I've mentioned before I like to listen to him because it's important to me to know what conservatives are thinking and saying. They may not be people to you, but, I still want to know. I have a regular rotation of podcasts that cover the spectrum of opinions, which may not be your cup of tea, but , that's your loss.
I've mentioned before I like to listen to him because it's important to me to know what conservatives are thinking and saying. They may not be people to you, but, I still want to know. I have a regular rotation of podcasts that cover the spectrum of opinions, which may not be your cup of tea, but , that's your loss.
I recognize con men when I hear them. Shapiro is not a conservative. He's a bomb throwing agent provocateur, hiding behind a facade of a wannabe intellectual. He's a less feminine Milo Yianoppolis. Thinking he is a conservative and then allowing him to represent conservatives is part of the problem with American politics. He is not representative of a large swath of the American people. His views are extreme and he enjoys being on the fringe. To make his views look reasonable he invites on people with even more extreme rhetoric and then tries to soften their views so they seem "mainstream." If you can't see through these hucksters that shows you're not paying attention to them and recognizing their framing practices or their underlying themes to their conversations. That's your problem.
I recognize con men when I hear them. Shapiro is not a conservative. He's a bomb throwing agent provocateur, hiding behind a facade of a wannabe intellectual. He's a less feminine Milo Yianoppolis. Thinking he is a conservative and then allowing him to represent conservatives is part of the problem with American politics. He is not representative of a large swath of the American people. His views are extreme and he enjoys being on the fringe. To make his views look reasonable he invites on people with even more extreme rhetoric and then tries to soften their views so they seem "mainstream." If you can't see through these hucksters that shows you're not paying attention to them and recognizing their framing practices or their underlying themes to their conversations. That's your problem.
Which conservative voices do you regularly listen to or read then? I'm always interested in expanding my horizons. Right now it's fairly liberal leaning between Pakman, 538, the Daily, and the lone conservative voice Shapiro. Help a brother out.
__________________
Last edited by White Out 403; 09-06-2020 at 02:57 PM.
I'm still in awe how many Americans support that orange cockroach and are blind to the damage he's doing to America. America's quality of life is in decline and their international reputation is cratering; if these Americans don't change their tune, they're in for a massive reckoning in the near future.
The world is moving on without them, and will continue to do so under Trump's leadership. I feel the worst for the good logical, informed American people that recognize this too.
When people go to the voting booth they will vote on their very small and personal issue. Has life been better the last 4 years or not. There are people who were hurt under Obama. Perhaps they were unemployed then but not now. Perhaps they like private healthcare more than obamacare. For some people it's about taxes, or guns, or abortion. Some of the smartest Republicans I know sincerely believe that opposition to abortion is an issue of the utmost moral significance. If that’s how you truly feel, it’s easy to justify a vote for even a terrible Republican like Trump who will appoint right-wing justices.
There are so many factors, more than the general big issues on the news.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Which conservative voices do you regularly listen to or read then? I'm always interested in expanding my horizons.
Hmmmm, that's a good question. So many of the traditional conservative voices have been drowned out in the sea of stupid. People I still like to read for a balanced look at the traditional conservative point of view include Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, and Jonah Goldberg. With the advent of Trumpism some of the more extreme conservatives (think neoconservatives) have shifted to the middle (or the middle shifted to them), so Bill Kristol, and David Frum come to mind. I tend to read more magazines/sites than I do specific voices. I will read the The Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, Prospect Magazine, The Spectator, The American Conservative, National Review, The American Spectator, and Reason. Many voices through just a few portals. I think they give a reasonable perspective on things and I don't have to dive into the cesspool that has become the extreme right in America. Ironically, I read some of these more than I read anything else, and agree with the takes there, so maybe that will tell you how ####ed up American politics are.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Which conservative voices do you regularly listen to or read then? I'm always interested in expanding my horizons. Right now it's fairly liberal leaning between Pakman, 538, the Daily, and the lone conservative voice Shapiro. Help a brother out.
