I think these people are playing their cards exactly right. Do Democrats have any reason to show their hand before the Republican convention, which is only a week away? Seems like it would make sense to let that happen with Republicans having to message and choose a VP while in the dark about who Democrats will be running.
Though it seems, based on individual quotations that they are genuinely divided and/or unsure, and or strongly (though perhaps privately) thinking a while stating b, yours is a comforting interpretation, azleftey. It definitely makes sense that this makes GOP oppo work more difficult, but the idea that we are "undecided" on purpose... I read it and sighed -- It would be so cool if this were true.
The nerve of those children with the signs asking whether Biden is fit for Office when they're there at the behest of a campaign for a criminal like Trump.
In 2024 Biden was vigorous and spoke coherently, and even then he only won by a razor thin margin. In 2024, he has a very low approval rating (it should be 55%) and was slightly behind in the pre-debate polls. In the debate he was non-vigorous and mostly incoherent. Clearly Biden is a much weaker candidate then the 2020 Biden that won by a razor thin margin. Nobody can make a reasoned argument that this weaker Biden can hold the thin margin.
It can't be because of his strong record as a president nor Trump's many weaknesses (eg. Jan 6) because these were already known in the pre-debate polls which had him behind. I'm waiting for a sound, logical and well reasoned argument that considers the realities of where we stand.
Although I'm tired of the "Biden is old" schtick (I'd rather everyone talk about Project 2025) at least Democrats can openly discuss and disagree on issues. Biden doesn't threaten to primary them. Unlike the Borg, which can only be assimilated.
I see that reporting on Project 2025 is starting to happen. I look forward to a full court press with Trump and the GOP on this. Maybe we can start to get the GOP to scurry.
I know. Biden has an ad about Trump and Project 2025, that there are 16 ex-Trump admin people in charge of this. He is fully on board with this. Make him own it.
I want someone to start asking them about the practical stuff and not let them get away with generalities. “How are you going to pay for those camps? Who is going to pay for them? We know it won’t be Mexico.”
It seems that Project 2025 will be targeting many agencies. If we lose or decrease funding for meat plant inspectors, NOAA, etc., who will be the losers? If Project 2025 is looking to put in political appointees at lower levels, or decrease the administrative state, how will be people be affected? What services are they relying on that will either disappear or that they will need to start paying "user fees"?
I also want someone to do the math on the tariffs, especially if he would replace the income tax with them. He needs to be held accountable for all the wishful thinking.
Watch Nicole Wallace on MSNBC. All she talks about is Project 2025. She was the most horrified after the debate. Now it's as if it never happened. Dems are trying to push this issue aside. They won't be able to.
Because she knows any Trump presidency is going to be way worse than a Biden presidency. Biden will surround himself, as he's already done this term, with good, capable, knowledgeable people. Trump will surround himself with scoundrels like himself who just want to make the federal government impotent and the SCOTUS a laughing stock.
2. To the extent that they have any meaning without nominees, the polls have not changed since the debate. Per the 538 aggregation they are less than a point apart in WI and MI. There is work to do in PA where there is a four or five point differential.
AZ and NV are going to be tougher but if he gets the Blue Wall he’s covered.
The Dump Biden folks (you sound as though you may be one) still think there’s a decision to be made. Biden is the candidate and will soon be the nominee. It’s imperative to throw all energy behind him.
Project 2025 and SCOTUS and Dobbs will be what overcome Trump. That means they need to be talked about, constantly, and explained.
Agreed. That "debate" made the election almost un-winnable for Biden. Plenty of independent voters are either going to stay home or vote 3rd party after that disaster. Biden's obstinacy is going to cost the senate and the house as well. Nice work Joe.
It should be pushed aside. It is a distraction. Biden was not any different before the debate. Tim Miller counted only 20 bad days in the last 3.5 years before the debate. The debate makes 21. Pfft.
People are coalescing around Harris to replace Biden. That's amounts to the same thing as leaving Biden at the top. If he should be unable to complete his second term, Harris will step in anyway. Preemptively replacing Biden is a bad look, and there are plenty of good reasons to conclude that even if Biden's chances are diminished, his odds are still better than anyone else's.
Riddle me this: Why did Biden give up three minutes of Super Bowl time for an unscripted interview? The inner circle at the White House has known about Biden's infirmaries for a long time. It is shameful that they allowed him to run again in his condition. You talk about a bad look, watch the debate again if you have the stomach for it.
One event does not a conclusion make. You have committed the fallacy of omitting the denominator, in this case of all the other unscripted events he has participated in. Just post debate he participated in around fifteen events, most unscripted, and the press mentioned only two of the events: The NC rally and the ABC interview (Make that three. I saw some coverage of his on-air call to Morning Joe). Notably missing is his appearance at Waffle HOuse the same night as the debate where he was just fine, almost as if the cold medicine had worn off.
The main point is preemptively replacing Biden with Harris is functionally the same as avoiding all this emotional overreaction, and if it should turn out that Biden is unable to complete his second term, then you get Harris anyway.
I'm sorry, I can't believe "The Bulwark" published this...
"Everyone knows that apart from Mitt Romney and a few others, every single Republican wholeheartedly backs Donald Trump—not just for the presidency, but for anything he wants or does, no matter how absurd, deranged, or illegal. It’s also known that they all oppose Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. On these subjects, what is there to ask Republicans about? Virtually nothing.
