Indecision 2024

[headshot]

As a foreigner, not properly exposed to the election campaign or the mood of the country, my question is not why she lost, it's why did the polls think she might not lose?

Before Biden withdrew, the impression I had received was that there was no real choice because people just didn't like Harris. After Biden dropped out it began to look as if I had got the wrong impression. So, were the polls wrong, and if so why?

Because her loss in the Electoral College swing states was within the margin of error.

[Martin Y]

Because her loss in the Electoral College swing states was within the margin of error.

Okay. So the polls weren't wrong. And the result wasn't any kind of landslide, except to the extent that it was a result that can occur within the 3%
margin of error of polls which said she had a very slight lead.

Or is that realistic? Sure, the results can be a few percent off either way, but if the coin flip comes up tails in state after state after state, eventually that starts to look less like random error and a lot more like a trend where they were systematically wrong.

[dyqik]

Because her loss in the Electoral College swing states was within the margin of error.

Okay. So the polls weren't wrong. And the result wasn't any kind of landslide, except to the extent that it was a result that can occur within the 3%
margin of error of polls which said she had a very slight lead.

Or is that realistic? Sure, the results can be a few percent off either way, but if the coin flip comes up tails in state after state after state, eventually that starts to look less like random error and a lot more like a trend where they were systematically wrong.

The margin of error quoted in polls is the statistical random error based on the sample size. It does not include systematic errors due to polling methods, which can and does produce errors that are highly correlated between states. One estimate of the true margin of error including random and systematic errors from Harry Enten is about ±9%, I think on the margin/horse race between two candidates, but possibly he meant on each candidate's support, so double that on the horse race.

Systematic errors do not average down across multiple polls with similar methodologies.

And yes, this means that polls can not measure the absolute result well enough to predict the winner in a typical close election, although they can measure movement in the race if multiple polls with the same methodology are carried out over time.

The problem is then that the pollsters are chasing their systematic errors from the previous election, changing details of their methods, while also suffering a significant reduction in response rates. This means that you can't necessarily compare polls between elections, or often between primaries and the general election. And the election hinges on those that change their mind about voting/who to vote for, who are least likely to answer polls.

This also means that the media focus on polls vs issues means that there are more poorly informed voters who will break one way or another (and between voting and not voting) based on vague vibes that may or may not be a reflection of the candidates and the actual effects of their policies.

[noggins]

Trump got 1.5m votes less than in 2020
Harris got 13m less votes than Biden

On the face of it the issue is soft-democrat apathy

*edit: not final figured, add a couple of million to both: same story

I was wrong. Its all because of 140,000 voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. f.ck.

[headshot]

Because her loss in the Electoral College swing states was within the margin of error.

Okay. So the polls weren't wrong. And the result wasn't any kind of landslide, except to the extent that it was a result that can occur within the 3%
margin of error of polls which said she had a very slight lead.

Or is that realistic? Sure, the results can be a few percent off either way, but if the coin flip comes up tails in state after state after state, eventually that starts to look less like random error and a lot more like a trend where they were systematically wrong.

Or where there has been a systematic and persistent attempt to suppress votes for Democratic candidates and gerrymander the districts to all but ensure Republican victories.

[headshot]

Also, bear in mind that counting hasn't finished yet, so those vote totals will change and the actual number of voters for each candidate might not be as massively different from 2020 as they currently appear.

What's interested is that Trump gained in every district nationwide. Even in Democratic strongholds like California and New York, he increased his 2020 vote share. This wasn't a glitch in a swing state. It was a nationwide lean into Trump and his version of politics.

https://youtu.be/jVlBoC1TbZ4?si=NbvYMZshXACjPyL_&t=56

[noggins]

% Share is misleading. Trump is going to end up with almost the same total votes as 2020.

[philbo]

There's only one song to fit - Say it ain't so, Joe

I dunno... I'm just finishing off "Perp'll Reign", which I'm currently trying to get together a scratch band to play at the next local open mic

[dyqik]

There's only one song to fit - Say it ain't so, Joe

I dunno... I'm just finishing off "Perp'll Reign", which I'm currently trying to get together a scratch band to play at the next local open mic

My neighbor just sent me a link to Jarvis Cocker's "c.nts are still running the world"

[bob sterman]

Also, bear in mind that counting hasn't finished yet, so those vote totals will change and the actual number of voters for each candidate might not be as massively different from 2020 as they currently appear.

Yes - California has still got about another 6.5 million votes to report. These will probably close the gap between Harris and Trump by > 1 million. But she'll still be quite far short of Biden's total.

[Grumble]

One random beer thought. People say that politicians all lie, so they don’t see the difference with the outrageous lies that Trump tells. They all lie. And you can’t deny it, not really. A completely honest left wing politician would be interesting to see. Labour came to power promising not to raise taxes on working people. They are now raising taxes to an unprecedented degree. Yes, they have arguably stuck to their words, but they’re clearly weasel words.

[Chris Preston]

There is quite a bit of difference between the behaviour of "normal" politicians and Trump. I would characterise most politicians lying to obscure the truth. Sometimes they do more than this. Trump on the other hand bullshits (I am guessing the swear filter will pick that one up). Bullshitting is a practice of stating things regardless of the truth and being only interested in the suitability of the comment for the current purpose.

There is also a difference in when they get caught. Politicians caught lying often have some consequences from loss of trust to having to apologise to loss of position. None of these consequences appear to happen to Trump. Trump is held to a completely different set of standards by the press to "normal" politicians. One reason I suspect is that there is so much b.llsh.t that it is difficult to focus on any one piece.

[bob sterman]

On the margin of victory - when it comes to the electoral college. Result looks like 226 Harris, 312 Trump.

