Limie!
You’ve been hacked by Nobluff!
What does the free on Wednesdays thing mean?
Probably being a bit thick here, but it’s not clicking for me…
If the state of the union Biden shows up, he will be fine. If a calmer Trump shows up, he will be fine.
His current criminal trial is not sitting on Wednesdays.
Mon-Tue, Thu-Fri.
1 Like
Who knows what days his next criminal trials will be held??
I wonder whats more significant, this for Trump or the poor polling numbers for Biden in swing states (CNN and NBC polls).
I like to masturbate to photo’s of Trump.
My bad, didn’t realize that.
I think he has to win the Presidency to stave off justice, as if he doesn’t, the three larger criminal trials will gather momentum, and at that point he will be seen as yesterday’s man, so won’t be protected as much from those proceedings being allowed to run their course.
On the current case we already have interference from Mike Johnson, and the narrative is being set to say it is a phony political trial. If all 12 jurors are of one accord and find him guilty, I expect the judge to not go anywhere near the full tariff he might award as punishment. This judge has repeatedly given a gag order to Trump who has violated the judge’s wishes over 10 times, only to see a succession of $1000 fines coming his way.
So even if Trump is found guilty, I doubt it will be a custodial sentence, and of course he will appeal the crap out of it anyway.
I think it all rests on the Presidential election.
If he wins, he staves off justice and enriches himself and damages the country in untold ways, with his first stint in the Whitehouse being a training exercise for what he can get away with.
If he loses, he will be decoupled from most Republican politicians, as losing repeatedly is bad for business, and Tump’s power will wane. At that point the double whammy for Trump will be that justice will be allowed to run its course a little more freely.
It’s all on the election.
I don’t know what is more revolting, the content, or the apostrophe abuse.
I (I mean the person that hacked my account) obviously did it on purpose because I am one of those people who believe two wrongs make a right.
Actual voting patterns are always more significant than polling - something that has only recently become accepted by politics forecasters as they continually got their predictions widely wrong because of an overreliance on polling.
The polls are fascinating, but I think now more than ever extreme caution should be used when trying to use them to project outcomes.
There are genuine methodological challenges pollsters still haven’t figured out how to address. Without getting into a long methodological explanation, polls are not valuable based on their raw results, but based on the statistical manipulation of those raw data to extrapolate them to broader voter public. Recent (in the context of presidential election cycles) technological and political changes have invalidated most of the old assumptions the statistical adjustments were based on and no one has reliably validated ones that work in the modern environment. The result is today different pollsters using a different set of reasonable assumptions can produce a Biden +5 or Trump +5 from the same set of raw data.
The other issue is aggregation has been completely broken by the number of bad faith partisan pollsters who have jumped into the field to try to use polls to shape narratives and create false realities. Things like 538 and RCP, aggregators that once provided a lot of predictive value came to a place of just being gamed by bad actors and either were not able to keep up, or in the case of RCP, willfully allowed themselves to be misled.
There are valuable lessons to take from the polls, but I suspect the most important polls being done now are the internal ones that we dont get details of and are used to help calibrate the campaign strategy more than as a prediction (who is still reachable and on what message)
1 Like
I always wondered about some of those polls. To poll 2 thousand people and then extrapolate from there seems quite weak.
2000 is actually plenty if your sample is representative and you can characterize it accurately. That is the special sauce that distinguishes a good poll vs a bad poll, but today even the good pollsters are struggling to meet even 1 of those criteria.
3 Likes
Some restrictions put forward from the Democrats with regards to the debates. I agree with them, however I think they have made a mistake in asking for mic mutes from their pov. It helps Trump as he is the most annoying when he is trying to talk over and interrupt opponents, which would put off some voters. You separating the guy from his Kryptonite. I’ve always felt that Trump helped Biden in the debates by interrupting all the time as it takes away Biden’s propensity to mumble or go blank.
1 Like
Lots of mutterings of Harris taking over from Biden, and being selected as the nominee at the convention, with Biden making the decision not to run (for whatever reason). Not sure if this is rehashed speculation or new information. If this is the case, I think it would be considered one of the greatest bait and switches in history. I think even with her low popularity, I think she has a better chance to beat Trump, maybe not enough.
I am still of the belief that someone not linked to the current administration could beat Trump, without much effort (A Newsom, even with faults). Imo one of the major issues with the Democrats is that the current admin is inseparable from some of the major issues that are on the minds of voters. A completely separate candidate could separate themselves.
As some of mentioned, getting this to work would be challenging as you would need to get Biden to step down, as well as Harris.
I am not sold on Harris, something about her freaks me out.
The right will continue to float the idea because they’d prefer to run against Harris than Biden, but even if it doesnt work it keeps the questions about Biden’s competency in people’s minds. I am not aware though of any serious discussion on the issue from the left since the SotU two and a half months ago. In contrast, the Biden campaign is finally kicking into gear (always starts later for an incumbent than challenger) and has been generally well received.
You think it will be easier vs Harris? I know that would have been true a year ago, however she seems to be improving lately.
The relevant question is whether the Right think so seeing as it they who are keeping the idea in circulation, and so they clearly do. I also think it is instructive that on the left there was a not a “should Biden step down for Harris” debate, but a “who would replace Biden” one. For the left to not automatically be behind the VP as the default replacement tells you what you need to know about the answer to that question from that side as well.