[Winstonm]

Does anyone actually think presidential polling is accuarate or even remotely accurate? I don't remember the state now, but in 2020 Biden was shown in the polls as leading by 9 points--he won that state by 0.5. That's well outside any margin of error, more like inside the margin of our best guess is....

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-September-25, 09:56, said:

Does anyone actually think presidential polling is accuarate or even remotely accurate? I don't remember the state now, but in 2020 Biden was shown in the polls as leading by 9 points--he won that state by 0.5. That's well outside any margin of error, more like inside the margin of our best guess is....

I just thought of an experiment. We could do a poll to find out how many people are going to vote. Not a poll about who to vote for, just a poll to see if they will vote. Would such a poll be a reasonably accurste predictor of turnout? People do not always do what they say they will do. I planned to go to the next meeting of the library book club but then Necky noticed they meet on the day a grandchild is having her birthday party so we will go to that instead.

I have voted in every presidential election starting in 1960, I think it is important to do so, so It's a good bet that I will be voting this November. But not everyone feels that way. I gather that around 2/3 of eligible voters actually vote. I doubt that this means that the population divides into 2/3 that al;ways vote and 1/3 that never vote. Probably there is a sizable fraction, maybe 1/5, who vote sometimes, don't vote other times, with no particular reason as to when they do and when they don't.


If it is difficult to predict how many will actually show up to vote then it is certainly difficult to predict how the vote will go.

Polls have their uses, so I believe, but caution seems sensible.

[thepossum]

 Winstonm, on 2024-September-25, 09:56, said:

Does anyone actually think presidential polling is accuarate or even remotely accurate? I don't remember the state now, but in 2020 Biden was shown in the polls as leading by 9 points--he won that state by 0.5. That's well outside any margin of error, more like inside the margin of our best guess is....

Some of them could be close. The average is unlikely to be. Like a stopped clock is right twice a day

I like the above discussion about running many scenarios and having a range of outcomes

It's very sad when professionl consulatnts run scenarios for government - that's an aside of how things can go wrong - and expensive

Something in there for everyone. The optimists the pessimists and all the rest

[hrothgar]

Polling seems to be profoundly broken these days

It has become incredibly difficult to get anyone to respond to phone calls and the like and the propensity to respond varies dramatically across different socio - demographic groups.
Pollsters try to correct for this stuff, but in turn, this means that individual judgement has an enormous impact on the final results.

And this is all BEFORE we get into considerations like pollsters who are deliberately trying to distort the results in order to shape the narrative.

Its for this reason that lots of folks are emphasizing the importance of tracking the results of individual polls over the course of time

Don't worry as much about whether Harris or Trump is at 55% in the NYT / Sienna poll (or whatever) but rather look at whether this poll's results are trending up or down. (And, of course, track the volatility because massive swings and weird swings are more likely to suggest insufficient sample sizes or changes in assumptions rather than legitimate swings)

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2024-September-19, 14:28, said:

I read an article the other day https://www.huffpost...4b0f6ea72e2b59c about attending Trump rallies.
Bascially, what the author is saying is that Trump rallies are attended by the deplorables, people who are thrilled to at last be able to openly display all their bigotry, not only without fear of retribution but garnering praise and fellowship for doing so.

The Daily Show frequently sends Jordan Klepper to these rallies to interview these people. He makes them look ridiculous by exposing their inconsistencies and hypocracy.

But I'll bet they don't care, they probably just love the attention. "Hey, look! I'm on the TV!"

It kind of reminds me of Jay Leno's old "JayWalking" bits, where he would find people on the street who gave stupid answers to really basic questions (like saying Abraham Lincoln was the first POTUS).

[pilowsky]

barmar, on 2024-September-28, 20:21, said:

It kind of reminds me of Jay Leno's old "JayWalking" bits, where he would find people on the street who gave stupid answers to really basic questions (like saying Abraham Lincoln was the first POTUS).

Ironically, the acronym POTUS didn't appear until after Lincoln died.
If we want to be pedantic, which never happens on this Forum.

[kenberg]

pilowsky, on 2024-September-28, 21:19, said:

Ironically, the acronym POTUS didn't appear until after Lincoln died.
If we want to be pedantic, which never happens on this Forum.

If I understand correctly from your link, POT, President Of The, preceded the full POTUS. I can imagine that being the case. When acronyms were rare, maybe it was seen as disrespectful to apply it to the POTUS.

Acronyms have gotten out of hand (GOOH?). A crossword puzzle clue was "response to bfn", the answer was "syl" as in "Bye for now" and "See you later". I neither text nor tweet, so much of this has pmb.

