The likes of Daily Kos and Simon Rosenberg are telling Jeff Tiedrich “Settle down, Beavis!”
(Tiedrich’s emphasis below)
Today, let put the good news right up top.
Thomas Miller is a data scientist out of Northwestern University. in 2020, he correctly predicted which states Biden would win, with the exception of Georgia.
Miller is predicting that Harris’ electoral map may resemble the 1964 map in which President Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) with a whopping 486 electoral votes, or President Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory over Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas), in which he secured 379 electoral votes.
“We’re talking about a blowout where Harris gets over 400 electoral votes and wins Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and every other swing state,” he said.
The scary part is that the two guys in this thread most confident of “oh, he’s in a death spiral now, there’s nothing to worry about” have less than desirable track records with these so-called “predictions bordering on guarantees”.
I’m hoping like hell (for the sake of the country and democracy) that this is the thread that our two friends finally have their “crystal ball” adjusted and calibrated.
Determination of majority.—
If the number of electors lawfully appointed by any State pursuant to a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors that is issued under section 5 is fewer than the number of electors to which the State is entitled under section 3 . . . the total number of electors appointed for the purpose of determining a majority of the whole number of electors appointed as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution shall be reduced by the number of electors whom the State has failed to appoint or as to whom the objection was sustained.
I can totally see the trump folks trying to [somehow] prevent certification of some (or all) electors from some states. So the “normal” 270 count no longer applies. Carefully chosen of course to alter the balance in a trump-favoring way. The fact that all these post-election steps have a rigid timeline means they may well succeed in running out the clock before an enforceable ruling can be made.
Will they succeed in these efforts? Mostly no IMO, but some success is not “Inconceivable!” as the foolish genius of Princess Bride so often exclaimed. IMO it’s very conceivable.
That won’t happen. The problem will be with people who won’t vote because they think their choices are awful Trump, or Harris, who they think they don’t know well enough because they need the news outlets to spoonfeed it to them.
I would certainly prefer we have a 270-to-win EC, not something else. But I’m unwilling to claim the alternative is flat impossible. There is a lot of rot in some states’ systems and the feds’ hands are pretty tied.
You read it right, especially when earlier mentioning “wishy-washy” Harris voters. By definition, committed voters will not change. But swing voters exist..
Asylum is unpopular with real swing voters. Undocumented immigration is unpopular with real swing voters. And Trump’s economic overpromising is popular with swing voters. They dislike Trump personally, but if Trump can outshout Harris, there is risk they will say they have not heard much from him lately, and swing back to Trump.
Why can’t Harris say we need more officially admitted immigrant agricultural workers so farmers won’t have to choose between hiring undocumented workers and having their crops rot in the fields? I guess they tried this in focus groups and it flopped
Impossible? No. But about as likely as Vance being the GOP presidential candidate, instead of trump. Sure, it COULD happen. But that is not the way to bet.
Cite and Cite?
The USA currently has about a Million person worker shortage. Maybe 2 million.
In a less than a decade that will be more than a six million worker shortage, maybe more. Companies will be forced to move out of the USA to simply be able to operate.
Oddly , there are about a million hard working law abiding people wanting to come to the USA each year and do jobs that Americans either wont or cant do.
“But the brownification of Amurica must not continue!”–think the fuckhead fascists.
We have a chance to pretty much grab all the smart and hardworking people in the world (e.g., Haitian refugees) and make our country OP for a couple of generations–IF we can stop the racist bullshit. Let’s hope we make the right choice.
By the way, another thing we haven’t talked about is Joe Rogan trashing Donald Trump and praising Kamala Harris post-debate. This video is a cite but watch if you feel like it:
Rogan has been seen, with good reason, as pretty redpilled, so this quasi-endorsement cuts right to the heart of Trump’s base: broh-ish young to middle-aged men.
I’d call this kind of thing the death of a thousand cuts, though I don’t know if we’re even going to make it to 200.
It’s not good for Trump but I never got the impression that Rogan was a MAGA guy. He’s more of a libertarian, and he preferred (of all people) RFK Jr. (Cue laugh track.)
I mean, Rogan is an anti-vaxxer (or if you want to be overly kind, he’s “skeptical” of vaccines, but that’s putting lipstick on a pig).
After Rogan said he preferred RFK Jr, the MAGA folks (and Trump himself) were up in arms, feeling he betrayed them.
So this has been kind of brewing for a while. I’d say that this is less of an endorsement of Harris, and more of the inevitable trajectory of Rogan’s ongoing spat with Trump and MAGA.
I think that any overlap between Rogan fans and Trump fans has already shrunk quite a bit, and this is more of a sign of that previous split, rather than the cause of a new split. So I don’t feel like this is going to be all that impactful.
Rogan has said he has had the opportunity to have Trump on his show but he doesn’t want to give him the forum. Despite what gets headlines the show is mostly not political but he’s never pretended to like Trump. You’re right, he’s more of a Libertarian. The old school pot smoking kind not the right wing version.
[quote=“bordelond, post:2262, topic:1005351”]
data scientist ,in 2020, he correctly predicted which states Biden would win[/quote]
As they say in the stock market advertisements, “past performance does not indicate future results”.
This election is unique, unlike anything in all of American history.
Nobody can make a good prediction.
I had a professor of economics who described “experts” who predict stock market trends :
Suppose you ask a stadium full of 50 thousand people to all flip a coin 10 times. Somebody will get “heads” 10 times in a row. So the press will declare that he is the official expert-- When he predicts “heads”, you know he will be correct. Now, get ready to flip your coin!–and invest a million dollars-- on getting “heads”. You know it will be true! The expert predicts it!
