I'm very thankful that all Republicans are not as stupid, or unprincipled, as I thought, when they voted for NIxon, Bush and Trump. And Kristol ìs clear when writing, although my typing exercise 75 years ago kind of summed up his words, "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country". He mentioned so many things that mattered.
To paIr-a-phrase with Lincoln's message, I believe that free will means the freedom to choose, which is priceless, because that's essential to pursue happiness, and rapists are dictators who don't allow that.
But freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, or parents could let their two year old run into the street. Reasonablrules are necessary to maintain a.decent quality of life.
Harris Co Texas (Houston) had almost 250k people vote in the first two days of early voting. Compared with the first day in 2016 when we had less than 68,000 voters, and the gender split this year is 58/42 women.
I'm not making any predictions or assumptions, but Texas women are voting in record numbers. VP Harris is coming to H-town, and you can bet your bottom dollar my ass will be there!
Kelly didn’t endorse Harris, since he believes that as ex-military he shouldn’t make a political endorsement, but he gave a very detailed explanation for why Trump should not be allowed back in the WH. Kelly came as close as you can to saying “Don’t vote for Trump” without actually saying “Don’t vote for Trump”.
Mattis told Bob Woodward he agreed with Milley that Trump was a dangerous fascist and shouldn’t be reelected. Now we just need McMaster to admit it out loud. Better late than never.
People can also modify their beliefs, unless their minds are made of stone, just as Harris has modified her beliefs on other issues. Cheney remains a "Pro Life" politician, but is now not willing to allow the radical anti-choice actions that have been taken at the federal or state levels. In the end, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
So what? If she went back into Congress, she might do it again. All she really agrees with the Democrats on is that Trump is an oath breaking insurrectionist who should be disqualified from holding any elected office, much less the Presidency, and that he is a clear and present danger to our Democracy and (it’s not really an exaggeration) world peace. Therefore Liz Cheney is joining forces with Harris to stop Trump. That’s all that matters right now. The other stuff can be argued about later, as it always has been and always will be. My H and I are both registered Republicans and we voted early for Harris, even though we disagree with her on just about everything. Harris is not Trump, and she won’t implement Project 2025. That’s all that matters in this election. The rest is noise.
Fair enough. I was just surprised at the radical nature of Cheney's position. I'm glad she wasn't asked about it while the two of them were on stage together. It would have been awkward, which was the author's point.
The National Review is all in for Trump, so they probably wrote that article to discredit Liz Cheney and reduce any influence she might have in helping Harris. Most people who are pro-Harris know that Cheney is her opposite policy-wise. The message actually is “Liz Cheney disagrees with Harris on policy but agrees with Harris that Trump is too dangerous to vote for”. Having someone diametrically opposed to Harris’s policies say they’re voting for her to stop Trump gives permission to other Republican voters to vote for Harris to stop Trump. The National Review article won’t convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. TNR doesn’t understand the dynamics.
I don't believe that was NR's motive. The author of the article is very very anti-Trump. As are many of the NR writers. A majority, I would say. NR does not impose ideological uniformity
Interesting. I’m pretty sure Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of TNR is pro-Trump, or at least, anti-Harris. I am not aware of anyone at TNR being “very very anti-Trump”. In any event, I skimmed the article and disagree with whatever the premise is supposed to be. I’ve been opposed to Roe v Wade since it came out. It was decided right before I started law school, and we discussed it as being the result of a liberal USSC making up a “right” that didn’t actually exist under the 14th amendment (the right to privacy, which then gave you a right to abortion). It was a bad decision, badly decided, and ripe for being overturned given the right justices on the Court. That said, I agree with Cheney that throwing abortion back to the states has resulted in some draconian laws that unduly put women’s lives at risk. Any abortion law that has no exceptions whatsoever, not even for life of the mother (and also rape or incest, which are reasonable even if you believe life begins at conception, as I do) is a step too far. I watched Cheney talk about this in one of her interviews and felt she was truthful and sincere. That the TNR writer doesn’t understand the evolution of her thinking, or that her fear of a second Trump presidency is so great that she feels the need to actually campaign for and with Harris, is unfortunate. He’s entitled to his opinion but I disagree with him. Only MAGAs will agree with his thinking, imho. For the audience of those sit-downs, it wouldn’t have mattered even if she had been asked that question. It’s a nothing burger.