VIRTUALLY NOTHING!! Actually, given the earlier article doing a deep dive on whether J. D. Vance's facial hair will cost him the VP slot, perhaps I can believe The Bulwark would publish this.
How about these questions...
Given Mr Trump's recent conviction by a jury of his peers and then the Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, how can you morally justify supporting Donald Trump for the Republican nomination?
Having several outstanding civil judgements against someone, as is the case with Trump, would generally prevent them from being granted federal security clearance due to the risk of bribery or corruption! Why shouldn't voters disqualify Trump as a viable candidate for president since he would need security clearance and wouldn't otherwise get it withoout being president?
During the debate, Trump lied repeatedly and refused to answer any policy related questions. It seems that Trump is disinterested in governing and is only in it for power and to stay out of prison.
You're right, of course. But apparently, all the reporters in D.C. act as a 'scrum', chasing the latest hot topic of the day. Joe's just reporting to us what they're doing, and whether or not this just encourages the lemming-like behaviour is another question.
everything that you said about Trump is true, and has been for awhile. But none of that matters, all that matters is that Trump must be defeated. Which means that the only thing that matters are the swing state 'double haters'. Right now, as a result of the debate, they have even more reason to decide to vote for Trump.
With all the lies that Trump said in the debate, he essentially threw Biden a hanging curveball. Any other potential democrat nominee would have hit it out of the park, wrapping up a victory in November. Not only did Biden not hit it out of the park, he didn't even take the swing. Instead of wrapping up a victory in November, he all but handed the victory to Trump.
I think Biden is a great guy and has had a very successful presidency. If that was a difference maker, he would (should) have a 55% approval rating and been leading in the pools 60/40, but none of that is the case. Biden was a vigorous and coherent candidate in 2020, and even then he won by a razor thin margin. The non-vigorous, often incoherent, Biden of 2024 is a weaker candidate. Even after his great accomplishments and the horrendous things Trump as done, he has a low approval rating and was slightly behind in the pools pre-debate. How can one, after watching the debate, make a reasoned argument that he can hold on to the 2020 razor thin margin?
Any potential nominee can hit the next Trump hanging curve ball out of the park, while Biden would swing and miss.
Joe, will you, at least, be honest and stop calling it a debate? It was anything but that. Why? Because CFT can't debate, that requires self-control and the ability to think and speak both intelligently and intelligibly on your feet, in your turn, trying to intelligently make a point, and painting your opponent into a logical corner. It is not yelling louder and more often than the opponent, not spreading known and proven to be falsehoodsd and outright lies. A debate, for what it is worth, also requires moderators who can keep control of the situation instead of believing their role is not stopping obvious, known "misstatements" of fact in the interest of a "fair bothsidesism" (if that is not an oxymoron).
You’re right. And they haven’t been debates for a long time. No one won it either. I heard some say Trump won. No he didn’t. He managed to control himself (mic cut offs helping). Defining that as winning is like rewarding a toddler for not throwing food in a restaurant. Biden certainly didn’t win. We all lost. I wish debates had assigned topics to force the candidates to dive deep on issues. One debate on immigration and the economy. Another on foreign affairs and taxes/tariffs/budget and another on social concerns like healthcare, addiction, crime.
Ha. I'd like to think so. But as a remote worker, I've worn a suit exactly twice in the last 5 years. Here it's 110 degrees and bone dry. My current haberdasher is the Hanes t-shirt aisle at Walmart.
Maybe, but I had four children and a husband who didn’t cook and I would come home from the office at 8 and be standing at the stove cooking dinner for six at 9PM.
I’ll take living in cotton and hanging out with the dog. The kids grew up, I retired, and my husband and soulmate passed away. I’d put on all the old clothing costume to get him back, but that’s it.
I haven't seen a seersucker suit since I moved out of the Low Country 15 years ago, and I didn't realize they were a regional quirk until I moved to the Mid-Atlantic. It gets so humid I thought that at some point all the Seersucker suits would get pulled out of the closets, but I realized around August of my second summer that they must simply not exist in the mid-Atlantic :)
JFK certainly thought the debates helped him, though the margin was so small it’s hard to tell, and Lichtman wasn’t around to predict that election. Lichtman did predict HW Bush’s defeat before any debates were held. Lichtman predicted Gore’s victory in August of 2000, and Gore’s loss wasn't due to the debates so much as the Supreme Court hijacking the election.
Lichtman used data from many elections to formulate his system, including JFK. Lichtman also insisted post debate that Biden's odds are still better than anyone else's.
That’s true: he did use JFK’s election, but he did not PREDICT JFK’s election. And Lichtman has said repeatedly that debates don't count, particularly ones in June.
If we want to talk probabilities, let's do this one:
If you're trying to predict presidents by simply tossing a coin, you have a 1/2 chance on any given election. To get 9 out of 10 right is a 5/512 chance, or a little under 1%. But there are a lot of people in the business of predicting presidential elections. If we have 1,000 of them, (And that particular prognostication market is bigger than that) then we're averaging a little under 10 people who have correctly called the past 9 out of 10 presidential elections, even if their methods are no better than just random guessing.
Now Lichtman might really have the goods. But simply pointing to his record of prediction as proof positive that his methods work doesn't really work out in the probability framework we have; there is a lot of potential for false positives.
