This is it, Carol Leonig’s books are excellent on Trump’s last period in office.
If this was any other Western European election I would state he knows he is lost but 2016 and 2020 were both similar and the results were of course far different.
My hunch is a 2016 Donald would have held his mouth on a few things but 2024 Trump isn’t taking that advice and is more like 2020 but just ratchet up.
Clinton also made it look like she had rested as it was in the bag about 3-4 days before. Harris was doing photo opps door knocking in Phillie.
Even if it’s a Democrat door unlike over here it works more effectively, it’s a given in the UK that we will be door knocking up to quite late.
If you look at the latest polling + the Selzer poll, you’ll find it’s the exact opposite.
If the Selzer poll is to be believed, she’s made it palatable for Iowan Republican voters to pivot to her instead. I believe other polls also have the undecided breaking towards her. Many formerly-Trump voting demographics are also seeing swings towards her.
But the data was there. The expectation back then was if you won the popular vote by a sizeable margin you took the Presidency.
She did take a sizeable margin but didn’t take the Presidency.
It was my first political betting election and I won a fair amount. I’m not betting tonight. I have my hunches and they lean more to Harris in certain areas.
I haven’t got the time fully to evaluate and the market has been flooded with rogue polling, plus I had my election in the UK this year.
That isn’t true - there were several that called Trump. Notably, they were within the margin of error for popular vote, but used different methodologies for translating that into Electoral College votes. As I recall Technometrica used vote weighting by state to devalue the influence of samples from safe seats relative to swing states.
Post hoc, part of the MAGA mythic culture was that all the biased pollsters massively understated Trump support (by and large, they did not) and ignored their great popular movement
As someone from the outside commenting in, I don’t want USA to engage in regime changes etc. It’s been done way too much by US over the years and served little purpose except destabilizing countries and regions. That doesn’t mean they don’t need to work on Israel or Ukraine (As they’ve involved themselves in those places way too much to suddenly disengage and walk away).
But, the days of propping up dictators, destabilizing govts and coups in South America, Asia, Africa need to stop.
Maybe read a few polling post-mortems of 2016 before making such a claim.
538 became even more popular on the back of their probabilistic forecast estimating a ~30% chance of a Trump win, which was achieved only via the quirks of the electoral college, with just a (@cynicaloldgit) few thousand votes in total overall over 3 states making that happen.
Sure. I’m just offering a perspective on why people in the third world countries might not mind a Trump win.
Not me. But quite a lot of people wouldn’t mind. It’s about the actions of the US on their region. Not everyone has good experiences from US interferences.
Interestingly he has done a 180 on bad polls. Back in 2020 there was lot of criticism of his willingness to just throw known bad polls into the model because he rejected the very premise that purposefully bad polls existed because there was no incentive to create them. And anyway the average smooths it all out anyway. Now this week he is railing on the lack of value polls deliver when there is herding, complaining about the impact on his model. The cunt.
@Redbj The question of the value of endorsements is an interesting one in the sense that political scientists disagree about everything when it comes to what campaign practices make a difference and there is a really broad range of standard campaign activities that political science cannot find any value of. Celeb endorsements probably fits into that category, but it doesn’t mean that they cannot make an impact. Is anyone voting for Harris because LeBron made an IG post? Probably not. But if Harris win there will be credible hypotheses that it was the whole Puerto Rico thing that swung it, and you have to question how much impact the like of Bad Bunny, Ricky Martin, J Lo speaking out about it made that stick. Not just by speaking to a group of people who might not have been tuned in to what was being said, but by the authenticity of their voice on the issue maybe resonating with a section of voters in a way that would not happen if it came from a politician.
The status quo in Afghanistan really didn’t change though did it over the long run. Invaded a country, destabilized the region, Kept a coirrupt govt in place. And what’s the result after it all. Back to the status norm.
Same goes for Iraq etc as well.
It was a mistake heading into Afghanistan, and a monumental blunder getting out after being in it for the long haul.
There was a guy at Rochester studying voting behaviour who was trying to find a way to test his theory that endorsements were not likely to change voter choice, but could be significant in raising engagement - making people who might not otherwise vote do so.
… micro-targetted in the swing states , by the Russians , to depress the Clinton vote ,with the help of the Trump campaign. (Lest anyone has forgotten.)
I was going to talk about that actually, I don’t think it’s about persuasion but motivation, and even then it’s probably just marginal effects. In the same way that celebrities are desired for ads.
It’s been a collosal disaster in terms fo foriegn policies from both sides. At this point , the rot has set in too deep. I don’t see either sides having a clear foriegn policy.