Samples are no longer random or reprsentative and a variety of subjective and questionable methods and assumptions are used to make them "represntative."
It is a different kind of probability than "coin flip" probability in that each event is a unique event, so looking back at prior results is not that useful, if even useful at all.
Margins of error are too small and the stated confidence levels are too high.
The reality is that no one knows who is going to win with anything approaching accuracy and that the only thing you can say about the election is that it is too close to call on the available data. Anything else--probability numbers, etc is basically BS.
Klass outlines 4 possible outcomes (quote):
This assessment is based on an array of factors, but there are four major assumptions I’m relying on most.
First, I believe that pollsters aren’t accurately capturing the electorate post Dobbs (the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and drastically reshaped the landscape of American politics). If the turnout model underlying the polling is even slightly off by gender and is undercounting low-propensity women voters who are motivated by abortion politics, that could prove to be a substantial source of unanticipated polling error.
Second, whether you agree with this strategy or not, Harris is making substantial attempts to win over traditional Republican voters who are put off by Trump. By contrast, Trump’s electoral strategy has largely been driven by an effort to fire up his base. He easily could have acknowledged mistakes or expressed contrition around January 6th, for example, but instead, he has opened rallies with the national anthem as sung by people who are in prison for attacking the US Capitol. He has also picked a VP, Vance, who acts like a laser-guided missile to alienate women. That’s not exactly a strategy to win back hesitant voters. Close elections are won by “base plus” strategies, in which the base turns out plus other undecided voters split for the candidate.
Third, having worked in campaign politics, I learned that the “ground game” matters. This refers to the field operations run by campaign staffers and volunteers, the human infrastructure that actually makes contact with individual voters, hoping to persuade them and remind them to vote. Every indication so far is that the Democratic machine is firing on all cylinders in the swing states.
Fourth, a new AP poll out yesterday places Harris at a +5 net favorable rating with registered voters, compared to a -18 favorable rating for Trump, a gulf of 23 points. In that same poll, Walz has a +3 favorable rating, compared to -15 for J.D. Vance. Yes, it’s one poll and polls are fallible, but that is a huge gap, unlikely to be explained away by statistical measurement error, and at some point, whether voters like the candidates or not does matter—at least a bit—in a close race.
I’ll put it a different way: there are basically four possible outcomes in this election:
Big Harris Victory
Narrow Harris Victory
Narrow Trump Victory
Big Trump Victory
My subjective belief, based on the available data and these four working assumptions, is that the first three outcomes are completely plausible. None of them would shock me. However, a Big Trump Victory—one in which he wins the popular vote by, say, five points and runs the table with the swing states would shock me. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if Harris won by five points.
If you want to understand polling better, you could a lot worse than reading this article (and the links to the actual research backing it up).
Let's remember that everything he says is the biggest most fullest largest ever in our country in the world in time immemorial. I can't stand it anymore - i have stopped reading and stopped listening to most of the news - i watch a couple of shows that I have recorded and basically fast forward through most of it since none of it is new news or should I say news - i am in New York, early voting starts on Saturday, I am voting on Saturday - and then i don't want to hear anything until November 5 sometime in the evening!!! Yes I am exhausted. He needs to lose we all know that, he will lose, he will fight, he will sue - what else is new!!! Let's hope not too many people die in the fighting that will ensue
As to ways to silence his "enemies" in the media, some of the Donald's most Trumpy friends in Florida's government are already deploying a prototype for testing. Ran into a bit of a hiccup, but I doubt they'll let that stop them:
It still amazes me that Chris Christy lit himself on fire during a primary but is unwilling to do anything now to make sure Trump loses. Just astounding his cowardice.
