The most robust item on reaction to yesterday’s presidential candidates’ debate, at least so far as I’m aware, is a CNN poll “conducted by text message with 605 registered US voters who said they watched the debate”, which recorded a 63-37 win for Kamala Harris from a sample that going in had a 50-50 split on who they expected to win. This doesn’t quite match the 67-33 result in favour of Trump after the June 27 debate that marked the beginning of the end for Joe Biden, but it isn’t far off, and both seem about as close to decisive as can be expected by the polarised standards of American politics.
It was a win that Harris badly needed, if recent polls and forecast results are any guide. The latter have recorded what looks to my untrained eye like a dividend for Donald Trump from Robert F. Kennedy’s withdrawal, sufficient to reduce the modest lead Harris opened up in The Economist’s model to effectively nothing. Still more striking has been the recent form of Nate Silver’s model, which won the approval of Trump himself by swinging to a 64.4% probability in his favour as of Monday, though it’s since eased to 61.3%. The divergence between the two models, which were hitherto finely matched, appears to be largely down to Silver’s model correcting for an anticipated Harris convention bounce, of which the polls have offered no sign.
Adrian Beaumont has an update on the polling situation in The Conversation, dating from Monday.
C@tmomma @ #694 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 9:03 am
My child gets a mix of crap on tiktok. Definitely more pro Trump stuff than I expected. She hates Swift but a fan of Eilish. Having both endorse Harris is good stuff.
She just needs the Kardashians to endorse Harris.
Emerson puts a dent in my hopes for Missouri Senate upset overthrow of Hawley. Then again, might help make it a worthwhile long shot bet.
Paul Waldman of MSNBC notes the efforts by the Democratic Party to do outreach with rural voters.
It wasn’t all that long ago that Democrats did better with rural voters — not winning, but keeping the margins at least somewhat close. In 2008, Barack Obama got 43% of the rural votes, and did especially well in rural areas of battleground states his campaign would blanket with staff members and volunteers.
But in subsequent years, rural voters — more specifically, rural whites — moved right. According to the Pew Research Center’s data, Donald Trump won the rural vote by 59% to 34% in 2016; among only rural whites, his victory was 62% to 30%. Four years later, he did even better, winning the overall rural vote by 65% to 34% and the rural white vote by 71% to 28%. […]
The usual advice from rural activists to Democrats is appealingly straightforward: Show up, listen, treat us with respect, demonstrate that you want to help our communities thrive. Biden did just that: His 2020 campaign put out a lengthy plan for rural development, and he talked about rural Americans with the empathy and respect Democrats are always told has been missing. “You know, it really does go to the issue of dignity, how you treat people,” he said. “I think they just feel forgotten.” The kind words and white papers didn’t work: Biden lost rural voters by an even bigger margin than Hillary Clinton did four years before.
Turns out that Tim Walz is giving a speech tonight in the North Carolina town I’m currently in (presumably out at the university or similar because otherwise there would have been a lot more cops around downtown). Asheville is an island of blue in a sea of red, which makes it puzzling that Trump turned up here for a rally a few weeks back.
BT @ #705 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 10:34 am
https://www.youtube.com/live/n2wEepohndA?si=4umAlZV10CWZfYhY
Wow, he’s really losing it
Nah, just finding a way to get around to reinforcing his key themes.
Shake it off!
https://youtube.com/shorts/PHwEzwuxJ0I?si=c3v_qzgbLNXz5KAg
Shreds of decency remain.
Harris phoned Trump after the later assassination attempt.
Trump has responded publicly with WTTE, ‘I had a lovely phone call from Kamala.’
Boerwar @ #709 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 11:33 am
Yeah, nah. He always reacts like this when someone is nice to him. Then in front of a rabid crowd, turns around and suggests they should be locked up.
McCain was a solid individual. In 2008 campaign, he politely explained to someone in his crowd that Obama wasnt a terrorist, that he was a good man and that they just disagreed on policies. Trump would never do that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk
The lady didn’t accuse Obama of being a terrorist, she said he was Arab. By which she probably meant “Muslim”.
