How many federal employees does it take to remove a log?

Harris is a dud — Mikie

Something, I guess, we can all agree on.

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. — Baden

Over the past two weeks, the chances of a Trump victory in the November election have surged on Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market. Its bettors were giving Trump a 60% chance of winning on Friday, while Harris’s chances were 40%. The candidates were in a dead heat at the start of October.

Trump’s gains on Polymarket have cheered his supporters, and they have been followed by the odds shifting in Trump’s favor in other betting markets. Elon Musk flagged Trump’s growing lead on Polymarket to his 200 million X followers on Oct. 6, praising the concept of betting markets. “More accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line,” Musk posted.

But the surge might be a mirage manufactured by a group of four Polymarket accounts that have collectively pumped about $30 million of crypto into bets that Trump will win.

Seems others have followed suit.

Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation. If they were truly following the polls, unless they have some secret knowledge, there’s little reason to put the chances at 60%. True, they could be imbeciles— but I think the WSJ’s argument is convincing. Even though I think he’ll win, I wouldn’t bet on it— and certainly not give it those odds.

Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation. — Mikie

I think you're not taking into account how both sides feel after 2016 and 2020. Even in an objectively toss-up race the left, after having been burned by the polling errors in the previous elections, are way more likely to be pessimistic and believe that there is some unknown factor in Trump's favor this time. Hell that is the sense I get from reading your earlier prediction. Even in 2020 as the polls were showing Biden solidly ahead they always had most people expecting that Trump will win anyways. Unless Harris is up by double digits at this point I'm not surprised that the markets will go in that direction.

:up:

Most of us seem to agree Trump is winning as things stand, me, @Mikie, the betting markets, Nate SIlver etc. The fact we may disagree slightly on the odds doesn't matter a whole lot. In fact, none of it matters a whole lot because, even at 60/40, Kamala wins 4 times out of ten. Not bad. Plus, the polls and betting markets could swing back her way before election day. I suspect there will be some drama anyhow.

19October24

I voted today against fascism! :victory: :mask:

>>> Roevember 17

:up:



I voted three days ago against fascism.

That’s two more says earlier than you, so…

:up: Here in Washington State we got our early ballots yesterday. I dropped mine off today.

Chilling essay by Franklin Foer in The Atlantic: What Musk Really Wants. (It's paywalled but available via e.g. Apple News)

In Elon Musk’s vision of human history, Donald Trump is the singularity. If Musk can propel Trump back to the White House, it will mark the moment that his own superintelligence merges with the most powerful apparatus on the planet, the American government—not to mention the business opportunity of the century.

Many other titans of Silicon Valley have tethered themselves to Trump. But Musk is the one poised to live out the ultimate techno-authoritarian fantasy. With his influence, he stands to capture the state, not just to enrich himself. His entanglement with Trump will be an Ayn Rand novel sprung to life, because Trump has explicitly invited Musk into the government to play the role of the master engineer, who redesigns the American state—and therefore American life—in his own image.

Musk’s pursuit of this dream clearly transcends billionaire hobbyism. Consider the personal attention and financial resources that he is pouring into the former president’s campaign. According to The New York Times, Musk has relocated to Pennsylvania to oversee Trump’s ground game there. That is, he’s running the infrastructure that will bring voters to the polls. In service of this cause, he’s imported top talent from his companies, and he reportedly plans on spending $500 million on it. That doesn’t begin to account for the value of Musk’s celebrity shilling, and the way he has turned X into an informal organ of the campaign.

Musk began as a Trump skeptic—a supporter of Ron DeSantis, in fact. Only gradually did he become an avowed, rhapsodic MAGA believer. His attitude toward Trump seems to parallel his view of artificial intelligence. On the one hand, AI might culminate in the destruction of humanity. On the other hand, it’s inevitable, and if harnessed by a brilliant engineer, it has glorious, maybe even salvific potential.

Musk’s public affection for Trump begins, almost certainly, with his savvy understanding of economic interests—namely, his own. Like so many other billionaire exponents of libertarianism, he has turned the government into a spectacular profit center. His company SpaceX relies on contracts with three-letter agencies and the Pentagon. It has subsumed some of NASA’s core functions. Tesla thrives on government tax credits for electric vehicles and subsidies for its network of charging stations. By Politico’s tabulation, both companies have won $15 billion in federal contracts. But that’s just his business plan in beta form. According to The Wall Street Journal, SpaceX is designing a slew of new products with “national security customers in mind.” ...