But Lichtman is not guessing as if it were a coin toss. No one is saying that his record is proof positive that his methods work. We are saying that his track record means he needs to be seriously considered. Besides which "a little under 10 people" besides Lichtman? Name them. You are completely misunderstanding the probability math at work here.
"But Lichtman is not guessing as if it were a coin toss."
Not what I said. Please respond to the comment, not your strawman.
"No one is saying that his record is proof positive that his methods work. "
I don't know, I think Julie's comment about invoking predicting 9 out of 10 is in fact doing just that. Maybe she can clarify.
"Besides which "a little under 10 people" besides Lichtman? Name them."
I don't think you understood what I wrote. In fact, I'm sure you didn't, because you cannot actually have a fraction of a person making a prediction. I'm not pointing to specific people making guesses. I'm pointing out that with 1,000 people making guesses, you will get about 9.77 who will correctly guess 9 out of 10 presidential elections. There is no actual such thing as .77 of a person who can make such a prediction. These are not actual people I am identifying. I am talking about the probability of false positives even if the method used to guess is worthless.
"You are completely misunderstanding the probability math at work here."
No, I am not. To demonstrate that, I will walk you through all of it.
Odds of calling one particular presidential race completely at random assuming you're only picking between two major party candidates: 1/2.
Binomial formula for the probability of getting K successes (correct predictions) in N trials (total number of predictions) with the success of each trial being p is
P(X=k) =(N) p^k(1-p)^n-k
(k)
For us, N is 10 (total number of predictions), K is 9 for the number of correct predictions, and p is 0.5 The bonimal coefficient of n over k in parenthesis is
n!/k!(n-k)!
At that point it's just arithmetic P(X=9) =10(1/2)^9(1/2)=10(1/2)^10= 10(1/1024)=10/1024=5/512.
The probability of any one person getting 9 out of 10 presidential predictions correctly just by guessing is 5/512, or slightly off 0.977 percent.
Now, if we hypothesize 1,000 people all doing this process, with our 5/512 conclusion from before, we have a simple product of number of people attempting independently by the odds of overall success. 1,000 *0.977 =9.77.
You say I misunderstand the probability math? Show me where I made an error. And please, take your time. I used some statistical language, I wouldn't want to be guilty of gish galloping you.
Now we know you are in in bad faith. A little under 10 people is a couple handfuls of whole people. Name them.
Everything falls apart with your false assumption that Lichtman is "calling one particular presidential race completely at random." He most definitely is not calling presidential races in a random way, like by flipping a coin.
It's funny how you need to literally make a strawman out of my argument to 'prove' that I am acting in bad faith. Meanwhile, you've also accused me of making a gish gallop by using statistical language, and accused me of making a mathematical error. I've challenged you to point out where the flaw in my math was. Do you have one or not?
Again, Lichtman is being brought to the fore because of survivorship bias and because he's pushing against the conventional narrative. People like Lichtman are common but not famous. I don't know who these 9.77 people my model posits are, because they're just people who work at polling houses in obscurity who called the past 9/10 elections with whatever systems they have which might or might not be better than guesswork. Only, they're not getting up and standing saying that you shouldn't worry even though is model is vague and his track record isn't actually as strong as you want it to be.
I want to make this very, very clear, since you are at best fuzzy on what I am saying. I do not think Lichtman is making his model by simple guesswork. I think he has a system, which he applies. I do not know if this system is actually accurate, and bringing up a 9/10 prediction rate is not as strong of an indicator as you might intuitively think, because there is a VERY high probability of multiple people that same point simply by guessing, or more realistically using systems that are no more accurate than guessing. Do you get the difference?
Your math is like solving for 2+2, when the problem is 2+3. Lichtman is not making random guesses no mater how much you wish it were so. There is no "conventional" narrative. There is a narrative being pushed by one faction while ignoring or dismissing out of hand any arguments to the contrary. You THINK he has a system? He has explained his system. By your lights there is no way anyone can analyze their way to a valid or reliable conclusion because it all amounts to an random guess anyway. If ANYBODY else had the same track record as Lichtman, you know they would be guests at all the political podcasts. But they aren't because they do not exist. Anybody can apply his system and get the same result. The only people in these threads getting a different result are people claiming to use his system by using their own definitions of the keys instead of his definitions or otherwise misapplying his system, like the people claiming Trump turns the Charisma key.
I'm sure that is usually true. But watching Biden was the equivalent of watching someone have a stroke or heart attack on the debate stage. Barack Obama's first debate was Cicero compared to Biden. Also, the whole reason the Biden team asked for the early debate was to put to rest the concerns people had about Biden's age and mental acuity. The only thing he did was to confirm and amplify people's concerns exponentially.
Yeah, he said he was feeling awful. He probably should have postponed it, but then think of how the right would have spun that. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I continue to believe that Biden is more than fit for the job. He is mentally fit. His years of experience make him fit for the job. His compassion and caring for ALL Americans make him fit. HE IS THE BEST CHANCE WE HAVE FOR BEATING tRUMP make him 100% fit.
Take anyone else, this late in the campaign and you are asking for trouble. trump will totally destroy the democracy. Totally destroy this country. Look at the things he did when he was in office. And now he has a pack of hyenas cherry picked to do his bidding. STICK WITH JOE!!