Re CBS editing: Well, Trump's favorite channel Fox does this all the time to his benefit. Recent example: When Harris did her Fox interview with Bret Baier, he showed an edited clip of Trump sounding as if he never said anything about using the military or the National Guard against protesters, immigrants or other enemies. Harris caught that right away and called him on it telling viewers exactly what Trump had actually said. No one has benefitted more from creative editing than Trump has.
There is plenty of old news footage that can be edited together. It’s better to show people than tell them. People sometimes need a jolt or reality check. It’s very easy to block tragic events out of one’s head. Think 9/11. Thank God for video.
Not that logic matters but companies have set timelines for record destruction including old employee files and wage garnishment records. They probably line up with statutory limits on state liability lawsuits. Trump knows this as a business owner. It’s amazing how he plays the dumb blonde while also being a business genius, and gets away with both.
Yes. My industry keeps records for the exact timetable required by law, then they are destroyed. No incentive to keep stuff laying around for discovery.
I'm not sure I can bring myself to read the article about the 80 year old man who was giving away his much-needed savings to political candidates. My mother passed earlier this year. 92 years old with some dementia her last couple years. One thing I learned taking care of her is how older people are targeted by not only political candidates but non-profits with direct mail solicitations trying to play on their sympathies to give them money. My mother would get her mail and then want to open up the checkbook for these causes. She would always say "But it's for a good cause." I would respond that they don't raise money for bad causes. The problem is that many of these charities have highly paid executives and very little of the money, after administrative costs, go for the cause. Non-profits have to only be set up for a charitable type cause and not turn a profit. They can pay their executives whatever they want.
Fortunately, in my mother's case, she would only give $20 or so...but that just meant she ended up on more mailing lists. Here's a problem. There is no way to stop direct mail solicitations and as I said they really target the elderly, probably because many of them have dementia and can be exploited. There is a list you can get on to stop direct mail solicitations, but it's 100% voluntary.
I realize we are outside the realm of logic (and decency, on the solicitors' end) ... but I wonder if the following might have a 0.000001 chance of doing any good?
Sit down with the loved one and
(1) recognize that there is far more need than you can ever fill
(2) make a giving plan and budget that maximizes your realistic and sustainable ability to do good
(3) stick to it no matter what happens.
This does not require you to distinguish between good and bad charities, or make any judgment calls at all except the ones you make at leisure when you first sit down to make the plan. Honor your feelings and values during step 2, not later.
It's what I do. Personally, I do not give in response to a disaster or other emotionally compelling incident, because I know that either (1) "my" charity is already responding or (2) it is one of the millions that I can't do anything about.
I'm not saying this is for everyone. We're all wired differently and have different job tickets. Not a solution for scams that prey on actual dementia, I know. But it could help for people who are just too vulnerable to impulse giving (just like something similar could work for people prone to impulse buying or eating).
Impulse giving is SO tempting because it makes you *feel* connected; but you're not really any more connected than you would be with structured giving.
Make a plan and stick to it. Warm heart, cool mind.
My neighbor just spent hours trying to block some jerk who was calling his 85 year old mother in law asking her to get hundreds of dollars in gift cards to help someone in North Carolina recover from the hurricane. She has no connection to anyone in North Carolina. I wonder what else she's been giving money to.
Switch people to phones with answering machines. 99% of the callers don't bother leaving a message on my phone unlike email which is in your face. I never bothered setting up my cellphone with voice mail. If it's someone I know, they'll text me.
I'm very thankful that all Republicans are not as stupid, or unprincipled, as I thought, when they voted for NIxon, Bush and Trump. And Kristol ìs clear when writing, although my typing exercise 75 years ago kind of summed up his words, "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country". He mentioned so many things that mattered.
To paIr-a-phrase with Lincoln's message, I believe that free will means the freedom to choose, which is priceless, because that's essential to pursue happiness, and rapists are dictators who don't allow that.
But freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, or parents could let their two year old run into the street. Reasonablrules are necessary to maintain a.decent quality of life.
Harris Co Texas (Houston) had almost 250k people vote in the first two days of early voting. Compared with the first day in 2016 when we had less than 68,000 voters, and the gender split this year is 58/42 women.
