-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Oglemi
- Start date
- Status
Tbf he's only the 2nd most tattooed mother in the UK so you know.
All is as it should be.
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House> yea i think this is accurately described as "delusional" (in the political sense of not being related to reality, not in the psychiatric sense), as is most of political science.
#7-11 are not even intelligible criteria, eg whether something is a "scandal" is entirely based on the subjectivity of those perceiving it, an objective ie externally determined definition is impossible. and "no sustained social unrest" is rly a confession that this dude does not live in the real world because there is always 'social unrest.'
humans are unpredictable and the idea that u can predict mobilizations in elections which are primarily emotionally-based by counting the number of criteria met from a thirteen point checklist is laughable, even if the chosen criteria themselves had been reasonable rather than the thoroughly ridiculous criteria that are utilized here.
and btw this is exactly the kind of thing that i meant when i said that patterns are not themselves evidence of anything. even if its true that this checklist "accurately predicted" 7 of 9 elections (which i didnt look into the details of but there obv are going to be some flaws such as bogus claims that there was no social unrest in however many of the 9 this was claimed), 7 of 9 is well within randomness even before taking into consideration the fact that this is only one of however many hundreds+ of bogus political science "models" that have been proposed and ofc only the ones that show some level of "success" get media attention. so the correct statistical test would be to aggregate all the proposed "models" and test whether they have any level of prediction above 50%. (which still wouldnt necessarily be v impressive but if they cant even meet that minimum threshhold then obv it all belongs in the garbage.)
#7-11 are not even intelligible criteria, eg whether something is a "scandal" is entirely based on the subjectivity of those perceiving it, an objective ie externally determined definition is impossible. and "no sustained social unrest" is rly a confession that this dude does not live in the real world because there is always 'social unrest.'
humans are unpredictable and the idea that u can predict mobilizations in elections which are primarily emotionally-based by counting the number of criteria met from a thirteen point checklist is laughable, even if the chosen criteria themselves had been reasonable rather than the thoroughly ridiculous criteria that are utilized here.
and btw this is exactly the kind of thing that i meant when i said that patterns are not themselves evidence of anything. even if its true that this checklist "accurately predicted" 7 of 9 elections (which i didnt look into the details of but there obv are going to be some flaws such as bogus claims that there was no social unrest in however many of the 9 this was claimed), 7 of 9 is well within randomness even before taking into consideration the fact that this is only one of however many hundreds+ of bogus political science "models" that have been proposed and ofc only the ones that show some level of "success" get media attention. so the correct statistical test would be to aggregate all the proposed "models" and test whether they have any level of prediction above 50%. (which still wouldnt necessarily be v impressive but if they cant even meet that minimum threshhold then obv it all belongs in the garbage.)
Hey, I think I've seen this video before!
Speaking of comedians who think they have any chance of being in power after 2024:
What does this post even mean and who is the woman you're quote tweeting?
Kate Willett is a liberal my man, she’s generally left leaning for a liberal but she’s an unironic KHive supporter. Sure she interacts with leftist twitter a bit but she’s not out here pushing anti-capitalist messages. It might hurt when some liberals actually do have a good view of Biden chances and that he should drop out, but at some point you have to accept that the guy who can barely function might not be the best choice to fight off authoritarian of the right wing.
Biden is the best choice. And we are going to look back at this saga for the foolishness that it is. The only person that can practically replace Biden without blowing up the party is Kamala Harris. And let’s remember that it was the black voter base of the Democratic Party that supported Biden over Harris in 2020 for the fact that he is a stronger general election candidate, which is exactly how it played out in 2020. Black voters still share that view in July 2024.
I like Harris and will certainly vote for her but my goodness if an overqualified white woman (Hillary Clinton) could not beat the felon why would we think for a second a less experienced black woman will?
saddened to learn that my queen penny mordaunt has lost her seat ;_; starmer will pay dearly for this
Trump is waaaaaaayyyy weaker than in 2016.
He’s lower energy, more stretched by all the legal issues, and MUCH weaker in support or approval with all the felonies and treason. If we had 2020 Biden energy +No overseeing Genocide (2020 levels of young voter support) we would be +30 by now, he’s just that much weaker.
Also most Americans don’t care about Clinton’s qualifications, certainly not able to discern them from Kamala’s, who has served 4 years as VP now.
Kamala might have gotten trounced by 2016 Trump, but 2024 Trump? That’s a whole different ball game. Plus she’s not nearly as culpable for Gaza in the eyes of Young and Minority voters. She can recoup the gaps between Biden and down-ballot Dems.
Go K-Hive, let’s do this~~~~
He’s lower energy, more stretched by all the legal issues, and MUCH weaker in support or approval with all the felonies and treason. If we had 2020 Biden energy +No overseeing Genocide (2020 levels of young voter support) we would be +30 by now, he’s just that much weaker.
Also most Americans don’t care about Clinton’s qualifications, certainly not able to discern them from Kamala’s, who has served 4 years as VP now.
Kamala might have gotten trounced by 2016 Trump, but 2024 Trump? That’s a whole different ball game. Plus she’s not nearly as culpable for Gaza in the eyes of Young and Minority voters. She can recoup the gaps between Biden and down-ballot Dems.