If we can get enough people to see reason, we can do this. The Maga people won't change their minds/ But there really are not as many of them as there used to be. They are just LOUD! Ignore them and we should concentrate on independents, undecideds, and perhaps far left, since RFK seems to be losing support (fingers crossed). Also, republicans who cannot vote for trump and realize the country is more important than party!
Please write about the GOP party platform that Trump just forced, removing the long-standing commitment to oppose abortion, and adding protections for birth control and IVF. Pro-life voters just lost their last reason to support Trump.
With bated breath, especially since the original reason for waiting for 11 July has been postponed for a couple of months...the announcement of the sentence for 34 Felonies with literally millions of at least potential victims (all the voters who were not told about his conduct before the election).
Oh not really- if Trump’s elected, he would gleefully sign a total ban. Besides, the platform stance is still unacceptable and crossing the line of church and state.
That's what interests me the most. The Party, at Trump's direction, just adopted a platform. Why? If they mean it, they're abandoning evangelicals and pro-life voters. If they're lying, why have a platform?
I would guess that if the GOP was asked about Trump's mental capacity and about Project 25, they would be happy to spew whatever BS they can, and not scurry away.
Joe P., the next time the press hunts down members of Congress for interviews, they should stop ignoring the democracy-hating Republicans and instead ask them specific questions about Tя☭mp Project 2025. If they do and you write about it, great; if they don’t and you write about it, awesome; if they don’t and you don’t write about it, what’s stopping you? I can’t believe that the press would ignore the Tя☭mp Party and its plans for the end of American Democracy, unless they really are as horrible as they appear to be.
" On these subjects, what is there to ask Republicans about?" Oh, really? How about the 90 minutes of lies he spewed at the debate? How about asking them how much of Project 2025 they support. Like, do they support a nationwide abortion ban or removing no-fault divorce? They could also ask GOP lawmakers "what kinds of Trump retributions do you support? There is plenty to ask but the MSM is again failing us by trying to get the scoop of the year about Biden resigning. Or something.
The problem I have with the dems at the moment is the apparent lack of a strategy. If they gamed out 3 to 5 scenarios (triggers, people, timing, messaging) they would not be in this situation. They have done a really good job staying unified, now is not the time to break that. Perhaps they do have a strategy in place in case Biden has to step aside, or fall down some steps, or whatever. I am not feeling it, so it feels like a dereliction of duty. I will remain hopeful they get their stuff together, because they, rightly or wrongly, have the responsibility to secure this nation, including keeping those people that have testified or spoken out against Trump safe.
I think these people are playing their cards exactly right. Do Democrats have any reason to show their hand before the Republican convention, which is only a week away? Seems like it would make sense to let that happen with Republicans having to message and choose a VP while in the dark about who Democrats will be running.
Good Point!
Though it seems, based on individual quotations that they are genuinely divided and/or unsure, and or strongly (though perhaps privately) thinking a while stating b, yours is a comforting interpretation, azleftey. It definitely makes sense that this makes GOP oppo work more difficult, but the idea that we are "undecided" on purpose... I read it and sighed -- It would be so cool if this were true.
The nerve of those children with the signs asking whether Biden is fit for Office when they're there at the behest of a campaign for a criminal like Trump.
Just obeying their elders like good little mini-mes.
I guess the party apparatchiks have devolved from Brooks Brothers rioters to Brooks Brothers pickets, but the base prefers their rioters in camo.
Children? They looked like grown men to me.
I wouldn't call them children. I must be looking at a different photo.
In 2024 Biden was vigorous and spoke coherently, and even then he only won by a razor thin margin. In 2024, he has a very low approval rating (it should be 55%) and was slightly behind in the pre-debate polls. In the debate he was non-vigorous and mostly incoherent. Clearly Biden is a much weaker candidate then the 2020 Biden that won by a razor thin margin. Nobody can make a reasoned argument that this weaker Biden can hold the thin margin.
It can't be because of his strong record as a president nor Trump's many weaknesses (eg. Jan 6) because these were already known in the pre-debate polls which had him behind. I'm waiting for a sound, logical and well reasoned argument that considers the realities of where we stand.
Although I'm tired of the "Biden is old" schtick (I'd rather everyone talk about Project 2025) at least Democrats can openly discuss and disagree on issues. Biden doesn't threaten to primary them. Unlike the Borg, which can only be assimilated.
I see that reporting on Project 2025 is starting to happen. I look forward to a full court press with Trump and the GOP on this. Maybe we can start to get the GOP to scurry.
Want them to scurry? I'm hard pressed not to say Just turn on the lights....
I can't wait for the new Lincoln project ad to hit the airwaves. Already Trumpster and Steven Miller are saying; Who me? (regarding project 25)
I know. Biden has an ad about Trump and Project 2025, that there are 16 ex-Trump admin people in charge of this. He is fully on board with this. Make him own it.
That Rick Wilson ad is devastating. Too bad the Biden campaign didn't hire him. (my fantasy politics)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Hyc3tFk5c "Her Own" from Biden-Harris, just released - part of a $50million ad campaign.
I want someone to start asking them about the practical stuff and not let them get away with generalities. “How are you going to pay for those camps? Who is going to pay for them? We know it won’t be Mexico.”