All equally false, though also kinda weird (in a sad sort of way) that the response to “Muslim” is “no, he’s a decent family man”. But US political discourse is sufficiently free of nuance that “Muslim” and “terrorist” can be used interchangeably. McCain would have known this when he gave that answer.
Consequential stuff going on in the background:
‘A judge dealt former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows a blow on Monday, rejecting his request to move his criminal charges in Arizona to federal court.
U.S. District Judge John Tuchi wrote Monday that Meadows failed to “present good cause for his untimely filing” of his removal request, and that he failed to “demonstrate that the conduct charged in the state’s prosecution relates to his former color of office as Chief of Staff to the President.”
In April, an Arizona grand jury indicted 18 people on nine felony counts in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Prosecutors have said Meadows worked with the Trump campaign to “coordinate and implement the false Republican electors’ votes in Arizona” and “was involved in the many efforts to keep [Trump] in power despite his defeat at the polls.”
Meadows has argued that the case ought to be moved to federal court because the allegations that he essentially facilitated communication to and from the president related to the Election was within the scope of his official duties.
But the judge wasn’t buying it — and laid into the argument.
“Mr. Meadows has not so much removed the State’s indictment as rewritten it,” wrote Tuchi.
“Contrary to Mr. Meadows’s assertions, the State has not indicted Mr. Meadows for merely facilitating communication to and from the President or for simply staying abreast of campaign goings-on,” Tuchi added. “Instead, the State has indicted Mr. Meadows for allegedly orchestrating and participating in an illegal electioneering scheme. Few, if any, of the State’s factual allegations even resemble the secretarial duties that Mr. Meadows maintains are the subject of the indictment.”
Meadows also faces charges in Georgia in the scheme to overturn the 2020 election. He has pleaded not guilty in both states.’
(Raw Story)
I hadn’t known that Gish (of “Gish Gallop”) was a person and had thought it just another term like “word salad”. I blame the alliteration. But it’s useful to know who Gish was when you’re listening to T****.
https://youtu.be/RUSwo17WQmw
(2½ minutes)
TLDR: Dr Duane Gish (1921-2013) was a creationist. The stand-up debate format allowed him to bury his opponents in an avalanche of misinformation and misdirect the audience to boot. The technique now carries his name since 1994.
(T**** calls the technique “the weave”, and thinks he invented it himself.)
Looking pretty consistent.
Tim Walz gave a rally today in front 0f 2,500 people in Asheville, North Carolina.
7,500 had registered. This write up by a local outlet goes into the colour and challenges of events like this..
https://avlwatchdog.org/steady-rain-heavy-security-dont-deter-attendees-looking-for-a-joyful-tim-walz-rally-in-asheville/
Tim Walz’ crowd is far biglier than Trumps was. Nobody pulls bigger crowds than Walz.
I have no proof of that. I havent even bothered to try to check. But why does any of that matter in the post truth paradigm?
OK, I have checked. Trump got a similar crowd but it was an inside rally – at capacity, with approx 3000 more outside. Shame the rain stopped Walz getting 7.5k!
Team Katich @ #716 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 2:49 pm
From the story :
“Emily McGinty, a Harris-Walz staffer from Madison County, said the campaign had 7,500 people sign up for the rally, but for this event, Salvage Station’s capacity was 2,500.”
WALZ PULLS BIGGER CROWD THAN TRUMP!
Any competent band manager could have got them a bigger venue.
Nate Silver: “I am a brilliant and clever man and I have produced a computer model that gives Kamala Harris a 40% chance of winning the election”
xD
Omar Comin’ I saw the 538 model was 60/40 Harris/Trump. Considering their model was Nate’s model I am wondering how and why they have diverged in terms of outputs.