With 99% of votes counted - the margins of victory across WI, MI and PA add up to about 250,000 votes.

So if 125,000 people had voted the opposte way across those 3 states we'd have Harris 270, Trump 268.

Notwithstanding the general movement towards Trump across the nation - with the electoral college - the final outcome can hinge on the decisions of a comparatively small group of voters.

[lpm]

That's a big gap. Significantly larger than Biden 2020 and Trump 2016.

But more importantly it's not that those 250,000 votes were outliers. They are fair and square in line with almost every county in America, with a surprisingly uniform swing to Trump.

Can't deny it was a solid win.

[bob sterman]

That's a big gap. Significantly larger than Biden 2020 and Trump 2016.

But more importantly it's not that those 250,000 votes were outliers. They are fair and square in line with almost every county in America, with a surprisingly uniform swing to Trump.

Can't deny it was a solid win.

Not denying it was a solid win and in line with the trend across the US. Just pointing out that the outcome can hinge on a relatively small number of votes.

In 2020 Biden's margins of victory across WI, MI and PA also added up to about 250,000 votes. So actually very similar in those states. But Biden won a few others back in 2020.

[TopBadger]

Looking like it will be a clean sweep for the Republicans.

Someone once explained to me that a common US voter thing was to split their vote, so if they voted R for president they voted D for Senate / House, on the basis that it's good to have a mix in branches of government for "checks and balances".

That seems to have gone out of the window, and the voters willingly, having seen what the guy is about, are about to give essentially as many levers of power to Trump as it's possible to give.

I know there is a separation of state and federal law - I can only assume a lot of voters are happy with the protections they imagine themselves to have under state law that they'll be insulated from whatever they perceive as Trump's negatives (willful disregard for rule of law, amongst other things), whilst benefitting from what they perceive as Trump's strengths (the economy).

I wonder how much voter remorse will be experienced over the next 4 and a bit years (and possibly more, if he refuses to leave the Whitehouse next time - assuming he lives that long)?

[bjn]

The mid terms will likely be interesting.

[jimbob]

The mid terms will likely be interesting.

Hoping that Trump or Vance won't have time to load the SC with even more compliant judges, and that at least a couple of senators decide to drag their heels over their plans

[noggins]

I wonder, are the 70m+ Trump voters basically the same 70m who voted for him in 2020, or has there been a lot of 'churn' ?

[shpalman]

I think the war in Gaza was a big factor, too - a lot of Jews and Muslims thought Biden and Harris had failed "their" side, and voted Mental in response.

I disagree. The scale of the loss is just too much and too widespread for Gaza to be a big factor. I think that it's mostly sexism and racism which has been bolstered by the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson who have captured a scarily large percentage of young men.

Richard Reeves on why Democrats lost young men

So Republicans found success in the idea that the success of women has come at the expense of men.

In reality, it’s not zero sum. Men are not struggling because women are flourishing. But absent other reasons, it was allowed to become a more effective political strategy. What men heard from the right was: you’ve got problems, we don’t have solutions. What they heard from the left is: you don’t have problems, you are the problem. And between those two choices, it’s not really surprising to me that more men chose the Republican one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R ... sh_author)

[bolo]

Someone once explained to me that a common US voter thing was to split their vote, so if they voted R for president they voted D for Senate / House, on the basis that it's good to have a mix in branches of government for "checks and balances".

That seems to have gone out of the window, and the voters willingly, having seen what the guy is about, are about to give essentially as many levers of power to Trump as it's possible to give.

Split ticket voting used to be much more common. It's become quite rare.

Even if the Republicans keep the House, having control of the House,.the Senate, and the Presidency doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy to pass controversial legislation. In the Senate, there's the filibuster. In the House,.with a narrow majority, it may be difficult to keep the Republican caucus together. They have a majority in the current House and have been pretty incapable of passing much. Think of how long it took them even to settle on a speaker.

[Stranger Mouse]

Excellent work from Led By Donkeys projected on the Tesla Amsterdam building here. Worth watching the full video

https://x.com/bydonkeys/status/1855167804808331477?s=61

[Woodchopper]

Jon Favreau, a host of the political podcast “Pod Save America,” said during Friday’s episode that President Biden’s internal polling showed that President-elect Trump would win “400 electoral votes.”

“Then we find out when the Biden campaign becomes the Harris campaign, that the Biden campaign’s own internal polling at the time when they were telling us he was the strongest candidate, showed that Donald Trump was going to win 400 electoral votes,” Favreau said on the podcast in comments highlighted by Mediaite.

The “Pod Save America” hosts, who worked with Biden in the Obama White House, were among those leading the call for Biden to step aside as the democratic nominee this summer.

Favreau also called Biden’s reelection bid a “catastrophic mistake,” saying his “inner circle” refused to believe he was “unpopular.”

“They refuse to acknowledge until very late that anyone could be upset about inflation. And they just kept telling us that his presidency was historic and it was the greatest economy ever,” Favreau said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... ral-votes/

[Grumble]

Of all the attack lines Trump had, the one about how Harris hadn’t been selected properly was hard to defend, because it was true. Yes it was all technically correct, but it wasn’t done the way people expect a presidential candidate to be selected. I’m not sure how much of a difference that made but it was definitely one of the factors Trump supporters mentioned in interviews.

[jimbob]

Of all the attack lines Trump had, the one about how Harris hadn’t been selected properly was hard to defend, because it was true. Yes it was all technically correct, but it wasn’t done the way people expect a presidential candidate to be selected. I’m not sure how much of a difference that made but it was definitely one of the factors Trump supporters mentioned in interviews.

It was a collection of lots of little things