I'm not making any predictions or assumptions, but Texas women are voting in record numbers. VP Harris is coming to H-town, and you can bet your bottom dollar my ass will be there!
Well, General Kelly finally came out publicly against Trump in the NYT tonight (gift link):
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/john-kelly-trump-fitness-character.html?unlocked_article_code=1.UU4.uERE.9CJ7Y2qgW9-I&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Kelly didn’t endorse Harris, since he believes that as ex-military he shouldn’t make a political endorsement, but he gave a very detailed explanation for why Trump should not be allowed back in the WH. Kelly came as close as you can to saying “Don’t vote for Trump” without actually saying “Don’t vote for Trump”.
Mattis told Bob Woodward he agreed with Milley that Trump was a dangerous fascist and shouldn’t be reelected. Now we just need McMaster to admit it out loud. Better late than never.
Someone recently pointed out to me that Liz Cheney co-sponsored a 2021 bill that would, under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, have outlawed abortion from the moment of conception: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/liz-cheneys-abortion-comments-show-why-stumping-for-harris-was-a-mistake/
People can also modify their beliefs, unless their minds are made of stone, just as Harris has modified her beliefs on other issues. Cheney remains a "Pro Life" politician, but is now not willing to allow the radical anti-choice actions that have been taken at the federal or state levels. In the end, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
So what? If she went back into Congress, she might do it again. All she really agrees with the Democrats on is that Trump is an oath breaking insurrectionist who should be disqualified from holding any elected office, much less the Presidency, and that he is a clear and present danger to our Democracy and (it’s not really an exaggeration) world peace. Therefore Liz Cheney is joining forces with Harris to stop Trump. That’s all that matters right now. The other stuff can be argued about later, as it always has been and always will be. My H and I are both registered Republicans and we voted early for Harris, even though we disagree with her on just about everything. Harris is not Trump, and she won’t implement Project 2025. That’s all that matters in this election. The rest is noise.
Fair enough. I was just surprised at the radical nature of Cheney's position. I'm glad she wasn't asked about it while the two of them were on stage together. It would have been awkward, which was the author's point.
The National Review is all in for Trump, so they probably wrote that article to discredit Liz Cheney and reduce any influence she might have in helping Harris. Most people who are pro-Harris know that Cheney is her opposite policy-wise. The message actually is “Liz Cheney disagrees with Harris on policy but agrees with Harris that Trump is too dangerous to vote for”. Having someone diametrically opposed to Harris’s policies say they’re voting for her to stop Trump gives permission to other Republican voters to vote for Harris to stop Trump. The National Review article won’t convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. TNR doesn’t understand the dynamics.
I don't believe that was NR's motive. The author of the article is very very anti-Trump. As are many of the NR writers. A majority, I would say. NR does not impose ideological uniformity
Interesting. I’m pretty sure Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of TNR is pro-Trump, or at least, anti-Harris. I am not aware of anyone at TNR being “very very anti-Trump”. In any event, I skimmed the article and disagree with whatever the premise is supposed to be. I’ve been opposed to Roe v Wade since it came out. It was decided right before I started law school, and we discussed it as being the result of a liberal USSC making up a “right” that didn’t actually exist under the 14th amendment (the right to privacy, which then gave you a right to abortion). It was a bad decision, badly decided, and ripe for being overturned given the right justices on the Court. That said, I agree with Cheney that throwing abortion back to the states has resulted in some draconian laws that unduly put women’s lives at risk. Any abortion law that has no exceptions whatsoever, not even for life of the mother (and also rape or incest, which are reasonable even if you believe life begins at conception, as I do) is a step too far. I watched Cheney talk about this in one of her interviews and felt she was truthful and sincere. That the TNR writer doesn’t understand the evolution of her thinking, or that her fear of a second Trump presidency is so great that she feels the need to actually campaign for and with Harris, is unfortunate. He’s entitled to his opinion but I disagree with him. Only MAGAs will agree with his thinking, imho. For the audience of those sit-downs, it wouldn’t have mattered even if she had been asked that question. It’s a nothing burger.