I get a kick out of several aspects of the 1993 movie Sleepless in Seattle. Tom Hanks is Sam, a widower with an eight year old son Jonah, living in Seattle. Meg Ryan is Annie, living in Baltimore. Jonah calls a radio show talk host to explain that his father needs a new wife. Annie sends a letter to Sam and Jonah suggesting that they meet in New York on Valentine's Day. Sam ignores the letter but Jonah, with the help of an older neighborhood girl Jessica, replies saying that they are looking forward to seeing her to see if they are MFEO "Made For Each Other". I had not rea;lized that acronyms had become a big deal in 1993, but apparently big enough so that the movie could make it amusing.

Sleepless in Seattle has various time warp things. Two songs by Jimmy Durante. My two daughters, ages 56 and 63, have probably heard of JD but I doubt that they could say anything about him or recognize his picture if they saw it. Well, Goodnight Mrs Calabash.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-September-19, 14:28, said:

I read an article the other day https://www.huffpost...4b0f6ea72e2b59c about attending Trump rallies.
Bascially, what the author is saying is that Trump rallies are attended by the deplorables, people who are thrilled to at last be able to openly display all their bigotry, not only without fear of retribution but garnering praise and fellowship for doing so.

This bunch cannot be reached as this is part of identify, not politics. The disturbing part is how many there are. For Harris to win, she has to attract those Republican in the swing states who are at least aware, if not sensitive to, minority plights and the difficulties of immigrants and asylum seekers, old time Republicans who will vote Republican forever but need to be coerced into staying home this election cycle or at least not casting a top of the ticket vote.

It's either than, or a Democratic turnout that is historical in its size and devotion to democracy. Something I can't see happening, but could.

I see that Barry responded to your first point, I guess i will respnd to your second point "For Harris to win, she has to attract those Republicans in the swing states who are at least aware, if not sensitive to, minority plights and the difficulties of immigrants and asylum seekers".


I hope that this is not the deciding feature, I doubt it would do the job.


I grew up, as many others. both posters here or just others, in a very working class neighborhood where many voted for Democrats in most elections. I cannot recall anyone from that time expressing any concern whatsoever about the problems of immigrants or would-be immigrants. It was a safe and friendly neighborhood and I think back on the people I knew as decent people. But they were not speaking of, and presumably not thinking of, the problems of immigrants. Most people, those I knew then and those I know now, are not totally self-centered. Decent people, on a day to day basis.. But I think if Harris wants their vote, she has to approach this as something other than how it would help immigrants.


I realize that I am really just making a point that I have made before. If Dems want to know why they are not beating Trump in a landslide I suggest that they consider that maybe, just maybe, they are making some errors. Blaming the voters is convenient, but it doesn't get votes.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-September-29, 10:02, said:

I see that Barry responded to your first point, I guess i will respnd to your second point "For Harris to win, she has to attract those Republicans in the swing states who are at least aware, if not sensitive to, minority plights and the difficulties of immigrants and asylum seekers".

I hope that this is not the deciding feature, I doubt it would do the job.

I grew up, as many others. both posters here or just others, in a very working class neighborhood where many voted for Democrats in most elections. I cannot recall anyone from that time expressing any concern whatsoever about the problems of immigrants or would-be immigrants. It was a safe and friendly neighborhood and I think back on the people I knew as decent people. But they were not speaking of, and presumably not thinking of, the problems of immigrants. Most people, those I knew then and those I know now, are not totally self-centered. Decent people, on a day to day basis.. But I think if Harris wants their vote, she has to approach this as something other than how it would help immigrants.

I realize that I am really just making a point that I have made before. If Dems want to know why they are not beating Trump in a landslide I suggest that they consider that maybe, just maybe, they are making some errors. Blaming the voters is convenient, but it doesn't get votes.

I don't know. Perhaps you are not taking into consideration the changes that have occurred in the electoriate over the last 60 years. What happened then does not mirror today. There iis roughly 45% of the population now that will vote Trump regardless. There is not much that can be done when a party continues to win the popular vote yet loses the electoral college. Yes, I blame the voters. This could have been changed years ago but we, me included, were complacent.

[kenberg]

Here is one way of looking at it. Kamala Harris is doing her best to undo a lot of things that she said in the past. Why? Maybe she has had a massive rethink. More likely, she sees these changes as good strategy. Well, probablky some of both. I am not claiming that she read my posts and is taking advice from me. I am saying that some rethinking can be a good idea.

