2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
No-one has debunked them that I'm aware of. I mean the guy wrote a book about it. I assume he could be sued if he was lying.
Did he slander someone specific? Who is going to sue him? People lie in a print all the time without being sued. A plaintiff has to show damages in order to have standing to bring suit.
Well, he's either stating facts or he isn't. Shouldn't be too hard to prove one way or the other.
No-one has debunked them that I'm aware of. I mean the guy wrote a book about it. I assume he could be sued if he was lying.
Interesting article. Couple of the things I hadn't read before. He isn't saying the election was rigged, he's just saying the election wasn't certifiable based on x, y and z.
because the Brooks Brothers riots unlike Jan 6 riots, actually worked.
So the side who was willing to wage war managed to intimidate the political process and get what it wanted, so there was no further strife.
this sounds good unless you remember that it happened the same year "thousands of experts across the world" failed spectacularly at COVID assessment, modeling and managing with plenty of twitter random actually accurately predicting their failure and their mistakes in real time, so that's the context of election denialism in late 2020.
a significant portion of the population lost trust in experts of all kinds forever (and for good reasons) because of COVID, can't apply that argument anymore about
I don't think you really believe this.
For one thing, Covid was a new event people had to deal with in real time. For another, there were experts who were critical of going full lock down for so long.
The whole issue was very complex. You had to try to figure the health risks, the economic risks, the social costs of increased isolation, the impact on students, etc. As it was happening.
In an election, a bunch of people vote and then you count the votes and that's about it.
There were a million people on Twitter saying everything between the virus doesn't exist, to the virus is the worst thing ever. Some were going to hit the mark.
We shouldn't have blind faith in experts obviously. Often, they are just making educated guesses that will be wrong. Doesn't mean it's better to just pull stuff out of your butt.
An expert guessing when we will have colonies on the moon is probably not much more accurate than a random smart person. An expert measuring an earthquake that already happened will get most stuff right.
Studying elections that already happened is not all that speculative.
Last day before the election.
RCP shows a dead heat in their average lmao
I don't think you really believe this.
For one thing, Covid was a new event people had to deal with in real time. For another, there were experts who were critical of going full lock down for so long.
The whole issue was very complex. You had to try to figure the health risks, the economic risks, the social costs of increased isolation, the impact on students, etc. As it was happening.
In an election, a bunch of people vote and then you count the votes and that's about it.
There were a million peo
I do believe that events related to COVID made people who (correctly) disagreed with the "experts" about it often lose trust with all experts even in field that are uncorrelated with that (like election integrity).
I am not saying I personally lost trust in election integrity or in the people who claim American elections are fair (I didn't, although the USA could do better to increase trust).
but a lot of people I talk with lost trust in experts that can be connected with any party that approved of lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates, forever.
it doesn't help that exactly the same identical people often enough push absolute apocalyptic climate change nonsense.
we have become tribal in assessing claims, all claims, included many just shouldnt be politicized, and of course that happened almost exclusively because of the left attempt to justify all of their ideological claims warping science (covid, "gender identity", "climate change", and so on).
the left started declaring that their ideological, arbitrary preferences are "scientifical", and ofc everyone who disagrees with them on those preferences, must stop believing in "science". at least the "science" the left peddles as "truth" while being nothing of the sort (and often enough a plain attempt at scamming us).
good luck then when actual experts exist in some fields and actually can support leftist claims, getting people who you tried to scam with "science" about fundamental topics, ever believe you about ANYTHING for the rest of their lives.
And that includes claims about the election.
I don't think you really believe this.
For one thing, Covid was a new event people had to deal with in real time. For another, there were experts who were critical of going full lock down for so long.
The whole issue was very complex. You had to try to figure the health risks, the economic risks, the social costs of increased isolation, the impact on students, etc. As it was happening.
Naturally this is correct but most layman don't understand how science, public health policy, and risk analysis works and love to play monday-morning quarterback. What's even better is when they point to particular failings in science and decide that means we should start trusting people who have no training in any related field. It's like being on a plane and the pilot made a mistake and all the passengers decided the flight attendant should fly the plane instead.
no matter who wins, it will be because of several factors, and it will be hard to properly assess them.