Go K-Hive, let’s do this~~~~
Last edited:
I am thoroughly unconvinced Harris would have handled Gaza any differently than Biden. Sell me otherwise.
She wouldn't have. None of the Democrats in Biden's camp would have.
I am jealous of your optimism. Sexism was the elephant in the room in 2016. I have zero confidence in this country's ability to overlook both sexism and racism. Convicted felon Trump is a feral animal that brings out the most deep rooted instincts among people. I certainly would not risk the future of democracy on this.
I also think "swing voters" and the never Trump crowd would more likely just accept the Trump presidency than pull the lever for a liberal black woman from California. These voters are at least somewhat comfortable with Biden, who has a 50-year record of being a relatively moderate statesman.
I don’t think so either— that’s not the point. Whether she would have is unknown, what Biden did is locked in. The pro Palestinian voting block know that Biden is terrible and Trump is worse— Kamala is at least not guaranteed to be as bad, which is better than all options on the table as folks are desperate to get Genocide handled at all.
What demographic locked in the 2020 victories and blocked a red wave in 2022?
Gen Z coming out and voting way way way more than Millennials, more comparable to Baby Boomer. The most terrifying part of the current calculus is that Biden’s lost it where any other Democrat would have it locked in. Any other Dem can definitely change that piece significantly
The red wave was blocked by Dobbs, which is still tilting elections towards Democrats in 2023-2024.
As for Harris, again the calculus is that she must stronger enough than Biden vs. convicted felon Trump to overcome the structural incumbency that would be sacrificed. And this is in addition to accounting for the racism and sexism penalty.
Dobbs and Gen Z.
I mean if you don’t want/need their votes, fine. Just say you don’t care that their participation % was higher because you don’t want the Party to care about them.
This honestly sounds personal against the Democratic Party. You are arguing that replacing Biden for Kamala Harris will win enough additional swing-state votes in Gen Z to offset swing-state votes lost from incumbency and those that will not vote for a liberal black woman from California. Color me skeptical.
even the bourgeois media doubts whether incumbency is an advantage in the current climate, eg https://time.com/6549871/2024-presidential-elections-incumbency/ not to mention evidence all around the world suggesting otherwise.
why are we arbitrarily applying decades old concepts without a shred of evidence that they apply in the present. especially when u are talking about concepts from political science which have p much zero theoretical/analytical foundation behind them they were generally j ppl trying to organize their observations/descriptions
why are we arbitrarily applying decades old concepts without a shred of evidence that they apply in the present. especially when u are talking about concepts from political science which have p much zero theoretical/analytical foundation behind them they were generally j ppl trying to organize their observations/descriptions
That’s one opinion. Evidence in US history says otherwise. It is fair argument to make but the counterpoint is still does switching to Kamala Harris win enough additional voters to warrant dumping the ticket that already beat Trump.
For anyone who’s played blackjack- we stand on 17 not because it is a great hand. We stand because the other options are unlikely to meaningfully improve your position and highly likely to blow your shit up.
This is the most libbed up post I'll ever make and I hope I don't have to repeat this ever again.
Nobody following politics for the past 4 years genuinely wants Kamala. There are much better candidates but she just happens to be VP. If she was the Kamala from the 2020 debates I'd be okay with it. At least she had some chops and felt like a strong candidate. I don't know why she turned into a loopy wine mom over the last 4 years but I guess it's the perfect fit for a Biden running mate. It's clear she regrets being VP and likely won't be the candidate in 2028 when the likes of Newsom and Whitmer exist, which I imagine stings, but that's also what happens when 75% of Americans don't even know who you are.
Nobody following politics for the past 4 years genuinely wants Kamala. There are much better candidates but she just happens to be VP. If she was the Kamala from the 2020 debates I'd be okay with it. At least she had some chops and felt like a strong candidate. I don't know why she turned into a loopy wine mom over the last 4 years but I guess it's the perfect fit for a Biden running mate. It's clear she regrets being VP and likely won't be the candidate in 2028 when the likes of Newsom and Whitmer exist, which I imagine stings, but that's also what happens when 75% of Americans don't even know who you are.
I don't think that it's safe to call the incumbency advantage a thing of the past yet, and I'll be voting for Biden in November no matter how badly he fumbles the coming months; but I don't think that using a casino game where you always lose in the long term as a metaphor for your politics is wise.
Do you think the party should care about or cater to those winnable voters? Yes or no?
No clear yes or no = no
Every decision in blackjack is a numerical expression of probability. There is only one correct decision for every card combination and remaining deck composition. It's pretty straightforward to follow why standing on a hard 17 is the correct play, and why a decision tree in a card game based solely on probability has application to the choices between doing nothing or deciding to implement a major change.
The other answer to why standing on hard 17 is correct is simply- if you play the hand 1 billion times (which via computer simulation is how strategy chart came to exist), standing loses the least amount of money relative to the alternative decisions. So whether one agrees with the logic or not, empirically there is one correct answer.
The party should maximize the amount of votes in November.
- Status