American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[GGG]

What’s wrong is the expectation of 100% accuracy on a 50% event.

Anyone saying with confidence that they can predict the result here is wrong. This is what polling does so well. It tells you that this race is not predicable within the margin of error.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by opendoor

He was wrong in 2000 when he predicted Gore.

And really, he was wrong in 2016 as well. Pre-2000 election, he said his keys predicted the winner of the election. But then when Gore lost despite winning the popular vote, he started saying that they keys can't predict the electoral college, and they actually predict the popular vote. But then he predicted Trump in 2016, who lost the popular vote.

Lichtman tallks about 2000 in the first article I posted, and he seems correct. When asked about 2016 I think he gets a bit defensive and kinda arrogant.

However his predictions are still as good as anyone's.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Duruss

Lichtman tallks about 2000 in the first article I posted, and he seems correct. When asked about 2016 I think he gets a bit defensive and kinda arrogant.

However his predictions are still as good as anyone's.

So, borderline worthless?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Yes, the entire interview was a joke, it's not about the questions.

If you can't let someone answer a question and interrupt them every single time you shouldn't have a job.

Obviously, its Fox so having trash like Baier, Hannity, Ingram it was to be expected.

Maybe Baier should spend more time learning how to be a journalist and less time getting Botox injections to look like a clown.

I watched both interviews fully (Trump at Bloomberg and Kamala at Fox News). Definitely correct that the Bloomberg interviewer was much more professional and actually gave Trump opportunities to respond and for the most part didn't talk over him, whereas the Fox interviewer was insufferably conducting the interviewing. That being said, Kamala was doing her fair share of talking over the interviewer and interrupting as well - it was just a much more confrontational interview in general, which is expected. She was going into hostile territory, whereas Trump was interviewing in front of a bunch of Republican grey hairs. But to claim it was just the interviewer is pretty one-sided, she was definitely annoying on her end in some parts as well.

I thought Kamala started pretty poorly, but found her footing and did a good job addressing Trump's craziness on the democratic process. I thought Trump (as usual) rambled and lied mindlessly, and I'm not sure how in the world anyone would watch that interview and think he is a serious candidate for the most powerful job in the world. It's like watching a parody, but it's scary because he's actually real and could potentially (if he wins) do some significant damage to the country and the world.

[devo22]

Mitch McConnell said after the 2020 election that then-President Donald Trump was “stupid as well as being ill-tempered,” a “despicable human being” and a “narcissist,” according to excerpts from a new biography of the Senate Republican leader that will be released this month.

https://apnews.com/article/mcconnell...336504abc2281f


Mitch McConnell of all people calling other people "despicable human beings" is my kind of humour.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Itse

So, borderline worthless?

I can agree with that. It a schrodingers box, what fun! I hope the canister doesn't go off.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by devo22

https://apnews.com/article/mcconnell...336504abc2281f


Mitch McConnell of all people calling other people "despicable human beings" is my kind of humour.

As the kids say these days; there's levels to this game.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Trump has really pulled ahead in the betting markets. He's up to -182 to win the election now. It was even about three weeks ago. Harris is at +154.

I’d put money on Harris.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by devo22

https://apnews.com/article/mcconnell...336504abc2281f


Mitch McConnell of all people calling other people "despicable human beings" is my kind of humour.

These people have been in the game on The Hill for so long that they see the things that other people do as, "despicable", yet don't see their own actions the same way. Whether it's helping to suppress the vote of certain communities that aren't supporters of your party (when your country loves to talk about your "fair elections"), sending weapons to a country that is firing on targets knowing mass casualties of children will occur, or knowing that you will lie to the UN in order to gather support for an invasion of a country you know was not involved in what you are accusing them of - they're all hypocrites.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by devo22

https://apnews.com/article/mcconnell...336504abc2281f


Mitch McConnell of all people calling other people "despicable human beings" is my kind of humour.

He was calling Trump stupid in 2016! He held a meeting and told Republican to concentrate on House and Senate races because the presidency was lost.

[Senator Clay Davis]

And yet like the rest of cowards who could have actually done something they did nothing, cause Trump was (and remains) the most useful of idiots. Not that you ever wanna say "Credit to Liz Cheney", but at least she put herself on the record. Hiding behind leaks and unauthorized biographies or whatever is pure cowardice.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by devo22

https://apnews.com/article/mcconnell...336504abc2281f


Mitch McConnell of all people calling other people "despicable human beings" is my kind of humour.

Mitch is evil incarnate, and one of the most despicable "people" on earth. I'm not convinced he is a human being.

But in this one specific scenario he may be addressing someone who is more despicable than him, all things considered.

[Ozy_Flame]

For your Friday brain

https://twitter.com/user/status/1847317252754076064

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GGG

What’s wrong is the expectation of 100% accuracy on a 50% event.

Anyone saying with confidence that they can predict the result here is wrong. This is what polling does so well. It tells you that this race is not predicable within the margin of error.

Polls predict that its unpridictable lol

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Polls predict that its unpridictable lol

Why do you expect them to do more than that when you could hold the actual election on two different days and get different results.

But polls telling you that there is a 50/50 chance of either outcome is more information than without polling.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

For your Friday brain

https://twitter.com/user/status/1847317252754076064

Donald has soiled himself during his rallies. It's why he wears a diaper. I wonder how many of the Alphas who bow down to him know he wears a diaper. I mean he is 78 so its normal, but wonder what people like DoubleK and FireItUp think when they realize their god wears a diaper.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Donald has soiled himself during his rallies. It's why he wears a diaper. I wonder how many of the Alphas who bow down to him know he wears a diaper. I mean he is 78 so its normal, but wonder what people like DoubleK and FireItUp think when they realize their god wears a diaper.

Depends on how they lap it up...

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why do you expect them to do more than that when you could hold the actual election on two different days and get different results.

But polls telling you that there is a 50/50 chance of either outcome is more information than without polling.

I dont which is why I think riding a rollercoaster of poll results like they actually matter is stupid. I also dont think one of them would win on Tuesday and a different result on Wednesday. People are decided. Heck some swing states have already had 20% of last elections total already cast. We are talking doubling previous early voting records.

[Sylvanfan]

I'll admit I placed a token bet on Kamala to win. I'm more interested to see how long I have to wait for the payout if she does win. Part of me thinks that factors into the odds. If Trump won they'd have to pay out right away...with Harris they might have a year or longer while the Trump camp makes s|-|it up till they need to pay out.

[dino7c]

I made a Biden popular vote bet last time...free money. Trumpers are dumb (spoiler)