular vote and lose the EC. Some conservative pundits wanted a push to change the constitution before the election.
But the opposite happen, the partisan split happen differently than people expected, so they dropped it
I really don't see it going away in such partisan times to be honest
- 64,966
- 196,177
It is not just the EC
The Senate swings power to them
So does gerrymandering and the cap on House seats
To make matter worse, and is rarely talked about, one of the reasons they put jails in rural areas is to increase the population in certain places to help with gerrymandering
- 37,331
- 32,155
Similar threads
