A - the title of the article is pretty misleading/clickbaity. They say pretty clearly they have a good idea why the polls were off in 2020, they're just not sure how to correct for it yet.
B - The polls were extremely (extremely) accurate in 2018. Midterms are often harder (historically) to poll than presidential elections and despite that, 2018 was a pretty good year for polling. I think it would be a mistake to just declare the science of polling dead and stop believing any of it because of 2020 which had a combined effect of having Trump on the ballot (still trying to figure out what exactly that means) + a pandemic.
Trump 'will' be on the ballot though (even if it's not in person his presence will be felt). That's precisely why I won't trust the polling.. Notice I only said 2022 & 2024. That was intentional. Trump might not even be a factor in '24 but time will tell. After '24 I doubt he'll still be a major driver.
The same thing could have been (and was) said specifically about 2018. That midterm was obviously a referendum on his presidency to that point (both sides made it that way) - and we had accurate polling.
I legitimately think there's a difference between Trump being literally on the ballot and him not being on the ballot.
The article stated that state polling was equally bad, especially for Senate seats. Trump did not run for Senate as far as I can recall...
No... but the knock on effect of the top of the ticket is a well known effect upon how down ballot candidates do. Trump being on the ticket at all influences how any of those ballots ended up.
If Trump wants the nomination in 2024, all he has to do is say he's running. While there are people like DeSantis and Hawley who are trying to take the mantle, it's simply not possible to "out-Trump" Donald Trump, anymore than Badfinger were going to rise to the level of The Beatles. There is a sizable portion of the country who would give anything to have him back in office. But it also immediately solves any turnout problems the Democrats might have by way of apathy. The question becomes if there are anywhere near enough voters who are willing to go through another half-decade shit show after just getting out of the last one.
If Trump wants the nomination in 2024, all he has to do is say he's running. While there are people like DeSantis and Hawley who are trying to take the mantle, it's simply not possible to "out-Trump" Donald Trump, anymore than Badfinger were going to rise to the level of The Beatles. There is a sizable portion of the country who would give anything to have him back in office. But it also immediately solves any turnout problems the Democrats might have by way of apathy. The question becomes if there are anywhere near enough voters who are willing to go through another half-decade shit show after just getting out of the last one.
Still three years away. Anything can happen. I'm kinda hoping for a couple less, let's say 'seasoned' citizens next election. I've had enough old, white dudes in charge for one lifetime...
God, I think I must be more liberal than I ever thought. Here's an article that neatly sums up my thoughts about our moronic, billionaire 'astronauts'. What a pathetic waste of money and resources...
God, I think I must be more liberal than I ever thought. Here's an article that neatly sums up my thoughts about our moronic, billionaire 'astronauts'. What a pathetic waste of money and resources...
I agree this seems like a vanity project, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. After all the Apollo series mission to the moon was itself a vanity project and the economic benefits from that have hugely exceeded the costs over time. It seems to me likely that the same would prove true now for increased commercialization of space.
I think there's also another really good reason to support this sort of venture - and that's concerns about the increased militarization of space. That may be most visible with the US program, but part of the reason for that has been worries about what other countries have been doing (particularly China and Russia). If space is used for commercial purposes I think that reduces the likelihood that it becomes the focus for a new arms race.
God, I think I must be more liberal than I ever thought. Here's an article that neatly sums up my thoughts about our moronic, billionaire 'astronauts'. What a pathetic waste of money and resources...
I agree this seems like a vanity project, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. After all the Apollo series mission to the moon was itself a vanity project and the economic benefits from that have hugely exceeded the costs over time. It seems to me likely that the same would prove true now for increased commercialization of space.
