2024

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD, I agree with most of what you say, but as the consumer, I would much prefer the mute button.

I don’t know if the parties sign actual contracts in advance of these debates and, if so, what the terms are and who the parties are. Did the Biden/Harris campaign sign a contract with the Trump campaign? If so, and this is just the lawyer in me, I would think the campaign should honor the terms of the deal that was agreed upon. Now, maybe those terms don’t rise to the level of an enforceable contract. I don’t know. In any event, picking the terms you like and rejecting the terms you don’t like isn’t a good look in my view.

Trying to talk when someone else is talking is very distracting. And Trump is the king of distractions. Not a lot of people can do it well. Can Kamala? I don’t know.

He will probably lie close to 100% of the time. She can’t go down the rabbit hole of trying to respond to each and every lie. She needs to say something like, “pretty much everything out of your mouth is a lie, Donald. I’m not going to spend my time in the debate, which is limited, responding to each and every lie. I’ll just address a few.” And then address the biggest whoppers or the ones that are easily and obviously refutable. She needs to stay on the offensive. Responding to his lies is playing defense. I don’t think that’s a good strategy.

And remember, she has not done a debate for four years. Lots and lots of politicians have been rusty when they haven’t debated for a long time.

Debating Trump is tough because of all of the chaos and nonsense he engenders. I am not convinced she will be able to mop the floor with him. Remember, Hillary eviscerated Trump, yet he won the election. Yes, 2016 is a lot different than 2024, but the bar for her will be high and for Trump low.

No question he is flopping around like a fish on the dock right now, but never overestimate, never underestimate your opponent.

The sugar high period is over. Now the real, tough work begins. There are only a few flickers of summer left. Now voters are paying attention.

+1

[njbill]

sc, you may be right about the enforceability of the previously agreed-upon terms. I simply don’t know.

I’m not convinced, however, that an open mic benefits Harris. Maybe she is confident it won’t unduly distract her. She obviously knows herself better than I do. But Trump is a master at creating chaos. She has never been in the ring with him. I think it’s risky to have a no holds barred, no rules debate. She is a mainstream politician in the sense that almost all politicians except Trump are. Play it down the middle. If she flubs the dub, it will really hurt her. As I said, the bar for her is high and low for Trump.

I don’t think Harris did particularly well in the 2020 primary debates. Yes, this is different in some key respects, but this will be by far her biggest exposure on the national stage. She’s not giving campaign speeches. She’s not reading a convention address off the Teleprompter. She’s not doing carefully managed campaign events. She’s out before the entire country without a net.

My take is that she is trying to swing for the fences, to hit a home run, and to knock Trump out (mixing my sporting metaphors). Risky in my view.

And for the sake of posterity, I don’t want to go backwards on open mics. If this debate has the mute button, I think there is a really good chance the mute button will be here to stay. If we backtrack now, we may lose the mute button. The mute button is good for everybody. Let’s keep it.

[DMac]

Trump's supporters don't care if he lies and says the most idiotic things, but I think more people recognize him as exactly that, a liar with no bottom. Hilliary was up against the new guy, the business man who was going come in and shake up the whole show and fix everything. He lost a lot voters the second time around and I don't think any (very many anyway) of them are coming back for act two of his schidt show. I think Kamala has a pretty shot of more than holding her own against the big heap of stench. Millions upon millions will still vote for the stench.....still just boggles my mind.

[njbill]

Actually, Trump got 11 million more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016.

[DMac]

Damn, was second guessing myself when I wrote that, should've checked it out.
Thanks.....beyond unbelievable. Good thing for stolen elections, eh?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://apple.news/AH6PLnWA-SAibq5gxiZU-HA

[ggait]

Harris didn’t change her plans. She changed the plan agreed to by the former candidate.

Correct.

But she also did box Trump into the ABC 9/10 debate by arguing that said debate had already been agreed to by Trump.

Now that Harris is ahead, Trump needs the debate more than Harris does. So she's using the leverage she has effectively.

All's fair....

[ggait]

Silver has Harris up by 4 points nationally and an EC win probability of about 55%.

Race to the White House has her at 55.3%.

538, having changed their pro-Biden broken model (all fundamentals, no polls), is back online. 59% for Harris. But I consider them to be completely dis-credited/worthless for this cycle.

Economist has it close to 50/50.

You'd expect that lead to widen (convention bounce) ahead of the debate.

Seems like no one really much cares about the details on Harris. Which makes sense to me.

I'd vote for any generic Dem who (i) isn't Trump and (ii) isn't Biden and (iii) can win.

Never ever Trump.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Silver has Harris up by 4 points nationally and an EC win probability of about 55%.

Race to the White House has her at 55.3%.

538, having changed their pro-Biden broken model (all fundamentals, no polls), is back online. 59% for Harris. But I consider them to be completely dis-credited/worthless for this cycle.

Economist has it close to 50/50.

You'd expect that lead to widen (convention bounce) ahead of the debate.

Seems like no one really much cares about the details on Harris. Which makes sense to me.

I'd vote for any generic Dem who (i) isn't Trump and (ii) isn't Biden and (iii) can win.

Never ever Trump.

Time for all the folks to put up that said “Biden and Trump were too old and they wish they had someone else to vote for”…..

[njbill]

Silver has Harris up by 4 points nationally and an EC win probability of about 55%.

Race to the White House has her at 55.3%.

538, having changed their pro-Biden broken model (all fundamentals, no polls), is back online. 59% for Harris. But I consider them to be completely dis-credited/worthless for this cycle.

Economist has it close to 50/50.

You'd expect that lead to widen (convention bounce) ahead of the debate.

Seems like no one really much cares about the details on Harris. Which makes sense to me.

I'd vote for any generic Dem who (i) isn't Trump and (ii) isn't Biden and (iii) can win.

Never ever Trump.

I’ve been waiting for you to post something from Numbers Nate. You do know that his percentage predictions are absolutely meaningless. He takes the secret formula for Coke, multiplies that by Colonel Sanders secret recipe, and then divides by the number of finger paintings his daughter did in kindergarten.

In all seriousness, his “formula” has no basis in math, politics, or reality. Don’t believe me? Why don’t you ask President Hillary Clinton who Know Nothing Nate said had a 75% chance of winning the election?

And here’s another revelation for you: polls today are not like old-fashioned polls where pollsters contacted voters and asked who they were going to vote for. Polls today include those dreaded factors you seem to be so offended by.

And, by the way, your boy Nate agrees with me. He said there was a sugar high (I was the first one to use that expression) that has now dissipated, as I said it would post convention.

Don’t get excited by the current numbers. Your beloved pollsters claim they have finally fixed the problems with their methodologies that led to Trump being under polled in 2016 and 2020. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Maybe Harris will wind up winning. I sure hope she does. But she is still behind. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest she’s going to win Pennsylvania. Without Pennsylvania, she loses the election. That’s almost a mathematical certainty, which you can pass on to your good buddy Nate. Rather than look at Pennsylvania polls, I’d suggest you read through the excellent series of articles done by the Inqy. Not pretty.

And at this point in the campaign, national numbers mean nothing at all. It is all swing state numbers at this point. You might tell Nate that state polling is much much more difficult to get right than national polling. You would think he would know that, but apparently not.

[ohmilax34]

Maybe a fun exercise...for each of the two candidates (Harris and Trump), what do you predict would be their most positive impact to the US after their 4 years in the White House are up if they are elected president? I'm sure all of you think the bad done by the candidate you don't like (or both of them) will do more harm than their positive impact, but let's try to muster up some positivity for this!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe a fun exercise...for each of the two candidates (Harris and Trump), what do you predict would be their most positive impact to the US after their 4 years in the White House are up if they are elected president? I'm sure all of you think the bad done by the candidate you don't like (or both of them) will do more harm than their positive impact, but let's try to muster up some positivity for this!

You go first….

[Typical Lax Dad]

[ohmilax34]

Maybe a fun exercise...for each of the two candidates (Harris and Trump), what do you predict would be their most positive impact to the US after their 4 years in the White House are up if they are elected president? I'm sure all of you think the bad done by the candidate you don't like (or both of them) will do more harm than their positive impact, but let's try to muster up some positivity for this!

You go first….

OK.

For Harris, I think she can get Israel and Palestine closer to a two state solution. If she makes progress on this, I think it will be better for the US than any other thing she'll do. It will mean fewer wars we need to get involved with in the future.

For Trump, I think he can help end the war between Ukraine and Russia, which will free up money for the US and reduce the risk of the US getting more involved in this war.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe a fun exercise...for each of the two candidates (Harris and Trump), what do you predict would be their most positive impact to the US after their 4 years in the White House are up if they are elected president? I'm sure all of you think the bad done by the candidate you don't like (or both of them) will do more harm than their positive impact, but let's try to muster up some positivity for this!

You go first….

OK.

For Harris, I think she can get Israel and Palestine closer to a two state solution. If she makes progress on this, I think it will be better for the US than any other thing she'll do. It will mean fewer wars we need to get involved with in the future.

For Trump, I think he can help end the war between Ukraine and Russia, which will free up money for the US and reduce the risk of the US getting more involved in this war.

For Harris: Bring attention to how the US government can set the table to improve the lives of Americans so we all benefit. Chips Act, Infrastructure, Energy policy for example can contribute to the opportunities for good paying jobs for everyday Americans.

For Trump: His political sunset will be all but certain after 4 more years of “service” and the Republican Party will then have a chance to get back to something normal.