Mostly Interested, the conspiratorially minded would say that the reason is because having Kamala come all the way in at this stage is not good for volume (revenue) in the betting market that employs him, but y’know.
Omar Comin’ @ #720 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 3:24 pm
Actual latest Nate Silver statement. Beware liars.
The Gish Gallop technique is to produce a rapid-fire of factoids, which may or may not be true, which may or may not be relevant or supported by evidence, in order to overwhelm an opponent. Refuting these takes time. It can leave the opponent seeming lost and bewildered, thus “losing” the debate. It’s very popular with creationists and climate deniers.
“So how do you explain how there’s been no warming since 1998”, which is simply not true, that sort of thing.
to continue:
almost a 25 percent chance that she wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, meaning that the election is a toss-up.
Or, to put it another way: marks get fleeced.
The ASX is flat today ahead of the interest rate decision by the FED. A cut of 50 basis points can only help Kamala, she has her neck in front at the moment.
Donald better stop being stupid (tall order for him, I know) otherwise he will lose.
What the fuack saying that he hates Taylor Swift, can you believe it, can you believe it – that’s Trump!
Don’t understand all the stuff about crowds. Firebrands get big crowds. It doesn’t mean that the mass of people who don’t go to rallies feel the same way. Often quite the opposite.
Um, Ms Catmomma unfortunately it can’t be a Panthers v Sharks grand final.
But we are on track for a Panthers v Roosters grand final.
You read it first 🙂
I’m going to overlook the defamatory intent of that statement and co-opt the sentiment: indeed we must be wary of liars and charlatans, and I would say also – zealots.
Yeah, lost interest after he didn’t bother identifying the source of “another one showing her down 2 points [in PA]”.
Implying either that it was another Suffolk poll that showed her down, or that he considers Insider Advantage to be of equal quality/weight as Suffolk. And in either case not mentioning the anomaly where the Insider Advantage poll shows the Dem senate candidate outperforming Harris by several points. That’s just not gonna happen. Not in PA anyways.
It’s the US. Voting is optional. Motivation counts. Big crowds at rallies translates to boots on the ground come election day.
Omar Comin’ @ #720 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 3:24 pm
Your quotes around that sentence imply that it is, in fact, a quote, attributed by you, to Nate Silver. In fact, it is not. Nate Silver did not say that, or anything like it. The article you linked has since been superseded by Silver’s own website.
It says: Harris has a 2-in-3 chance of winning the popular vote, but there’s also almost a 25 percent chance that she wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, meaning that the election is a toss-up. 75% of 66.66666% is 49.999995 %. I believe that your “quote” was somewhat misleading, and shows a degree of contempt for a pretty good statistician.
@subgeometer oh he did wheel/wall again! That’s awesome, he’s bringing the classics back in to high rotation.
Just a reminder that Silver does not give predictions. In his own words, this is what he says to the question ‘who is going to win’;
As for the two PA polls, I have no doubt that Silvers model weights Suffolk higher than Insider Advantage. It wasnt that long ago Silver gave the Insider Advantage guy a pantsing for a) claiming Silver said something he didnt and b) for being a terrible pollster. However, due to the perplexing oddity of these politically biased and opaque polls being closer to the actual result in previous presidential elections, he is probably a little gun-shy.
What annoys me is that they all know State polls have tendencies to be imprecise and inaccurate, why give them so much store in their models compared to extrapolating national polls? I mean, I know that they need to grasp with the EC bias to be able to create a probabilistic guess. Relying heavily on state polls seems to make sense on the face of it but perhaps have an strong underlying unreliability.
When Silver says, “Harris has a 2-in-3 chance of winning the popular vote”, what he means is that he can’t be more accurate, because the data are poor and maybe also because the election is still weeks away. (Is it a “nowcast” or a forecast” being discussed?) I guess what I’m saying is that with uncertainties like that, why bother? (It’s OK. I know why. It’s a personal irrit.)
