The Frankish Reich

Winsome is the New Demure!

Demanding the one's name be taken OFF a ballot is kind of a different thing than arguing for ballot access, no? I mean, ballot access is critical if the people are going to be given the opportunity to vote for a candidate who has met a minimum threshold for ballot eligibility. In many states it's unclear if write-ins are allowed, and if so, how clear and obvious the write-in name needs to be in order to be counted. This is therefore a serious issue, maybe even of constitutional dimension. On the other hand, demanding that (once qualified for the ballot) the state take unusual steps to take you off that ballot is silly. Just tell your supporters to tick a different box, or no box at all! Unless you assume they are idiots, there is simply no problem.

Thank you for reminding us that this fat ***** is still on the lam somewhere.

Penzey's. Big time Wisconsin Democrat's company. I do like their spices. Seems more comfortable than JD Vance ogling a donut's hole.

Leon to the rescue!

"I alone can fix it" Or if I can't, First Son-in-Law certainly can. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/11/trump-middle-east-peace-plan-isnt-new-israeli-palestinian-drobles/

See what I mean? You simply can't admit that you confused Prediction Markets with Projection Models. But then I guess Pops never admits that he found his missing glasses on the top of his head.

It's ok to just admit that you were confused. The article you commented on is about prediction markets, not electoral projection models. I am thinking of changing my screen name to JD Hill Fans Are Not Mentally Fit.

You are mixing up apples and oranges. He is an advisor to Polymarket, which is a betting market. He is also a political prognosticator, in which role he has developed/refined a projection model based on independent polls. By the way, Nate's podcast with Maria Konnikova, Risky Business, is worth a (free) subscription. I confess to having a thing for Maria ...

Yes! Listen to me. See my first comment in this thread. We can argue about whether "takeover" is the correct word, but it is clear that we have newly imported Venezuelan gang crime here in the Denver area.

So Tenet has shut down. Evidently the fact that it was Russian funded is uncontested. The Tenet useful idiot commenters are not even claiming otherwise. The are simply protesting that they were, in fact, idiots for not figuring it out.

Is the point here that Putin is an unreformed communist? Because that's what I've been saying. So the opponents of Putin are anti-communists.

Why I don't put much credence in prediction markets: - most are not legal in the USA. (I don't agree with that, but that's the fact). This distorts the "sample" of participants. - even in a robust/legal prediction market, people would use these "bets" for different purposes. Back in the pre-app based sports betting days, I'd always buy a $50 or $100 "Bills Win the Super Bowl" long wager whenever I went to Nevada. This was largely a fan-based wager. The Bills weren't going to win the Super Bowl in 2014. But I still did it. Other savvy investors would use prediction markets as a hedge. For example: Let's say I think Trump is likely to win. I buy stock in the private companies that would likely benefit from his policies. Crypto currency markets; immigrant detention private providers (there's basically two of them); companies ready to invest heavily in fracking. You name it. But I think there's a good chance Harris will win. So I hedge by buying Harris "stock" on PredictIt or Polymarket. Over many millions of bets and billions of dollars, we'd expect an efficient market to emerge, and then have a true "wisdom of the crowd" effect. These markets are not there yet, and may never be. It's not really a "model" at all. It is the result of every bet placed on the major prediction markets. In general, we saw the prediction markets simply echoing the received MSM vision of a "red wave" in 2022 - a wave that never materialized. So the upshot isn't that prediction markets are useless; it's that at this time they are so strongly correlated with the prevailing wisdom (polls/pundits/etc) that they really don't provide independent information.

True. I disagree with the premise of this thread - "polls are useless." But I also disagree with the idea that polls like the ones we have today have significant predictive value. We are seeing what we've seen for quite some time - a popular vote favoring the Democratic candidate by a small margin, with the pro-Republican weighted electoral college favoring the Republican candidate by a small margin. In other words, what's happened in pretty much every election over the previous 7 cycles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/11/14/the-un-wisdom-of-crowds-prediction-markets-failed-their-midterm-exams/

Or breaking up a plot for a mass killing of Jews. Yes, using informants.

It is weird. I simply don't understand arguing with polls or models when you don't like what they're telling you. This thread started out with one of our more liberal commenters saying polls are useless. Then Kamala was substituted in, the polls reflected a gain for Democrats, and conservative commenters said they were garbage. Now they've settled in and analysts like Nate Silver say Trump has a small but significant electoral college edge and liberal commenters are angry with the polls/analysis again. Having said that, Polymarket and other prediction markets are in their infancy and are still very flawed. They are not "polls" and we really don't have a good data to suggest that they truly get at some kind of wisdom of the crowd effect when it comes to elections.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9194613/

How you managed to find an "essence" in that rambling drunken spiel is beyond me.

OMG, not Shabbos Kestenbaum! Not "Dr Nancy" (no last name or credential even mentioned in the story). Who the hell are these people? Who cares? This is not Dick Cheney, former Republican VP. Or even Tulsi Gabbard. These are ... nobodies.

It is a significant thing. When has a former Pres or VP endorsed a candidate from the opposite party? I'm guessing "never." We know Cheney would hate a lot of what Kamala has stood for. He's been a rock solid Republican since the Nixon Administration. That's how unfit he believes Trump is to serve as President.

Allow me rephrase: do I believe that politicians are sincere? That one's easy.

Kamala got her "convention" bump when Biden withdrew and she immediately cleared the field and became prospective nominee. Although Americans knew who she is, she was kind of an unknown quantity as a Presidential nominee. She was the sought-after "generic Democrat" who always beats Trump in the polls. So they started chipping away at that, going negative bigly against her. And yes, that has an effect. She is now a real and (and like everyone) flawed candidate. Obviously less flawed than Biden, but flawed. People on this board and those who consume right or left wing social media and TV are not like most Americans. We are the weird ones. Most people barely pay attention. That's why they're fickle.

Yeah, we don't want people getting a safe and effective vaccine.

Funny how both of them knew Jeffrey Epstein really well.

I guess you're saying that the arsonist is gay himself. OK, let's go with that. Think about it: - Arsonist A hates Jews, thinks they shouldn't be alive, sets synagogue on fire. Rabbi and congregation staff killed. Domestic terrorism? Sure. - Arsonist B is a Jew, has a grudge against Rabbi who won't grant him a customary divorce, sets synagogue on fire, Rabbi and staffers killed. Domestic terrorism? No. But both are guilty of arson and murder. The law does take motive into account.