Amazing that a disbarred Rudy Giuliani is chosen to speak at a campaign rally in the very state he was disbarred in. He sounded like a completely unhinged, cult follower that is desperate to please the petulant boy king AKA Agent Orange. When is this madness going to end? It's like we live in Bizarro World and rationale is nowhere to be found. Sigh.
The answer to the question about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania lies on the front page of today's New York Times: Dane County. Dane County is the national capital of Yankeedom in exile. For 120 years, it's been the proud seat of Wisconsin progressivism. It has thrived on the confluence of education, technology (from cheesemaking in the 1890s to biotech and healthcare tech in the 2020s), and state government and based it on the legacy of the foward-thinking Scandinavians who built it. It's correlate is Hennepin County, Minnesota. There is no Dane County in Pennsylvania.
“And the crowd went wild!” Thanks Tim and Sam for giving me my best laugh of the day. Indeed only a narcissist of Trump’s level hears a crowd cheering him even if the only people present are two moderators and some production staff.
Trump was probably thinking of the TV audience. We know he is a long-time TV guy, and that he is hyper-conscious of his ratings. He is always playing to an audience, even when he can't see them.
The MAGAs on social media keep insisting that was the case. But they can't tell me how Trump knew in real time that his viewers were going crazy in their living rooms.
Completely off topic... but as Laura Loomer is single and, as indicated by the Economic Times, she is single because of her "obsession with Trump" , I can't help but think: single scat lady? I understand that this vulgarity may upset Sarah Longwell -- but , nonetheless "food" for thought. On an obsequious note, I thank you all for making every day better.
Tim raises a reasonable point regarding Nate Silver. Is he biased? And if so, why?
I do believe Silver is biased. For example, in his post-debate post, 1) he questioned the moderators’ fairness bc of their fact-checking; 2) he suggested that looking at the debate without sound made the debate appear even. And a few other “observations” Silver made that made me wonder if he was watching the same debate I saw. He also predicts based on “fundamentals” that Trump will win; 538 has Harris winning in “fundamentals”.
If he is biased, why? I really don’t know. But I think it may have to do with how he describes society. In his book “On the Edge”, he describes a group, the “Riverians”, who are characterized by their love of data, free speech, and capitalism. Silver describes them as being involved in a political power struggle against the Democratic-aligned "Village" elites. In this framing (which I think is pretty weird and self-aggrandizing), I assume he sees himself (and people like Thiel and Musk) as Riverians. It seems only reasonable that he would like to pall with these folks. And I assume that having a model that predicts their desires would get him in with that crowd.
Note: his model is complicated (even for a neuroscientist!) with “fudge factors” eg, his model downgraded Harris’ chances based on an expected post-convention bump that didn’t materialize; of course this model didn’t incorporate effects like RFK jr dropping out etc; assassination attempts; etc. How you tweak “fudge factors” will definitely affect predictions. I suspect that no one can really tell if he has his thumb on the scale.
I'm baffled why Silver thinks "fundamentals" would favor Trump. From what I've seen, the fundamentals are more favorable to Harris than the polling. Fundraising, small dollar donations, first time donations, voter registrations, crowd sizes and enthusiasm all favor Harris.
Couple this with the fact that polls are already attempting to correct for underestimating Trump in the past, and you have a pretty hefty built-in tilt toward Trump.
I think Silver considers the public view on the economy, immigration and crime as “fundamentals”. But the public is changing their view on who is better on these issues. And all the factors you mention support this. And I think abortion will get millions off the couch. I don’t think enthusiasm is well modeled.
2. The negative. I’m sorry but the fact that Tim and Sam only talk on pod/YouTube periodically is absolutely unacceptable. This somehow has to be a regular occurrence. I do t know if I learn anything but I sure as hell laugh. Like I really cackle at you too. It’s like 2 teenagers talking politics who can barely get out their points because they are laughing. Well played guys. Well played
Hijacking to compliment Sam (and please pass on to Mark) on their Mark Robinson write up. Delectable presentation, I literally LOL'ed repeatedly in schadenfreude. My 10 year old asked what was so funny. "A couple of great writers, son, that's what!"
I was in the car listening and the giggling made me want to watch the video (which I did as soon as I got back to my desk). Tim has an interesting finger gesture while listening to Melania...
Maybe in their haste to put a more human look to Trump and his campaign, the campaign gave the go ahead for Melania to talk about her nude modeling career. I'm sure that will appeal to a very, very, very small sunset of the electorate. :)
Tim - the negative info on Nate Silver also appeared on the pod with Reed Gallen and Simon Rosenberg (Lincoln Project) where essentially it is assumed Nate is in the bag for DJT to reflect positive polls in an effort to litigate the results of the 2024 election. "If the polls are doing so well, how could we have lost?"
Melanie popping up into the media only served to remind me that she is an immigrant. Oh the hypocrisy …
Amazing that a disbarred Rudy Giuliani is chosen to speak at a campaign rally in the very state he was disbarred in. He sounded like a completely unhinged, cult follower that is desperate to please the petulant boy king AKA Agent Orange. When is this madness going to end? It's like we live in Bizarro World and rationale is nowhere to be found. Sigh.
Sam reminds me, in a bad way, of Hillary's money and organizational advantage over Trump.