[awm]

The Democrats have changed things on the policy front -- the biggest one is that they are all taking a much harder line on immigration now, supporting the bipartisan immigration bill that was mostly a Republican wish list and attacking Trump for convincing Republicans to filibuster it.

I think the issue they face is that a lot of people vote more on "culture war" issues than policy. Trump doesn't even have a platform really (unless you count Project 2025). The Democrats have become the party of city dwellers, unmarried women, black people, and the non-religious. A lot of men (and it really is overwhelmingly men) are opposed to the Democrats simply because of who they represent. Trump and Vance talk this up as much as possible -- basically the Republicans are the party of toxic masculinity and the Democrats are the party of everyone who finds toxic masculinity unacceptable.

It's hard to figure out what Democrats should change to appeal to these people. They would basically have to betray their own constituencies and/or kick them out of the party leadership. If they became the party of "toxic masculinity is okay sometimes" they wouldn't peel off too many of the Republican voters while they would suppress the turnout that they need among their own supporters. You cannot beat the Republicans by being "Republican light" (this has been tried many times and failed many times in red states and districts).

Of course, the Democrats do represent the majority of Americans and there is little doubt that they will win the popular vote (as they have in seven of the last eight presidential elections). The problem is that given how the electoral college functions, the Democratic constituency does not have as much say in the presidential election (nor as much representation in Congress) as the Republicans do.

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2024-September-29, 15:38, said:

The Democrats have changed things on the policy front -- the biggest one is that they are all taking a much harder line on immigration now, supporting the bipartisan immigration bill that was mostly a Republican wish list and attacking Trump for convincing Republicans to filibuster it.

I think the issue they face is that a lot of people vote more on "culture war" issues than policy. Trump doesn't even have a platform really (unless you count Project 2025). The Democrats have become the party of city dwellers, unmarried women, black people, and the non-religious. A lot of men (and it really is overwhelmingly men) are opposed to the Democrats simply because of who they represent. Trump and Vance talk this up as much as possible -- basically the Republicans are the party of toxic masculinity and the Democrats are the party of everyone who finds toxic masculinity unacceptable.

It's hard to figure out what Democrats should change to appeal to these people. They would basically have to betray their own constituencies and/or kick them out of the party leadership. If they became the party of "toxic masculinity is okay sometimes" they wouldn't peel off too many of the Republican voters while they would suppress the turnout that they need among their own supporters. You cannot beat the Republicans by being "Republican light" (this has been tried many times and failed many times in red states and districts).

Of course, the Democrats do represent the majority of Americans and there is little doubt that they will win the popular vote (as they have in seven of the last eight presidential elections). The problem is that given how the electoral college functions, the Democratic constituency does not have as much say in the presidential election (nor as much representation in Congress) as the Republicans do.

I will focus on "They would basically have to betray their own constituencies and/or kick them out of the party leadership" versus " toxic masculinity ".

I am an 85 year-old White heterosexual male. I do not regard myself as in any way favoring toxic masculinity. I also do not think that the Dem leadership is thinking about me when they speak of their constituencies. Of course they want my vote and they usually get it. This time it is easy, Trump is so God-Awful. And, for that matter, I like Kamala Harris. I am less enthusiastic about Walz.

As to how people decide things, I think there is an area between "policy" and "culture wars". In the musical Gigi a man is singing about a woman that he is dating. He describes her as charming, exciting and so forth. But a key line of the song is "But she is not thinking of me".

My life is going well, I want the best for my kids and grandkids, for the USA, for the world. So if the Dem leadership is not thinking of me, that's fine, especially given the horrible alternative. So Harris has my vote, even with some enthusuasm. But if the Dems want the majority vote of 85 year-old White heterosexual males, the Dems might want to think about how to get these guys to believe that they are part of the Dem party focus. If in fact they are.

I really do not see this as toxic masculinity. It is more like "Ok, I am old, I am not gay, not Black, not female, I don't have gender identity issues, so you guys are not interested in me and my problems. Got it". Not toxic masculinity. If it is a misaken understanding of the Dem focus, then the leadership might want to try to correct this mistaken understanding. There are votes to be had.

I do think Harris gets this. Hurrah for Harris.

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2024-September-29, 07:18, said:

I had not realized that acronyms had become a big deal in 1993, but apparently big enough so that the movie could make it amusing.

The early 1990s was when email and online forums really took off and the Yuppie-like crowd that were (along with students) the heaviest users were also the audience group with the most disposable income at the time, making them a natural target for movie studios. Because the (new at the time) real-time text-based communication came with so many issues, there was a swift move towards smilies and acronyms. That many of these have been usurped into emojis and memes under the current web parlance does not really change the fundamental nature of the communication, which is at least one reason why old-school forums like this one even still exist. It may not be as old as the ascii text forums that we were using in pre-WWW days but the BBF interface is essentially from the 1990s. So perfect for a bridge-playing audience...?

