He got 2000 “wrong”… Or did he?
I want to hear the opinion of the octopus that predicted the world cup results first
Died. Now they are using a turtle but he always votes Nadar
Let him cook, it’ll get there eventually
* stares in confused Mitch McConnell *
Holy shit this was funny!
I hear there’s a groundhog in Pennsylvania that’s a pretty good meteorologist.
How good is it at delegating tasks?
I saw a groundhog this weekend for the first time by my home. In point of order it was not afraid of its shadow.
Meaningless considering he still hasn’t predicted whether or not Biden will win this election. He says he needs another month lol.
Edit: As a bonus he can’t even apply his own rubric to a new potential candidate. So the real questions are: How could he possibly know they’d be worse, and why the fuck is he even saying anything?
Not meaningless, his prediction system always gives the incumbent an advantage over anyone else in his party.
And yet, he hasn’t predicted yet because there are many other “keys”. Case-in-point: see how incumbency worked for Trump.
Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.
Finally, the unprecedented nature of an open convention also means this guy has nothing to go on for extrapolation.
Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.
Nate’s algorithm is just a poll of polls. And his reasoning is incredibly short term and superficial.
Nate wasn’t suggesting Biden drop out back in January when other candidates could run to replace him. He’s only saying it now, because Biden’s polling is at an all time low.
If Biden recovers (likely, as the memory of the debate fades behind other current events) the pundits will start singing a different tune quickly enough.
Nate’s algorithm is just a poll of polls. And his reasoning is incredibly short term and superficial.
That isn’t true. Far more involved than that. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeights-2020-presidential-forecast-works-and-whats-different-because-of-covid-19/
Nate went further post-debate performance, knowing where Biden stands in a variety of polling and that this was the worst debate perhaps in the history of debates they was a make-or-break moment for the campaign desperate to reach a widespread audience. Biden capturing the attention of 50 million people will not happen again between now and November. For many Americans this debate, which Republicans will never let anyone forget, will be the last thing they remember.
More importantly there will be no major positive event that overrides it. That event, if it existed, already passed with Trump’s conviction.
Nobody can provide me a single data-point where Biden isn’t performing significantly worse than his 2020 race where he won by merely 40,000 votes across 3 battleground states. Time to face hard truths.
That isn’t true. Far more involved than that
Step 1: Collect, analyze and adjust polls
The entire baseline for his predictions, plus or minus some additional adjustments. Everything after that is rooted in the original poll-aggregate foundation.
Nate went further post-debate performance, knowing where Biden stands in a variety of polling and that this was the worst debate perhaps in the history of debates
He was not telling Biden to drop out the day before the debate. He was telling Biden to drop out the day after, but before he actually inserted “bad debate performance” into his model and rerun a thousand model elections. This is what always gets Nate in trouble. He shoots from the hip on hot-button issues, rather than remaining academic.
More importantly there will be no major positive event that overrides it.
Trump tanked two debates against Hillary and still squeaked through on election day. Nobody is going to be thinking about this debate by the time the Olympics are over.
Nobody can provide me a single data-point where Biden isn’t performing significantly worse than his 2020 race where he won by merely 40,000 votes across 3 battleground states.
2020 had some of the highest turnout in US history, thanks to mail-in voting and quarantine. 2024 is going to see a huge drop off in participation. It isn’t immediately clear which candidate is going to suffer the worst from the deficit in support, as Biden has banked hard on appeasing moderate conservative voters while Trump trundles further and further out into right-wing.
They’re both deeply disliked candidates.
lol my guy, you are reaching for some serious straws. If you’re not going off of this data, what ARE you going off, exactly…? Vibes? This is more denial than I can handle.
He was not telling Biden to drop out the day before the debate. He was telling Biden to drop out the day after,
Well no fucking shit! That’s called adapting to new information. Any good scientist or analyst does it. When an unprecedented event like THAT debate performance occurs, then yes, that means you must go back and readjust the model. Models only work if they actually factor in the latest information — you get this, right? Have you SEEN the post-debate polling coming out? It’s TERRIBLE:
Post-Debate: “72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively.”
Post-Debate: “Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate”
Trump tanked two debates against Hillary and still squeaked through on election day. Nobody is going to be thinking about this debate by the time the Olympics are over.
