journalist releases 2017 epstein interview

Epstein replied, “I was Donald’s closest friend for 10 years.”

  On 11/2/2024 at 12:37 PM, EdamAnchorman said:

If someone's house down the block is on fire yeah we should go help them, but first I'm gonna stop the asshole who's about to set my house on fire.

sure, but you're also partly responsible for the other person's house being on fire.

  On 11/3/2024 at 3:40 PM, may be rude said:

journalist releases 2017 epstein interview

Epstein replied, “I was Donald’s closest friend for 10 years.”

This couldn’t have come out three weeks earlier?!

  On 11/1/2024 at 4:24 PM, Dragon said:

absolutely no way, i'm voting for ChenGOD

it's spelled chenGOD - lower case "c" (it stands for absolute cunt). Spelling matters in the write in!

Campaign song is "I Care Because You Do" and my first order of business would be mandatory Autechre live set marathons over the Emergency Broadcast System.

Just a quick reminder: Don't fuck this one up, ok?

it's not looking great. but who knows at this point.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/prediction-model/president

I wonder how reliable this is. Probably not much

  On 11/4/2024 at 9:41 AM, o00o said:

I wonder how reliable this is. Probably not much

These are all bullshit.  With out current electorate, nobody can reliably predict anything because the climate has changed so rapidly.

I've said this before, but in the only election where voters knew that Trump being elected was a true possibility, they voted him out as an incumbent, in favor of a relatively unpopular candidate.  This gives me hope.

 Women need to show up big against trump. It has to be women that neutralize him. Please.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/?ex_cid=abcpromo

neck and neck, within the margin of error. all depends on who wins the swing states/particular counties in those states. that's looked likely for as long as Harris has been in the race.

i imagine Harris is likely to at least win the national popular vote by 1+ million like Hilary did in 2016 (i think she was over 2 million over Trump), but if that distribution isn't exactly correct where the electoral college comes into play, it's for naught. Harris & her supporters have been campaigning heavily in what looks to be the right areas, including in ads/social media/etc., however if that's actually going to do any good? hard to say. rallies/campaign/endorsements/events don't necessarily turn into new voters.

  On 11/4/2024 at 12:48 PM, EdamAnchorman said:

I've said this before, but in the only election where voters knew that Trump being elected was a true possibility, they voted him out as an incumbent, in favor of a relatively unpopular candidate.  This gives me hope.

true. but that was a man, i'm worried America's rampant misogyny is going to rear its head again like it did in 2016. Harris seems to be presenting a slightly better case than Clinton did tho, and might do better where it matters.

  On 11/4/2024 at 1:06 PM, Hi Guys said:

 Women need to show up big against trump. It has to be women that neutralize him. Please.

yeah, this is important, but there's a lot, and i mean a lot, of women voting for Trump throughout the country. if Harris wins, women turning out will of course be a huge part of that calculus. not guaranteed tho.

I stopped following politics somewhere in the last couple of years. I just can't be arsed anymore. it doesn't matter who wins what (anywhere in the world for that matter), nothing significant will change and everyone will hate whoever comes to power anyway. I also find that people who make politics their entire personaltiy are insufferable creatures. Thankfully I can't vote here in the US. 

Interesting article about how the very close polls in the swing states and overall are actually too close, you'd expect more variation, and so what we might be seeing is 'herding' among the pollsters as they adjust their stats to not be too out of step with everyone else

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/state-poll-results-show-ties-are-tied-voters-pollsters-rcna177703

  Quote

A lot of state poll results show ties. So are they tied because of voters — or pollsters?

Analysis: Even in a close election, random chance means polls should be showing a broader range of results. That raises the question of whether we’re in for another polling surprise.
 

... But the fact that so many polls are reporting the exact same margins and results raises a troubling possibility: that some pollsters are making adjustments in such similar ways that those choices are causing the results to bunch together, creating a potential illusion of certainty — or that some pollsters are even looking to others’ results to guide their own (i.e., “herding”).

Expand  

  On 11/4/2024 at 1:46 PM, auxien said:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/?ex_cid=abcpromo

neck and neck, within the margin of error. all depends on who wins the swing states/particular counties in those states. that's looked likely for as long as Harris has been in the race.

i imagine Harris is likely to at least win the national popular vote by 1+ million like Hilary did in 2016 (i think she was over 2 million over Trump), but if that distribution isn't exactly correct where the electoral college comes into play, it's for naught. Harris & her supporters have been campaigning heavily in what looks to be the right areas, including in ads/social media/etc., however if that's actually going to do any good? hard to say. rallies/campaign/endorsements/events don't necessarily turn into new voters.

true. but that was a man, i'm worried America's rampant misogyny is going to rear its head again like it did in 2016. Harris seems to be presenting a slightly better case than Clinton did tho, and might do better where it matters.

yeah, this is important, but there's a lot, and i mean a lot, of women voting for Trump throughout the country. if Harris wins, women turning out will of course be a huge part of that calculus. not guaranteed tho.

