Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I believe @Js1 said they were his go to

They always have the fastest results and make the quickest calls. 

Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

Dixville Notch is 4 registered GOP and 2 indies. So she won the indies and still a crossover vote!

Maybe she won the GOP 3-1 and lost the indies, you think about that?

Also, how does that town's politics change so much every election? Different people? Just fucking with everybody? 

Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

Maybe she won the GOP 3-1 and lost the indies, you think about that?

Also, how does that town's politics change so much every election? Different people? Just fucking with everybody? 

It’s a small rural town almost in Canada. It’s super weird, period. It’s just fun 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

It’s a small rural town almost in Canada. It’s super weird, period. It’s just fun 

Oh, I know. I'm just confused about the voting they do. As I said, seems like they just fuck with everyone. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, I know. I'm just confused about the voting they do. As I said, seems like they just fuck with everyone. 

Its a fucking stunt, pure and simple.  

Posted
8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Dixville Notch is 4 registered GOP and 2 indies. So she won the indies and stole a crossover vote!

This is what I was about to type.

There were no Dem voters in D-N. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

It’s a small rural town almost in Canada. It’s super weird, period. It’s just fun 

Yeah, was going to mention I'd been there and it takes place in a meeting room in the old late-1800s The Balsams resort, lots of photos of earlier election days, pols who had visited, and old result sheets on the walls, then turned it on and it was in somebody's living room this year (apparently the resort is getting renovated). Oh well.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It’s a small rural town almost in Canada. It’s super weird, period. It’s just fun 

And judging by the stream, they only have enough electricity to run 4 small lamps and a very dim overhead light.

Edited by OU Sucks
  • Haha 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, Vito Andolini said:

She’s objectively doing great, especially when considering it’s almost midnight in Pennsylvania after what must have been an exhausting day, capping an exhausting 107 day crusade to save the fucking democracy. She’s been a real surprise, whether it was the convention or the debate. She’s been a fantastic candidate.

Agreed; if we somehow lose; its an indictment on our system and time to throw in the towel. Kamala has run it perfectly; if that's not enough; it's on us. And that will be a sad reflection 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

It's one of those quaint New Hampshah traditions to keep your mind off the Cthuhloid Interstellar Horrors that roam the dark sides of the frozen hills, caring not for Earth or Man or his treasured democracy.

Goddamn fish people are thick in the old woods of New England. 

  • Drool 1
Posted

Trump is telling his horde tonight that he's ahead by hundreds of thousands of votes in early voting.  He's used to having to catch up on Tuesday, in spite of being cheated.  Etc.

They're gonna absolutely lose their shit if he loses.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, NAVY said:

Holy shit. That’s a mid-to-late 80s Black Angus restaurant/bar dance floor. I waited tables there as a teen. Hahhhahahaha 

 

Square Cow Fun Bar!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

So just to be clear, a ton of these pollsters are just maga fakes or foreign fakes attempting to fuck with the election. 

Then the ones that aren't fakes are all people believing they have to adjust and rig their numbers far to the red to get the results closer to the median so they don't look completely stupid no matter who wins?

And the one poll that doesn't ske the numbers by the lady in Iowa who just says fuck all that nonsense has Harris wiping the floor with trump in lilly white Iowa?

Is that where we stand?

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
19 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Only because I want it to be, my opinion is that the person rented it and had fun for a day.

 

Gonna be a long day.

siap - thought I'd deleted this but it popped back in my post. 

image.png

Hopefully everything runs smoothly here tomorrow, especially with the EV returns coming back timely at 8 est/7 central, which I believe it will.  I don't think it will all hit exactly at the same time, but we should get some great early indicators.  I listed this in the prediction thread a while ago, but I'm really looking at 3 counties here that I think will tell the story, not only for Georgia, but perhaps even nationally.  These are 3 red counties in northern Metro Atlanta, Cherokee, Forsyth, and Hall Counties, none will flip, but they are big enough to matter while small enough to be some of the earlier ones to report.  If any of these, and of course preferably all of them report slippages in R support it will mean a couple of things, the first being that Trump most likely can't win in Georgia, and the second being that just how big the drift is from Trump.  I listed the prior percentages in the prediction thread, but from memory if he doesn't exceed 65% in these 3, I really like our chances here.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted
57 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

It's one of those quaint New Hampshah traditions to keep your mind off the Cthuhloid Interstellar Horrors that roam the dark sides of the frozen hills, caring not for Earth or Man or his treasured democracy.

andy-walsh-offering-to-cthulhu-by-andy-walsh-1700px-sig.thumb.jpg.e907baba2d3d799abc1b0774fcd67e6b.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

So just to be clear, a ton of these pollsters are just maga fakes or foreign fakes attempting to fuck with the election. 

Then the ones that aren't fakes are all people believing they have to adjust and rig their numbers far to the red to get the results closer to the median so they don't look completely stupid no matter who wins?

