I want to hear the opinion of the octopus that predicted the world cup results first
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
320 points (89.0% liked)
politics
18074 readers
2963 users here now
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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Died. Now they are using a turtle but he always votes Nadar
Let him cook, it'll get there eventually
* stares in confused Mitch McConnell *
load more comments
(1 replies)
I hear there’s a groundhog in Pennsylvania that’s a pretty good meteorologist.
load more comments
(2 replies)
First, he didn't get 2000 wrong, Gore won.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
2nd though... 2024 is a lose/lose no matter what the Democrats do at this point.
A weakened Biden can't win.
A replaced Biden changes the dialog to "See! Even the Democrats know they can't do the job!" which is a losing strategy.
The only way to pull out a win would be for Biden to die in office and have his successor get the sympathy vote, a la Johnson in '64.
I disagree 100%. Having Biden step down and put his support behind a solid candidate many can agree on (not just corporate Dems) while saying he has given it thought and realizes it is best for Democrats & America means not only does he get to do so gracefully, but people can emphasize with honesty and not having and old man spend his final days being abused by those around him.
The problem is he would never put his support behind anyone other than a corporate approved neoliberal. If he does step down, the person he picks is 110% going to be contentious among base Democrat voters especially among the younger voters. We're not getting Bernie or AOC, full stop.
I also think Democrats are the worst about their purity tests and will turn their noses up at anyone for the slightest reason. When put into that perspective, I'll take the chances with Biden.
If he stepped down and endorsed Bernie, I have ould say there is a chance. Short of that, you guys are heading for a second Trump.
The biggest argument the Republicans have against Biden is his age.
Bernie is older than Biden.
It doesn't matter at this point that he'd be better. The only way to combat the "too old" argument is to nominate someone younger than Trump. And there's plenty of people younger than 78.
Bernie also has a heart condition and I say this with all love for Bernie, but also as someone who has had two heart attacks... you don't want someone with weakened health in that job.
Physically, there are days when I struggle with "walk down a hallway". Forget doing a job.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And there’s plenty of people younger than 78.
Which one's can beat Trump in the election?
load more comments
(2 replies)
I wish Jon Stewart would accept endorsement. Bernie isn't the only candidate though. Trump didn't start out cause he was well liked. He got popularity cause he was polarizing. He gets infinite free media coverage. The Democrats could pick AOC and the right would have a meltdown. She'd get consistent media coverage. She is good looking and would do good for pressers.
Trump is (or was) a billionaire, a TV celebrity, who shat on his GOP rivals during the 2016 primaries and was content enough to threaten to run as an independent and allow Clinton to win if he wasn't nominated. That he regarded politicians from both parties with contempt was part of the attraction.
If Canada can't elect a female PM or have a Liberal (or NDP) female PM, what makes you think that the US will elect a woman as President?
While a lot would like her more leftist positions—she might have to reiterate that the US should stop funding Israel and that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide, and her view on a 100% tariff on EVs—the GOP and party centrists would have a field day.
But yeah, it might be a good thing.
content enough to threaten to run as an independent and allow Clinton to win if he wasn't nominated. That he regarded politicians from both parties with contempt was part of the attraction.
Okay guys, I know this sounds crazy but, Jon Stewart could play one from the Trump playbook. AOC flips her position on Gaza, Jon is a Jew against the genocide, locking in the leftists. All the gen z-ers and millennials are in from the get go because perfect nostalgia points, and then Biden steps down and endorses him locking up the dem votes! What a life that would be. A d*sney ending!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Meaningless considering he still hasn't predicted whether or not Biden will win this election. He says he needs another month lol.
Edit: As a bonus he can't even apply his own rubric to a new potential candidate. So the real questions are: How could he possibly know they'd be worse, and why the fuck is he even saying anything?
Not meaningless, his prediction system always gives the incumbent an advantage over anyone else in his party.
And yet, he hasn't predicted yet because there are many other "keys". Case-in-point: see how incumbency worked for Trump.
Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.
Finally, the unprecedented nature of an open convention also means this guy has nothing to go on for extrapolation.
Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.
Nate's algorithm is just a poll of polls. And his reasoning is incredibly short term and superficial.
Nate wasn't suggesting Biden drop out back in January when other candidates could run to replace him. He's only saying it now, because Biden's polling is at an all time low.
If Biden recovers (likely, as the memory of the debate fades behind other current events) the pundits will start singing a different tune quickly enough.
load more comments
(3 replies)
i bet you i could predict it with 100% accuracy if you give me another 4 months
Yeah you say that and should be right but I'm more worried about January than I am November...
It's Biden all the way. Fortunately unfortunately.
Hey math people, if they all selected 1 of the 2 main candidates for every election, and they all selected different candidates, how many historians would it take to cover every combination for 10 years? (bonus points to see how many would take before guaranteeing someone could get 9/10)
1024 historians assuming they all pick different combinations at random. Probability of randomly guessing at least 9 of 10 goes up to 1.075% or 93 historians (on average to get one person with 9/10 predictions right) or like the other commenter mentioned 1024-11= 1013 to guarantee a 9/10 but that's a little overkill.
Where does the 93 come from? The percentage is almost correct, but it should be 11 (1.074%)
93 for 1/0.01075
Note that many of those elections were easier to guess than just flipping a coin, so you don't really need to cover every potential combination to cover like 95% of the likely outcomes.
Drop him for who?
They'll not nominate a Justice Democrat as that won't make corporate donors money. I don't see how anyone or anything could recover the resultant shitshow except the Justice Democrat platform.
Kamala seemingly the only one with some name recognition, is the same vague bullshit with some identity politics, which would be inadequate.
Who else is there?
Would love Pete Buttigieg over Newsom but honestly will take anyone that can beat Trump
Anyone they pick from now will get name recognition no matter who they are from media presence alone. Changing candidates at this stage will be significant news.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This way the expert can go 10 for 11 by picking Trump.
the only way another candidate can be successful is if Biden himself drops out and endorses (and indeed continues to campaign for) them.
But Biden's ego won't allow that, so the party's choices are either to forcibly remove him and split the vote or take the flaming, burning ship down into the ocean.
hope people can swim.
the only way another candidate can be successful is if Biden himself drops out and endorses (and indeed continues to campaign for) them.
And he had 4 years to decide on and build up a successor, but chose to not do so. And neither did the democratic party.
His age and the related issues can't be a surprise to anyone, so i really don't see why there should be a sudden change in direction.
When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Biden’s age and mental acuity are “fundamentally different” than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down.
“Debate performances can be overcome,” he said. “At the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.”
So, he refuses to factor anything in if it doesn't fit his system... Literally refusing to acknowledge any health concerns
His system is this:
Lichtman is best known for the "Keys" system, presented in his books The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency and The Keys to the White House. The system uses thirteen historical factors to predict whether the popular vote in the election for president of the United States will be won by the candidate of the party holding the presidency (regardless of whether the president is the candidate).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
And it doesn't account for specific candidate...
So by his own argument that his system can't acknowledge a candidates fitness would come into play, logically I don't understand why he is speaking on who the specific candidate should be.
His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn't throw that advantage away.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency,
The incumbent lost in 2020. There may be other factors.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency.
Most other factors mostly do not depend on the individual who is running. For example, recession, military victories/losses, results of midterm elections, significant third party challenger, etc. The party can run anyone and it would not affect those points.
However, I overlooked another individual characteristic: there is an extra point if the incumbent is a victorious military leader or has significant appeal to members of the opposing party. The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›