|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Nov 10, 2024 19:27:02 GMT -5
What are they using as the progressive position on Israel versus Hamas?
Also, “boys in girls’ sports”? Are they using loaded or leading language in all their questions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Nov 10, 2024 19:28:42 GMT -5
Peregrine, it could be ignorance. But the reality is that the progressive views on these issues are political losers with the public. That doesn't mean you should change your strongly held view (for instance, the right will hold its view on abortion despite it being the biggest loser below, because of the view on morality). But it should at least change your strategy: It's absolutely ignorance. The poll questions I posted are about things that are objective facts. It is not up for debate that the stock market is up, illegal border crossings are down, etc. These are objective measurable facts and the data clearly shows that conservatives are wrong about them. First of all, no, it was not visible a long way off. All data prior to the election was showing that it would be, at best, a narrow victory for Trump. Nobody outside the most rabidly pro-Trump bubbles was predicting the margin of victory we got. Second, that still doesn't address the question about contradictory votes at different levels. If progressive views are "political losers" then why did candidates running on those views win at the state level, even in states Trump won? Why did people in Arizona vote for Trump but then also vote against a candidate running on being a devoted Trump loyalist? Whatever the answer is it's certainly not as simple as "democrats have a bad platform". I wouldn't put too much weight on that. It's an incredibly skewed sample since it's only accessible to crypto morons and the pro-Trump odds were strongly skewed by a single bettor placing millions in pro-Trump bets. |
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 914
|
Post by mdgv2 on Nov 10, 2024 19:37:33 GMT -5
We had the same with BogJob in the UK.
A multi-untalented gobshite grifter who, thanks purely to Daddy’s Money And Connections has only ever Failed Upwards. Same with Nigel Farage,
A pair of racist, lying chancers, who despite both coming from very well heeled backgrounds, and all their actions speaking to the contrary, somehow convinced the working man they’re one of the little people.
And I thought I didn’t understand humans at the best of times.
|
|
|
|
Post by normalperson on Nov 10, 2024 20:33:24 GMT -5
I respectfully submit that all data prior to the election was not showing things neck and neck. Polymarket is betting, but it is data, and people are risking real money. The French whale even commissioned his own polls using the "neighbor method", asking people who they thought their neighbors would vote for (rather than themselves): www.outkick.com/betting/french-guy-who-bet-30m-donald-trump-win-election-discloses-betting-methodNot the best link, but the original WSJ is behind a paywall. Anyway, apparently it made a several point difference in the results! Rasmussen was also quite close to the final margin of victory in their polls... ironically these polls were de-weighted by Nate Silver of 538. So I do think there is a bubble effect, and while the prevailing data had it at a coin flip (538 literally ran 80,000 simulations and had a difference of only a dozen or so in their final prediction) it's not the only data. Too many sources reference each other now and create a loop. Obviously 538 in particular (since their whole deal is weighting different sources) needs to go back to the drawing board now. |
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Nov 10, 2024 21:04:57 GMT -5
I respectfully submit that all data prior to the election was not showing things neck and neck. Polymarket is betting, but it is data, and people are risking real money. The French whale even commissioned his own polls using the "neighbor method", asking people who they thought their neighbors would vote for (rather than themselves): Again, Polymarket is a heavily skewed sample because you have to be a crypto moron to participate and we know crypto morons skew pro-Trump. The French guy was right in the end but trusting betting markets for anything is a case of wrong process, right outcome. If the prevailing data had it close to a coin flip then that by definition isn't a bubble effect. Also, it's not just about who would win, it's about how they would win. The consensus was that if Trump won it would be by narrow margins in key states and a popular vote loss, not a nationwide right-ward shift with a popular vote win and solid margins in every key state. And the overwhelming consensus was that if either candidate did win by decisive margins the usual coattail effect would apply. Instead neither prediction was accurate, somehow Trump won a decisive victory while pro-Trump candidates down the ballot lost. |
|
|
|
Post by normalperson on Nov 10, 2024 21:21:43 GMT -5
My view would be that it's just a really big bubble  . You also have two alternate landscapes forming (podcasts and X for the right, cable news and things like Threads for the left). Maybe there's a better term than bubble. But it's a miss, regardless, and I pointed out the French bettor's method because he was able to discern this ahead of time using data (and literal privately commissioned polling), not just conjecture. I'm not personally surprised about down ballot candidates not matching Trump's performance. He's a phenomena all his own, but the hangers-on have never done as well as he has himself. Kari Lake is particularly notable for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Nov 10, 2024 22:10:45 GMT -5
