politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
At least there's a spoiler at the top of the article. He's taking Harris and his L of the past 10yrs was Bush v Gore.
Yet more signs pointing to Trump's path to victory being to cheat and coup instead of trying to win votes legitimately.
Yes it's hard to take the cheating, voter suppression, and coup-ing into account statistically. I wasn't really advocating for the author or prediction. Just wanted those elements of the article when I saw the post.
Yeah, but his last prediction was 100% wrong, or his current one is...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
So if he's right with this prediction that Harris wins, his last L was just like a month ago.
That wasn't a prediction, he just said Biden had a better chance of winning in 2024 than Harris.
Since that is now an alternate timeline, we will never know if he was right.
Keep in mind that he doesn't try to predict who will poll better, in fact he thinks polls are irrelevant.
Or, we could just accept the simple fact that if the candidates change, so too does the prediction. He made his predictions based on the options available at the time.
Kinda shortsided to consider that an L.
Bone apple tea!
Ah shit! Guilty af
What?
He claimed replacing Biden was bad...
Despite all evidence showing anyone else would do better.
Biden was replaced, and despite being very unpopular the last time she was up for president, she skyrocketed in the polls compared to Biden.
Hell, we don't even need to wait for the election, the massive gains in polls alone shows it was a good idea to replace a candidate that Dem voters just didn't fucking want.
Like, do you even know his method?
https://www.american.edu/cas/news/13-keys-to-the-white-house.cfm
We don't meet 8 of his 13 criteria, so by his "proven method" Republicans will win.
So either his prediction is right and his method is wrong, or hes not using the same method and past predictions aren't relevant
Uh, no. He said Democrats meet 8 of 13 keys, and that's why he thinks Harris will win.
\sigh
As stated oh, so, so-so, so, so many times, replacing the incumbent has historically been suicidal. Based on the trends, it's a horrible idea.
One, this seems like a different type of prediction.
Two, it sounds like a few of his predictors could only be determined after she began her run, so there was no way to make this call until it happened. I don't think anyone could have predicted the excitement she's created, either.
I did, a long with a metric shit ton of other people, literally all over...
When we kept saying:
That included literally everyone except Hillary.
Kamala Harris is not Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, and predictably numbers immediately improved.
It's bad enough moderates kept saying that was wrong at the time, but the complete revisionist history just weeks after it happened is fucking ridiculous.
trump voters barely rewrite history this fast....
You couldn't see it coming.
The politicians you support couldn't see it coming.
The political commentators you listen to couldn't see it coming.
And rather than take a second to see if maybe that means your views are wrong, you just claim "gee, no one could have guessed!". And March forward to the same bullshit, once again insisting your opinions are correct
Like, how the fuck can anyone even pretend that they didn't hear anyone say that Biden was a shit candidate and replacing him would help regardless of who it was?
But did anyone listen after you said 'literally'? I usually tune out when a 'litchally' hits the floor. Sorry, but it's true.
I don't see that he's rewriting history. He thought Biden would do better - but still thinks Harris can win. Or else he thought Biden could do better, but now with the additional new data that came with Harris getting nominated he has indeed changed his mind. But it's not like he's going back and denying his earlier concerns or support of Biden...
Also, his keys aren't supposed to need frequent reevaluation based on fine-grade events, so if they predict she'd win now, they should have predicted she'd win last month. The only information that's been revealed is there wasn't a "primary" challenge for the eventual nominee.