I think there's also another really good reason to support this sort of venture - and that's concerns about the increased militarization of space. That may be most visible with the US program, but part of the reason for that has been worries about what other countries have been doing (particularly China and Russia). If space is used for commercial purposes I think that reduces the likelihood that it becomes the focus for a new arms race.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if space becomes a commercial enterprise, doesn't that increase the chances of it becoming militarized? Which country owns which asteroid, or moon, or colonizes which planet? Sounds like many more potential conflicts to me. Not to mention all the extra space-junk that'll be littering the orbit and all of the fossil fuels that'll be burned creating even more greenhouse gases for even less passengers per trip than the airplanes environmentalists complain about. Sorry, this is folly imho.
Some type of memo went out among all Republican lawmakers who aren't Majorie Taylor Green about COVID-19 and how they talk about vaccines in the last 48 hours, and it seems a directive from the top at FOX News as well. I suspect they saw some catastrophic polling data based on how the amount of new cases are now basically directly correlating to how that area of the country voted in November.
They may try, but I frankly don't think they're stupid enough to believe Biden can be blamed for a resurgence at this point. It's increasingly obvious why anti-vaxx sentiment exists, and the people who send out the marching orders have told right-wing lawmakers and pundits to, essentially, shut this shit down for the time being. It's a welcome shift (if far, far too late) but I wish I knew what the catalyst was.
My guess? Disastrous polling data going into the mid-term election cycle. It's either that or they're afraid that the total nut-jobs like Mike Lindell (the My Pillow doofus) are starting to annoy the Hell out of people.
God, I think I must be more liberal than I ever thought. Here's an article that neatly sums up my thoughts about our moronic, billionaire 'astronauts'. What a pathetic waste of money and resources...
I agree this seems like a vanity project, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. After all the Apollo series mission to the moon was itself a vanity project and the economic benefits from that have hugely exceeded the costs over time. It seems to me likely that the same would prove true now for increased commercialization of space.
I think there's also another really good reason to support this sort of venture - and that's concerns about the increased militarization of space. That may be most visible with the US program, but part of the reason for that has been worries about what other countries have been doing (particularly China and Russia). If space is used for commercial purposes I think that reduces the likelihood that it becomes the focus for a new arms race.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if space becomes a commercial enterprise, doesn't that increase the chances of it becoming militarized? Which country owns which asteroid, or moon, or colonizes which planet? Sounds like many more potential conflicts to me. Not to mention all the extra space-junk that'll be littering the orbit and all of the fossil fuels that'll be burned creating even more greenhouse gases for even less passengers per trip than the airplanes environmentalists complain about. Sorry, this is folly imho.
If space is crowded and requiring rules to manage passage and monitor hazards, that requires co-ordination - think of air traffic control in space. I don't think the sort of international co-operation needed to manage that is consistent with militarization - that occurs when movements are heavily restricted or not allowed at all, rather than when they are allowed according to internationally agreed rules.
Maybe I'm just too old to be anything but cynical about space 'exploration'. I see it becoming space 'commercialisation' where the richest corporations will reap the greatest rewards at the expense of everyone else. We have after all been here before; when wealthy European countries colonised (i.e. raped and pillaged) Africa, the Americas and the Indian sub-continent, not to mention establishing penal colonies on far-flung islands such as Australia.
One possible positive effect of lots of very rich people going into space is that it may have a positive effect on how they view their role in society. The experience of seeing a tiny ball of blue hanging in the void can be very powerful:
One possible positive effect of lots of very rich people going into space is that it may have a positive effect on how they view their role in society. The experience of seeing a tiny ball of blue hanging in the void can be very powerful:
I'm personally of the opinion that a certain degree of sociopathy is required to attain the kind of unfathomable wealth Bezos and Branson have. So I don't hold out a ton of hope in this regard. If the only thing you have left to do that can possibly burn through your cash supply is build your own space program, something went array with your moral compass. Think of what that money could accomplish. I understand it's their money to do with as they please, but 25 generations of his ancestors couldn't spend what Bezos has accumulated. Estimates are he banks 2 million dollars every 15 minutes.
Overall I think the rich have the unique opportunity to do something for mankind. Health care, clean energy and non-pollutive space travel are progress that I think make sense. At some point getting resources from space instead of digging it out of the ground might actually help, and travel might solve overpopulation.