Further to your point Team Katich (the one about state polls, not the long winded and redundant one about Nate Silver not claiming to offer predictions) – The state polls also only cover assumed battlegrounds – in the event that Harris’ lead in national polls reaches 8+ points, a landslide of large states that haven’t been polled are in play and some heavily polled purple state red-herring is just that.
Nate Silver’s maths are correct.
Harris has a 67% chance of winning the popular vote. From there she has a 75% of winning the election.
Yep, 50%.
Well done Yabba.
Centre @ #729 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 3:43 pm
Next year I predict a Rabbitohs V St George GF. Just like the good ol’ days. 🙂
But will Old Don go for the Daily Double and say he hates Billie Eilish too?
Why redundant? And…. 3 lines is long winded?
Redundant because there is no difference and no-one said there was and long winded because…actually re-reading it, the second paragraph isn’t really in support of the first so I’m going to apologize and cop that one sweet. Sorry.
There is a difference between forecasting and predictions.
Your linked headline stated “Bold Prediction”.
And I stop there to avoid the long wind (which was good general advice).
Prediction; Sea Eagles will win this years NRL.
Nate Silver doesn’t believe his own model’s results at the moment. Models are only ever as good as their inputs and his model is lacking them.
Silver has been put on a pedestal which is a bit like the gamblers fallacy – He has got four presidential elections right somewhat (2016 he was just on the fence, didn’t say Trump was going to win). But 2008, 2012 and 2020 were a lot easier to predict. So his track record is more average than people believe.
Re the calculation that Harris’ probability of winning is 50%. I need help.
I can follow why “2/3 x 3/4 = 1/2”, or 50%. But then I get lost.
(1) If Harris is on 50% for the election, T**** should be that also.
(2) If Harris has a 2/3 chance of winning the popular vote, T**** must have a 1/3 chance.
(3) If T**** wins the popular vote, what are his chances of winning the election?
(4) Well, using the same equation as for Harris “1/3 x 1.5 = 1/2”, or if T**** wins the popular vote his chances of winning the election are 150%.
And 150% is nonsense. What am I missing?
Genuine question.
—
EDIT: A little more detail.
Team Katich @ #743 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 5:01 pm
About time. 😆
C+ users with auto-update
I edited my last post to include more detail. Hopefully it makes things clearer.
In 2016 Nate Silver’s model gave Trump a 29% chance and he spent the four years after that explaining to people how that made him a kind of genius who was vilified by the left – an effort that has paid tremendous dividends for him.
Well Yabba it seems you surmised my obvious contempt from my obvious sarcasm, which rather undermines your inverted comma pedantry, but I’ll bear your literary standards in mind in my future Nate Silver related snark.
Late Riser @ #745 Wednesday, September 18th, 2024 – 5:07 pm
The chance of Trump winning the election if he wins the popular vote would be very close to 100%. Close enough to call it 100%.
The chance of Trump winning the popular vote is 33%. 100% of 33% is 33%.
So Trump has a 33% chance of winning the election by winning the popular vote. Set that 33% to one side for now.
There’s also an overall 67% chance that Harris wins the popular vote. Some of the scenarios within that 67% are wins for Harris. The rest are wins for Trump that haven’t been accounted for yet. Specifically, instances like 2016 where Trump loses the popular vote but wins the election because Electoral College.
Say Trump has a 25% chance of winning the election while losing the popular vote. 25% of 67% is (approx.) 17%.
So from the scenarios where Harris wins the popular vote, Trump gets an extra 17% overall. Take that to the side as well.
33% (Trump wins popular vote and electoral college) + 17% (Trump loses popular vote but wins electoral college) gives 50% of all scenarios where Trump wins. As in “coin flip”.
Exact same thing applies to Harris, it’s just that she gets no benefit from any scenario in which she doesn’t win the popular vote. So her overall win probability is just her chances of winning the popular vote, minus the subset of those scenarios cannibalized by Trump/EC malapportionment. As in, 67% – 17%. For the same 50% as Trump.