It seems that Project 2025 will be targeting many agencies. If we lose or decrease funding for meat plant inspectors, NOAA, etc., who will be the losers? If Project 2025 is looking to put in political appointees at lower levels, or decrease the administrative state, how will be people be affected? What services are they relying on that will either disappear or that they will need to start paying "user fees"?
I also want someone to do the math on the tariffs, especially if he would replace the income tax with them. He needs to be held accountable for all the wishful thinking.
He's a lousy businessman. This is just more proof.
Watch Nicole Wallace on MSNBC. All she talks about is Project 2025. She was the most horrified after the debate. Now it's as if it never happened. Dems are trying to push this issue aside. They won't be able to.
Because she knows any Trump presidency is going to be way worse than a Biden presidency. Biden will surround himself, as he's already done this term, with good, capable, knowledgeable people. Trump will surround himself with scoundrels like himself who just want to make the federal government impotent and the SCOTUS a laughing stock.
We will. Most voters will vote for a can of corn before Trump.
Well, there's my lawn sign: a can of corn on top and Harris underneath.
Will they? Are the polls *all* wrong? Is Biden actually ahead in every swing state?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/upshot/biden-polls-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6k0.CUcg.3-7alQ3iL7Zu&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Are you looking for an actual response?
1. Yes they will.
2. To the extent that they have any meaning without nominees, the polls have not changed since the debate. Per the 538 aggregation they are less than a point apart in WI and MI. There is work to do in PA where there is a four or five point differential.
AZ and NV are going to be tougher but if he gets the Blue Wall he’s covered.
The Dump Biden folks (you sound as though you may be one) still think there’s a decision to be made. Biden is the candidate and will soon be the nominee. It’s imperative to throw all energy behind him.
Project 2025 and SCOTUS and Dobbs will be what overcome Trump. That means they need to be talked about, constantly, and explained.
Biden really needed the polls to move in his favor after the debate. He only has a few chances at audiences that large.
Agreed. That "debate" made the election almost un-winnable for Biden. Plenty of independent voters are either going to stay home or vote 3rd party after that disaster. Biden's obstinacy is going to cost the senate and the house as well. Nice work Joe.
"It will never stop hunting you" * Aragorn to Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring
Dems are trying to push what issue aside...Project 2025?
No, the debate. (At least on Dateline White House).
It should be pushed aside. It is a distraction. Biden was not any different before the debate. Tim Miller counted only 20 bad days in the last 3.5 years before the debate. The debate makes 21. Pfft.
People are coalescing around Harris to replace Biden. That's amounts to the same thing as leaving Biden at the top. If he should be unable to complete his second term, Harris will step in anyway. Preemptively replacing Biden is a bad look, and there are plenty of good reasons to conclude that even if Biden's chances are diminished, his odds are still better than anyone else's.
Riddle me this: Why did Biden give up three minutes of Super Bowl time for an unscripted interview? The inner circle at the White House has known about Biden's infirmaries for a long time. It is shameful that they allowed him to run again in his condition. You talk about a bad look, watch the debate again if you have the stomach for it.
One event does not a conclusion make. You have committed the fallacy of omitting the denominator, in this case of all the other unscripted events he has participated in. Just post debate he participated in around fifteen events, most unscripted, and the press mentioned only two of the events: The NC rally and the ABC interview (Make that three. I saw some coverage of his on-air call to Morning Joe). Notably missing is his appearance at Waffle HOuse the same night as the debate where he was just fine, almost as if the cold medicine had worn off.
The main point is preemptively replacing Biden with Harris is functionally the same as avoiding all this emotional overreaction, and if it should turn out that Biden is unable to complete his second term, then you get Harris anyway.
I'm sorry, I can't believe "The Bulwark" published this...
"Everyone knows that apart from Mitt Romney and a few others, every single Republican wholeheartedly backs Donald Trump—not just for the presidency, but for anything he wants or does, no matter how absurd, deranged, or illegal. It’s also known that they all oppose Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. On these subjects, what is there to ask Republicans about? Virtually nothing.
VIRTUALLY NOTHING!! Actually, given the earlier article doing a deep dive on whether J. D. Vance's facial hair will cost him the VP slot, perhaps I can believe The Bulwark would publish this.
How about these questions...
Given Mr Trump's recent conviction by a jury of his peers and then the Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, how can you morally justify supporting Donald Trump for the Republican nomination?
Having several outstanding civil judgements against someone, as is the case with Trump, would generally prevent them from being granted federal security clearance due to the risk of bribery or corruption! Why shouldn't voters disqualify Trump as a viable candidate for president since he would need security clearance and wouldn't otherwise get it withoout being president?
During the debate, Trump lied repeatedly and refused to answer any policy related questions. It seems that Trump is disinterested in governing and is only in it for power and to stay out of prison.
That's just for starters!
You're right, of course. But apparently, all the reporters in D.C. act as a 'scrum', chasing the latest hot topic of the day. Joe's just reporting to us what they're doing, and whether or not this just encourages the lemming-like behaviour is another question.
everything that you said about Trump is true, and has been for awhile. But none of that matters, all that matters is that Trump must be defeated. Which means that the only thing that matters are the swing state 'double haters'. Right now, as a result of the debate, they have even more reason to decide to vote for Trump.
