As garbage as pundit Nate is, he does have the right of it about how the Trump administration is increasingly appearing out of touch. Some of that comes down to Trump not only lacking any sort of empathy, but also being part of the psychopath group that views empathy as weakness. One of things missed about the GOP summary is that it was very out of touch because they really didn't touch on many of current crises. Championing the dow jones as the end all be all of the economy the way Trump does is going to further cement that when people are struggling to get work, pay bills and not get evicted when the moratoriums end. I wouldn't feel safe on the CDC one because they might not have the authority and some asshole landlord will challenge it in court.
Call me when there actually are stories about how people are feeling economic anxiety because everything is on fire, despite stonks going up. For some reason, I don't think we're going to get that kind of diner coverage this year
PA polls have been all over the place the last 3 days. It is kind of interesting to look at.
BTW the Monmoth poll is weird. I went and read it.
+4 is registered voters.
+3 is likely voters (voters who said they were likely to vote)
+1 is unlikely voters (voters who stated they were not likely to vote)
One is Rasmussen. I am thinking Biden is probably between +4-+6 in PA atm.
So, your focus group was 10 people, 80% racists, and 20% conservatives who hate Trump. Trying to horn in on a certain other magizine's schtick here, guys?
They had to use a focus group because nobody in red county diners wear masks.
Cisco and IBM are massively tech companies what are you on about?
Whenever anyone starts talking about the Big Tech Companies those two are never, ever the ones they are talking about. And given that he immediately pivoted to talking about Zuckerberg... I don't think those are the kinds of big tech he meant
Cisco and IBM are massively tech companies what are you on about?
Whenever anyone starts talking about the Big Tech Companies those two are never, ever the ones they are talking about. And given that he immediately pivoted to talking about Zuckerberg... I don't think those are the kinds of big tech he meant
They are
I’m not talking about voter perception or what have you, I’m talking about how the DOW components aren’t representative of where the jobs are
The reason the DOW can be up so much with underlying economic calamity is there’s only 1 restaurant, 1 apparel company, no travel, etc...there are 4 (or 5, VISA lists their sector as IT) financials which are all down huge on the year, offset by the weighting of the other sectors:
IT - 7
Industrials - 4
Health Care - 4
Financials - 4
Consumer Staples - 4
Consumer Discretionary - 3
Communication Services - 2 (this is Verizon and Disney)
Materials - 1
Energy - 1
My point is the DOW is not only not representative of the economy, it’s actually not even representative of the market -
What is the largest margin by which an incumbent president has lost?
I'd love for Biden to blow that number out of the goddamn water.
George Washington got 100% of electoral votes (snickers).
In the past 50 years it was Reagan vs Mondale, Reagan got over 97% of the electoral votes.
Nixon has the largest winner in the popular vote with a margin of damn near 18 million more votes than McGovern.
Largest popular vote loss, but elector winner is Trump in 2016.
I believe Mild confusion was referring to a president who won the first term but lost the second.
It looks like Jimmy Carter, he got the brakes beaten off him by Ronald Reagan. Which is a shame, I always liked Carter.
The most important aspect is that it has a ton of house seats and there are state legislative seats up for grabs. The US house seats are important for democratic prospects in the house. Makes it easier for them to hold seats they already have and might put new ones within reach. If they can get a majority in one Texas chamber, it does give them a means stymie the ability of republicans in the state to have free reign there.
The other issue, is that it forces republicans to spend money in a state that is expensive. IIRC democrats and republicans tend to prioritize different things for their ground games. I want to say what democrats focus on tends to be cheaper than what republicans do. Texas is expensive if you want to advertise via TV and radio IIRC. If you're doing phone banking, internet, volunteers on the ground and mail stuff, it's no more expensive than anywhere else. Also with how things are, the GOP can ill afford to take Texas for granted. If they don't so anything to shore up voters there, they do run the risk of it going blue and having to make up for those 38 votes and they badly need those 38 to win, where for democrats that would just be icing on the cake.