It’s not hard to imagine how the mogul will exploit this alliance. Trump has already announced that he will place him in charge of a government-efficiency commission. Or, in the Trumpian vernacular, Musk will be the “secretary of cost-cutting.” SpaceX is the implied template: Musk will advocate for privatizing the government, outsourcing the affairs of state to nimble entrepreneurs and adroit technologists. That means there will be even more opportunities for his companies to score gargantuan contracts. So when Trump brags that Musk will send a rocket to Mars during his administration, he’s not imagining a reprise of the Apollo program. He’s envisioning cutting SpaceX one of the largest checks that the U.S. government has ever written. He’s talking about making the richest man in the world even richer.

I've been wondering what Musk is up to, and this analysis makes perfect sense. Considering what an utter tool Musk is, despite his unarguable engineering and business genius, it is something to be very, very scared of.

Musk’s public affection for Trump begins, almost certainly, with his savvy understanding of economic interests—namely, his own.

Yes. He comes across as a fuckwitt with some of the things he says, but if you just look at how it's all functioning, it makes sense.

"47" is thirteen months younger than me (which is a(nother) first). Happy 60th today! :party:

23October24

re: Diaper Don The Fascist Clown (a convicted felon as well as an adjudicated rapist & fraudster, who 'self-described racists' believe is also a racist, and who everyday wears more make-up than a drag queen) – another character reference from a former senior Republican:

Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy. So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.

Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. — John Kelly, retired 4-Star General USMC and former Trump WH Chief of Staff

>>> Roevember 13

Nate Silver: 50-50 but gut says Trump.
John Mearsheimer: “My guess is Harris wins popular vote but Trump eeks out a victory in the seven swing states.”

Guess I’m not so crazy after all :rofl:

What I find weird is that looking from the outside, Harris seems to be doing well while Trump seems to get less coherent every day, while waxing poetically about nazi generals and using the military against the enemy within.

Yet the voters don't seem to care. It's confusing, and that means some part of my model of the world is faulty.

Is all of this not about Trump after all? Everyone talks about the cultishness but maybe that's just a front that hides the real desire to just burn it all down.

It’s close because of the electoral college, which is a stupid and anti-democratic system, as the US constitution itself is mostly anti-democratic.

But the other reason it’s so close, in my view, is that a good portion of the electorate’s lives are crappy, which makes them angry — and they look for reasons and someone to blame. They want explanations and to make sense of the world, as we all do. The media fill that role now, where family friends and religion once did, and cater messages to these people, depending on where they live and what their interests are and how they get their information (radio? TV? Newspaper?).

So there’s huge gaps between women and men, rural and urban people, college educated vs not, etc. The left demonizes Trump (although they have a much better case for doing so), and the right demonizes “liberals” (and do it much more effectively). Both are devils to the other side.

Since the advent of social media, distrust in literally everything and anything that doesn’t conform with what your preferred information pipeline is telling you has become rampant. Thus Trump can say almost anything — even trying to overturn an election and saying he won even when he lost — and many millions will go along with it, or shrug it off.

If CNN says he’s a threat to democracy or whatever, or if there’s reports about some crazy thing he said, it’ll be ignored— because those sources have been undermined and discredited in their minds (“fake news,” “witch hunt,” etc), mostly by Trump himself.

If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that.

If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that. — Mikie

I mean they saved a bunch of the Teamster's pensions and yet alot of their members would still vote for the billionaire who's last administration has been terrible for labor. In fact I imagine alot of them would somehow believe Bernie is terrible for labor too while praising Musk as a hero for the working class. For sure Democrats often take their voters for granted and rarely deliver on their promises, but there are moments where I just feel like none of that really matters anymore and we've all just gone insane. For sure it mattered in 2016 when Trump ran on a populist message and won, but he's not even doing that anymore and that doesn't seem to have changed a thing.

@180 Proof is really charged up over this one, this year.