With all the lies that Trump said in the debate, he essentially threw Biden a hanging curveball. Any other potential democrat nominee would have hit it out of the park, wrapping up a victory in November. Not only did Biden not hit it out of the park, he didn't even take the swing. Instead of wrapping up a victory in November, he all but handed the victory to Trump.
I think Biden is a great guy and has had a very successful presidency. If that was a difference maker, he would (should) have a 55% approval rating and been leading in the pools 60/40, but none of that is the case. Biden was a vigorous and coherent candidate in 2020, and even then he won by a razor thin margin. The non-vigorous, often incoherent, Biden of 2024 is a weaker candidate. Even after his great accomplishments and the horrendous things Trump as done, he has a low approval rating and was slightly behind in the pools pre-debate. How can one, after watching the debate, make a reasoned argument that he can hold on to the 2020 razor thin margin?
Any potential nominee can hit the next Trump hanging curve ball out of the park, while Biden would swing and miss.
School of fish reporting.
Now that SCOTUS has weighed in, the orange one won't be wearing orange now.
Joe, will you, at least, be honest and stop calling it a debate? It was anything but that. Why? Because CFT can't debate, that requires self-control and the ability to think and speak both intelligently and intelligibly on your feet, in your turn, trying to intelligently make a point, and painting your opponent into a logical corner. It is not yelling louder and more often than the opponent, not spreading known and proven to be falsehoodsd and outright lies. A debate, for what it is worth, also requires moderators who can keep control of the situation instead of believing their role is not stopping obvious, known "misstatements" of fact in the interest of a "fair bothsidesism" (if that is not an oxymoron).
You’re right. And they haven’t been debates for a long time. No one won it either. I heard some say Trump won. No he didn’t. He managed to control himself (mic cut offs helping). Defining that as winning is like rewarding a toddler for not throwing food in a restaurant. Biden certainly didn’t win. We all lost. I wish debates had assigned topics to force the candidates to dive deep on issues. One debate on immigration and the economy. Another on foreign affairs and taxes/tariffs/budget and another on social concerns like healthcare, addiction, crime.
CFT?
Convicted Felon T.... A fact that deserves to be mentioned or at least remembered whenever his name appears.
I have never called these joint appearances debates.
What??? There was weed there, too?
I’ve aged into edibles but weed before Trump sounds like a plan.
Kim, ANYTHING before Trump sounds like a plan.😉🍻
Great line! I must be wearing off on you David!
Not sure if you or my progenators deserve the credit/blame....
Remember seersucker? What a great summer fabric.
I’d feel bad for the dudes in the worsteds but they’re Republicans.
Other than that, all I hear is “Project 2025.”
Well, the Republicans have the worsted candidate!
For the win! How could I have missed that pun? 🤦🏻♀️
I have a seersucker suit and I looked terrific in it about 20 pounds ago.
I grew up in St. Louis which is like MS in the summer. But for seersucker and hankies we’d all have died.
I’m sure you looked fabulous. It’s wonderful stuff.
Ha. I'd like to think so. But as a remote worker, I've worn a suit exactly twice in the last 5 years. Here it's 110 degrees and bone dry. My current haberdasher is the Hanes t-shirt aisle at Walmart.
I wear cargo crops from EBay and the $5 sale t-shirts from Old Navy, and $8 slip ons from Aldi. Always.
I spent nearly 40 years in suits, hose, silk blouses, heels and makeup.
I’m amazed I didn’t top myself in the Columbus summers.
KIm,40 years. My condolences!
I think something has been lost in people not dressing up and going out to work, engaging with people, and then coming home to the comfort of home.
Maybe I'm an old soul, but I dress up for work in blouses and heels and blazers.
But this Millennial draws the line at panty hose. Everyone just has put up with me displaying my bare ankles like a licentious floozy ;)
Maybe, but I had four children and a husband who didn’t cook and I would come home from the office at 8 and be standing at the stove cooking dinner for six at 9PM.
I’ll take living in cotton and hanging out with the dog. The kids grew up, I retired, and my husband and soulmate passed away. I’d put on all the old clothing costume to get him back, but that’s it.
I haven't seen a seersucker suit since I moved out of the Low Country 15 years ago, and I didn't realize they were a regional quirk until I moved to the Mid-Atlantic. It gets so humid I thought that at some point all the Seersucker suits would get pulled out of the closets, but I realized around August of my second summer that they must simply not exist in the mid-Atlantic :)
Kim, Bullwark put my seek sucker suit joke totally out of order (context) Really put the kibosh on my quip!
No not really. But I Remember the joke; I bought it at Sears and boy was I a sucker.
I have been trying to get someone at The Bulwark to write about Allan LIchtman, who has accurately predicted nine of the last ten presidential elections. He is a an historian who knows a lot about math and probability. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/7/8/2252438/-Lichtman-s-Keys-to-the-White-House-predict-Biden-win
I saw his reaction on CNN. His formula doesn't include that joint appearance that is laughingly called a debate.
Lichtman watched the debate, and he has said over and over again that no debate has ever affected the 13 keys.
Tell that to JFK, George H W Bush and Al Gore.
JFK certainly thought the debates helped him, though the margin was so small it’s hard to tell, and Lichtman wasn’t around to predict that election. Lichtman did predict HW Bush’s defeat before any debates were held. Lichtman predicted Gore’s victory in August of 2000, and Gore’s loss wasn't due to the debates so much as the Supreme Court hijacking the election.