You live in this magical fairy-tale world where Trump is held to the same standard as Biden when he clearly is not. If voters were as informed as you and me then we wouldn’t have either of these fucking candidates. Neither of those poor debates come remotely close to what we saw yesterday from the person espousing to be the fighter to take on Donald Trump. It doesn’t change the reality reflected in every single piece of data we have in battleground states. Now you can choose to bury your head in the sand and go off vibes if you want, but good luck with that.
i bet you i could predict it with 100% accuracy if you give me another 4 months
Yeah you say that and should be right but I’m more worried about January than I am November…
First, he didn’t get 2000 wrong, Gore won.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
2nd though… 2024 is a lose/lose no matter what the Democrats do at this point.
A weakened Biden can’t win.
A replaced Biden changes the dialog to “See! Even the Democrats know they can’t do the job!” which is a losing strategy.The only way to pull out a win would be for Biden to die in office and have his successor get the sympathy vote, a la Johnson in '64.
I disagree 100%. Having Biden step down and put his support behind a solid candidate many can agree on (not just corporate Dems) while saying he has given it thought and realizes it is best for Democrats & America means not only does he get to do so gracefully, but people can emphasize with honesty and not having and old man spend his final days being abused by those around him.
The problem is he would never put his support behind anyone other than a corporate approved neoliberal. If he does step down, the person he picks is 110% going to be contentious among base Democrat voters especially among the younger voters. We’re not getting Bernie or AOC, full stop.
I also think Democrats are the worst about their purity tests and will turn their noses up at anyone for the slightest reason. When put into that perspective, I’ll take the chances with Biden.
If he stepped down and endorsed Bernie, I have ould say there is a chance. Short of that, you guys are heading for a second Trump.
The biggest argument the Republicans have against Biden is his age.
Bernie is older than Biden.
It doesn’t matter at this point that he’d be better. The only way to combat the “too old” argument is to nominate someone younger than Trump. And there’s plenty of people younger than 78.
Bernie also has a heart condition and I say this with all love for Bernie, but also as someone who has had two heart attacks… you don’t want someone with weakened health in that job.
Physically, there are days when I struggle with “walk down a hallway”. Forget doing a job.
Harris can cover.
And there’s plenty of people younger than 78.
Which one’s can beat Trump in the election?
Obama.
Literally can’t by law. He’s already had two terms.
I wish Jon Stewart would accept endorsement. Bernie isn’t the only candidate though. Trump didn’t start out cause he was well liked. He got popularity cause he was polarizing. He gets infinite free media coverage. The Democrats could pick AOC and the right would have a meltdown. She’d get consistent media coverage. She is good looking and would do good for pressers.
Trump is (or was) a billionaire, a TV celebrity, who shat on his GOP rivals during the 2016 primaries and was content enough to threaten to run as an independent and allow Clinton to win if he wasn’t nominated. That he regarded politicians from both parties with contempt was part of the attraction.
If Canada can’t elect a female PM or have a Liberal (or NDP) female PM, what makes you think that the US will elect a woman as President?
While a lot would like her more leftist positions—she might have to reiterate that the US should stop funding Israel and that what’s happening in Gaza is a genocide, and her view on a 100% tariff on EVs—the GOP and party centrists would have a field day.
But yeah, it might be a good thing.
content enough to threaten to run as an independent and allow Clinton to win if he wasn’t nominated. That he regarded politicians from both parties with contempt was part of the attraction.
Okay guys, I know this sounds crazy but, Jon Stewart could play one from the Trump playbook. AOC flips her position on Gaza, Jon is a Jew against the genocide, locking in the leftists. All the gen z-ers and millennials are in from the get go because perfect nostalgia points, and then Biden steps down and endorses him locking up the dem votes! What a life that would be. A d*sney ending!
He literally can’t endorse Bernie, because that doesn’t solve the problem unless Bernie were to prove his mental acuity. They’re going with Newsome because he’s like young Biden. It’s an easy swap.
Win first, hand power to Harris, then step down.
There’s still plenty of room for a senile fumbling corporate puppet to be retained in office, assuming mass media and the party continue to back him.