My view would be that it's just a really big bubble . Which is a nonsense definition. The whole point of a bubble is that it's isolated from the wider world. If your "bubble" is most of the world then it isn't a bubble anymore. Which is a data point of one. Was his methodology good or did he just get lucky with a single bet? The fact that he was only willing to talk about it after he won suggests treating it with an ocean of salt as there's no falsifiability here. Compare him to the crypto moron industry as a whole. Cryptocurrency is an incredibly obvious pyramid scheme with fundamental and fatal flaws that prevent it from becoming anything else and yet people have made money by betting on it. Does that mean they have a sound financial strategy, or just that they're lucky enough that someone else is even more gullible than they are and willing to take the loss? Did the French guy get it right when nobody else did, or did he merely do the equivalent of buying bitcoin in its early days and getting lucky that a bunch of idiots sent its value way beyond reason? But if Trump is "a phenomena all his own" then you can't talk about whether progressive views are a winning strategy or any of that. By your argument here Trump won because Trump is Trump, no other lesson can be learned from it. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Nov 11, 2024 3:49:21 GMT -5
I think it's usually the case that in hard times, the incumbent gets voted out regardless of the why. If people aren't doing well, they vote for the other guy for change. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.
I'm seeing a lot of chatter on social media about ballots not being counted or just missing. Nothing in a huge scale, a few thousand didn't make it from a machine to a counter after a USB stick was misplaced, boxes of unopened ballots falling off trucks, and a lot of people who voted being able to check on line and having them not registered or counted somehow. Shouldn't that all be wrapped up by now? That, coupled with some suspicious statements from Trump (his little secret plan, how he flipped from claiming it was already rigged to being sure it wasn't rigged) and the huge margins he took swing states by out of nowhere, some people are thinking something funny is going on but can't prove anything yet. Is that just the denial stage of grief happening or do we think there's anything behind it? Personally, I'm struggling to marry up the footage of quiet Trump rallies and seemingly apathy with the huge swing towards Trump, but I'm not sure if that's a bubble thing or not. I don't see much pro-Trump stuff despite looking, but apparently if you start a fresh social media account you get a lot of right wing stuff pretty quickly. I'm also struggling to believe that that much of the voting population is that angry/stupid/gullible, but I could be wrong. I can help with this. You are in a bubble. Everyone around here was willing to crawl over broken glass to vote the current admin out. Trump rallies were big as usual. I'm inundated with Pro-Trump stuff. So yeah, you're in a bubble. I am too probably, which is why I occasionally lurk here, to see what the exact opposite view of the world looks like. But there's no lack of enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters, you're just not being exposed to it. Thanks. It's pretty hard to get out of the bubble. Can you share any good pro-Trump sources you think we should be seeing? |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Nov 11, 2024 3:54:44 GMT -5
My view would be that it's just a really big bubble . You also have two alternate landscapes forming (podcasts and X for the right, cable news and things like Threads for the left). Maybe there's a better term than bubble. But it's a miss, regardless, and I pointed out the French bettor's method because he was able to discern this ahead of time using data (and literal privately commissioned polling), not just conjecture. I'm not personally surprised about down ballot candidates not matching Trump's performance. He's a phenomena all his own, but the hangers-on have never done as well as he has himself. Kari Lake is particularly notable for this. It's definitely bigger than a bubble now, with algorithmic media feeds. Even very targeted searched provide different results depending on your history. It's almost like there are 2 internets now. It's just that the 2 bubbles are now the political left and political right. We may see the same video but with a completely different context depending on side. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Nov 11, 2024 3:56:37 GMT -5
Trump rallies were big as usual. We have video and photo evidence that they weren't. To be fair, it's possible that those videos were all misleading. If they are busy enough people may be leaving early to get beat traffic. The people falling asleep may be because they've been queuing since midnight. I can't explain the empty seating though. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Nov 11, 2024 4:11:09 GMT -5
I wonder if it was just a combination of the quiet conservative* and the Democrats being too cocky. To Dems, who in their right mind would vote Trump? A view from the 'liberal elites'** And with a small Dem lead, some may not bother voting. On the converse, it being a small Dem lead brings out the Trump voters, protest votes etc, just like Brexit***.