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2024-September-30, 11:53, said:

That many of these have been usurped into emojis and memes under the current web parlance does not really change the fundamental nature of the communication, which is at least one reason why old-school forums like this one even still exist. It may not be as old as the ascii text forums that we were using in pre-WWW days but the BBF interface is essentially from the 1990s. So perfect for a bridge-playing audience...?

I was around on Usenet too.
But I suspect that many Millenials and even more Generation Z would be secretly jealous of the ability of old-school forums to facilitate civil, meaningful and durable discussion.
It is to the credit of BBO that the company has maintained (however perfunctorily) this service to the community and to themselves.
Hopefully they will go the last mile and fix the current bug, by now clearly identified.

[mycroft]

85 year old heterosexual males have been thought about for 85 years (probably at least 285 years, frankly). So much so that nobody had to point them out; they just were "people". In fact, that is one of the real complaints the "normals" have is that they don't like being labelled with things like "white", "male", "cis", "straight" - I think the latest that got up in their grill was "European-American". They have spent their entire life being just "American" or "people" - it's those others that need an adjective.

Frankly, that's one of the major (unspoken, but it's the basis of the spoken) concerns of that group of voters - who gets to be "people" or "American" without qualifier, and what happens if that stops being (just) them? (with a side of "what if the normals start treating us the way we've always treated adjective-Americans"?)

The fact that more time and notice is being spent on others (as well as us. Okay, I'm not 85. Or (US)American. But they really are paying attention to us a lot), and it seems like "they're not paying attention to me any more", has a term. A not nice term, but sometimes we have to look at the world and realize it's not nice.(*) It reminds me of all the studies that point out that when women's time speaking in a meeting gets to 30% or so, the men start feeling like "they're dominating the conversation". We are just so used to the fact that the world revolves around our (white, straight, cis, adult, male) considerations that when others approach (never mind get to) parity, we feel it like we're being ignored.

I would recommend looking at the discussions with that eye (paying attention to "when they're talking about unadjectivised Americans, they're talking about specifically me", and deliberately counting time) to see if what I am saying is accurate (because of course, all I see is the news and the mastodons and the bluesky, and, well, I'm very biased. I'm also a very obvious minority a los inviernos this decade, and yeah, that affects what I see too.(**))

Spoiler

I've put the footnotes here because using the words themselves might derail the explanation.
(*) That term is "systemic racism". Not claiming you're a racist - I know better than that - but, like the Palmolive lady, "you're soaking in it". The whole point of "systemic racism" is that you don't notice "normal" until it changes, like fish and water.
(**) This is called "checking your privilege". I know that term is used as an "OK, Boomer" or a sign they are going to ignore you, but this is what it means - having been given information about how the system privileges you, you look around and start noticing it. Like the second day of motorcycle training, when people say "there's been lots of motorcycles out this weekend". No, you're just noticing them because now you're one of them. My first (remembered) experience of this was when I asked a feminist friend of mine about a speech I heard on CBC by Andrea Dworkin, and she said "some discussions are not for you." Oh. Ouch.

[mycroft]

(*)What Usenet were you on? Or have your glasses tinted pink recently?

The Usenet that *created* trolling, spam, flaming, and required a very curated killfile to read without throwing bricks at the monitor? The one that caused Foam Bricks to be created so that even with the killfiles, you still could (more than once a monitor)?

The one that had "Emily Postnews" posted once a month in 1985, because she was necessary?
The one that had cranks and crazies from day one?

Was this before or after Eternal September?

Yes, I remember nice places that could curate civil, meaningful discussion. But there was still a lot of cruft to wade through, unless the newsgroup was moderated (or more. I still remember a place where you only learned it existed if you survived the Monastery and someone there trusted you.) I know it was better than it is now. That doesn't mean it couldn't be a horrible place, even then.

Having said that, Social Media having to relearn (and failing to relearn, sometimes deliberately for "enagagement" reasons) all the tools and patterns we used to have on Usenet is really annoying. I so wish we had threading and killfiles (even on well-moderated forums).

(having said that, you can find my history in alt.pave.the.earth and alt.fan.warlord as well as "nicer" places or "more useful" places like rgb. But as they said, "read the group for a couple of weeks before posting, so that you know the culture and the style (and what perennial discussions to avoid bringing back up again). My style on alt.pte, and my attitude on afw, were obviously different from rgb or, say, alt.pub.kacees. And maybe not nice. Appropriate, but not nice. Or civil. Or meaningful (especially to Moon Chromers))

(*)Quote removed at quoter's request. Possibly in prep for deleting the post. Not 100% sure that this side-track boggle now means anything, and I might remove this one too. But for now...