But quite a bit of mass media is owned and operated by ultra-conservative ghouls and wanna-be fascist demagogues.
The real fear is that they cash out Biden and start running an endless train of hit pieces, like they did against Hilary and Bernie. Biden’s senility seems to be acceptable to majority of Dem voters, on the grounds that “Trump is worse”. It’s all the low info Indies who are yet to be swayed. And they’re only interested in the news cycle a couple weeks outside the general election.
Hey math people, if they all selected 1 of the 2 main candidates for every election, and they all selected different candidates, how many historians would it take to cover every combination for 10 years? (bonus points to see how many would take before guaranteeing someone could get 9/10)
1024 historians assuming they all pick different combinations at random. Probability of randomly guessing at least 9 of 10 goes up to 1.075% or 93 historians (on average to get one person with 9/10 predictions right) or like the other commenter mentioned 1024-11= 1013 to guarantee a 9/10 but that’s a little overkill.
Where does the 93 come from? The percentage is almost correct, but it should be 11 (1.074%)
93 for 1/0.01075
Note that many of those elections were easier to guess than just flipping a coin, so you don’t really need to cover every potential combination to cover like 95% of the likely outcomes.
It’s Biden all the way. Fortunately unfortunately.
Drop him for who?
They’ll not nominate a Justice Democrat as that won’t make corporate donors money. I don’t see how anyone or anything could recover the resultant shitshow except the Justice Democrat platform.
Kamala seemingly the only one with some name recognition, is the same vague bullshit with some identity politics, which would be inadequate.
Who else is there?
Newsom is probably the only other viable candidate out there
Whitmer.
If she admits it was a mistake to pressure michigan voters to not vote uncommitted I’d be down, but she is a corporate dem still.
She is, yes, but that wasn’t the question. The question was about name recognition, which Whitmer has.
I wouldn’t be great with Newsom, either, since he’s been moving to the right to appease the republican-adjacent wing of the party. But either would be an improvement over Biden, who in turn is still preferable to Trump.
Pritzker
Running a Pritzker/Fetterman ticket on the theory our candidates can beat the Republicans in a wrestling match
🤣
What are his views on the 100% EV tariff, high speed rails, and homelessness?
On the last of the three, he did do some good in getting them housed during the height of COVID. But, he’s also sabotaged efforts to break up convicted killer PG&E and declared that he would never sign a wealth tax. He’s corpo to the core with a little occasional softness.
Would love Pete Buttigieg over Newsom but honestly will take anyone that can beat Trump
Anyone they pick from now will get name recognition no matter who they are from media presence alone. Changing candidates at this stage will be significant news.
deleted by creator
Hi! Apologies. Other people were naming other potential candidates without further justification so I didn’t think I need to.
Pete is young, intelligent and very reasonable. Back when he was running in 2020 and when I was doing my own research I found that our political views aligned the most. He is young and white so he has that going for him if looking for general appeal lol
I currently have Newsom as governor and while he did a great job with the pandemic and healthcare policy in general (I was on calls with his team and many other hospital systems), I hate how he protects corporate donors like PGE. Overall though he signs many good bills into law. I’m just concerned he can be bought and he’s more of a corporate ally than he gives off.
With the media coverage I didn’t state whether or not it would be successful. I’m not even sure if we should change at this point because there’s a lot that goes into that transition (voters need time to know candidates, campaign ads and efforts likely planned out until November, etc). All I said is they can likely pick anyone and there would be significant media coverage. DNC nominates X! Then many articles around who is X! Again, I’m voting any way to defeat Trump.
the only way another candidate can be successful is if Biden himself drops out and endorses (and indeed continues to campaign for) them.
But Biden’s ego won’t allow that, so the party’s choices are either to forcibly remove him and split the vote or take the flaming, burning ship down into the ocean.
hope people can swim.
the only way another candidate can be successful is if Biden himself drops out and endorses (and indeed continues to campaign for) them.
And he had 4 years to decide on and build up a successor, but chose to not do so. And neither did the democratic party.
His age and the related issues can’t be a surprise to anyone, so i really don’t see why there should be a sudden change in direction.
When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Biden’s age and mental acuity are “fundamentally different” than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down.
“Debate performances can be overcome,” he said. “At the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.”
