gehringer_2

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.

So here is the logic as I read it. There are probably no voters out there this cycle voting on policy detail. The media like to maintain the fiction that there are, but the only policy that has traction this cycle is abortion, and nothing either candidate says about that matters because there is no ambiguity that the Dems are pro choice and Trump presided over the repeal of Roe - so there is no possible movement for that segment of policy voters. On everything else, Dems are going to accept anything Harris throws out on policy because they are Dems and whether Harris is their 1st policy choice or not, Trump looks like the apocalypse so you aren't going to get them any more motivated about Medicare policy than they already are about the risk of Trump. (Dem voters would normally be interested in policy detail in most cycles, but I just don't see it this one.) OTOH. no republican is ever going to vote for Harris based knowing finer details of Democratic policy proposals, they are republicans and aren't going to like Democratic policies in broad strokes or fine details. The only logic for the Dems wrt those voters is to either get them to stay home or vote Harris because Trump is just too toxic, not because of anything Harris says about her policies. So I think the group that Harris wants to reach to at this point are those Repubs, and for them the message is 100% - "Think about how bad Trump is before you pull a level for him." -- while not throwing out the kind of policy detail that a GOP voter might fix on as a show stopper. If I'm Harris, the only reason I talk policy at this point to maintain a progressive posture - to stress a change agenda. For this the details of the change are also only marginally important.

IDK - I tend to believe the messaging in every modern campaigns has been thoroughly strategized and market tested and none of it is accidental - unless you have a totally undisciplined candidate - like Trump. The Dems may well be wrong, but I would guess they have internal data that is telling them to keep talking about Trump. After all, neither you or I are the target audience here, so how it strikes us isn't where they are aiming.

maybe rightfully, but I still don't think they would be. Trump pushes immigration and the border and it works for him in so many places were there isn't even any immigration problem, because he's making immigrants the 'scape goat for the dwindling middle class's anger and there is a big dose of retribution sentiment there - thus all the talk about deportation. IMO - the Dems would never have taken that ground from Trump even if they had never given the 1st 'open-boarder' believer a microphone because they were never going where Trump is willing to. OTOH - yeah 'defund the police' was shot placed directly in the foot.

I'd say it's probably because the modern 'extremism' of the right is on economic issues that are complex and poorly understood by the public, while the modern 'extremes' on the left tend to be about lifestyle and cultural issue on which everyone is their own certified expert. Unfortunately, the damage to society is much greater by the former than the latter.

It's going to be hard because what we have thought we understood about information and truth since maybe the Renaissance has been turned on it's head by the explosion of information of the IT age. Today the challenge isn't to get the truth heard, it's to prevent it being buried in a barrage of false noise. The practices and procedures that worked for the former problem are obsolete to deal with the latter.