Here is one of many many pieces Charles Cooke has written blasting Trump:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/national-review-charles-cooke-donald-trump-2024_n_6231906de4b020d1596d73a7
Not sure why you would doubt my simple and easily-demonstrated assertion that he is very anti-Trump. ????
There is an EXCELLENT article on polling by Brian Klass over at the Garden of Forking Paths (Substack). It is behind a paywall though.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150417111
TLDR version:
Samples are no longer random or reprsentative and a variety of subjective and questionable methods and assumptions are used to make them "represntative."
It is a different kind of probability than "coin flip" probability in that each event is a unique event, so looking back at prior results is not that useful, if even useful at all.
Margins of error are too small and the stated confidence levels are too high.
The reality is that no one knows who is going to win with anything approaching accuracy and that the only thing you can say about the election is that it is too close to call on the available data. Anything else--probability numbers, etc is basically BS.
Klass outlines 4 possible outcomes (quote):
This assessment is based on an array of factors, but there are four major assumptions I’m relying on most.
First, I believe that pollsters aren’t accurately capturing the electorate post Dobbs (the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and drastically reshaped the landscape of American politics). If the turnout model underlying the polling is even slightly off by gender and is undercounting low-propensity women voters who are motivated by abortion politics, that could prove to be a substantial source of unanticipated polling error.
Second, whether you agree with this strategy or not, Harris is making substantial attempts to win over traditional Republican voters who are put off by Trump. By contrast, Trump’s electoral strategy has largely been driven by an effort to fire up his base. He easily could have acknowledged mistakes or expressed contrition around January 6th, for example, but instead, he has opened rallies with the national anthem as sung by people who are in prison for attacking the US Capitol. He has also picked a VP, Vance, who acts like a laser-guided missile to alienate women. That’s not exactly a strategy to win back hesitant voters. Close elections are won by “base plus” strategies, in which the base turns out plus other undecided voters split for the candidate.
Third, having worked in campaign politics, I learned that the “ground game” matters. This refers to the field operations run by campaign staffers and volunteers, the human infrastructure that actually makes contact with individual voters, hoping to persuade them and remind them to vote. Every indication so far is that the Democratic machine is firing on all cylinders in the swing states.
Fourth, a new AP poll out yesterday places Harris at a +5 net favorable rating with registered voters, compared to a -18 favorable rating for Trump, a gulf of 23 points. In that same poll, Walz has a +3 favorable rating, compared to -15 for J.D. Vance. Yes, it’s one poll and polls are fallible, but that is a huge gap, unlikely to be explained away by statistical measurement error, and at some point, whether voters like the candidates or not does matter—at least a bit—in a close race.
I’ll put it a different way: there are basically four possible outcomes in this election:
Big Harris Victory
Narrow Harris Victory
Narrow Trump Victory
Big Trump Victory
My subjective belief, based on the available data and these four working assumptions, is that the first three outcomes are completely plausible. None of them would shock me. However, a Big Trump Victory—one in which he wins the popular vote by, say, five points and runs the table with the swing states would shock me. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if Harris won by five points.
If you want to understand polling better, you could a lot worse than reading this article (and the links to the actual research backing it up).
Let's remember that everything he says is the biggest most fullest largest ever in our country in the world in time immemorial. I can't stand it anymore - i have stopped reading and stopped listening to most of the news - i watch a couple of shows that I have recorded and basically fast forward through most of it since none of it is new news or should I say news - i am in New York, early voting starts on Saturday, I am voting on Saturday - and then i don't want to hear anything until November 5 sometime in the evening!!! Yes I am exhausted. He needs to lose we all know that, he will lose, he will fight, he will sue - what else is new!!! Let's hope not too many people die in the fighting that will ensue
RE: Trump's Dumbest Crusade
As to ways to silence his "enemies" in the media, some of the Donald's most Trumpy friends in Florida's government are already deploying a prototype for testing. Ran into a bit of a hiccup, but I doubt they'll let that stop them:
https://popular.info/p/update-its-the-first-amendment-stupid
It still amazes me that Chris Christy lit himself on fire during a primary but is unwilling to do anything now to make sure Trump loses. Just astounding his cowardice.