So, he refuses to factor anything in if it doesn’t fit his system… Literally refusing to acknowledge any health concerns
His system is this:
Lichtman is best known for the “Keys” system, presented in his books The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency and The Keys to the White House. The system uses thirteen historical factors to predict whether the popular vote in the election for president of the United States will be won by the candidate of the party holding the presidency (regardless of whether the president is the candidate).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
And it doesn’t account for specific candidate…
So by his own argument that his system can’t acknowledge a candidates fitness would come into play, logically I don’t understand why he is speaking on who the specific candidate should be.
His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn’t throw that advantage away.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency,
The incumbent lost in 2020. There may be other factors.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency.
Most other factors mostly do not depend on the individual who is running. For example, recession, military victories/losses, results of midterm elections, significant third party challenger, etc. The party can run anyone and it would not affect those points.
However, I overlooked another individual characteristic: there is an extra point if the incumbent is a victorious military leader or has significant appeal to members of the opposing party. The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
The only one to win the Democratic primaries, at least.
This system is only meant to predict the general election. It ignores any primary candidates who were not nominated.
Seems to me that the model has some blind spots.
It does what it means to do.
The other factor is that the incumbent lost in 2020, to the 2024 incumbent.
Like wtf. People saying he can’t do it. He already did it once.
Since then, his signature legislation has failed to pass as intended, he’s broken a strike, he’s supported a genocide, he’s moved to the right on immigration, and he’s claimed to have defeated Medicare. He’s alienated his base and demonstrated that people who were fretting about his age might have been on to something after all.
He beat Trump in a nail-biting squeaker of a contest in 2020, and centrists have been pretending he’s invincible ever since.
There’s also the 100% tariff on EVs that he supports.
Oh boohoo, my team didn’t win everything it wanted so I’m going to take my ball and go home.
Still by far the most progressive president in my lifetime.
Oh boohoo, my team didn’t win everything it wanted so I’m going to take my ball and go home.
Your team didn’t? Did Biden not move far enough to the right for you?
Still by far the most progressive president in my lifetime.
I see. He really isn’t far enough to the right for you. Well you should vote for him anyway. No matter who and all that.
Some might want to play ball with West, Stein, or JFK Jr.
I’ve never met a single person who thinks any of them could actually get the popular or electoral vote, at this point replacing Biden with another Democrat would be far more likely.
And the popular vote means fuck all for the election anyway, so who cares about this system if it didn’t factor in the electoral college?
The system is currently meant to predict the electoral college winner, not the popular vote winner.
I don’t think it means fuck-all. IIUC to win the necessary Electoral College votes, one has to win at least 37% of the popular vote in a 2-way (or mostly 2-way) race.
I’m calling it. 9 of 11. That’s a good number for America.
Thats some broken Windows on the World there.
I’d say that was a lot of broken windows.
Just let Bernie fuckin’ giv’er…
as much as I may love Bernie (as we all do), he’s a year older than even Biden.
Old white man schtick can only take us so far.
Every President in US history has been a man and all but 1 was white.
Will this election be a tales from the crypt?
This way the expert can go 10 for 11 by picking Trump.
Duh
Removed by mod
Are you promoting an article?
Seeing as how the name of the site and the user match, I’m gonna go with yes.
I went through their history, it was all self promotion, either to their website or their instagram.
All removed and banned.
I actually think you had a flawed process if you were projecting a Trump win in 2016, getting that “right” doesn’t impress me. Comey re-announcing new emails was 11 days before the election, there wasn’t time to see what people thought of it.
Edit: The downvoters don’t remember the election. Clinton was winning basically every poll, her numbers peaked after the Access Hollywood tape and dropped from that peak, she was still winning polls by 4 points on election day. There are vagueries of voting behavior based on weather in different locations and the vote was super close in the swing states. Even with perfect state by state information adjusted by poll error, it was less than 50/50 Trump would win. It was a bad prediction.
It happened to happen, because things with 40% odds happen 40% of the time, but predicting the 40% outcome is bad process.
Except polling isn’t what this guy relies on
So he would have been wrong if the Comey announcement didn’t come out and turn people off from voting for Hillary. Bad process, right result.
Hillary was winning every poll because the only polled middle aged white women.