:halo:

Guess I’m not so crazy after all :rofl: — Mikie

Not crazy, just cynically mistaken. The 2024 US election is about (1) whether or not this should be the last US election and (2) whether or not women in the US should have the inallienable right of bodily autonomy (i.e. unrestricted access to reproductive healthcare); this election is not principally about mere policy preferences (re: taxes, immigration, foreign policy, military spending, climate change, etc). As a Bernie Bro since the '90s, I ask you, Mikie: Why else would both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & Liz Cheney, both Bernie Sanders & Dick Cheney endorse Harris-Walz?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/941886

:victory:

>>> Roevember 12

I think Cheney’s endorsement is revenge for being attacked and thrown out of office, which in turn was done because she’s as establishment as they come and thus one of the few who voted impeachment. Why? Because prior to this Trump attacked Bush and Cheney— why? Because Jeb Bush ran against him and never made nice afterwards. Etc. It’s like asking why Megan McCain is against Trump. There’s personal reasons. This praise for Cheney is ridiculous. Fuck the Cheneys.

Abortion and democracy may be what motivates people to get out and vote— but you don’t really know that, nor do I.

But as always, I hope you’re right about this.

Abortion and democracy may be what motivates people to get out and vote— but you don’t really know that, nor do I. — Mikie

You've not been paying attention, bro. I know: 2017*, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023* ... :victory: :mask:

*special elections, referenda lost by MAGA-GOP, etc

Addendum to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/940625

For added comedy, the "Iranian connection":

Accused Iranian hackers successfully peddle stolen Trump emails

:lol:

New York Times endorses Kamala Harris (gift link).

It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.

Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.

This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

Most of us seem to agree Trump is winning as things stand, me, Mikie, the betting markets, Nate SIlver etc. — Baden

Yeah, Trump will probably win. :meh:

Hopefully I'm wrong.

And it's likely going to be worse than last time, because now he can demand to be surrounded by yes-men. Not like he will take a lot of generals into his cabinet, which naturally don't veer off from US policy where it has been on since WW2. He'll bring on people that he took on the last years of his prior administration.

Lame duck president for four years?

Trump would be better for Europe. The worst thing he can do is pressure European countries to pay for their own security, which we ought to be doing anyway.

Also, a Trump victory may expedite European populism so we can get rid of our tragically incompetent and corrupt political establishment.

And since many in Europe hate Trump, a Trump-led America is likely going to motivate Europeans to start using their own brains again (assuming those haven't completely atrophied by now...).

If he actually manages to end the war in Ukraine that'd be a bonus.

Hopefully I'm wrong. — ssu

:mask: :up:

>>> Roevember 9

I believe that too. In Europe people should understand that it is matter of time till they get divorce from the US. Trumpists are isolationists, but a diverse (democrat led) America will also lose its interest in Europe and Middle East. If that won't happen, then it will not be normal & democratic at all.

280ctober24

Harris-Walz needs 41 electors (in addition to the 229 electors from the solidly "Blue" states the campaign begins with) to reach 270 electors and win the presidency. I'll be watching the following states for results on 5Nov24 (by 3am EST 6Nov24):

Georgia [16]
North Carolina [16]
Florida [30]
Ohio [17]
Texas [40]

& on 6Nov24 (by 10pm EST):

Michigan [15]
Wisconsin [10]

I expect Harris-Walz to win the bolded states for 57 electors by Wednesday night and that can mathematically decide the eleclion.

If a majority of people in the states named above vote their interests rather than their fictions, next week will culminate in a Harris-Walz blowout.

If any or all of the other states above flip from "Red" to "Blue", the election could be a landslide.

>>> Roevember 8 :up:

Trump would be better for Europe. The worst thing he can do is pressure European countries to pay for their own security, which we ought to be doing anyway. — Tzeentch

The worst thing for him is to pull out the rug from the Ukrainians and weaken NATO while getting more entangled in the Gaza genocide and with the war with Iran in the Middle East. And yes, he can do both, even if it's not the likeliest outcome.

Let's remember that he has done already a huge Dolchstoss to one allied nation, that collapsed immediately and he did it without even negotiating with his allies. I bet that Kim il Sung would have immediately jumped to a peace offer during the Korean war if Trump would have been there to give a surrender paper like he gave to the Taliban. Yeah, I bet that Kim Il Sung would have promised not to attack mainland US and then squashed with Chinese support the back stabbed South Koreans. Then no Korean electronics or K-pop, just larger famines in the Korean peninsula.

But naturally nobody talks about Afghanistan, the longest war the US fought, because both parties have played a role in that disaster.