Spend a little money on Texas to grab some down-ballot races, not to win the EC. Do it again in 2, 4, and 6 years and in 8 you very well have a chance of winning the EC. And doing it by organizing / phone banking / etc is a lot better spend than ads, too.
Joe Biden is live right now in Kenosha with a community discussion looks like in a church?
He isn't even talking. He is listening to everyone who is talking. Intently paying attention to everyone. Not talking over anyone.
Its a hell of a thing to watching someone listen not just talk about whatever comes to their mind. He is also taking notes too. He wants to know everyone's story.
Edit: Biden is speaking and he is walking. Realized he got to close and realized it and apologized for violating social distancing. Everyone is in masks too.
We live in too partisan a country for blowouts to be a possibility anymore. That’s not a bad thing, but Trump losing by a super wide margin is unlikely.
The most important aspect is that it has a ton of house seats and there are state legislative seats up for grabs. The US house seats are important for democratic prospects in the house. Makes it easier for them to hold seats they already have and might put new ones within reach. If they can get a majority in one Texas chamber, it does give them a means stymie the ability of republicans in the state to have free reign there.
The other issue, is that it forces republicans to spend money in a state that is expensive. IIRC democrats and republicans tend to prioritize different things for their ground games. I want to say what democrats focus on tends to be cheaper than what republicans do. Texas is expensive if you want to advertise via TV and radio IIRC. If you're doing phone banking, internet, volunteers on the ground and mail stuff, it's no more expensive than anywhere else. Also with how things are, the GOP can ill afford to take Texas for granted. If they don't so anything to shore up voters there, they do run the risk of it going blue and having to make up for those 38 votes and they badly need those 38 to win, where for democrats that would just be icing on the cake.
We arguably are moving toward a future where winning Texas is going to be important for the Democrats, with the rightward shift happening in states like the PA/MI/WI trio relative to national sentiment. Highly, highly unlikely for Texas to be tipping point state this cycle, but in 2024 and especially 2028? Who knows.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Spend a little money on Texas to grab some down-ballot races, not to win the EC. Do it again in 2, 4, and 6 years and in 8 you very well have a chance of winning the EC. And doing it by organizing / phone banking / etc is a lot better spend than ads, too.
Yeah an appearance or ad in Texas would mostly exist to drive fundraising or to help a down ballot race. We're not going to lose the Rust Belt and somehow end around Texas for a win (as demographics currently exist) so treating it like it's actually in play is a waste of time and resources.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Here is my top tip to not be so scared by the poll-a-coaster.
Whenever you see a "battleground states" poll treat it with extreme suspicion. The was a battleground state poll recently with Biden only fractionally ahead. It had Texas as one of the battleground states.
So, check very carefully what the pollster has considered a battleground and then do some maths on what proportion of the sample would need to be in which state for it to be representative.
This year my tip is to imagine you've been forced to jump out of a plane in a thunderstorm. The lightning, beautiful or terrifying, doesn't ultimately the fact that only thing you can do now is die, or keep your shit together, watch your altimeter, and use dramatic arm movements to signal anyone who can see you that it's time to pull.
I usually love all this poll aggregation / probability modeling shit; but I'd rather be in that thunderstorm for the next two months than down here with Election Dragon 2020.
Don't get me wrong in what I am saying. Texas is absolutely in play and the GOP is going to have to spend money defending it.
But lumping it in a poll together with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania completely destroys the value of the poll and any despair you might draw from it.
Joe Biden is live right now in Kenosha with a community discussion looks like in a church?
He isn't even talking. He is listening to everyone who is talking. Intently paying attention to everyone. Not talking over anyone.
Its a hell of a thing to watching someone listen not just talk about whatever comes to their mind. He is also taking notes too. He wants to know everyone's story.
Edit: Biden is speaking and he is walking. Realized he got to close and realized it and apologized for violating social distancing. Everyone is in masks too.
Well that’s definitely one dude I’m glad is learning a lesson on keeping distance from people
Here is my top tip to not be so scared by the poll-a-coaster.
Whenever you see a "battleground states" poll treat it with extreme suspicion. The was a battleground state poll recently with Biden only fractionally ahead. It had Texas as one of the battleground states.
