scarabine

gr8 b8 m8

So weird! I love it

This seems to me like a signal that Democrats are formally cementing as a conservative / neoliberal party. Which makes sense. I guess maybe the upside is that maybe it will carve out room for an adjacent political body to the left as well, sort of like what happened with the tea party.

I think it’s pretty clear that the people who wanted Trump never really changed or decreased much, and that now they’re calling the shots.

I don’t think there’s any value in going much deeper than that. They seem to have done it fair and square. There just weren’t as many people who supported Harris.

Not that many of their reasons are genuine, of course. The economy? Please. He’s awful for that, he swore he’d make things worse. We know what that looks like.

But they’re the majority this time. It’s almost a Reagan level victory. It’s exactly what he always wanted. And part of our system is this: if you get the votes then you’re allowed to dismantle things. Because you convinced enough of us to go along with it.

I’m not sure what the next steps are, really. It won’t be pretty. But blame doesn’t seem appropriate, and neither does any effort to “do the work” and learn to try harder next time. The system will not be the same and the tactics we’re familiar with are no longer relevant. Change is here and it’s the bad kind.

So what we need to figure out is how to adapt to whatever that change ushers in. We’ll have to acquire new ideals that fit within the new constraints and we’ll need to do what we can in the service of those, and we’ll have to accept the diminished nature of some of our ambitions.

What are our new values? What does it mean to throw away so much that we’ve made? Who are we going to become? Who will we be able to keep at our side? Who will we lose? Who will we betray?

We’ll find out.

His model and 538s have both produced outcomes where one candidate gets 520+ EVs.

He assigns the quality ratings to polls himself and publicly announces them. They’re based on whether or not they predicted the outcome of the election.

It’s his very poll scoring system that causes polls to herd. Because even if they’re wrong, they’re wrong together.

He determines the weights of those polls and chooses how to apply them.

Nate has done plenty.

This dude thinks EVERYONE is thinking what he’s thinking and we just don’t say it out loud. He thinks ANY of us are one drunk post away from spewing the same garbage. In his mind he’s just guilty of posting under the influence because of that.

This is a junk comment. She's the VP, so what you're suggesting is that she just try and take control she doesn't have right now. Either you've got no idea what you're talking about or you're just talking shit.

Yeah, it's a terrible strategy for a number of reasons. The big one isn't even that they can't be courted - they CAN. It's just that the thing that courts them isn't "we can be really Republican, too!" - it's actually progressive policy.

It turns out that being stridently pro-worker, pro-healthcare, pro-education, pro-small business, and pro-social safety are all incredibly popular stances with broad support. Time and time again, openly supporting these things draws Republican support. The noise that emerges online and in the outrage merchant pundit class is just that - noise, made up to try and steer the conversation.

Which is the big risk to doing any of this pro-worker stuff - it's mostly about Fox News or the talk show host nutjobs branding it as evil and starting a propaganda war about it, and the rest of the media world just following along like insipid stenographers.

It's a branding war, basically, the Overton window doesn't need to shift further right at all.

She’s repeatedly said that she wants a ceasefire, and even said she’s trying to help press for one right now. Literally one rally after the one you’re talking about she paused her talk during a protest and spoke about it to talk about driving for a ceasefire, before resuming the rally.

There’s only so much that is going to happen during a campaign. I understand a degree of general mistrust for politicians overall, but it’s honestly out of her hands unless she gets elected.

Meanwhile the other guy is definitely pro genocide. No room for doubt at all there.

“Unilaterally halt 70 years of treaties, force a foreign country to obey your will, seize unlawful control of our military, and do it all in a few weeks while campaigning, all as VP” is quite the tall order to all of anyone just in exchange for votes that, let’s be honest, you weren’t going to give anyway.

If you’re going to threaten to stand aside and allow someone way worse to take over, and those are your criteria, then this is just online noise you’re making and not genuine at all.

If you’re looking for something less, such as statements - she’s made them. They’re pretty clear about being about stopping the genocide. So even in that direction, if it isn’t enough, then again this is just online noise you’re making, and not genuine at all.

You just don’t care.

The really optimistic-for-Harris forecast I’ve cited a few times has even odds for Harris and Trump on NC. Basically if we don’t see huge turnout numbers it’s Trump’s. The best we can hope for is that Robinson really, really put people off of voting.

According to some of the forecasts I’ve seen that suggest a strong chance for a Harris win (as in, 77% chance) she only has a 3% chance to turn FL blue. So, not really plausible, but there are a few scenarios that see her winning it.