Expand  

This data scale is really insane. How close can they be

  On 11/4/2024 at 3:06 PM, nobody said:

Everything will be okay.

Get ready for the time of your life!

I’m grabbing a pizza and an eighth for tomorrow night, see ya’ll on the other side!  

  On 11/4/2024 at 1:56 PM, zazen said:

Interesting article about how the very close polls in the swing states and overall are actually too close, you'd expect more variation, and so what we might be seeing is 'herding' among the pollsters as they adjust their stats to not be too out of step with everyone else

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/state-poll-results-show-ties-are-tied-voters-pollsters-rcna177703

 

Expand  

the higher quality pollsters dont suffer as badly from herding, supposedly…& there’s a lot of high quality pollsters with recent polls in the data right now. it still can be an issue, tho.

  On 11/4/2024 at 1:58 PM, o00o said:

This data scale is really insane. How close can they be

closer than they are, technically! 

likely we won't know who won the presidential race until thursday or friday and some of the house races will take weeks.. the senate less time but nothing is going to be known on election night unless some major blowout happens. 

Simpsons had it all figured out

thank heck we got an autechre soundtrack for this week

  On 11/4/2024 at 1:46 PM, auxien said:

true. but that was a man, i'm worried America's rampant misogyny is going to rear its head again like it did in 2016. Harris seems to be presenting a slightly better case than Clinton did tho, and might do better where it matters.

That's a valid point, but I see 2016 as more apathy and general dislike for Clinton as a person, not necessarily misogyny (I admit I could be totally wrong here, but that's why I didn't vote for her (I wrote in Sanders)).

Plus, at the risk of generalizing, I am guessing that the folks who would vote against Trump under any circumstances are typically not the same type of folks who would vote against a woman just because she's a woman.

  On 11/4/2024 at 8:01 PM, EdamAnchorman said:

That's a valid point, but I see 2016 as more apathy and general dislike for Clinton as a person, not necessarily misogyny (I admit I could be totally wrong here, but that's why I didn't vote for her (I wrote in Sanders)).

Plus, at the risk of generalizing, I am guessing that the folks who would vote against Trump under any circumstances are typically not the same type of folks who would vote against a woman just because she's a woman.

use your vote wisely this time

  On 11/4/2024 at 8:01 PM, EdamAnchorman said:

Plus, at the risk of generalizing, I am guessing that the folks who would vote against Trump under any circumstances are typically not the same type of folks who would vote against a woman just because she's a woman.

fair on other points, but i believe your assumption here is a bit faulty…i can’t say i’ve got any hard data to back that up tho, and it’s not a HUGE thing, but it is something and i think maybe enough to yknow…effect the election. speculation tho, and i get what you’re saying. largely you’re closer to right than not, but i don’t think that’s the whole story…

I voted for Harris. 
The other option was a bully / racist / liar / con-man / felon / fascist.  

  On 11/4/2024 at 1:56 PM, zazen said:

Interesting article about how the very close polls in the swing states and overall are actually too close, you'd expect more variation, and so what we might be seeing is 'herding' among the pollsters as they adjust their stats to not be too out of step with everyone else

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/state-poll-results-show-ties-are-tied-voters-pollsters-rcna177703

 

Expand  

Yeah, similar comments by Nate Silver. Given the expected polling error, there should be a bigger variation between different/independent polls. Something might be off.

  Quote

Yesterday, I complained about how so many pollsters are “herding” by publishing results that are almost an exact tie in a way that is incredibly statistically improbable given the unavoidable sampling error from surveying a small number of voters. I also noted a handful of prominent exceptions — rouge pollsters like the New York Times/Siena College that practically exist in an entirely different universe and imply a much bigger political realignment.

Another such maverick is Ann Selzer of Selzer & Co. (Selzer and NYT/Siena are our two highest-rated pollsters.) As my former colleague Clare Malone wrote in 2016, Selzer — like NYT/Siena — has a long history of bucking the conventional wisdom and being right. In a world where most pollsters have a lot of egg on their faces, she has near-oracular status.

...

Her new poll? It shows the state trending even bluer, with Harris leading in Iowa 47-44.

Expand  

https://www.natesilver.net/p/a-shocking-iowa-poll-means-somebody