this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
2 points (51.5% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4570 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Democratic strategist David Axelrod wrote on social media after President Biden’s Thursday night press conference that his odds of winning the presidential race this fall are “very very slim.”

Axelrod said Biden’s team “has not been very candid” with the president after Biden at the presser said no poll or person is telling him he cannot win in November.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Currently very true. He's down in PA and he can't win without them. Bad sign for the "son of Scranton".

Michigan is a toss up, which he also HAS to win.

Down in Wisconsin. Minnesota is a toss up.

It's not looking good right now.

Can he change it at the Democratic convention next month? Maybe. Even odds that something happens to make it worse though.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That’s not what models say. It’s pretty much 50/50. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

And all the fashion models I hang out with are saying the same things. The models agree.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And if it's even slightly close, the SC hands it to the GOP.

Also, it should in no fucking way whatsoever be 50/50 , but here we are.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

If it's 50/50 in a national poll, Biden will lose by several states in the EC. No SCOTUS intervention required.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Data aside, the GOP has been uniting over the RNC and joining hands for their support of the candidate while the Democrats are imploding and casting doubt on themselves left and right. Will be curious to see how things shift in terms of polling. But at the end of the day, we have two very different candidates with different values. Would not surprise me to see a shift like we did in France and UK where last minute coalitions tip the scales.

It's easy to complain now about disliking one candidate over another, but when left with the final decision at the end of the day, things change.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don’t understand how this is possible with the current polling consistently showing a Trump edge and his structural advantage in the EC. Worth noting that ABC inexplicably laid off Nate Silver and he took his model system with him. I imagine they’ve built something similar to replace it but it remains untested compared to their past predictions.

That said, Biden clearly has a chance to win, so I think Axelrod may be overstating it here. But Trump does seem to be a clear favorite from the available information.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You’re not going to change my mind on fashion models. Even when they’re wrong, you’re better off just shutting your mouth so they let you in the club. (Or clüb for my continental friends.)

I think Nate Silver is clever but not a rigorous intellectual. His “model” is not even open source, and predicting presidential elections has 50ish data points and fewer than 10 that are uncertain. He made a good model but it is what it is: a model of the last election. (Nothing has changed. We can assume it’s the same as last time, right?)

I also just assume he’s gonna get on the right wing grift circuit before too long. One last score is saying “woke is bad.” And he can justify anything to himself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/nate-silver-polymarket Nate Silver did, in fact, do the right wing grift thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

(Nothing has changed. We can assume it’s the same as last time, right?)

I’m hoping you dropped the /s,

Immigration voters (well the dem-base immigration voters,) the Muslim vote. He’s always been soft with women and the black vote.

And he barely squeaked it out last time. Anyone who’s telling him he’s likely to win is lying through their teeth. Probably because of there’s a new pres, they’re likely to lose their jobs.

Details.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

All good points, I’m not necessarily saying Nate’s is better, just that the fivethirtyeight model is probably different from past years.

There’s also the economist which shows Trump a 3/4 favorite. I have little knowledge of their methods or history so take that with a grain of salt but it’s worth considering.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Minnesota is as much as a toss up as Alabama

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You say that... buuuut...

Minnesota: Biden+2 to Trump+1, pretty much the definition of toss up.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/

Alabama: Trump+19 but that was a couple of months ago.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/alabama/

2020 Trump won Alabama by 25.46 points.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Come visit rural Minnesota

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Rural anywhere, really. All Trump, all the time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Fuck it is… I don’t like Biden, but my vote is anti-Trump so….

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

If by very slim they mean functionally impossible, then yes I agree.