15October24

https://www.cookpolitical.com/survey-research/2024-swing-state-project/02Oct2024-toplines

Likely Voters in 7 swing states (Oct 2024):

"H 49% v T 48%"

If T overcount (re: women) 2%, then

H 49% v T 46% :victory: :mask:

"Wishful thinking?" TBD.

>>> Roevember 21

Roevember 21 — 180 Proof

What does this mean?

Roevember 21
— 180 Proof

What does this mean? — Mikie

21 days until Roevember election day (i.e. the Harris-Walz blowout).

:up:

>>> Roevember — 180 Proof

Roevember — 180 Proof

I don't get what you mean by 'Roevember' instead of November. I understand the quid has to do with Roe, but I have no idea what you mean, honestly. :sweat:

Roe vs. Wade was overturned largely thanks to Trump getting the lying Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court. @180 Proof thinks this has cost Trump a lot support from women now that all sorts of abortion bans have been implemented in various US states. So "Roevember" reflects his expectation of a landslide victory for Kamala Harris as a result.

Edit: Take for instance Brett's story about the "Devil's Triangle". That's apparently a game of quarters with three cups arranged in a triangle. The rules are unknown because the inventor of the game, Brett Kavanaugh, could not explain them under oath.

It's also commonly known as a threesome involving two men and one woman.

It's also commonly known as a threesome involving two men and one woman. — Benkei

Ah, as Macron said to Trump and Melania: ménage à trois.

It's Scooby Doo saying "November".

Is Kamala 2024 Clinton 2016?

You always got the sense that the Democratic Party resented having to learn anything from losing in 2016.

There’s no doubt that all the excuse-making that followed — blaming Russia, James Comey, the media, anyone but Hillary Clinton and her campaign — was the party’s desperate attempt to avoid taking responsibility for letting Donald Trump win and to assuage anger from their rank and file, lest they hold the party leadership accountable.

But tell a lie incessantly enough, and you start to believe it. And you can’t help but feel that Democrats really do believe that they ran a great campaign that would and should have won, if only it hadn’t been for the dastardly villains who pulled the rug out. This year, they seem determined to prove that thesis.

At first, there were hopes that Kamala Harris’s ascension to the Democratic candidacy was going to bring some kind of new, exciting vision to the election fight, possibly combining Joe Biden’s early, halting economic populism with the personal charisma, optimism, and history-making aspects of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Gone was the “basement strategy” of hiding the candidate from unscripted media. So were the by now stale warnings about Republicans threatening democracy and dictatorship, in favor of the new, deflating label of “weird.” Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” suggested she’d lead the country not just out of the morass of Trumpism but in a different direction from Biden’s disastrous last two years.

So much for that. For weeks now, it’s been clear the Harris campaign has decided that it’s going to rerun the Clinton 2016 strategy on the off chance that that year really was a fluke, and that Trump really is so hated that Americans will have no choice but to vote for his opponent. It didn’t work in 2016, but this time . . .

What does that look like in practice? It looks like dropping the “negative” label of weird and performing civil disagreement instead. It looks like giving up on exciting the party’s progressive flank — actively thumbing your nose at them, in fact — and explicitly pivoting to trying to win over Republicans instead. It looks like rolling out white papers and policy positions that few will read, while rarely talking publicly about what you would actually do when given the chance at a public forum. Like running to Trump’s right on immigration and foreign policy, even calling Iran, absurdly, the country’s most dangerous adversary and suggesting you might launch a preemptive strike on it.

Okay, Democrats would say, but what about some of Harris’s policy announcements? Like her housing platform, for instance, which pledges to build three million homes and to give first-time homebuyers a grant of up to $25,000? Or what about her recent announcement that she would expand Medicare to cover home care services, vision, and hearing? Doesn’t that point to a different, more progressive policy–based direction than Clinton’s 2016 run, even if she barely talks about it?

The answer to which is, not really, because this platform is actually a major step backward from the Biden years. It’s true the sitting president often seemed reluctant to run forcefully on the populist agenda he had taken up as a way to make nice with Bernie Sanders voters, but that agenda was fairly ambitious: among other things, it featured universal pre-K, free community college (for two years), childcare subsidies, paid leave, Medicare expansion, and a more generous child tax credit. Everything but the last two are now out in Harris’s day one agenda.

What I was saying earlier.