What I don't like is that they boast about it. I'd rather back a person with a vision rather than a person with megalomania.
The liquidity (ability to purchase) of a billionaire's assets is largely tied to how much taxes they want to pay when converted to cash. I'm sure 99.999% of the population would love to have Jeff Bezos' "non-liquid" assets...
With reference to the possibility that space travel could help solve Earth's overpopulation problem I would like to refer you all to the movie "Elysium". Yes, it's fiction and 'just another action movie' but it clearly shows how only the wealthy would benefit in such a situation.
Interesting speculation on why the GOP might believe they have seriously miscalculated when they decided to (at the very least) allow themselves to become anti-vaxx adjacent. Quick summary: adults are the ones who vote, a significant majority of them are vaccinated, and they are positively fed up with those who are prolonging this nightmare when it should, be all rights, basically be over:
The testimony of the four Capitol police officers this morning has made those who continue to make a living dismissing January 6th once again look like complete fools (or cynical opportunists) and reveals just how deeply violent and racist the intentions that day were. They would have killed any Democratic lawmaker they got their hands on.
The testimony of the four Capitol police officers this morning has made those who continue to make a living dismissing January 6th once again look like complete fools (or cynical opportunists) and reveals just how deeply violent and racist the intentions that day were. They would have killed any Democratic lawmaker they got their hands on.
To me, it just shows how disingenuous, and racially motivated, chants of ‘blue lives matter’ actually is.
One key quote: Dunn said his story wasn't unique. He heard from another Black officer that insurrectionists yelled at that officer: "Put your gun down, and we'll show you what kind of n***** you really are!"
I'm just going to take the opportunity to reiterate some of what I said in the initial aftermath of the event. MAGA folks alleged widespread fraud, singling out places like Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia. Without evidence. MAGA folks stood shoulder-to-shoulder with folks who waved the Confederate flag and wore clothing with cryptic Nazi references. We now know about racial abuse of police officers.
Did any inter-MAGA fights break out at this event? Seems weird to me doesn't it? That a certain section of people want to claim that not everyone at that event deserves the worst condemnation. And yet, afaik, there are zero reports of anyone trying to separate themselves from the seriously racist rhetoric that was present that day.
The testimony of the four Capitol police officers this morning has made those who continue to make a living dismissing January 6th once again look like complete fools (or cynical opportunists) and reveals just how deeply violent and racist the intentions that day were. They would have killed any Democratic lawmaker they got their hands on.
To me, it just shows how disingenuous, and racially motivated, chants of ‘blue lives matter’ actually is.
The cops have already been labeled "crisis actors" in right-wing media (happened as they were giving testimony). This happens to literally everyone who is an on the ground witness to violent events that make GOP policy look bad. That the people relaying what happened are all part of a plot so intricate and byzantine it makes The Da Vinci Code look plausible. Check this out:
I feel a little vindicated by the actions of the supposedly 6-3 'far right' SCOTUS. As long as they don't nuke Roe vs. Wade, or put Trump back in the presidency, I pretty much agree with the rulings the new Court has made so far. Comey-Barrett and Kavanaugh have not been total ideologues so far, at least imho...
I feel a little vindicated by the actions of the supposedly 6-3 'far right' SCOTUS. As long as they don't nuke Roe vs. Wade, or put Trump back in the presidency, I pretty much agree with the rulings the new Court has made so far. Comey-Barrett and Kavanaugh have not been total ideologues so far, at least imho...
They've been a center right court so far, but definitely have the makings to be a far-right court if they want to be. So far, they havent been too bad - but they're set to hear Roe vs Wade next term, and the court filing by the republican AG fighting for the law (I forget what state) specifically suggests that Roe should be overturned.
If RvW is overturned, that obviously moves the court to the extreme right. If they just let the law into place (tacitly overturning Roe without saying such) - they're still be far right. There arent many outcomes here that dont move the court significantly to the right.
While I still think Kavanaugh is utterly and completely unfit to be a SCOTUS, he has been far less conservative than he was on the DC court. I think I saw recently he's been only slightly more conservative than Roberts so far (and Roberts, while generally solidly conservative, did reposition himself towards the center. He's still very conservative on Voting Rights...)
Of course, we're running into an issue with Breyer now, who says he doesnt want to retire under pressure because that would "politicize" the court. Like, I get his point... but yikes. He needs to understand that if he's replaced by a Republican president, the court will be 7-2. As much as some conservatives would love that, that distribution is SUPER unhealthy for a functioning democracy (The same would be true of a 7-2 court held by Democrats - it just wouldnt reflect the will of the people).
I feel a little vindicated by the actions of the supposedly 6-3 'far right' SCOTUS. As long as they don't nuke Roe vs. Wade, or put Trump back in the presidency, I pretty much agree with the rulings the new Court has made so far. Comey-Barrett and Kavanaugh have not been total ideologues so far, at least imho...
They've been a center right court so far, but definitely have the makings to be a far-right court if they want to be. So far, they havent been too bad - but they're set to hear Roe vs Wade next term, and the court filing by the republican AG fighting for the law (I forget what state) specifically suggests that Roe should be overturned.
If RvW is overturned, that obviously moves the court to the extreme right. If they just let the law into place (tacitly overturning Roe without saying such) - they're still be far right. There arent many outcomes here that dont move the court significantly to the right.
While I still think Kavanaugh is utterly and completely unfit to be a SCOTUS, he has been far less conservative than he was on the DC court. I think I saw recently he's been only slightly more conservative than Roberts so far (and Roberts, while generally solidly conservative, did reposition himself towards the center. He's still very conservative on Voting Rights...)
Of course, we're running into an issue with Breyer now, who says he doesnt want to retire under pressure because that would "politicize" the court. Like, I get his point... but yikes. He needs to understand that if he's replaced by a Republican president, the court will be 7-2. As much as some conservatives would love that, that distribution is SUPER unhealthy for a functioning democracy (The same would be true of a 7-2 court held by Democrats - it just wouldnt reflect the will of the people).
While I sort of agree with you, I would argue that the Supreme Court is not supposed to reflect the will of the people. I'm pretty sure that's why they're not elected by the public.
I'd honestly be surprised if R v. W gets overturned. The abortion issue is one of, if not THE, biggest issues that gets people out to vote for them. Its 99% why they get the evangelical vote.
While I sort of agree with you, I would argue that the Supreme Court is not supposed to reflect the will of the people. I'm pretty sure that's why they're not elected by the public.
I get what you're saying, and this is technically true - but they are still a coequal branch of the US government, and the foundation of the legitimacy of the US government is that it represents the will of its people. 538 has had a few articles over time looking at how the SCOTUS rarely issues decisions that are majorly unpopular, and I think part of the reason for that is because their legitimacy is harmed if they step too far away from popular sentiment.
R v. W is interesting in that while a majority of Americans oppose overturning it, the margins arent so big that you can imagine the SCOTUS not being swayed by that - additionally, the margins are much tighter amongst the more fervent believers of each position (It's the "I dont personally believe in abortion, but I'm against overturning 50+ years of judicial precedence" people that tip the scales towards opposing overturning R v. W).
I'd honestly be surprised if R v. W gets overturned. The abortion issue is one of, if not THE, biggest issues that gets people out to vote for them. Its 99% why they get the evangelical vote.
Yeah. I think that's true. It's super meta, but it's waaaaaaay more advantageous (politically) for the GOP to be against R v. W with it still existing. If it was struck down, the situation would reverse itself and be a big political windfall for Democrats.
That said, it only takes 5 believers to change that rule on the SCOTUS.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to focus on "normal" political matters lately, because my thoughts are all taken up by the fact that about 30% of the country has completely lost their damn minds. The increasingly aggressive behavior we are now seeing at school board meetings across the country from anti-mask and anti-vaxx zealots is incredibly troubling, moreso because the GOP clearly sees riling these people up into a frenzy as their quickest path back to power in 2022. The most vocal part of the Republican base is a bona-fide death cult. I know I mentioned this a ton last year, but what other conclusion can you draw at this point??
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to focus on "normal" political matters lately, because my thoughts are all taken up by the fact that about 30% of the country has completely lost their damn minds. The increasingly aggressive behavior we are now seeing at school board meetings across the country from anti-mask and anti-vaxx zealots is incredibly troubling, moreso because the GOP clearly sees riling these people up into a frenzy as their quickest path back to power in 2022. The most vocal part of the Republican base is a bona-fide death cult. I know I mentioned this a ton last year, but what other conclusion can you draw at this point??
Yeah, it's a good thing things weren't like this back when they eradicated smallpox and hampered many other viruses (measles, polio, mumps, etc...). It's gotten patently ridiculous how political nearly everything has become in our society. Thank you mass media! ?
I'd honestly be surprised if R v. W gets overturned. The abortion issue is one of, if not THE, biggest issues that gets people out to vote for them. Its 99% why they get the evangelical vote.
Comments
No... but the knock on effect of the top of the ticket is a well known effect upon how down ballot candidates do. Trump being on the ticket at all influences how any of those ballots ended up.
Still three years away. Anything can happen. I'm kinda hoping for a couple less, let's say 'seasoned' citizens next election. I've had enough old, white dudes in charge for one lifetime...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bezos-musk-branson-space-billionaires-b1886741.html
I agree this seems like a vanity project, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. After all the Apollo series mission to the moon was itself a vanity project and the economic benefits from that have hugely exceeded the costs over time. It seems to me likely that the same would prove true now for increased commercialization of space.
I think there's also another really good reason to support this sort of venture - and that's concerns about the increased militarization of space. That may be most visible with the US program, but part of the reason for that has been worries about what other countries have been doing (particularly China and Russia). If space is used for commercial purposes I think that reduces the likelihood that it becomes the focus for a new arms race.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if space becomes a commercial enterprise, doesn't that increase the chances of it becoming militarized? Which country owns which asteroid, or moon, or colonizes which planet? Sounds like many more potential conflicts to me. Not to mention all the extra space-junk that'll be littering the orbit and all of the fossil fuels that'll be burned creating even more greenhouse gases for even less passengers per trip than the airplanes environmentalists complain about. Sorry, this is folly imho.
They may try, but I frankly don't think they're stupid enough to believe Biden can be blamed for a resurgence at this point. It's increasingly obvious why anti-vaxx sentiment exists, and the people who send out the marching orders have told right-wing lawmakers and pundits to, essentially, shut this shit down for the time being. It's a welcome shift (if far, far too late) but I wish I knew what the catalyst was.
My guess? Disastrous polling data going into the mid-term election cycle. It's either that or they're afraid that the total nut-jobs like Mike Lindell (the My Pillow doofus) are starting to annoy the Hell out of people.
If space is crowded and requiring rules to manage passage and monitor hazards, that requires co-ordination - think of air traffic control in space. I don't think the sort of international co-operation needed to manage that is consistent with militarization - that occurs when movements are heavily restricted or not allowed at all, rather than when they are allowed according to internationally agreed rules.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
I'm personally of the opinion that a certain degree of sociopathy is required to attain the kind of unfathomable wealth Bezos and Branson have. So I don't hold out a ton of hope in this regard. If the only thing you have left to do that can possibly burn through your cash supply is build your own space program, something went array with your moral compass. Think of what that money could accomplish. I understand it's their money to do with as they please, but 25 generations of his ancestors couldn't spend what Bezos has accumulated. Estimates are he banks 2 million dollars every 15 minutes.
Overall I think the rich have the unique opportunity to do something for mankind. Health care, clean energy and non-pollutive space travel are progress that I think make sense. At some point getting resources from space instead of digging it out of the ground might actually help, and travel might solve overpopulation.