So, check very carefully what the pollster has considered a battleground and then do some maths on what proportion of the sample would need to be in which state for it to be representative.
This year my tip is to imagine you've been forced to jump out of a plane in a thunderstorm. The lightning, beautiful or terrifying, doesn't ultimately the fact that only thing you can do now is die, or keep your shit together, watch your altimeter, and use dramatic arm movements to signal anyone who can see you that it's time to pull.
I usually love all this poll aggregation / probability modeling shit; but I'd rather be in that thunderstorm for the next two months than down here with Election Dragon 2020.
Sure at some point it'll matter for them, but right now, we're talking about the 2020 election.
Even in fucking Georgia, they know if you requested an absentee ballot and if you show up to early vote or on election day, they make you sign an affidavit that you didn't actually return said absentee ballot. It's an insanely stupid idea, but considering the source, not surprised.
Usually I just assume Republicans are being disingenious. But sometimes, SOMETIMES, I think they're just woefully out of touch and genuinely think voting in this country operates on the honor system and that nobody actually checks these things.
The most important aspect is that it has a ton of house seats and there are state legislative seats up for grabs. The US house seats are important for democratic prospects in the house. Makes it easier for them to hold seats they already have and might put new ones within reach. If they can get a majority in one Texas chamber, it does give them a means stymie the ability of republicans in the state to have free reign there.
The other issue, is that it forces republicans to spend money in a state that is expensive. IIRC democrats and republicans tend to prioritize different things for their ground games. I want to say what democrats focus on tends to be cheaper than what republicans do. Texas is expensive if you want to advertise via TV and radio IIRC. If you're doing phone banking, internet, volunteers on the ground and mail stuff, it's no more expensive than anywhere else. Also with how things are, the GOP can ill afford to take Texas for granted. If they don't so anything to shore up voters there, they do run the risk of it going blue and having to make up for those 38 votes and they badly need those 38 to win, where for democrats that would just be icing on the cake.
We arguably are moving toward a future where winning Texas is going to be important for the Democrats, with the rightward shift happening in states like the PA/MI/WI trio relative to national sentiment. Highly, highly unlikely for Texas to be tipping point state this cycle, but in 2024 and especially 2028? Who knows.
I can't speak to PA and MI but I definitely do not see a rightward trend in WI. I see quite the opposite, in fact.
Even in fucking Georgia, they know if you requested an absentee ballot and if you show up to early vote or on election day, they make you sign an affidavit that you didn't actually return said absentee ballot. It's an insanely stupid idea, but considering the source, not surprised.
Don't a lot of states also handle it by checking whether someone voted in person before opening the mail-in ballot, and destroying the latter unread if they did (assuming that someone could have changed their mind or something like that)?
The most important aspect is that it has a ton of house seats and there are state legislative seats up for grabs. The US house seats are important for democratic prospects in the house. Makes it easier for them to hold seats they already have and might put new ones within reach. If they can get a majority in one Texas chamber, it does give them a means stymie the ability of republicans in the state to have free reign there.
The other issue, is that it forces republicans to spend money in a state that is expensive. IIRC democrats and republicans tend to prioritize different things for their ground games. I want to say what democrats focus on tends to be cheaper than what republicans do. Texas is expensive if you want to advertise via TV and radio IIRC. If you're doing phone banking, internet, volunteers on the ground and mail stuff, it's no more expensive than anywhere else. Also with how things are, the GOP can ill afford to take Texas for granted. If they don't so anything to shore up voters there, they do run the risk of it going blue and having to make up for those 38 votes and they badly need those 38 to win, where for democrats that would just be icing on the cake.
We arguably are moving toward a future where winning Texas is going to be important for the Democrats, with the rightward shift happening in states like the PA/MI/WI trio relative to national sentiment. Highly, highly unlikely for Texas to be tipping point state this cycle, but in 2024 and especially 2028? Who knows.
I can't speak to PA and MI but I definitely do not see a rightward trend in WI. I see quite the opposite, in fact.