There are no important conservative voices anymore, conservatism is dead, it died in truth decades before Trump with Reagan running the debt into the roof to pay for a both tax cuts and a massive increase in military spending, what runs the GOP now is nativist imperialism with facist overtones and good old grift, the voice of this mess is Rush Limbaugh, 4 times divorced proponent of family values who takes a strong stand on law and order and immigration controls while sending his latino housekeeper off to score his oxy
“Even though nobody asked my permission, I wasn’t surprised to learn that #Trump #864511320 used #Houseof theRisingSun for his rally the other day. A tale of sin and misery set in a brothel suits him so perfectly! Far more appropriate for this time in our history might be.”
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Hmmmm, that's a good question. So many of the traditional conservative voices have been drowned out in the sea of stupid. People I still like to read for a balanced look at the traditional conservative point of view include Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, and Jonah Goldberg. With the advent of Trumpism some of the more extreme conservatives (think neoconservatives) have shifted to the middle (or the middle shifted to them), so Bill Kristol, and David Frum come to mind. I tend to read more magazines/sites than I do specific voices. I will read the The Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, Prospect Magazine, The Spectator, The American Conservative, National Review, The American Spectator, and Reason. Many voices through just a few portals. I think they give a reasonable perspective on things and I don't have to dive into the cesspool that has become the extreme right in America. Ironically, I read some of these more than I read anything else, and agree with the takes there, so maybe that will tell you how ####ed up American politics are.
Add George Will to the list. I also think The Economist is a worthwhile read for anybody, regardless of your political views.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
I’m not smart enough to figure out whether this projection (currently showing Biden at 84% to win) is better or worse than the 538 model that has Biden at 70% or so. Nor do I know how we would ever know that....
But I like it because it lists the most recent polls included in the model right below the updated projection.
And nationally it looks like the conventions (perhaps not surprisingly) have not moved the needle. The best result in a national poll for Trump is the Harvard/Harris poll which (with learners included) shows Biden ahead 53-47.
My only slight quibble is I don’t see state level polls here. So you can find those here, along with the USC/Dornsife poll that the Economist isn’t using (likely because it is so different from the others methodologically)
Some state level notes:
1. YouGov and Morning Consult both have Biden up 50-44 in Wisconsin.
2. Biden is WAY ahead in New Mexico, which is not a huge surprise. NM has been trending blue for years and hasn’t been a true swing state in a while.
3. More strange polls out of Texas showing a very close race there, with Trump ahead by only two and polling under 50%. Makes you wonder when the Democrats will take a risk and spend some money here, though it’s a major risk to do so given how huge the state is, and the history of “close, but no cigar” results for Democrats there.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
You have to really dig into the aggregators methods before using them. For example the Princeton one form 2016 with Hillary at 98% assumed that polling errors at the state level were independent events wheras as the 538 model assumed that they were correlated. So 538 considered that if there was a 2% error in Wisconsin in one direction it would likely also be a 2% error in Michigan in the same direction.
The other difference usually is when they assume the election is. Some aggregators use of the election was held today whereas others dampen with the assumption that races tighten as elections approach.
But given the accuracy of the polling and models 84% and 70% and this point are almost the same number.
Last edited by GGG; 09-06-2020 at 09:15 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
One way to test would be to do run the model against prior elections and see how well it does. Now this doesn't necessary meant he model is predictive because I can easily create a model "If year = 2012 then predict this else if year = 2016 then predict this" which of course is 100% accurate and 100% nonsense, but it's always something to consider that your model isn't simply something that fits history.
49 states correct from 2008
50 states correct from 2012
48 states correct from 2016
I don't know the R programming language but this would be cool to dig into, though I'd probably have to take some stats courses to understand it properly lol.
Very cool link!
EDIT: Oh and for Texas I think they'd also consider how much Trump thinks it's in play and get Trump to spend there to defend instead of spending more elsewhere.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I’m not smart enough to figure out whether this projection (currently showing Biden at 84% to win) is better or worse than the 538 model that has Biden at 70% or so. Nor do I know how we would ever know that....
But I like it because it lists the most recent polls included in the model right below the updated projection.
And nationally it looks like the conventions (perhaps not surprisingly) have not moved the needle. The best result in a national poll for Trump is the Harvard/Harris poll which (with learners included) shows Biden ahead 53-47.