And the one poll that doesn't ske the numbers by the lady in Iowa who just says fuck all that nonsense has Harris wiping the floor with trump in lilly white Iowa?

Is that where we stand?

Sezler is an outlier, she does her own thing, gets real data, and politics be damned.  Shockingly enough, that simple approach with no bullshit seems to be pretty accurate.  

There are others trying to emulate her, but frankly they get drowned out, partly by partisan polls commissioned and paid for by both parties (though far more from Republicans, who to boot weaponize them), and then slapdicks like Silver who has monetized the polling business.  So the real problem is, you only have a handful of people doing actual real work, and they are completely drowned out by an old asshole trying to make a buck.  The problem with herding is, all the monetized polls figure they can't be hurt if they are in the ballpark as everyone else, so now, the actually polling data is secondary to being near the pack with everyone else.  So the idea of polling aggregation is then completely fucking useless because the data is secondary.  

In short, it's a vicious circle jerk of stupidity.  In fact the circle jerk is probably better time spent, at least at the end there is a tangible result.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

bwahahahahahahaha

 

 

Does that Russian Morris Code translate into English? I'm asking because the number of times that woman blinks makes it look like she's in distress.

And, to be clear, I hold absolutely zero sympathy for her if she's under any sort of duress.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

Would you have *EVER* in your life have thought anyone who was a hair's distance away from The People's House would do this sort of thing in punlic?

Remember when Republicans were freaking out because Obama wore a tan suit or they clutched pearls when Clinton answered the "boxers or briefs" question?

Messenger_creation_306BFB47-A001-4873-A155-8F1DD9929489.gif

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Sezler is an outlier, she does her own thing, gets real data, and politics be damned.  Shockingly enough, that simple approach with no bullshit seems to be pretty accurate.  

There are others trying to emulate her, but frankly they get drowned out, partly by partisan polls commissioned and paid for by both parties (though far more from Republicans, who to boot weaponize them), and then slapdicks like Silver who has monetized the polling business.  So the real problem is, you only have a handful of people doing actual real work, and they are completely drowned out by an old asshole trying to make a buck.  The problem with herding is, all the monetized polls figure they can't be hurt if they are in the ballpark as everyone else, so now, the actually polling data is secondary to being near the pack with everyone else.  So the idea of polling aggregation is then completely fucking useless because the data is secondary.  

In short, it's a vicious circle jerk of stupidity.  In fact the circle jerk is probably better time spent, at least at the end there is a tangible result.  

I'm not a statistician but I did have to take a few higher level probability and statistics courses for my undergrad 20 years ago. From what I remember the key to all of it is the quality of input data. That's a very difficult thing to obtain, but the majority of the work and attention to detail should be put into obtain as close to a representative sample as possible without poisoning with bias. If you put garbage data in you're going to get garbage data out. 

I don't follow election polling at all so don't know how they source their data, but it seems Selzer is the closest to quality data input by 20+ years of experience sourcing data from her smallish state. Then the only adjustments needed are adjusting the sample demographics to mirror the registered voter demographics. 

If these other pollsters are taking results they don't feel are quality enough and adjusting them to mirror prior results 4 years ago that's purely invalid, garbage data. That's omitting everything that's happened in the last 4 years. Which in this case is more change in this arena than I believe has ever happened in a 4 year period in the history of the country other than the civil war. 

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

Yes she only polls in Iowa so it seems she's built up quite a great data set to draw from. She apparently doesn't even hire out for polls in other states. Just sticks to Iowa.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

I'm not a statistician but I did have to take a few higher level probability and statistics courses for my undergrad 20 years ago. From what I remember the key to all of it is the quality of input data. That's a very difficult thing to obtain, but the majority of the work and attention to detail should be put into obtain as close to a representative sample as possible without poisoning with bias. If you put garbage data in you're going to get garbage data out. 

I don't follow election polling at all so don't know how they source their data, but it seems Selzer is the closest to quality data input by 20+ years of experience sourcing data from her smallish state. Then the only adjustments needed are adjusting the sample demographics to mirror the registered voter demographics. 

If these other pollsters are taking results they don't feel are quality enough and adjusting them to mirror prior results 4 years ago that's purely invalid, garbage data. That's omitting everything that's happened in the last 4 years. Which in this case is more change in this arena than I believe has ever happened in a 4 year period in the history of the country other than the civil war. 

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

Well some polls are doing things like assuming a 77% white vote, skewing way whiter than normal, which pulls the number towards Trump.  

Posted
5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Well some polls are doing things like assuming a 77% white vote, skewing way whiter than normal, which pulls the number towards Trump.  

That's inventing demographics that don't exist. That's not incompetent, it's flat out nefarious. 

It's been quite the shocking revelation that something as big as the USA presidential election with all the billions of dollars tied up in the whole thing only has a single lady in bumbfuck Iowa that conducts representative sample election polls correctly. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2


×
×
  • Create New...