Re CBS editing: Well, Trump's favorite channel Fox does this all the time to his benefit. Recent example: When Harris did her Fox interview with Bret Baier, he showed an edited clip of Trump sounding as if he never said anything about using the military or the National Guard against protesters, immigrants or other enemies. Harris caught that right away and called him on it telling viewers exactly what Trump had actually said. No one has benefitted more from creative editing than Trump has.
ETTD. I see that the McD's logo has been appropriated by Trump, Inc. Elderly people forsake their nest eggs to secure the rantings of an old madman.
Same as it ever was.
I guess we can be grateful that the former president didn't describe RFK, Jr's manly parts in the barbershop talk.
There is plenty of old news footage that can be edited together. It’s better to show people than tell them. People sometimes need a jolt or reality check. It’s very easy to block tragic events out of one’s head. Think 9/11. Thank God for video.
After posting that Cheap Shot, I assume all the questions about "Why is Trump fixating on such-and-such?" are rhetorical.
Not that logic matters but companies have set timelines for record destruction including old employee files and wage garnishment records. They probably line up with statutory limits on state liability lawsuits. Trump knows this as a business owner. It’s amazing how he plays the dumb blonde while also being a business genius, and gets away with both.
Yes. My industry keeps records for the exact timetable required by law, then they are destroyed. No incentive to keep stuff laying around for discovery.
I'm not sure I can bring myself to read the article about the 80 year old man who was giving away his much-needed savings to political candidates. My mother passed earlier this year. 92 years old with some dementia her last couple years. One thing I learned taking care of her is how older people are targeted by not only political candidates but non-profits with direct mail solicitations trying to play on their sympathies to give them money. My mother would get her mail and then want to open up the checkbook for these causes. She would always say "But it's for a good cause." I would respond that they don't raise money for bad causes. The problem is that many of these charities have highly paid executives and very little of the money, after administrative costs, go for the cause. Non-profits have to only be set up for a charitable type cause and not turn a profit. They can pay their executives whatever they want.
Fortunately, in my mother's case, she would only give $20 or so...but that just meant she ended up on more mailing lists. Here's a problem. There is no way to stop direct mail solicitations and as I said they really target the elderly, probably because many of them have dementia and can be exploited. There is a list you can get on to stop direct mail solicitations, but it's 100% voluntary.
Sorry for my rant...
Excellent rant!
I realize we are outside the realm of logic (and decency, on the solicitors' end) ... but I wonder if the following might have a 0.000001 chance of doing any good?
Sit down with the loved one and
(1) recognize that there is far more need than you can ever fill
(2) make a giving plan and budget that maximizes your realistic and sustainable ability to do good
(3) stick to it no matter what happens.
This does not require you to distinguish between good and bad charities, or make any judgment calls at all except the ones you make at leisure when you first sit down to make the plan. Honor your feelings and values during step 2, not later.
It's what I do. Personally, I do not give in response to a disaster or other emotionally compelling incident, because I know that either (1) "my" charity is already responding or (2) it is one of the millions that I can't do anything about.
I'm not saying this is for everyone. We're all wired differently and have different job tickets. Not a solution for scams that prey on actual dementia, I know. But it could help for people who are just too vulnerable to impulse giving (just like something similar could work for people prone to impulse buying or eating).
Impulse giving is SO tempting because it makes you *feel* connected; but you're not really any more connected than you would be with structured giving.
Make a plan and stick to it. Warm heart, cool mind.
FWIW?
My neighbor just spent hours trying to block some jerk who was calling his 85 year old mother in law asking her to get hundreds of dollars in gift cards to help someone in North Carolina recover from the hurricane. She has no connection to anyone in North Carolina. I wonder what else she's been giving money to.
Switch people to phones with answering machines. 99% of the callers don't bother leaving a message on my phone unlike email which is in your face. I never bothered setting up my cellphone with voice mail. If it's someone I know, they'll text me.
Help! Overexposure to Trump has led me to spontaneously birthe typos — here, right from the get-go, should be “Re” not “Te.”