My only slight quibble is I don’t see state level polls here. So you can find those here, along with the USC/Dornsife poll that the Economist isn’t using (likely because it is so different from the others methodologically)
Some state level notes:
1. YouGov and Morning Consult both have Biden up 50-44 in Wisconsin.
2. Biden is WAY ahead in New Mexico, which is not a huge surprise. NM has been trending blue for years and hasn’t been a true swing state in a while.
3. More strange polls out of Texas showing a very close race there, with Trump ahead by only two and polling under 50%. Makes you wonder when the Democrats will take a risk and spend some money here, though it’s a major risk to do so given how huge the state is, and the history of “close, but no cigar” results for Democrats there.
If Biden wins Texas, he will have already won elsewhere, so I doubt they will put a lot of money into that state. 538's explanation of likely tipping point states does a much better job explaining this but, the Dems are more likely to pour money into WI MN FL and PA for example
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
If Biden wins Texas, he will have already won elsewhere, so I doubt they will put a lot of money into that state. 538's explanation of likely tipping point states does a much better job explaining this but, the Dems are more likely to pour money into WI MN FL and PA for example
Intuitively that seems right, and I suspect that is exactly what they will do.
As a counterpoint though, one thing to consider is that Trump’s “base” is non-college educated white voters—one of the reasons he outperformed expectations in places like Wisconsin and Michigan is that those states have a LOT of those voters, especially in rural areas. Further evidence for that can be found in Iowa, which is normally a bellwether but went for Trump by high single digits in 2016 and I’m not even sure the Democrats are going to buy ads there in 2020. Trump narrowly lost Minnesota and the GOP thinks they can flip it this year.
Now what makes Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota different from other “swing” states? One difference is those states have, in relative terms, a LOT of white people. Iowa is 92% white, and is the second whitest true swing state (second only to New Hampshire. Minnesota is not far behind at just over 90%. For comparison, non-Hispanic whites make up about 59% of the US population as a whole.
Meanwhile, non-Hispanic whites make up just 50.5% of the population of New Mexico, which is maybe why Trump is so far behind there. Arizona (where Trump has trailed in recent polls and reportedly has stopped spending money) is about 70% white.
In Texas, traditionally a deep red state, non Hispanic whites are a little over 60% of the population. That’s not to say Texans are not conservative or not (by and large Republicans. It’s just that many conservative Texans are actually not in that core “Trump base” of non-college educated white voters. And the state has slowly been trending purple as its demographics increasingly start to resemble New Mexico.
None of that is to suggest Texas is winnable now but the recent polls are further evidence that at some point we will see significant democratic inroads into the Sun Belt. At the same time, we could see some traditionally democratic midwestern states (like Wisconsin and Michigan) move into the Republican column, but give the number of EVs in Texas I think Democrats would make that trade every day.
With that said you are probably right. The “smart” approach is to focus on the states that the Democrats lost but needed to win in 2016 and I expect that’s what Biden will do.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Indeed. The only reason to spend money in Texas is to put it in play and force the GOP to defend it by spending their own money there. That goal is already accomplished without having to spend a dime. Biden doesn't need Texas to win. Trump does. It's effectively the Republican California.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Indeed. The only reason to spend money in Texas is to put it in play and force the GOP to defend it by spending their own money there. That goal is already accomplished without having to spend a dime. Biden doesn't need Texas to win. Trump does. It's effectively the Republican California.
That might be a good enough reason. After all, Biden’s campaign is currently flush with cash, and while we don’t know how Trump’s is doing there are signs (like going dark in Arizona) that he may be hurting for money right now.
I think it's too much of a hail mary. It's at best a nice to have. Biden's appeal is mainly midwestern. He wins by holding Minnesota and getting back Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and getting out enough Obama voters to take a big swing at North Carolina. If Florida and Ohio are in play, gravy, but even without them that's 304 electoral votes.
Iowa just isn't a swing state at this point.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I think it's too much of a hail mary. It's at best a nice to have. Biden's appeal is mainly midwestern. He wins by holding Minnesota and getting back Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and getting out enough Obama voters to take a big swing at North Carolina. If Florida and Ohio are in play, gravy, but even without them that's 304 electoral votes.