When Trump wins they have no one to blame but themselves.

:rofl:

Today in Trumpenfreude




Trending ...

:victory: :mask:

I wonder if Diaper Don The Fascist Clown will watch the FOX Noise interview with VPOTUS tonight? :smirk:

>>> Roevember 20

@Wayfarer @Fooloso4 @Benkei @jorndoe

Right. I'm still apprehensively optimistic that Harris-Walz will win, but the fact that it's as close as it is, is a source of deep disquiet. He really ought to have been booed offstage long since.

I watched a few snippets of the Fox interview. Harris holds her ground as always. Baier had the temerity to play a Trump campaign advertisement during the break and interrupted continuously. But then that’s the kind of crassness you’d expect from MAGA media.

Voters Warned Ballots Flushed Down Toilet Will No Longer Be Counted (— The Onion · Oct 17, 2024 · 1m:40s)

Baier's need to control the message is the message.

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/940299

part 2:



>>> Roevember 19

@Baden @Mikie @Wayfarer

One thing for sure, the Master Propogandist has sure as hell put Jan 6 front and centre for the last three weeks of the run up, with his Day of Love shtick. I'm going to get AI to make me a 1969 style psychedelic poster with Day of Love in flouro, and DJT against the MAGA mob in silhouette.

Hey I did it



:rofl: :lol: :rofl:

:clap: :lol:

There's a buck or two to be made selling Dem Kool Aid, apparently.

The race is a toss up as it stands. A "blue tsunami" would require a major shift. Which is possible, but it would have to be very big news.

Will it be Muppet A or Muppet B?

Oh, the suspense is palpable.

:sweat: Sounds like you drank the Polymarket kool-aid, mate.

What "suspense"? "Muppet B" is crashing and burning today even worse than he did from early voting in 2020. :victory: :mask:

This should help explain why the polymarket odds are so skewed now.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/betting-election-pro-trump-ad74aa71?mod=mhp

Article is behind a paywall. It's 40/60 on Polymarket. I'd say bet Kamala but US citizens aren't allowed to use the site.

I don't see how Polymarket is anything but a betting market for bettors looking to earn a buck.

I don't see how Polymarket is anything but a betting market for bettors looking to earn a buck. — BitconnectCarlos

That’s really all it is. I don’t see how they have any special insight otherwise.

:up:

We don't need polymarket as a primary source anyway. It just reflects the polls. When Kamala was about 3% ahead nationally, polymarket read 50/50. She is now about 2% ahead, so it reads 60/40 Trump. She probably needs to be more than 3% ahead nationally to win, considering the Republican advantage in the electoral college set up (e.g. HRC won by over 2% and lost). People betting large amounts most likely know that, so more of them are likely to be betting Trump. 60/40 is still a toss up. But leans Trump. That`s also your most recent evaluation. It's not rocket science.

Maybe the polymarket crowd slightly over fancies Trump, but it's in broad agreement with what the polls suggest and has been all along. And maybe people are confused because a small movement in the polls causes a larger movement in the betting markets. Those literate in basic mathematics should understand why that is and don't need polymarket to tell them what aggregate polls are already saying.

Political idiots like Elon Musk play into this misunderstanding by claiming polymarket is more accurate then the polls. No, it just tracks the polls. It's derivative and will continue to be so.

Yeah but it isn’t for that reason. It’s actually due to about four people. Hence the article I posted. 60/40 is a lot by this election’s standards.

Whether Harris needs 3% to win is disputable now, given inroads Trump has made in Florida, New York, and California. Nate Cohn has written about this well. His electoral edge is probably slipping.

Yeah I still think he’s going to win, but it’s because Harris is a dud. Not because of the polls.

Yeah but it isn’t for that reason. It’s actually due to about four people — Mikie

No, it's not. His odds have been going up rapidly across betting markets generally since the start of October. Averages about 59% overall now. Maybe polymarket very slightly overestimates relative to the average but it's hardly detectable. The "four people controlling this" story is kind of a silly distraction. The betting odds are increasingly favouring Trump because Kamala is sinking in the polls and the polls are the most reliable means of figuring out odds.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/10/18/betting-markets-presidential-election-odds-trump-harris/

Of course, if the polls are wrong, the betting odds will be even more wrong, like they were in 2016. But then it was state level polls that were mostly out. The last aggregate national poll on 538 was right within the margin of error.