P.S. Will never again take a NYT poll to heart/Hillary 85% favorability in 2016.
2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Will the Georgia board reap trouble for their interference?
The answer to the question about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania lies on the front page of today's New York Times: Dane County. Dane County is the national capital of Yankeedom in exile. For 120 years, it's been the proud seat of Wisconsin progressivism. It has thrived on the confluence of education, technology (from cheesemaking in the 1890s to biotech and healthcare tech in the 2020s), and state government and based it on the legacy of the foward-thinking Scandinavians who built it. It's correlate is Hennepin County, Minnesota. There is no Dane County in Pennsylvania.
“And the crowd went wild!” Thanks Tim and Sam for giving me my best laugh of the day. Indeed only a narcissist of Trump’s level hears a crowd cheering him even if the only people present are two moderators and some production staff.
Trump was probably thinking of the TV audience. We know he is a long-time TV guy, and that he is hyper-conscious of his ratings. He is always playing to an audience, even when he can't see them.
The MAGAs on social media keep insisting that was the case. But they can't tell me how Trump knew in real time that his viewers were going crazy in their living rooms.
Completely off topic... but as Laura Loomer is single and, as indicated by the Economic Times, she is single because of her "obsession with Trump" , I can't help but think: single scat lady? I understand that this vulgarity may upset Sarah Longwell -- but , nonetheless "food" for thought. On an obsequious note, I thank you all for making every day better.
Tim raises a reasonable point regarding Nate Silver. Is he biased? And if so, why?
I do believe Silver is biased. For example, in his post-debate post, 1) he questioned the moderators’ fairness bc of their fact-checking; 2) he suggested that looking at the debate without sound made the debate appear even. And a few other “observations” Silver made that made me wonder if he was watching the same debate I saw. He also predicts based on “fundamentals” that Trump will win; 538 has Harris winning in “fundamentals”.
If he is biased, why? I really don’t know. But I think it may have to do with how he describes society. In his book “On the Edge”, he describes a group, the “Riverians”, who are characterized by their love of data, free speech, and capitalism. Silver describes them as being involved in a political power struggle against the Democratic-aligned "Village" elites. In this framing (which I think is pretty weird and self-aggrandizing), I assume he sees himself (and people like Thiel and Musk) as Riverians. It seems only reasonable that he would like to pall with these folks. And I assume that having a model that predicts their desires would get him in with that crowd.
Note: his model is complicated (even for a neuroscientist!) with “fudge factors” eg, his model downgraded Harris’ chances based on an expected post-convention bump that didn’t materialize; of course this model didn’t incorporate effects like RFK jr dropping out etc; assassination attempts; etc. How you tweak “fudge factors” will definitely affect predictions. I suspect that no one can really tell if he has his thumb on the scale.
I'm baffled why Silver thinks "fundamentals" would favor Trump. From what I've seen, the fundamentals are more favorable to Harris than the polling. Fundraising, small dollar donations, first time donations, voter registrations, crowd sizes and enthusiasm all favor Harris.
Couple this with the fact that polls are already attempting to correct for underestimating Trump in the past, and you have a pretty hefty built-in tilt toward Trump.
I think Silver considers the public view on the economy, immigration and crime as “fundamentals”. But the public is changing their view on who is better on these issues. And all the factors you mention support this. And I think abortion will get millions off the couch. I don’t think enthusiasm is well modeled.
2 comments. One good, one bad.
1. Sam is a great hire. He has been awesome.
2. The negative. I’m sorry but the fact that Tim and Sam only talk on pod/YouTube periodically is absolutely unacceptable. This somehow has to be a regular occurrence. I do t know if I learn anything but I sure as hell laugh. Like I really cackle at you too. It’s like 2 teenagers talking politics who can barely get out their points because they are laughing. Well played guys. Well played
Salt in the wound over the Survivor News. I never watch the show. I was excited to watch. And then he got voted off the first episode!! 😭
Hijacking to compliment Sam (and please pass on to Mark) on their Mark Robinson write up. Delectable presentation, I literally LOL'ed repeatedly in schadenfreude. My 10 year old asked what was so funny. "A couple of great writers, son, that's what!"
Can someone please explain what JD Vance's wife is thinking day after day? I mean, she is clearly intelligent and accomplished. Please do tell.
I was in the car listening and the giggling made me want to watch the video (which I did as soon as I got back to my desk). Tim has an interesting finger gesture while listening to Melania...
I’m in awe of the recruitment juice that The Bulwark has had, as a start up.
Will, the now departed and much missed Dr Ted, AB, and Sam. Just an amaz array of thinkers and writers.
Sorry, but who is Dr Ted?
Theodore Johnson. Got called up to the bigs. JVL’s colourful description. The WaPo from memory.
Maybe in their haste to put a more human look to Trump and his campaign, the campaign gave the go ahead for Melania to talk about her nude modeling career. I'm sure that will appeal to a very, very, very small sunset of the electorate. :)
Tim - the negative info on Nate Silver also appeared on the pod with Reed Gallen and Simon Rosenberg (Lincoln Project) where essentially it is assumed Nate is in the bag for DJT to reflect positive polls in an effort to litigate the results of the 2024 election. "If the polls are doing so well, how could we have lost?"