Sorry not clear enough - I meant “apparent momentum” explicitly as a feeling of “more to come from Kamala” not that polls had any actual momentum. In August, this board and many places were full of “Kamala is in a good place and can build her lead by … [lots of armchair pundit strategies]”.
Regardless, saying “score was tied in the 1st quarter, now that it’s still tied in the 4th quarter we’re in the same situation why is anyone more/less worried than before?” really doesn’t capture the significant difference in urgency and panic that come with an expiring clock.
But that’s about feelings. By all means, panic based on your feelings. It won’t do any good, and you’ll feel worse, but I understand panic based on feelings. Just realize that it’s based on feelings, not facts.
Very minutely possible. The only reason there’s a small chance Cruz will lose is because he’s so obnoxious and smarmy that even the Republicans hate him. Still, in the end, most Texas voters will suppress their urge to vomit and cast their vote for him anyway.
We’re in a thread about panic (and thus risk profile) when being confronted with facts. My original point is that is a significant change in said risk profile that time has passed even when poll%s are unchanged. This change over time is directly used in 538/Silver methods - the August predictions give time for wiggle room (i.e. giving room for the “fundamentals” that may still come to play, widening the error range) while the October projections come closer and closer to polls-only. So those models given the exact same polls would have different outcome probabilities, therefore different risk levels, therefore different levels in “panic” in Aug versus Oct. Predictions aren’t facts, but the increasing risk level is rational and quantifiable (in theory). We are qualitatively expressing what those aggregators are attempting to quantify, and time-to-election is significant.
I hate to be that guy, but people never say that feelings are invalid when a Democrat is in good shape. It’s like feelings are legit when a D appears likely to win, but illegit when a D appears likely to lose.
I say it all the time. Your feelings that Kamala will win easily are based on feelings, not facts. I have similar feelings - and they’re similarly baseless and meaningless.
By all means, have feelings. Everyone has feelings. Smart people recognize that feelings that aren’t based on facts are useless and essentially meaningless.
Get that with the Electoral College complaints too. Always Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska, Montana, West Virginia, etc. Never hear that it’s bad about Vermont, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island, etc. 34 states are less than 2% each of the EC, 17 are less than 1%. Of those 17, it’s fair to call 30 of those D and 31 R (making some assumptions about New Hampshire and part of Maine).
Anyway, I think people often secretly want to be panicking. Especially after they got burned so badly in 2016.
The same risk downwards existed in August, and is lesser now. It wasn’t just possible that Harris would run away with it - it was also possible she’d tank. She didn’t do either.
Except when based on solid data, feelings about politics are about you, not about the actual political situation. And there’s no data that suggests we should panic now more than in August.
Prediction modeling is always a tough thing to talk about in terms of “facts”. A poll about an event a month away is a different set of “facts” then the same poll about the same event, but three months away. Would it help it seem more “factual” if we used the term “adjust ones’ risk profile” instead of “panic”? If so, here’s an example - according to a headline on The Hill: “Harris signals new willingness to take risks as polls tighten” (article is mostly about accepting an interview with Fox). That seems like a rational response to the fact that time has passed, the fact that things tried so far haven’t moved the needle, therefore the rational decision is riskier (that somebody could describe uncharitably as “panicky”) behavior.
Panicking could certainly lead a person to donate more money, time, effort, whatever, than they would if they felt safer - it doesn’t solely mean running around like a headless chicken or anything.
The Hill is a (largely) silly publication and their headlines seldom are more fact-based than feeling-based. Interviewing with Fox late in the race may have always been part of the plan, we just don’t know.
Now is the time of year in which everyone can get silly, but nothing is occurring (aside from all the Trump nonsense) that is at all out of the realm of normal-hood for elections for decades. Embrace the uncertainty – you don’t know, you can’t know, what’s going to happen. Neither do I and neither does anyone. Polls shifting by a half point in whatever direction tells us essentially nothing. We can have feelings but we should understand that these feelings are mostly meaningless.
So, WHY am I still getting 30 or 40 entreaties for money each day??? I mean, if you need more money at this point with I believe quite the war chest, then we are in fact doomed.
I’m going to take this as a good sign - if people are motivated to vote, it bodes well for Harris, I think, since it’s the left-of-center voters that tend to stay home out of apathy, AND left-of-center voters that are more likely to vote early.
More than 300,000 ballots were cast Tuesday, Gabe Sterling of the Georgia secretary of state’s office said on X. “Spectacular turnout. We are running out of adjectives for this.”
The previous first day record was 136,000 in 2020, Sterling said.
As an article in the NYT said today, how do you get people to keep donating when you’ve raised a billion dollars? The sheer fact of that number is disgusting and definitely means I’m not giving money to a woman I don’t like.