In terms of tracking what’s going on this 538 site should be really useful. It uses 2020 data to track on a county by county basis the returns we should expect if the state was tied.
wasn't Christopher Bouzy really accurate in past elections? He's predicting a landslide for Harris, with 349 electoral votes. Will be interesting to see how far off he is.
The Following User Says Thank You to devo22 For This Useful Post:
I don’t think the situation we were discussing ever occurred. Judges in Missouri and Texas refused to grant injunctions and the states agreed to let them in.
I think you said they wouldn’t be able to go to court in time. In the Missouri case the courts ruled in favour of the DOJ. We never really got the test of the DOJ trying to go when a state tried to ban them.https://www.democracydocket.com/news...olling-places/
It happened exactly as I outlined. They went to court failed to get injunctions and then allowed observers in
One of us said this
The other said
And
I will let you decide which of the two posters more accurately described the process of what would happen.
Sure, I did. You were abdamnent they were not going to be allowed in and asked me what makes me think things would change from a prior decision. Thanks for playing though. Trump supporters sure are grumpy today....
More good Mayor Pete footage, this time on Fox. I don't know if I'd agree with the tweeter that he schooled the host, but he did show that he can handle himself incredibly well when he's faced with someone who tries to not let him speak.
Sure, I did. You were abdamnent they were not going to be allowed in and asked me what makes me think things would change from a prior decision. Thanks for playing though. Trump supporters sure are grumpy today....
Are you a Trump supporter? Your arrogance on subjects you clearly have no education could fool me into thinking you are one.
Are you a Trump supporter? Your arrogance on subjects you clearly have no education could fool me into thinking you are one.
Based on what? I said the DOJ has avenues and laws to be there and GGG said if they didn't want to allow them they would be blocked and what made me think that would t happen. Like do you fail at reading comprehension? Or are you just being a troll as per usual? Nothing I have posted has been pro Trump.
Based on what? I said the DOJ has avenues and laws to be there and GGG said if they didn't want to allow them they would be blocked and what made me think that would t happen. Like do you fail at reading comprehension? It are you just being a troll as per usual?
lol keep piling on. The more you talk, the more you show your idiocy
The Following User Says Thank You to ThePrince For This Useful Post:
2020 pre-dated overturning of Roe v Wade. It's one of the reasons I don't think polling can be trusted this election.
Thank you for the needle though!
I think in terms of out performing the minimum required for a Democrat to win it’s probably still valid. If county by county they are worse off than 2020 results by more than a % or 2 they are probably in trouble.
The needle likely uses similar assessments to the 538 in live calculating probability.
I think voting 3rd party or not voting should be respected, not mocked. People should always vote in line with with their own morals or beliefs, even if a single issue where arguably too much weight is going toward the one issue is guiding that vote.
But yeah, at this point “they’re both terrible” while pointing to the most surface level, insignificant measurements to justify that belief just makes someone look lazy and stupid.
My issue with not voting because both candidates are "terrible" is that it effectively incentivizes terrible candidates.
A Candidate or a party is going after their own supporters. It's becoming more and more common. The middle ground is being lost and those people are political nomads.
meanwhile, the people that vote and support "terrible" candidates are being courted, because they actually vote!
40% of eligible voters don't vote. Parties don't seem to care as long as their supporters show up.
Donald Trump doesnt care about the "they are both terrible" voters. He cares about his supporters showing up; and last election, he got millions of them.
wasn't Christopher Bouzy really accurate in past elections? He's predicting a landslide for Harris, with 349 electoral votes. Will be interesting to see how far off he is.
I think election accuracy is a lot like mutual fund performance. You have a few good years in a row and people start to believe you. And since the headline is all people remember you really just had to say Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 and you probably got 6 in a row. So say 50/50 for bush and gore and 1/4 for Trump means 1/8 people perhaps 1/20 once you add up the other elections of always being right.
I think election accuracy is a lot like mutual fund performance. You have a few good years in a row and people start to believe you. And since the headline is all people remember you really just had to say Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 and you probably got 6 in a row. So say 50/50 for bush and gore and 1/4 for Trump means 1/8 people perhaps 1/20 once you add up the other elections of always being right.
while true, Bouzy still was adamant early there wouldn't be a red wave in 2022 and things like that. I'll take your point when it comes to someone like Allan Lichtman, whose model is severly outdated IMO but still might be right once again. But Bouzy was actually really precise in midterms, senate and congress races too IIRC. Doesn't have to hold up this time obviously, but given his strong track record I was surprised to see such an overly blue map from him. Would be happy if he was right though
The Following User Says Thank You to devo22 For This Useful Post:
I don't know, it's kind of hard to take Bouzy seriously when he was posting this kind of stuff 2 days before Biden dropped out of the race and it was abundantly clear to everyone that he didn't have a chance of winning:
