Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
faint said:
"History" is not a valid answer, either. Biden is deeply unpopular, on the verge of death, and has almost no support from independents. Do you truly believe centrist Democrats want to lose the election? Do you think they don't have access to accurate, internal polling that shows it'll be a fucking bloodbath if Biden remains the candidate? Please provide actual evidence when you respond to this. So far it's been nothing but "trust be bro" and "crosstabs."
Click to expand...

And to re-iterate two things.
Polling does not invalidate history no matter how inconvenient history is. You can show 500 polls saying Trump will win 18-34, Latino voters, Jewish voters, Asian voters, and "25%+ of Black voters" and they are still all ahistorical numbers.

Second point- even if we use polling as the argument, there must be polling data that shows a specific replacement (not "generic democrat") candidate offers a significant boost head to head vs. Trump than Joe Biden. By significant, we mean well outside of the margin of error. Only at that threshold is it at least a logical conversation. If the donors truly believe there is a data driven argument, they need to manufacture their "polling" that says replacement candidate is gains 6+ points relative to Biden. They aren't putting forth such data because they the premise itself has no basis.

BigFatMantis said:
Correct - every 1 (one) time this happened with dems since term limits were instituted, the election was lost. 0/1 pack it up folks
Click to expand...

It's 0/3 in the post WWII era and at some point it is wise to listen to historians' take on it instead of "trying to do it better."
 
RaikouLover said:
Again, your entire argument comes down to "polls are bad, we must do something." Polls are not predictive, not reliable, and are manipulated to drive narratives. We discussed the bullshit polls at length in this thread- the bad sample sizes, lack of accurate cross tabs, and people just generally being unwilling to actually post the poll data directly in this thread. Polls are not how campaigns are won and lost. I have repeatedly laid out the both the historical argument (see Allan Lictman's Keys to the White House), and the political scientists I've followed (you can start with Dr. Jason Johnson, Rachel Bitecofer, Chris Towler) are unanimously of the opinion that dumping an incumbent President is a terrible idea, and is damn near apocalyptic at this stage of the cycle. Every time a party fails to unite behind their incumbent President, they lose. Yet, people keep arguing this is an exceptional case and will be different. That is the definition of insanity.



I think whatever discontent you have for "candidate Biden" has so tainted the ability for the "Biden drop out" crowd to see the forest from the trees. Adam Schiff said Biden should step down literally the day after leaving a fundraiser in the fucking Hamptons. The donors have told congressional Democrats they will freeze funding for anyone that supports the Biden-Harris ticket. I don't know how to paint the picture clearer than that. James Carville actually recommended this very plan at the beginning of this news cycle. Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ilhan Omar, the Congressional Black Caucus, are standing united with Biden, but now self-proclaimed leftist voters are championing Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi? Make it make sense.

And for those thinking Kamala Harris will "save us," let's be clear. They do not want her. The donors never mention her as a replacement, and have already leaked their plan is to have a primary at the convention. This is anti-democratic, and would be a pyrrhic victory at best. It is the exact opposite of what a party trying to win in November should be doing.
Click to expand...

The CBC and the squad are not going to have any effect on Biden dropping out. Outside of Clyburn, their opinions are moot, and anyone publicly endorsing Biden is doing so because it likely benefits their only reelection. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in an election year.

I'm reviewing 13 keys now. Here are my answers:
  1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. No
  2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. - Yes
  3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. - Yes
  4. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. - n/a, Kennedy is at 10% nationally which is higher than average
  5. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. - Yes, but this fails to consider that Americans vote on their own well-being. Buying power is less than it was in 2020 and Americans felt better off in 2020 than they do now, regardless of data.
  6. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. - No, see above. Giving one a no and one a yes to make you happy.
  7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. - No? What's Biden going to change from the executive branch?
  8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. - No.
  9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. - I guess?
  10. No foreign or military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. - No. Afghanistan and the war in Gaza.
  11. Major foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. - No.
  12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. No - Biden is not charismatic. He used to be.
  13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Yes - Trump is extremely charismatic.
That gives 6 no's, which means Biden is predicted to lose. I also gotta admit this is perhaps the dumbest exercise ever invented to predict an election, and Biden is quite possibly the weirdest candidate to consider here given his unpopularity and media presence. For a guy that's data based, you seem content on a system which is quite literally vibes based. The average American has no idea what the economy is. They're still begging for manufacturing jobs to come back. The economy doing well is meaningless to them unless the individual personally experiences benefits, and given how the economy is the second most discussed topic besides immigration (on both sides), it's pretty clear both parties know this.

image.png


By the way, when you linked this, here was what I saw. It now reflects Joe Biden but perhaps you and your Lichtman bros aren't all on the same page.
 
faint said:
The CBC and the squad are not going to have any effect on Biden dropping out. Outside of Clyburn, their opinions are moot,
Click to expand...

“Black voters and progressive women of color don’t matter.”

faint said:
and anyone publicly endorsing Biden is doing so because it likely benefits their only reelection. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in an election year.

I'm reviewing 13 keys now. Here are my answers:
  1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. No
  2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. - Yes
  3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. - Yes
  4. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. - n/a, Kennedy is at 10% nationally which is higher than average
  5. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. - Yes, but this fails to consider that Americans vote on their own well-being. Buying power is less than it was in 2020 and Americans felt better off in 2020 than they do now, regardless of data.
  6. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. - No, see above. Giving one a no and one a yes to make you happy.
  7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. - No? What's Biden going to change from the executive branch?
  8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. - No.
  9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. - I guess?
  10. No foreign or military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. - No. Afghanistan and the war in Gaza.
  11. Major foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. - No.
  12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. No - Biden is not charismatic. He used to be.
  13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Yes - Trump is extremely charismatic.
That gives 6 no's, which means Biden is predicted to lose. I also gotta admit this is perhaps the dumbest exercise ever invented to predict an election, and Biden is quite possibly the weirdest candidate to consider here given his unpopularity and media presence. For a guy that's data based, you seem content on a system which is quite literally vibes based. The average American has no idea what the economy is. They're still begging for manufacturing jobs to come back. The economy doing well is meaningless to them unless the individual personally experiences benefits, and given how the economy is the second most discussed topic besides immigration (on both sides), it's pretty clear both parties know this.
Click to expand...

Your answers to the keys are wrong. No offense, but how arrogant do you think it sounds to say Professor Allan Lichtman -who literally built the model that has held for elections dating back 150 years- has the keys wrong? He has already given his take on the keys. This cycle has 2 keys certainly against the democrats, an additional two (4 total) probably against the Democrats, and guess what happens if they kick Biden off the ticket?
 
RaikouLover said:
“Black voters and progressive women of color don’t matter.”



Your answers to the keys are wrong. No offense, but how arrogant do you think it sounds to say Professor Allan Lichtman -who literally built the model that has held for elections dating back 150 years- has the keys wrong? He has already given his take on the keys. This cycle has 2 keys certainly against the democrats, an additional two (4 total) probably against the Democrats, and guess what happens if they kick Biden off the ticket?
Click to expand...

There's an entire section dedicated to criticism so I don't think it sounds arrogant at all. If elections were this easy why would both parties not just nominate a charismatic veteran when they hold house majority? Sounds like that should almost guarantee a win.
 
faint said:
There's an entire section dedicated to criticism so I don't think it sounds arrogant at all. If elections were this easy why would both parties not just nominate a charismatic veteran when they hold house majority? Sounds like that should almost guarantee a win.
Click to expand...

Charismatic veteran would only fulfill one of thirteen keys. It’s a whole picture that goes into elections. Competence, governance, incumbency, economic and social conditions, candidate quality, scandals… these are the real things that affect who will wins. Not suspect polling in July. Polling is driving some people’s entire frame of reference on this and there is no rational reason for it.
 
150 years? i have not seen anything claiming that The Keys TM were supposed to apply to anything more than the past 9 elections, with a success rate of 7/9

(why are we debating a Model that has unintelligible and even internally contradictory criteria that clearly lacks evidence to support it with even the most rudimentary understanding of statistics. just like all the bogus polls in which 1-2% of respondents are black should be immediately thrown in the garbage instead of nonsense like multiplying the 15 black respondents answers by a factor of 17)

edit and by the way the suggestion that a single Model could apply to elections both today and under jim crow is like completely ridiculous on its face
 
juoean said:
150 years? i have not seen anything claiming that The Keys TM were supposed to apply to anything more than the past 9 elections, with a success rate of 7/9
Click to expand...

10/10 last 10 elections with a controversial “miss” being Bush v. Gore. Yes, it has been applied retroactively dating back 150 years.

juoean said:
(why are we debating a Model that has unintelligible and even internally contradictory criteria that clearly lacks evidence to support it with even the most rudimentary understanding of statistics. just like all the bogus polls in which 1-2% of respondents are black should be immediately thrown in the garbage instead of nonsense like multiplying the 15 black respondents answers by a factor of 17)

edit and by the way the suggestion that a single Model could apply to elections both today and under jim crow is like completely ridiculous on its face
Click to expand...

Is it? Let’s hear alternative methods for POTUS prediction methods that achieve better accuracy.
 
Perhaps alternatives like focusing on policies that benefit most Americans and not checking off boxes on a stupid list a guy made up? Walk up to a random person and tell them Biden will win in November because Allan Richter's Keys to the White House said so and they'll look at you like you have 3 heads.

Latest news suggests Biden may actually be considering dropping out so you may want to get in his ear and let him know about this before he makes his decision.
 
RaikouLover said:
10/10 last 10 elections with a controversial “miss” being Bush v. Gore. Yes, it has been applied retroactively dating back 150 years.



Is it? Let’s hear alternative methods for POTUS prediction methods that achieve better accuracy.
Click to expand...

oh either 8/10 or 9/10 then. again from a statistical point of view, u have to factor that the predictiveness can only be evaluated starting in 2010 when it got media attention, as the only reason it received media attention was its accuracy for the prior 6 elections. if you generate a thousand political models, and u only evaluate them on a binary basis ("predicted winner yes or no") then it is highly probable at least one will get the six outcomes correctly by luck as it is only a 1/64 chance outcome. so now we are looking at three elections, two of which were 'predicted correctly' (trump did not win the popular vote in 2016).

~ the rules keep changing, he claims that he "switched" from predicting the popular vote to the electoral college but there is literally no change to the keys not to mention the fact that there is 0 state by state analysis so how could it possibly be predictive of electoral college lmao.

~ election results are essentially a continuous variable (not technically bc 150 million ish voters is finite, but it might as well be continuous) but this Model only predicts a binary outcome. even if u treat all of the Keys as separate variables then thats fourteen discrete possibilities (anywhere between 0 and 13 keys can hold, since the model treats all the keys as interchangeable every situation where eg 7 keys hold amd 6 do not are treated identically. 0,1,2,...,12,13 are fourteen possibilities.) there are obviously far more than fourteen possible election outcomes so mathematically it is impossible for such a model to predict them all.
which gets to (one of the several) fundamental problems with this "model", it pretends that election outcomes are metaphysically predetermined because otherwise it would have to acknowledge that a binary prediction is inherently nonsense. predicting a landslide victory is extremely different from predicting a close election. to the extent prediction is plausible it needs to take the form of 'this candidate is favored' and maybe with some sort of probability distribution eg, there is an x% chance that candidate A wins 52% or more of the vote. but saying a winner is guaranteed and not even giving a probability is j obvious nonsense (lmk if this is not clear somehow).
the bush vs gore election in particular was decided by the supreme court which obviously is not even a variable the model considers, and this emphasizes how nonsensical it is to make an entirely binary election prediction.

if you believe that the Keys do have some connection to reality despite the inherently nonsensical binary formulation, then one way to investigate / alter the theory to make it potentially meaningful could be, to look at margins of victory in the various elections (and there could be a discussion of how exactly to measure this) and compare those to the "number of keys" that applied. as the only "logical" interpretation is obv that the greater number of keys that apply -> the greater the chances should be for the incumbent to win. ofc there is still a problem that there are only fourteen discrete values for the independent variable but fourteen is a lot more than two, so it would be far less ridiculous to treat a variable with fourteen values as a continuous variable and look at the correlation with outcomes.
to give an example in case my writing is hard to follow esp for those without a math background, if the Keys had some validity then it would necessarily be expected that the margin of victory for incumbent was highest in elections with all 13 keys met, then get closer as you approach 7 keys, and conversely be highest for challenger with 0 keys met and get closer as you approach 6 keys.
(ofc this does rely on the assumption that u can actually determine whether a key holds or not, which as i said before is questionable at best for certain keys like "was there a scandal" as whether or not there was a 'scandal' at whatever degree is considered to count can only rly be determined "post-facto" so its tautologous.)
personally i have no interest in the dead end that is western-imperialist political science so i have no desire to spend time doing such analytical testing of the 13 Keys but this is the bare minimum what would be necessary to make any argument that the keys have a connection to reality.

actually, it seems some of this analysis has been done by someone named Nate Silver who had shown that there is little to no correlation between the number of keys and margin of victory. (obv this article is v old so it doesnt have 2012-2020 results to look at)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/despite-keys-obama-is-no-lock/
(this article looks like it has extensive analysis of various parts of this Keys shit but i havent read the rest of it, only the portion about the lack of correlation between # of Keys and margin of victory.)

~ yes, it is ridiculous to use the same Model for elections in which black voters were the most notable demographic, as for elections in which that demographic was violently excluded from half the so-called country.
and more generally, this is a model that just does not account for substantive politics in general. for example, 12 keys are about the incumbent and only 1 is about the challenger. meaning that the challenger only matters to the binary analysis in the event of a 6-6 tie as far as the incumbent, otherwise the entire election is based solely on the incumbent candidate.
i think it is p obviously ludicrous to claim that Trump being the Republican candidate ["challenger vs incumbent" is also pretty lol when both were previously president] is marginal to the 2024 election. (same goes for the 2016 election.) "on both sides", both as far as his base and the motivations to defeat him.
both bourg-electoral parties are continuously changing, sometimes small changes sometimes much bigger ones, and while i obviously hold the view that elections are driven by theatrical performance more than actual substantive politics, but the idea that u can make an electoral Model that literally ignores actual politics is... wild. the republican party today is pretty different from the party in 2016. the Keys model (& also political science as a whole) is inherently incapable of factoring such changes until well after the fact, because it assumes both parties to be the same as they were in the prior election.
and then u have additional major issues like the fact that there is no state by state analysis, and just in general no actual "social investigation and class analysis" at all.
sometimes my behavior might 'match' supposed traits of cancers but it would be absurd to try to predict social behavior on a broad scale using astrological forecasting, and using the 13 Keys is just as metaphysical.

you have posted several times recently about how superficial amerikkkan electoral discourse is and the 13 Keys is rly a perfect example of that. only in the fantasy land that is us bourgeois political discourse could a "Model" so inherently simplistic, metaphysical, and continuously avoidant of anything that might require actually looking at details of the real world, be not only passed off as a serious "analysis" but become the status quo position of an entire academic field that for some reason we are expected to show deference to in this thread even while we are all witnessing an intensification of the contradictions of academia and the collapse of the myth that academia is a progressive institution / set of institutions.
 
faint said:
Perhaps alternatives like focusing on policies that benefit most Americans and not checking off boxes on a stupid list a guy made up? Walk up to a random person and tell them Biden will win in November because Allan Richter's Keys to the White House said so and they'll look at you like you have 3 heads.
Click to expand...

Random people on the street have no idea what the hell they are talking about. That “stupid list” has more credibility than anything that has been put forth in this thread. It is the “Replace Biden” camp that is campaigning more against President Biden than they are on any of his accomplishments or against the batshit crazy wannabe dictator over on the Republican ticket. How about people campaign against Project 2025? There is an election in 3.5 months. The clock is ticking.

faint said:
Latest news suggests Biden may actually be considering dropping out so you may want to get in his ear and let him know about this before he makes his decision.
Click to expand...

The “latest news” has been saying this for three weeks. Could be completely false or could be partially true. Bottom line is this course of action is unprecedented and politically suicidal.
 
Last edited:
RaikouLover said:
The “latest news” has been saying this for three weeks. Could be completely false or could be partially true. Bottom line is this course of action is unprecedented and politically suicidal.
Click to expand...

I think he'll be okay. He's been in office for over 50 years. I hope you have as much support for the new candidate as you do Biden if everything else you said is true.
 
faint said:
I think he'll be okay. He's been in office for over 50 years. I hope you have as much support for the new candidate as you do Biden if everything else you said is true.
Click to expand...

I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in this election. However, I will reconsider my party affiliation after November if they push out Biden. Why the hell am I participating in the party primaries if donors can just override my vote?
 
Last edited:
Too many democrats are west wing fans (guilty) and want to see the season 6 convention play out in real time. Television isn't real life. An open convention is beyond idiotic. End of story. The only actual option if Biden drops out is VP Kamala Harris. Since those rabble rousing for Biden to drop out have not lined up behind Harris and are instead living a fantasy, I cannot take the calls for Biden to drop out seriously or support them. If they were uniformly calling for Harris, I'd have a tougher question to consider, but I still think it's not nearly as clear as many have expressed that she's a stronger candidate but rather that the result will likely be remarkably similar either way and that she's just never actually been particularly popular with anyone. To my mind swapping candidates likely represents the bigger risk, but I can't guarantee that. I'm not psychic and neither is anyone else.

The reality of the matter is that media thrives on controversy and will do everything in its power to create closer elections. If Harris becomes the nominee and surges to a strong polling lead outside the margin of error (which is unlikely anyhow), media will run with whatever story seems best poised to bring her down to earth.

Modern day nationalized politics and negative partisanship, which really started to take off during the Clinton-Bush-Obama years (see: first big government shutdowns ever) and have continued to accelerate since, combined with the interests and power of media result in no election since 2000 being decided by more than 5 points of the popular vote, except for Obama's election in 2008. Obama's candidacy was historic and he was also an unusually charismatic and strong communicator, so I think it's pretty fair to count that as an outlier (and even he only won by 7 points). No one thinks 2024 will play out like 2008 for either side. Otherwise, every election held under this modern paradigm has been close and most every election held from here out will continue to be close. Most will have polls that fail to predict a winner outside of the margin of error. This is because elections within a 5 point popular vote margin, such as this one is bound to be, will very often overlap with polling errors of 3-4 points, which are the norm, not the exception. Happy to make other posts about polling errors, since I think many people in this thread are terribly ill-informed about polling and polling errors, but high level, anyone who looks at a poll that shows no more than a 4-5 point advantage in either direction and thinks they mean something beyond "possibly tied" is misinformed.

What matters is that the fundamentals this election remain in D's favor, regardless of the candidate, so long as the party actually backs them. Doomering for the sake of driving turnout is fine, but it must be understood as such and the party must be unified as soon as possible and at latest, a few news cycles prior to the convention. As the convention is a month away, that essentially means this has to be settled within the next week.
 
Feel like both sides of the "Should Biden drop out" coin are just being the exact same: assuming that they are the only choice that isn't suicide and that the other people in this thread are like threat to democracy Republican sleeper agents (exaggerating, but the implication is that if you dont agree with "me", you want Trump to win) when I'm 99% sure 85% of people posting in this thread since the Trump shooting are voting Dem regardless of whether its Biden, Harris, or fucking Michelle Obama on the ticket. Everyone relevant to the party is implying, whether its to bow out or defiantly stay, Biden plans an announcement within a week.
 
I mean, I always assumed the discourse of biden staying or leaving was about ex dem voters who are abstaining due to bidens incompetence, and in general convincing abstains/non voters to vote for dems, not the current dem voter. The latter are all blue no matter who guys, they don't need to be convinced to vote for a dem
 
Bakugames said:
I mean, I always assumed the discourse of biden staying or leaving was about ex dem voters who are abstaining due to bidens incompetence, and in general convincing abstains/non voters to vote for dems, not the current dem voter. The latter are all blue no matter who guys, they don't need to be convinced to vote for a dem
Click to expand...

Life hack: There is never a good reason to screw over your loyal supporters.
 
DPRK (North Korea) Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement on Palestine, Israel, and the US

It's from yesterday. The full English version can be accessed by changing the language at the top right.

Not a long statement, but here are some excerpts:

DPRK said:
The purpose of Israel, which has become a malignant tumor disturbing peace and the Nazis of Middle East, seeking massacre for its pleasure, is quite clear.

It is a dangerous plot of the Israeli authorities to destroy the Palestinian nation itself so that Palestine can never claim dominium and sovereignty, and in the long run to hold the whole territory of Palestine as its own permanent land.
Click to expand...


DPRK said:
It is a well-known and widely accepted fact within the international society that the terrible human rights disaster imposed to the Palestinian people is not simply due to Israel’s territorial ambitions, but is caused by the ringleader and main culprit [United States] of destroying global peace and obliterating human rights who systematically fosters and backs up neo-Nazi rogue states.
Click to expand...


DPRK said:
Such a country [United States] is indeed the world’s biggest obliterator of human rights that takes war as its indispensable means of existence, and is the common enemy of mankind that should be expelled from the international arena together with Israel.
Click to expand...


DPRK said:
All the countries in the world, aspiring after global peace and security as well as sustainable development of the environment guarantying human rights, should squarely realize that further tolerance for the U.S. and Israel committing nefarious ethnic massacre will bring more of the countries and nations into victims of human rights disaster, and actively strive to frustrate the inhumane criminal states’ acts disturbing peace as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
 
Im confused at “repubs are the only people saying they want biden on the ticket, because they think they will beat him” (earlier) and at, as far as i can tell, taking north korea foreign affairs statements at face value (above). I do not think republicans or the foreign ministry of north korea will sincerely express their preferences and sentiments to the world, but both groups are apparently being taken at face value. If there’s a different takeaway to north korea’s statements than taking it at face value, i’d love to hear it, but it also wouldve been welcome to see in the original post
 
Last edited:
@ adeleine, indeed my intent in posting the statement is for it to be read and considered at face value. what part of the statement do you think is insincere?
 
yo but what if Trump stepped down?

think about it. the republicans have a guy that's doing quite well even though he has 34 charges against him. imagine if they just got a guy who had 0 charges. just someone who wasn't a criminal.

not to mention quite a lot of people watch his speeches, his debates, the way he carries himself and... kinda think he's just not mentally fit for office, you know?

damn, they'd probably be unbeatable if they did that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top