gehringer_2

Islam is at least if not more homophobic and patriarchal than RW Christianity. I would easily believe that much of Arab opposition to Dems which is couched in terms of Gaza if really culturally based, because it's a lot more PC to be pro Gaza than anti-gay (etc). To be anti-Dem over Gaza doesn't even make any sense since Trump is way more firmiy in Bibi's pocket than Harris.

Defections may be a bridge too far, but I can definitely see non-voting. I think if you sow doubt, then "let the rest of them make the decision" is a more likely response than "you changed my mind." Non-voting is only half as effective but it still breaks the same way.

Ronz's immediate circle notwithstanding () my read is that these are the people who Trump could have had but are probably being turned off by a lot of Trumps current rhetoric and condition. Librul is still a dirty word to them, they don't hold any personal animus toward POC but still believe they get the short end of the stick from elites because of DEI. They are part of the GOP's natural economic grievance constituency, many are vets, they believe themselves to be stand-up guys, the guys that shake hands at the end of the hockey game, and I think these are the people that Trump is starting to lose with the overt racism, the enemies talk, and the general deterioration in his psyche. The won't vote for Harris, but they can't deny in the hearts that Trump is a creep. They will find themselves busy enough on election day that they will just let it pass.

But there is still another piece to it. You have to hit on your picks, and that's where it's not so easy to duplicate what Holmes has done. The lions have had lot of draft capital at times in the past because of losing seasons, but never used it as well as Holmes has.

The other one that people seem to have forgotten is that a large number - certainly many hundred thousand, Dems registered R or took a Repub ballot to vote against Trump in primaries this cycle. There is no corresponding symmetry going the other way, and in the swing states that is another skewing factor when you are looking at EV by party registration.

I'm not sure that's what he is saying. His 1st chart is % of ABEV compared to 2020. But the %'s do not reflect the actual vote numbers because Dems voted ABEV in massively higher numbers than Repubs. I don't think there is any sound logic that gets you from the fact that more Repubs are ABEV this cycle to the conclusion that GOP turnout will be higher overall. that's possible but nothing more than a guess. It's just a easy to speculate that every single Repub ABEV is a subtraction from their ED turnout. I don't think there is any significant predictive value in the past on this stuff for reasons I've stated above. Nobody knows.

I don't think EV analysis is worth spit because a) in many states EV is too new a system to have settled into any predictable pattern B) Covid makes 2020 a black swan event that is not projectable C) The GOP's mandates to it voters on whether to EV or not have been all over the map.

Agree. I think Bezos was trying to play a double game. He spiked the endorsement, but then has allowed his writers to savage his decision in his paper. - in effect simply making a bunch of individual endorsements. His mistake will be believing that Trump will honor any deal he made over an endorsement, esp after the editorial staff all wrote to repudiate it so forcefully.

How "low" is the propensity of a low propensity voter defined to be? Just presidential elections, 50% of presidential elections, less than that? Do I recall correctly that in Michigan your registration lapses if you don't vote at least once every 4 yrs? Or has that changed?

I don't think that is proper formulation of the statistical conclusion. If you are looking at categorical outcomes in series, you should properly say that the outcomes distribute with a mean frequency of X out of Y total events observed. And X is a distributed variable whose variance depends on the sample size Y.

Uncertainty is one thing, fudging about their MOE is another. When you are making sample bias adjustments that are purely speculative that swing your results by as much as 5-10% (as Cohn has reported they do) you should be publishing your poll results with a disclaimer that the MOE is more like 8-10% in reality. But if they admitted that, no-one would care about their results, but that is more like where things actually stand for this cycle. The polls I think are most likely to be close this cycle are the single district Congressional polls because you are sampling a more homogeneous population in a single district and sample bias issues become a smaller source of error even given that district polls are usually smaller samples.

I don't know if it was someone up thread here or I saw it somewhere else tonight, but the observation was that Trump is no longer trying to win so much as trying to make sure he still has a hardcore movement behind him if he loses. He's making such a wanton and dissolute case to his fans to make sure they have nowhere else to go the get that kind of fix but to him.

there was time I thought it absurd that the Trump campaign would kill a couple of people to get re-elected, but after the last two weeks I really don't have a doubt left they would.

Best take away from the IDF raid in Iran: Iran is completely defenseless against Israeli (or US) air power. Their Russian AD systems failed to take down a single IDF aircraft over the course of IDF attacks on at least 4 separate sites. In fact the IDF deliberately took out air defenses around critical Iranian facilities while leaving the facilities just to make the point about what happens next time. Unless they are completely delusional, that should give the Mullahs more pause than the damage the IDF actually did.

and no cap room either no money to spend either. How do you end up with no cap room and a mediocre team?

Edvinsson logs 24 minutes tonight, not good enough to break into the line-up until game 69 of last season.

18 seconds. 🫤

I think there are two dynamics at work. The first is that not only a little craziness but also a lot of energy exist as you move away from the milquetoast middle, and you if you can help it you don't want to lose that energy by repudiating/driving those folks away. I think the other is that even among some centrist Democratic leaders (though certainly not Biden), there is more intellectual alignment with the fringes in their hearts than they ever own to because they know they must not. (and to be clear, I think this is true of both sides)

Right - It takes two to tango and the exit of both Patterson and Coleman Young leaves a completely different public dynamic at work. For every suburbanite who hates the city, there is at least one more who pulls for its recovery. And as a practical matter, the resolution of the city's bankruptcy has gotten the city out of the news cycle as an economic crisis hanging over the state where it was for a couple of decades.

the bigots must be really getting off on the permission Trump's campaign is giving them. Free at Last after being suppressed in public for 60 yrs.

Bingo

It was only fair.

I'm not sure if he actually invented it, but Bogle and Vanguard pretty much put index investing on the map didn't they? No small thing to be responsible for one the biggest paradigm shifts for individual investors. The first guy that made an impression on me was Peter Lynch - who built the famous Magellan fund at Fidelity. Not quite the same approach as Bogle (buy the market and leave it alone) but also conservative in its own way - buy and hold value, don't 'play' the market, don't try to be a market technician from your spare bedroom office.

yeah - It's a skill - apparently not her best. Could be part of the prosecutorial habit.