I've gotten the impression that a lot of people here in Michigan who voted Trump / 3rd party in 2016 because of their feelings about Hillary absolutely fucking despise him and regret having made that choice every day. They might not love Biden but sure as hell aren't voting Trump a second time.
With the razor thin margins here in 2016, just old people dying / young voters turning 18 probably would be enough to flip the state blue. Also having a Secretary of State who isn't actively trying to fuck over blue areas isn't going to hurt.
Problem in Michigan is all the Democrats are leaving. Trump got fewer votes than Bush '04 and 100k more than McCain or Romney. But Dems lost 300k from '08 to '12 and 300k more from '12 to '16. Probably bounce back a little this year but that's the long term problem. Most of my friends left the state entirely.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department plans to bring an antitrust case against Google as soon as this month, after Attorney General William P. Barr overruled career lawyers who said they needed more time to build a strong case against one of the world’s wealthiest, most formidable technology companies, according to five people briefed on internal department conversations.
While there were disagreements about tactics, career lawyers also expressed concerns that Mr. Barr wanted to announce the case in September to take credit for action against a powerful tech company under the Trump administration.
Is this something that people would care that much about as a thing that makes them vote for Trump or even be much more enthusiastic? I feel like Google is still pretty well liked among the public despite tons of criticisms. Those who actually pay attention to this stuff much will probably get mad at the rush weakening the case.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department plans to bring an antitrust case against Google as soon as this month, after Attorney General William P. Barr overruled career lawyers who said they needed more time to build a strong case against one of the world’s wealthiest, most formidable technology companies, according to five people briefed on internal department conversations.
While there were disagreements about tactics, career lawyers also expressed concerns that Mr. Barr wanted to announce the case in September to take credit for action against a powerful tech company under the Trump administration.
Is this something that people would care that much about as a thing that makes them vote for Trump or even be much more enthusiastic? I feel like Google is still pretty well liked among the public despite tons of criticisms.
Apple or Amazon would have made better targets. Google is usually a lot more low-key in their horseshit.
Posts
They're both electronic manufacturing companies, not technology. Cisco is more akin to Texas Instruments or even Ford than Facebook or Salesforce.
Call me when there actually are stories about how people are feeling economic anxiety because everything is on fire, despite stonks going up. For some reason, I don't think we're going to get that kind of diner coverage this year
BTW the Monmoth poll is weird. I went and read it.
+4 is registered voters.
+3 is likely voters (voters who said they were likely to vote)
+1 is unlikely voters (voters who stated they were not likely to vote)
One is Rasmussen. I am thinking Biden is probably between +4-+6 in PA atm.
They had to use a focus group because nobody in red county diners wear masks.
Whenever anyone starts talking about the Big Tech Companies those two are never, ever the ones they are talking about. And given that he immediately pivoted to talking about Zuckerberg... I don't think those are the kinds of big tech he meant
I'd love for Biden to blow that number out of the goddamn water.
Electoral college wise..
George Washington got ALL of them so...can't beat that.
Not counting him, Monroe got over 99%, FDR 1936 98.49, Reagan 2 97.58% Nixon 2 96.65% Jonhson 90.33%
They are
I’m not talking about voter perception or what have you, I’m talking about how the DOW components aren’t representative of where the jobs are
The reason the DOW can be up so much with underlying economic calamity is there’s only 1 restaurant, 1 apparel company, no travel, etc...there are 4 (or 5, VISA lists their sector as IT) financials which are all down huge on the year, offset by the weighting of the other sectors:
IT - 7
Industrials - 4
Health Care - 4
Financials - 4
Consumer Staples - 4
Consumer Discretionary - 3
Communication Services - 2 (this is Verizon and Disney)
Materials - 1
Energy - 1
My point is the DOW is not only not representative of the economy, it’s actually not even representative of the market -
George Washington got 100% of electoral votes (snickers).
In the past 50 years it was Reagan vs Mondale, Reagan got over 97% of the electoral votes.
Nixon has the largest winner in the popular vote with a margin of damn near 18 million more votes than McGovern.
Largest popular vote loss, but elector winner is Trump in 2016.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Reagan and Nixon (and Clinton and Obama) don't count because they're all two-term presidents.