I fully expect the worst conversations to go on for weeks/months no matter who wins, blaming x y z, or claiming a b c, to justify priors.
Anyway if women overall break for Harris more than they did for Biden and Harris wins it would be hard to deny that was a crucial factor yes.
Naturally this is correct but most layman don't understand how science, public health policy, and risk analysis works and love to play monday-morning quarterback. What's even better is when they point to particular failings in science and decide that means we should start trusting people who have no training in any related field. It's like being on a plane and the pilot made a mistake and all the passengers decided the flight attendant should fly the plane instead.
it's like you claiming the pilot is good at piloting so he gets to pick where to land worldwide and you have not a say about that, and if you disagree you hate pilot science.
you probably don't even know the extent of the true rape of science that went on with papers and scientifical claims about COVID, and which goes on with climate change (in particular attribution), and that is more common than you think even for other topics from nutrition to attribution of death causes to specific hard-to-measure events and so on and on.
your side is making up a corpus of bullshit about every topic which is built to give the appearance of a scientific consensus (that doesn't exist almost ever about those topics) agreeing, every time, exactly with what the left prefers politically.
you are destroying one of the engine of prosperity, scientifical progres, undermining humanity efforts to understand reality better, to advance your political ideology.
you are seeing it today with election denialism and antivaxxing becoming huge again.
and things will only get worse if you keep making up false science to cover your political agenda.
EC buffer is smaller this time and pollsters do adjust for "shy trump voters" (maybe a tad too much) this cycle.
it's a true coinflip, only very slightly in favor of Trump.
fwiw Biden odds of winning according to bookmakers were 63-65 the day before elections in 2020
EC buffer is smaller this time and pollsters do adjust for "shy trump voters" (maybe a tad too much) this cycle.
it's a true coinflip, only very slightly in favor of Trump.
fwiw Biden odds of winning according to bookmakers were 63-65 the day before elections in 2020
He was an 11-1 favorite on 538
it's like you claiming the pilot is good at piloting so he gets to pick where to land worldwide and you have not a say about that, and if you disagree you hate pilot science.
you probably don't even know the extent of the true rape of science that went on with papers and scientifical claims about COVID, and which goes on with climate change (in particular attribution), and that is more common than you think even for other topics from nutrition to attribution of death causes to specific hard-to-me
claim claim claim claim zero evidence zzzzz
it's like you claiming the pilot is good at piloting so he gets to pick where to land worldwide and you have not a say about that, and if you disagree you hate pilot science.
you probably don't even know the extent of the true rape of science that went on with papers and scientifical claims about COVID, and which goes on with climate change (in particular attribution), and that is more common than you think even for other topics from nutrition to attribution of death causes to specific hard-to-me
Someone knowing nothing about your knowledge on COVID could look only at your sweeping hyperpartisan view on what is an complex scientific subject to know you're speaking completely out of opinion and emotion rather than from a base of actual knowledge. It's certainly consistent with the arguments you've made with me in the past on the subject.
Naturally this is correct but most layman don't understand how science, public health policy, and risk analysis works and love to play monday-morning quarterback. What's even better is when they point to particular failings in science and decide that means we should start trusting people who have no training in any related field. It's like being on a plane and the pilot made a mistake and all the passengers decided the flight attendant should fly the plane instead.
And conservatives have largely kicked out scientists, making stuff like evolution or whether the Earth is 6k years old a political question. Obviously when you abandon rigor and thinking to that extant, you can get whatever answer you want on climate change or whether ivermectin is better for covid than a proven vaccine.
People who vote on election day are idiots.
And conservatives have largely kicked out scientists, making stuff like evolution or whether the Earth is 6k years old a political question. Obviously when you abandon rigor and thinking to that extant, you can get whatever answer you want on climate change or whether ivermectin is better for covid than a proven vaccine.
Your political tribe claims men can get pregnant, GMOs are cancerogenic, and nuclear is very dangerous.
Many of them also claim that IQ has 0 genetic determinants (some even go to the point of claiming intelligence cannot be measured in any way), and that behavioral traits are not inheritable