What I don't like is that they boast about it. I'd rather back a person with a vision rather than a person with megalomania.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-vaxed-america-running-out-of-patience
To me, it just shows how disingenuous, and racially motivated, chants of ‘blue lives matter’ actually is.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/27/1021197474/capitol-police-officer-testifies-to-the-racism-he-faced-during-the-jan-6-riot
One key quote: Dunn said his story wasn't unique. He heard from another Black officer that insurrectionists yelled at that officer: "Put your gun down, and we'll show you what kind of n***** you really are!"
I'm just going to take the opportunity to reiterate some of what I said in the initial aftermath of the event. MAGA folks alleged widespread fraud, singling out places like Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia. Without evidence. MAGA folks stood shoulder-to-shoulder with folks who waved the Confederate flag and wore clothing with cryptic Nazi references. We now know about racial abuse of police officers.
Did any inter-MAGA fights break out at this event? Seems weird to me doesn't it? That a certain section of people want to claim that not everyone at that event deserves the worst condemnation. And yet, afaik, there are zero reports of anyone trying to separate themselves from the seriously racist rhetoric that was present that day.
The cops have already been labeled "crisis actors" in right-wing media (happened as they were giving testimony). This happens to literally everyone who is an on the ground witness to violent events that make GOP policy look bad. That the people relaying what happened are all part of a plot so intricate and byzantine it makes The Da Vinci Code look plausible. Check this out:
They've been a center right court so far, but definitely have the makings to be a far-right court if they want to be. So far, they havent been too bad - but they're set to hear Roe vs Wade next term, and the court filing by the republican AG fighting for the law (I forget what state) specifically suggests that Roe should be overturned.
If RvW is overturned, that obviously moves the court to the extreme right. If they just let the law into place (tacitly overturning Roe without saying such) - they're still be far right. There arent many outcomes here that dont move the court significantly to the right.
While I still think Kavanaugh is utterly and completely unfit to be a SCOTUS, he has been far less conservative than he was on the DC court. I think I saw recently he's been only slightly more conservative than Roberts so far (and Roberts, while generally solidly conservative, did reposition himself towards the center. He's still very conservative on Voting Rights...)
Of course, we're running into an issue with Breyer now, who says he doesnt want to retire under pressure because that would "politicize" the court. Like, I get his point... but yikes. He needs to understand that if he's replaced by a Republican president, the court will be 7-2. As much as some conservatives would love that, that distribution is SUPER unhealthy for a functioning democracy (The same would be true of a 7-2 court held by Democrats - it just wouldnt reflect the will of the people).
While I sort of agree with you, I would argue that the Supreme Court is not supposed to reflect the will of the people. I'm pretty sure that's why they're not elected by the public.
I get what you're saying, and this is technically true - but they are still a coequal branch of the US government, and the foundation of the legitimacy of the US government is that it represents the will of its people. 538 has had a few articles over time looking at how the SCOTUS rarely issues decisions that are majorly unpopular, and I think part of the reason for that is because their legitimacy is harmed if they step too far away from popular sentiment.
R v. W is interesting in that while a majority of Americans oppose overturning it, the margins arent so big that you can imagine the SCOTUS not being swayed by that - additionally, the margins are much tighter amongst the more fervent believers of each position (It's the "I dont personally believe in abortion, but I'm against overturning 50+ years of judicial precedence" people that tip the scales towards opposing overturning R v. W).
Yeah. I think that's true. It's super meta, but it's waaaaaaay more advantageous (politically) for the GOP to be against R v. W with it still existing. If it was struck down, the situation would reverse itself and be a big political windfall for Democrats.
That said, it only takes 5 believers to change that rule on the SCOTUS.
Yeah, it's a good thing things weren't like this back when they eradicated smallpox and hampered many other viruses (measles, polio, mumps, etc...). It's gotten patently ridiculous how political nearly everything has become in our society. Thank you mass media! ?
A related tweet I saw about this: