1timspalding
Okay, a simple question. I want your predictions and analysis NOT your arguments. I'm asking you to say what will happen, but what should.
My questions are:
1. Whom do you think will win the election?
2. How confident are you?
3. In a race this right, anything could be the critical factor. But what would you put your finger on as particularly important and significant?
My questions are:
1. Whom do you think will win the election?
2. How confident are you?
3. In a race this right, anything could be the critical factor. But what would you put your finger on as particularly important and significant?
22wonderY
I’m hopeful that Harris will win. Maybe 80%?
The throngs of early voters in most states, including swing states. Republicans are out showing Democrats, but independents are outdistancing them both.
The excitement echoes the 2008 election.
The throngs of early voters in most states, including swing states. Republicans are out showing Democrats, but independents are outdistancing them both.
The excitement echoes the 2008 election.
3timspalding
My view:
1. Trump will win.
2. My confidence is low. Neither result would surprise me, so I'm hardly even guessing. Like Nate Silver ("Nate Silver: Here’s What My Gut Says About the Election, but Don’t Trust Anyone’s Gut, Even Mine"), however, a Trump win is my gut, but I respect the statistical analysis of 538, Nate Silver, Nate Cohn/NYT, Real Clear Politics, etc. The race is very tight. We can be almost assured of some systemic polling error; the average polling error in past elections is much larger than the current spread between the candidates. But we can't predict which direction it will go. Most unfortunately, things are likely to be so close that, especially if Trump loses, post-election shenanigans are a given.
3. I identify one concrete and one overarching structural reason:
The concrete reason is inflation. People just hate it, and can't get past it. Although wages have kept up, that just feels different. Price rises are basically the same for all, but wage rises haven't been as uniform. More important, inflation feels like theft, and wage rises feel like due recognition of your worth. A lot of Americans will feel cheated until prices go down again—which will never happen, and, economically, would be terrible. For my part, I know it's going to be years before I buy coffee or lunch and don't think "Damn, that used to be (fill in the blank) bucks!"
The structural reason is that the frog has boiled. We've had a long, slow erosion of our civic and moral norms and values. Certainly America has always been full of boobs—as Mencken said, nobody ever lost money betting against the intelligence of the American people. But various factors, especially the death of traditional media and its replacement by fragmented and highly partisan algorithmic media, have created a boobification doom loop. I do not restrict this to the right by any means; the left is broken too. We will elect a manifestly unfit, immoral and unamerican demagogue because—in some sense—we deserve it. If Harris wins, while I will have been wrong in my low-confidence prediction, I won't be wrong in my analysis—the frog has been cooked either way.
1. Trump will win.
2. My confidence is low. Neither result would surprise me, so I'm hardly even guessing. Like Nate Silver ("Nate Silver: Here’s What My Gut Says About the Election, but Don’t Trust Anyone’s Gut, Even Mine"), however, a Trump win is my gut, but I respect the statistical analysis of 538, Nate Silver, Nate Cohn/NYT, Real Clear Politics, etc. The race is very tight. We can be almost assured of some systemic polling error; the average polling error in past elections is much larger than the current spread between the candidates. But we can't predict which direction it will go. Most unfortunately, things are likely to be so close that, especially if Trump loses, post-election shenanigans are a given.
3. I identify one concrete and one overarching structural reason:
The concrete reason is inflation. People just hate it, and can't get past it. Although wages have kept up, that just feels different. Price rises are basically the same for all, but wage rises haven't been as uniform. More important, inflation feels like theft, and wage rises feel like due recognition of your worth. A lot of Americans will feel cheated until prices go down again—which will never happen, and, economically, would be terrible. For my part, I know it's going to be years before I buy coffee or lunch and don't think "Damn, that used to be (fill in the blank) bucks!"
The structural reason is that the frog has boiled. We've had a long, slow erosion of our civic and moral norms and values. Certainly America has always been full of boobs—as Mencken said, nobody ever lost money betting against the intelligence of the American people. But various factors, especially the death of traditional media and its replacement by fragmented and highly partisan algorithmic media, have created a boobification doom loop. I do not restrict this to the right by any means; the left is broken too. We will elect a manifestly unfit, immoral and unamerican demagogue because—in some sense—we deserve it. If Harris wins, while I will have been wrong in my low-confidence prediction, I won't be wrong in my analysis—the frog has been cooked either way.
4kiparsky
>3 timspalding:
From long experience, I don't do predictions because I've found that I'm generally wrong. With that in mind, it might be some comfort to know that if I were to make a prediction, I would also predict a Trump win.*
My thinking is a bit different from yours, though. I just don't believe in the "rational voter" hypothesis, where voters tot up the financial benefits of voting for one candidate versus another and vote for the one they think will give them the most stuff. That just doesn't hold together - most obviously, Trump's strongest support is in the states which get the most handouts from the federal government and which got massive investment from the IRA. A lot of them are going to vote on their way home from jobs that they have because Biden got that done - but they're not going to vote in their own rational interest, they're going to vote emotionally. And this is not new, we could have said the same thing about the Tea Party and the militia voters of previous cycles. Flipping that, while I think that Democrats are for the most part better at building long-term and sustainable economic progress I don't think that is the reason why Democratic voters vote the way they do. Democrats sell a different emotional package - hope, unity, a more just society, a better future - that appeals to some voters.
So for me, my sense of foreboding is mostly due to the fact that right now I don't think it's easy to sell hope, and let's just forget about the idea of a better future. We're living through the ebb of the 20th century, which means a lot of promises have gone sour for people. People born in the industrialized world in the 20th century grew up knowing in their bones that (barring nuclear holocaust) they would have a better life than their parents. Technological innovation continues, but not at the pace or with the "wow" factor that was seen in the 20th century, so even though we have seen amazing developments in the last twenty years in almost every area of science, we still hear the "where's my flying car" cliche. And let's not forget, the dominant technology of the 21st century to date is still social media, which is fundamentally a set of apps providing machines with an API they can use to influence the thoughts and behaviors of humans. As a result, most people spend far more of their time than they'll admit looking for something good at the bottom of an endless feed, and they get sadder and sadder with every day.
So basically, for me it comes down to the problem that the Democrats have built their brand on something that people aren't buying anymore. As you consider whether this makes sense, ask yourself why Republican rhetoric has moved away from the Reagan cheeriness and gets more angry, more hateful, and more doom-laden year on year, regardless of whether they win or lose. There may be other answers, but it's at least worth considering the possibility that they know that this is what sells.
* I think this may be a novel variant of the Liar Paradox?
From long experience, I don't do predictions because I've found that I'm generally wrong. With that in mind, it might be some comfort to know that if I were to make a prediction, I would also predict a Trump win.*
My thinking is a bit different from yours, though. I just don't believe in the "rational voter" hypothesis, where voters tot up the financial benefits of voting for one candidate versus another and vote for the one they think will give them the most stuff. That just doesn't hold together - most obviously, Trump's strongest support is in the states which get the most handouts from the federal government and which got massive investment from the IRA. A lot of them are going to vote on their way home from jobs that they have because Biden got that done - but they're not going to vote in their own rational interest, they're going to vote emotionally. And this is not new, we could have said the same thing about the Tea Party and the militia voters of previous cycles. Flipping that, while I think that Democrats are for the most part better at building long-term and sustainable economic progress I don't think that is the reason why Democratic voters vote the way they do. Democrats sell a different emotional package - hope, unity, a more just society, a better future - that appeals to some voters.
So for me, my sense of foreboding is mostly due to the fact that right now I don't think it's easy to sell hope, and let's just forget about the idea of a better future. We're living through the ebb of the 20th century, which means a lot of promises have gone sour for people. People born in the industrialized world in the 20th century grew up knowing in their bones that (barring nuclear holocaust) they would have a better life than their parents. Technological innovation continues, but not at the pace or with the "wow" factor that was seen in the 20th century, so even though we have seen amazing developments in the last twenty years in almost every area of science, we still hear the "where's my flying car" cliche. And let's not forget, the dominant technology of the 21st century to date is still social media, which is fundamentally a set of apps providing machines with an API they can use to influence the thoughts and behaviors of humans. As a result, most people spend far more of their time than they'll admit looking for something good at the bottom of an endless feed, and they get sadder and sadder with every day.
So basically, for me it comes down to the problem that the Democrats have built their brand on something that people aren't buying anymore. As you consider whether this makes sense, ask yourself why Republican rhetoric has moved away from the Reagan cheeriness and gets more angry, more hateful, and more doom-laden year on year, regardless of whether they win or lose. There may be other answers, but it's at least worth considering the possibility that they know that this is what sells.
* I think this may be a novel variant of the Liar Paradox?
52wonderY
Tim Miller cites the newest Marist poll
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/new-poll-shows-trump-getting-crushed
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/new-poll-shows-trump-getting-crushed
6timspalding
>5 2wonderY:
Marist has Harris 50%, Trump 48% in Pennsylvania. But the statistical margin of error is +/- 3.4%. And that's just the statistical margin of error, without regard for non-statistical bias, which always comes up too. IOW, Marist is tied. And that's for a must-win state.
See https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/marist-pennsylvania-poll-u-s-presidential-co...
Marist has Harris 50%, Trump 48% in Pennsylvania. But the statistical margin of error is +/- 3.4%. And that's just the statistical margin of error, without regard for non-statistical bias, which always comes up too. IOW, Marist is tied. And that's for a must-win state.
See https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/marist-pennsylvania-poll-u-s-presidential-co...
7davidgn
I'm going to say Harris, by a whisker, low confidence. I'll credit the abuelas.
Anecdotal reports are that the Trump signs and kitsch installations in my part of West Michigan (which is always on a razor's edge at the county level) have been gradually disappearing. There are many ways to read that, but I choose to take it as a good omen.
Either way, the shitshow that follows will be something to behold.
As for the analysis: I'm too damn tired. I'm frankly too disgusted to set foot on the continent right now.
Anecdotal reports are that the Trump signs and kitsch installations in my part of West Michigan (which is always on a razor's edge at the county level) have been gradually disappearing. There are many ways to read that, but I choose to take it as a good omen.
Either way, the shitshow that follows will be something to behold.
As for the analysis: I'm too damn tired. I'm frankly too disgusted to set foot on the continent right now.
82wonderY
There are a couple of very powerful ads out about Project 2025 and Trump’s own statements about police immunity and stop & frisk. I imagine those are hitting directly in POC households. I think it’s a shame they waited to release them after early voting had already begun.
92wonderY
>7 davidgn: In mid-Kentucky, there are definitely fewer Trump displays than in 2020, and they are less outlandish too.
I wish I had a better pulse reading of private militias. I know there are several, but they’ve been quiet.
I wish I had a better pulse reading of private militias. I know there are several, but they’ve been quiet.
10timspalding
>9 2wonderY:
That's good to hear. In Maine I feel like it's the other direction—more Trumpism and more in-your-face. IDK.
That's good to hear. In Maine I feel like it's the other direction—more Trumpism and more in-your-face. IDK.
12Molly3028
If a majority of voters can override the lies which have been anchored in their minds over time with some commonsense reasoning, Kamala should win.
13kiparsky
>12 Molly3028: I know you mean well, but that's actually not helping a whole lot...
14Molly3028
>13 kiparsky:
I failed to add to my earlier post that I agree with Allan Lichtman ~ the 13 keys historian ~ Kamala is going to win!
I failed to add to my earlier post that I agree with Allan Lichtman ~ the 13 keys historian ~ Kamala is going to win!
15librorumamans
I think, and hope, that women — and particularly young women — will vote in sufficient numbers in the swing states to elect Kamala Harris.
But I have no idea how the Congressional vote will turn out; so, if it's a Republican Congress, how much will President Harris be able to accomplish?
But I have no idea how the Congressional vote will turn out; so, if it's a Republican Congress, how much will President Harris be able to accomplish?
16timspalding
But I have no idea how the Congressional vote will turn out; so, if it's a Republican Congress, how much will President Harris be able to accomplish?
538 has the House at even odds (51/49). The Senate is 91/9 Republican. Even if the unlikely happened and it was 50/50 with Walz casting tie-breaking votes, you can't do a lot with a bare majority. So, no, she won't be able to do much.
Trump won't be able to do it all either. Both will lean on executive orders and actions—a terrible thing, IMHO. But Trump's agenda is more heavily about raw Presidential power, the "unitary executive," etc.
538 has the House at even odds (51/49). The Senate is 91/9 Republican. Even if the unlikely happened and it was 50/50 with Walz casting tie-breaking votes, you can't do a lot with a bare majority. So, no, she won't be able to do much.
Trump won't be able to do it all either. Both will lean on executive orders and actions—a terrible thing, IMHO. But Trump's agenda is more heavily about raw Presidential power, the "unitary executive," etc.
17alco261
>16 timspalding: Well, you win. Now watch - raw naked untrammeled power - wonder how long it will be before he uses his Official Act to remove members of the Supreme Christian Court who were not sufficiently loyal - I'll bet Cannon gets a seat.
18timspalding
>1 timspalding: >16 timspalding: >17 alco261:
I hate being right.
We're up for some interesting times. The Matt Gaetz fight is going to be critical. Will Thune put the Senate into recess so Trump can appoint him—and everyone else—as recess appointments? (I think no.) Will the Senate have backbone and, get the ethics report from the House? (I'm not sure.) Will the Senate confirm him? (I think no.)
I hate being right.
We're up for some interesting times. The Matt Gaetz fight is going to be critical. Will Thune put the Senate into recess so Trump can appoint him—and everyone else—as recess appointments? (I think no.) Will the Senate have backbone and, get the ethics report from the House? (I'm not sure.) Will the Senate confirm him? (I think no.)