[ggait]

I’ve been waiting for you to post something from Numbers Nate. You do know that his percentage predictions are absolutely meaningless. He takes the secret formula for Coke, multiplies that by Colonel Sanders secret recipe, and then divides by the number of finger paintings his daughter did in kindergarten.

In all seriousness, his “formula” has no basis in math, politics, or reality. Don’t believe me? Why don’t you ask President Hillary Clinton who Know Nothing Nate said had a 75% chance of winning the election?

And here’s another revelation for you: polls today are not like old-fashioned polls where pollsters contacted voters and asked who they were going to vote for. Polls today include those dreaded factors you seem to be so offended by.

And, by the way, your boy Nate agrees with me. He said there was a sugar high (I was the first one to use that expression) that has now dissipated, as I said it would post convention.

Don’t get excited by the current numbers. Your beloved pollsters claim they have finally fixed the problems with their methodologies that led to Trump being under polled in 2016 and 2020. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Maybe Harris will wind up winning. I sure hope she does. But she is still behind. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest she’s going to win Pennsylvania. Without Pennsylvania, she loses the election. That’s almost a mathematical certainty, which you can pass on to your good buddy Nate. Rather than look at Pennsylvania polls, I’d suggest you read through the excellent series of articles done by the Inqy. Not pretty.

And at this point in the campaign, national numbers mean nothing at all. It is all swing state numbers at this point. You might tell Nate that state polling is much much more difficult to get right than national polling. You would think he would know that, but apparently not.

Hey Bill. Thanks for your data-free Luddite post.

Silver had Trump with a 28% win probability in 2016 -- higher than most of the other forecasters.

If I told you you had a 28% chance to win the Powerball would you buy a ticket? Yes you would. If there was a 28% chance that the plane will crash, would you board the flight? No you would not. Why? Because 28% chance events do happen. About 28% of the time on average actually!

National polls are actually extremely predictive of the EC outcome. At 2.5 points ahead or more popular vote, the Dem candidate wins the EC.

Gore + 0.5; loss. Obama 2012 +3.9; win. Hillary +2.1; loss. Biden +4.5; win.

So please give us the back up for your sure fire PA punditry.

What is your sister saying these days? What are you hearing on line at the Wawa and Sheetz? What's the yard sign count looking like on the Main Line?

I think, however, there is one thing you and I can agree upon, right? The only reason this race is 55/45 competitive is because the Dems shirt-canned Sleepy Joe.

[ggait]

NJ Bill -- how do you feel about this one today? You still think Joe was the better pony than his Dem replacement?

Everyone (you, me Nate Silver, the guy walking by on the street) expects that Harris' numbers will convention bounce up and then pull back. Duh. Happens 100% of the time.

Strangely, your post indicates your belief that Joe's numbers would have convention bounced and then kept on climbing all the way to the election. That type of gravity-defying performance would be quite unusual for any candidate. For a candidate like Sleepy Joe to do that...?

The question, of course, is where the numbers settle out mid-September and post-debate. But Harris being +4 points nationally is competitive. And massively better than where Biden would have been.

Let's see how this one below ages.


Re: 2024
Post by njbill » Tue Jul 30, 2024 2:10 pm

As I have said, the best period for Harris‘s numbers will be between now and early to mid September. After that (and maybe even before), they will slide. Conversely, Joe’s numbers were at a low when he dropped out. His numbers would have gradually risen from the convention through the election. Good chance he would’ve won the blue wall states.

[ggait]

Bill -- Here's Nate's update post for today.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I'd suggest you try reading his analyses. Because what he actually says bears little resemblance to what you think he says. And he actually agrees with many of your points. Except the one about how Joe had a better chance than Harris.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silve ... olls-model



Last update: 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 27: Kamala Harris leads by 3.8 points in our national polling average and would be a clear favorite in an election held today — but you can see the effects of the model’s convention bounce adjustment in why November's result is still projected at basically 50/50. This is the period when we’d expect Harris to be at the very height of her convention bounce, and the over/under line for polls conducted during this period is something like 4 or 4.5 points; better numbers than that will tend to help her in the forecast, while worse ones will tend to hurt her.

The model expects the convention bounce to dissipate over the course of roughly three weeks. So a poll showing Harris ahead by 4 points in a week or two would likely be a net positive for her.

[njbill]

Hey ggait. Boycott stupid. Have you heard that one before? You are a frigging idiot not worth my responding to you anymore. A frigging idiot of the first order.

[jhu72]

... the poles are still wrong. They underestimate the democratic bounce in red / purple states by women (of all stripes). This is not going to be as close as people are still generally predicting. The only difference between Biden a month ago and Harris now, is the democratic leaning young folks and the democratic leaning uncommitted (some of them - not all) have now come out for Harris. These are people who believe it is possible to do two things at once. They wanted Trump gone but also what to see movement on other issues. All Biden was talking about was Trump.

Harris has an awesome ground game. Better than Biden's in 2020.