What one-term president ran again and got his ass handed to him the worst?
It looks like Jimmy Carter, he got the brakes beaten off him by Ronald Reagan. Which is a shame, I always liked Carter.
...I don't think Trump can lose that badly.
The Dems really got their shit kicked in for a long time with the civil rights alignment
Twitter continues its policy of "It is OK to spread misinformation about the election if the president does it."
Then yeah, Reagan v Carter.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The most important aspect is that it has a ton of house seats and there are state legislative seats up for grabs. The US house seats are important for democratic prospects in the house. Makes it easier for them to hold seats they already have and might put new ones within reach. If they can get a majority in one Texas chamber, it does give them a means stymie the ability of republicans in the state to have free reign there.
The other issue, is that it forces republicans to spend money in a state that is expensive. IIRC democrats and republicans tend to prioritize different things for their ground games. I want to say what democrats focus on tends to be cheaper than what republicans do. Texas is expensive if you want to advertise via TV and radio IIRC. If you're doing phone banking, internet, volunteers on the ground and mail stuff, it's no more expensive than anywhere else. Also with how things are, the GOP can ill afford to take Texas for granted. If they don't so anything to shore up voters there, they do run the risk of it going blue and having to make up for those 38 votes and they badly need those 38 to win, where for democrats that would just be icing on the cake.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He isn't even talking. He is listening to everyone who is talking. Intently paying attention to everyone. Not talking over anyone.
Its a hell of a thing to watching someone listen not just talk about whatever comes to their mind. He is also taking notes too. He wants to know everyone's story.
Edit: Biden is speaking and he is walking. Realized he got to close and realized it and apologized for violating social distancing. Everyone is in masks too.
We arguably are moving toward a future where winning Texas is going to be important for the Democrats, with the rightward shift happening in states like the PA/MI/WI trio relative to national sentiment. Highly, highly unlikely for Texas to be tipping point state this cycle, but in 2024 and especially 2028? Who knows.
That means twenty-seven states.
Yeah an appearance or ad in Texas would mostly exist to drive fundraising or to help a down ballot race. We're not going to lose the Rust Belt and somehow end around Texas for a win (as demographics currently exist) so treating it like it's actually in play is a waste of time and resources.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
This year my tip is to imagine you've been forced to jump out of a plane in a thunderstorm. The lightning, beautiful or terrifying, doesn't ultimately the fact that only thing you can do now is die, or keep your shit together, watch your altimeter, and use dramatic arm movements to signal anyone who can see you that it's time to pull.
I usually love all this poll aggregation / probability modeling shit; but I'd rather be in that thunderstorm for the next two months than down here with Election Dragon 2020.
But lumping it in a poll together with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania completely destroys the value of the poll and any despair you might draw from it.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Well that’s definitely one dude I’m glad is learning a lesson on keeping distance from people
Sure at some point it'll matter for them, but right now, we're talking about the 2020 election.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
He said it yesterday while in NC.
It is at least twice as dumb as he thinks it’s clever
I can't speak to PA and MI but I definitely do not see a rightward trend in WI. I see quite the opposite, in fact.
Don't a lot of states also handle it by checking whether someone voted in person before opening the mail-in ballot, and destroying the latter unread if they did (assuming that someone could have changed their mind or something like that)?
I've gotten the impression that a lot of people here in Michigan who voted Trump / 3rd party in 2016 because of their feelings about Hillary absolutely fucking despise him and regret having made that choice every day. They might not love Biden but sure as hell aren't voting Trump a second time.
With the razor thin margins here in 2016, just old people dying / young voters turning 18 probably would be enough to flip the state blue. Also having a Secretary of State who isn't actively trying to fuck over blue areas isn't going to hurt.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/politics/google-antitrust-justice-department.html
Is this something that people would care that much about as a thing that makes them vote for Trump or even be much more enthusiastic? I feel like Google is still pretty well liked among the public despite tons of criticisms. Those who actually pay attention to this stuff much will probably get mad at the rush weakening the case.
Apple or Amazon would have made better targets. Google is usually a lot more low-key in their horseshit.