Lichtman used data from many elections to formulate his system, including JFK. Lichtman also insisted post debate that Biden's odds are still better than anyone else's.
That’s true: he did use JFK’s election, but he did not PREDICT JFK’s election. And Lichtman has said repeatedly that debates don't count, particularly ones in June.
I actually think that debate became a large scandal, so that would false another key.
You have to use Lichtman's definitions, not your own. Besides, that is really stretching the word "scandal" almost as if you want keys to fail..
If we want to talk probabilities, let's do this one:
If you're trying to predict presidents by simply tossing a coin, you have a 1/2 chance on any given election. To get 9 out of 10 right is a 5/512 chance, or a little under 1%. But there are a lot of people in the business of predicting presidential elections. If we have 1,000 of them, (And that particular prognostication market is bigger than that) then we're averaging a little under 10 people who have correctly called the past 9 out of 10 presidential elections, even if their methods are no better than just random guessing.
Now Lichtman might really have the goods. But simply pointing to his record of prediction as proof positive that his methods work doesn't really work out in the probability framework we have; there is a lot of potential for false positives.
But Lichtman is not guessing as if it were a coin toss. No one is saying that his record is proof positive that his methods work. We are saying that his track record means he needs to be seriously considered. Besides which "a little under 10 people" besides Lichtman? Name them. You are completely misunderstanding the probability math at work here.
"But Lichtman is not guessing as if it were a coin toss."
Not what I said. Please respond to the comment, not your strawman.
"No one is saying that his record is proof positive that his methods work. "
I don't know, I think Julie's comment about invoking predicting 9 out of 10 is in fact doing just that. Maybe she can clarify.
"Besides which "a little under 10 people" besides Lichtman? Name them."
I don't think you understood what I wrote. In fact, I'm sure you didn't, because you cannot actually have a fraction of a person making a prediction. I'm not pointing to specific people making guesses. I'm pointing out that with 1,000 people making guesses, you will get about 9.77 who will correctly guess 9 out of 10 presidential elections. There is no actual such thing as .77 of a person who can make such a prediction. These are not actual people I am identifying. I am talking about the probability of false positives even if the method used to guess is worthless.
"You are completely misunderstanding the probability math at work here."
No, I am not. To demonstrate that, I will walk you through all of it.
Odds of calling one particular presidential race completely at random assuming you're only picking between two major party candidates: 1/2.
Binomial formula for the probability of getting K successes (correct predictions) in N trials (total number of predictions) with the success of each trial being p is
P(X=k) =(N) p^k(1-p)^n-k
(k)
For us, N is 10 (total number of predictions), K is 9 for the number of correct predictions, and p is 0.5 The bonimal coefficient of n over k in parenthesis is
n!/k!(n-k)!
At that point it's just arithmetic P(X=9) =10(1/2)^9(1/2)=10(1/2)^10= 10(1/1024)=10/1024=5/512.
The probability of any one person getting 9 out of 10 presidential predictions correctly just by guessing is 5/512, or slightly off 0.977 percent.
Now, if we hypothesize 1,000 people all doing this process, with our 5/512 conclusion from before, we have a simple product of number of people attempting independently by the odds of overall success. 1,000 *0.977 =9.77.
You say I misunderstand the probability math? Show me where I made an error. And please, take your time. I used some statistical language, I wouldn't want to be guilty of gish galloping you.
Now we know you are in in bad faith. A little under 10 people is a couple handfuls of whole people. Name them.
Everything falls apart with your false assumption that Lichtman is "calling one particular presidential race completely at random." He most definitely is not calling presidential races in a random way, like by flipping a coin.
It's funny how you need to literally make a strawman out of my argument to 'prove' that I am acting in bad faith. Meanwhile, you've also accused me of making a gish gallop by using statistical language, and accused me of making a mathematical error. I've challenged you to point out where the flaw in my math was. Do you have one or not?
Again, Lichtman is being brought to the fore because of survivorship bias and because he's pushing against the conventional narrative. People like Lichtman are common but not famous. I don't know who these 9.77 people my model posits are, because they're just people who work at polling houses in obscurity who called the past 9/10 elections with whatever systems they have which might or might not be better than guesswork. Only, they're not getting up and standing saying that you shouldn't worry even though is model is vague and his track record isn't actually as strong as you want it to be.
I want to make this very, very clear, since you are at best fuzzy on what I am saying. I do not think Lichtman is making his model by simple guesswork. I think he has a system, which he applies. I do not know if this system is actually accurate, and bringing up a 9/10 prediction rate is not as strong of an indicator as you might intuitively think, because there is a VERY high probability of multiple people that same point simply by guessing, or more realistically using systems that are no more accurate than guessing. Do you get the difference?
Your math is like solving for 2+2, when the problem is 2+3. Lichtman is not making random guesses no mater how much you wish it were so. There is no "conventional" narrative. There is a narrative being pushed by one faction while ignoring or dismissing out of hand any arguments to the contrary. You THINK he has a system? He has explained his system. By your lights there is no way anyone can analyze their way to a valid or reliable conclusion because it all amounts to an random guess anyway. If ANYBODY else had the same track record as Lichtman, you know they would be guests at all the political podcasts. But they aren't because they do not exist. Anybody can apply his system and get the same result. The only people in these threads getting a different result are people claiming to use his system by using their own definitions of the keys instead of his definitions or otherwise misapplying his system, like the people claiming Trump turns the Charisma key.