[thepossum]

Usenet 😂
Those were the days
Alt.whatever.*

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2024-September-30, 13:43, said:

85 year old heterosexual males have been thought about for 85 years (probably at least 285 years, frankly). So much so that nobody had to point them out; they just were "people". In fact, that is one of the real complaints the "normals" have is that they don't like being labelled with things like "white", "male", "cis", "straight" - I think the latest that got up in their grill was "European-American". They have spent their entire life being just "American" or "people" - it's those others that need an adjective.

Frankly, that's one of the major (unspoken, but it's the basis of the spoken) concerns of that group of voters - who gets to be "people" or "American" without qualifier, and what happens if that stops being (just) them? (with a side of "what if the normals start treating us the way we've always treated adjective-Americans"?)

The fact that more time and notice is being spent on others (as well as us. Okay, I'm not 85. Or (US)American. But they really are paying attention to us a lot), and it seems like "they're not paying attention to me any more", has a term. A not nice term, but sometimes we have to look at the world and realize it's not nice.(*) It reminds me of all the studies that point out that when women's time speaking in a meeting gets to 30% or so, the men start feeling like "they're dominating the conversation". We are just so used to the fact that the world revolves around our (white, straight, cis, adult, male) considerations that when others approach (never mind get to) parity, we feel it like we're being ignored.

I would recommend looking at the discussions with that eye (paying attention to "when they're talking about unadjectivised Americans, they're talking about specifically me", and deliberately counting time) to see if what I am saying is accurate (because of course, all I see is the news and the mastodons and the bluesky, and, well, I'm very biased. I'm also a very obvious minority a los inviernos this decade, and yeah, that affects what I see too.(**))

Spoiler

I've put the footnotes here because using the words themselves might derail the explanation.
(*) That term is "systemic racism". Not claiming you're a racist - I know better than that - but, like the Palmolive lady, "you're soaking in it". The whole point of "systemic racism" is that you don't notice "normal" until it changes, like fish and water.
(**) This is called "checking your privilege". I know that term is used as an "OK, Boomer" or a sign they are going to ignore you, but this is what it means - having been given information about how the system privileges you, you look around and start noticing it. Like the second day of motorcycle training, when people say "there's been lots of motorcycles out this weekend". No, you're just noticing them because now you're one of them. My first (remembered) experience of this was when I asked a feminist friend of mine about a speech I heard on CBC by Andrea Dworkin, and she said "some discussions are not for you." Oh. Ouch.

I am trying to say something useful. Yes, Trump has alaways been awful, and over the last six months or so his behavious has become even momre bizarre. He often now claims later that he was jesting. Uh huh.

So how can anyone still support him? A good question. Firstly, at least some who did, now do not. Maybe these people will not be voting for Harris, but not for Trump either. But still, he has many planning to vote for him. How can this be? Even if a person hates all immigrants he should not want rump in charge of immigration or in charge of anything.

My thinking is that when the only explanation seems to be that about half the population is idiotic, evil or both, maybe more thought should be given to what is happening. Firstly, if half the population is evil or idiotic, there is not much we can do about it, neither trait is easy to change. Secondly, that assessment of people does not match with my experience. People can go off-track. It happens when they have many issues going on at once, they lack time and energy to think everything through. Eg they hear that if they express any concern at all about immigration the Dems regard them as racists so that'ss that, they write off the Dems. Trump is an irresponsible loudmouthed felon, but Trumps is not calling then names so they go with Trump. Something like that. .


Simply put, I think that there are people out there willing to listen, but if you start by calling them names they walk away.

Again, Harris should win in a landslide. I am far from sure she will win at all., I suggest that we look for some explanation that might help. Calling people idiotic evil racists is not the best way to get them to listen.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2024-October-01, 08:43, said:

Firstly, if half the population is evil or idiotic, there is not much we can do about it, neither trait is easy to change.

I'm holding out hope that lead poisoning is too blame and in a few more years enough of the *****wits will be dead we can return to politics as usual.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2024-October-01, 12:25, said:

I'm holding out hope that lead poisoning is too blame and in a few more years enough of the *****wits will be dead we can return to politics as usual.

I acknowledge that I am far from sure that my approach is more likely to succeed than your hopeful approach.

I guess that indicats that situation is pretty dire.