I saw a video where a journalist claims he was told a university was full of Trump supporters, so went round asking and could only find people claiming to vote for Harris or were still undecided****.
* Are quiet liberals a thing? I've only seen it the other way round in the UK whey feel voting Tory is socially unacceptable so pretend they aren't giving a higher-than-predicted vote share every time.
** Nothing upsets someone like calling them stupid, and to a lot of people, anyone who went to college is a liberal elite.
*** Everyone was so sure it'd be a clear remain, that a lot of people voted leave in protest, tipping it to a leave win and regretful economic destruction.
**** The day before an election, anyone claiming to be undecided clearly just doesn't want to answer out loud, which I presume means a vote for Trump. I can't see there being any rational middle ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Nov 11, 2024 4:43:37 GMT -5
The problem with being too 'cocky' or 'elitist' is that you either have to count on voters to actually educate themselves and have them listen to people with more expertise, or go hardcore into just lying to counter the lies of the opposing side.
Given that 50%+ of voters think Trump would do better on the economy, when all the experts are pulling their hair out over his concepts of policy plans about tariffs (or mass deportation), should be a good indication about the viability of the first option.
Better policy doesn't simply beat lies, unless that is packaged in a charismatic (you know, a straight man) candidate.
|
|
crispy78
OT Cowboy
Posts: 309
Member is Online
|
Post by crispy78 on Nov 11, 2024 5:12:50 GMT -5
* Are quiet liberals a thing? I've only seen it the other way round in the UK whey feel voting Tory is socially unacceptable so pretend they aren't giving a higher-than-predicted vote share every time. One group that was certainly hypothesised and at least anecdotally confirmed was wives and daughters in supposedly-Trump households voting Democrat because of the abortion rights / control of their own bodies issue. How much it actually happened, I doubt we will ever know - they seem like a group that aren't likely to admit to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Nov 11, 2024 5:19:49 GMT -5
Between Biden and Harris there was only a 2% shift in white woman towards Harris compared to Biden. However, Trump gained 1% on hispanic women. So it probably did happen occasionally, but it's statistically insignificant.
|
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Nov 11, 2024 5:20:10 GMT -5
* Are quiet liberals a thing? I've only seen it the other way round in the UK whey feel voting Tory is socially unacceptable so pretend they aren't giving a higher-than-predicted vote share every time. One group that was certainly hypothesised and at least anecdotally confirmed was wives and daughters in supposedly-Trump households voting Democrat because of the abortion rights / control of their own bodies issue. How much it actually happened, I doubt we will ever know - they seem like a group that aren't likely to admit to it.
That's a group that seems at direct risk of harm from admitting it. I don't think we'll ever get good figures on how much it happened. I suspect we'll get rough figures on how many women were beaten by husbands for the suspected betrayal though.
|
|
. You also have two alternate landscapes forming (podcasts and X for the right, cable news and things like Threads for the left). Maybe there's a better term than bubble. But it's a miss, regardless, and I pointed out the French bettor's method because he was able to discern this ahead of time using data (and literal privately commissioned polling), not just conjecture.