I doubt his work includes senile presidents who stare slack jawed at the camera during debates.
Probably not convicted felons and sexual assaulters either.
He would argue, I think, that debates have never determined elections. Barack Obama's first debate was terrible.
I'm sure that is usually true. But watching Biden was the equivalent of watching someone have a stroke or heart attack on the debate stage. Barack Obama's first debate was Cicero compared to Biden. Also, the whole reason the Biden team asked for the early debate was to put to rest the concerns people had about Biden's age and mental acuity. The only thing he did was to confirm and amplify people's concerns exponentially.
Yeah, he said he was feeling awful. He probably should have postponed it, but then think of how the right would have spun that. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Good thing Biden isn't senile.
I continue to believe that Biden is more than fit for the job. He is mentally fit. His years of experience make him fit for the job. His compassion and caring for ALL Americans make him fit. HE IS THE BEST CHANCE WE HAVE FOR BEATING tRUMP make him 100% fit.
Take anyone else, this late in the campaign and you are asking for trouble. trump will totally destroy the democracy. Totally destroy this country. Look at the things he did when he was in office. And now he has a pack of hyenas cherry picked to do his bidding. STICK WITH JOE!!
Diane, I wish I could hit LIKE a hundred times. I can say “Thank you.”
If we can get enough people to see reason, we can do this. The Maga people won't change their minds/ But there really are not as many of them as there used to be. They are just LOUD! Ignore them and we should concentrate on independents, undecideds, and perhaps far left, since RFK seems to be losing support (fingers crossed). Also, republicans who cannot vote for trump and realize the country is more important than party!
Please write about the GOP party platform that Trump just forced, removing the long-standing commitment to oppose abortion, and adding protections for birth control and IVF. Pro-life voters just lost their last reason to support Trump.
Stay tuned for Thursday!
With bated breath, especially since the original reason for waiting for 11 July has been postponed for a couple of months...the announcement of the sentence for 34 Felonies with literally millions of at least potential victims (all the voters who were not told about his conduct before the election).
And he is trying to get it thrown out.
Well, that's only fair. We have been doing that with him forever and a day😉🍻
"Poor unfortunate Soul" *The Little Mermaid
I might agree, if I thought he had one....😏
Oh not really- if Trump’s elected, he would gleefully sign a total ban. Besides, the platform stance is still unacceptable and crossing the line of church and state.
That's what interests me the most. The Party, at Trump's direction, just adopted a platform. Why? If they mean it, they're abandoning evangelicals and pro-life voters. If they're lying, why have a platform?
Solely to try and win in November, then trump will let them have their way again.
And they will still back him. Can you say "cult".
The platform will say; whatever Trumpster wants, he gets. (like 2020)
Who would believe he would honor that platform? Remember all those justices explaining how Roe was settled law.
Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, woo, woo, woo
I would guess that if the GOP was asked about Trump's mental capacity and about Project 25, they would be happy to spew whatever BS they can, and not scurry away.
The 1st and last arguments would be about how the press abuses them, with all the other idiocy in between.
They just would be quiet or change the subject quickly.
Joe P., the next time the press hunts down members of Congress for interviews, they should stop ignoring the democracy-hating Republicans and instead ask them specific questions about Tя☭mp Project 2025. If they do and you write about it, great; if they don’t and you write about it, awesome; if they don’t and you don’t write about it, what’s stopping you? I can’t believe that the press would ignore the Tя☭mp Party and its plans for the end of American Democracy, unless they really are as horrible as they appear to be.
Love how you make “Trump” look like that. Awesome!
When pigs fly
" On these subjects, what is there to ask Republicans about?" Oh, really? How about the 90 minutes of lies he spewed at the debate? How about asking them how much of Project 2025 they support. Like, do they support a nationwide abortion ban or removing no-fault divorce? They could also ask GOP lawmakers "what kinds of Trump retributions do you support? There is plenty to ask but the MSM is again failing us by trying to get the scoop of the year about Biden resigning. Or something.
The problem I have with the dems at the moment is the apparent lack of a strategy. If they gamed out 3 to 5 scenarios (triggers, people, timing, messaging) they would not be in this situation. They have done a really good job staying unified, now is not the time to break that. Perhaps they do have a strategy in place in case Biden has to step aside, or fall down some steps, or whatever. I am not feeling it, so it feels like a dereliction of duty. I will remain hopeful they get their stuff together, because they, rightly or wrongly, have the responsibility to secure this nation, including keeping those people that have testified or spoken out against Trump safe.
Sinema and Manchin are the
last people to ask for a
comment, even on toilet
paper. The rest better get
their shite together or they're
going to have a red ticket to
a fascist authoritarian admin
to deal with for the
foreseeable future.
Thanks for defending skake
boarders of 50 and + years.
This may be my last comment
as I haven't renewed my
Bulwark and don't plan to.
I'll miss this particular
segment.
Oh, seriously? What Kyrsten Sinema has to say or not say about the President? Nothing could possibly be more irrelevant to the future of the Republic.
And she ain't part of the "family" in "family conversation," either.
This made me laugh. Thank you. Waiting to watch the door kick her in the behind on the way out.