|
Retirement age for SCOTUS justices is above 65 and your
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
zoux posted:They can be disregarded because polling a year out has no predictive value. Why do they display the polling years in order of greatest absolute error? And why are 2016 and 2020 absent? That info would be much more relevant than the polling error from 1948, for goodness sake. Im not sure where this is from but frankly it seems like an intentionally misleading graphic. The Top G fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
It's from 538 and it doesn't have 2016 and 2020 because it was written in 2015, but I don't think that year-out polls became predictive all of a sudden after 60 years. It jumps around because it's sorted by absolute polling error. If you can find evidence that polling from 2015 and 2019 was predictive, please present it. I can guarantee you that 2015 won't support your thesis because a year out Carson was the polling leaderquote:If you look at polls that tested the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees in the last two months of the year before the election, the average absolute error of the polling average is 10.6 percentage points. That’s more than five times Ben Carson’s current lead over Hillary Clinton in the Huffington Post/Pollster.com aggregate. zoux fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
selec posted:Which pieces of social progress are we willing to gamble being rolled back, or ruled on poorly, to not make an effort to make this happen? Increasing the republican majority to 6-2. It is fairly unlikely that a better, younger candidate could get through the current Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
selec posted:I think Manchin’s retirement means the smart thing is for Sotomayor to step down and be replaced safely: she’s a 69 year old diabetic, life expectancy is 75ish. Worth the risk for her not to? Or do we preemptively avoid an RBG situation this time? I don't think a rich diabetic lady is in the same risk tier as a nearly 2 decades older rich lady with multiple cancers including a super deadly one. So probably not a needed thing, but it sure would be nice if every level of our government wasn't filled with people who were adults before women could open their own bank accounts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
zoux posted:They can be disregarded because polling a year out has no predictive value. I will say, the value is that it gives you an idea of where your weaknesses lie as a candidate. IT helps craft your narrative if you are a even an average candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
Yeah, that 75 number is being dragged down by all the lower-class victims of the US healthcare system. Sotomayor has at least another decade in her and probably more
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I will say, the value is that it gives you an idea of where your weaknesses lie as a candidate. IT helps craft your narrative if you are a even an average candidate. Not if they're telling you obviously wrong things like Trump is going to outperform fivefold every Republican candidate in history among black voters . e: unrelated: I was saying the other day I was interested in a more detailed breakdown of how the insane school board candidates fared since CRT became a thing and this thread has data for this cycle, at least https://twitter.com/reportbywilson/status/1722379833228063219 zoux fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's from 538 and it doesn't have 2016 and 2020 because it was written in 2015, but I don't think that year-out polls became predictive all of a sudden after 60 years. It jumps around because it's sorted by absolute polling error. Ok, fair play. Thank you for sharing the article. I agree that a year out is too far to start making predictions based off poll results, but I don’t think these poll results are “100% bullshit”, as described by the poster I quoted. And why would they be? The methodology is the same as polls done nearer to the election. E: Mooseontheloose posted:I will say, the value is that it gives you an idea of where your weaknesses lie as a candidate. IT helps craft your narrative if you are a even an average candidate. Agreed. It is not the raw numbers that are useful, but the trends over time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:48
|
|
|
The Top G posted:To be clear, you think each one of these polls is to be disregarded and that their findings bear no prognostic value, whatsoever? Not zero value. Trump vs Biden is very likely to be decided by a single digit margin, so these polls are all within +/- ~10 of the final result. That's not bad accuracy for a year before the election. The thing is that everyone wants the polls to be predicting a winner, which they aren't because the information they're giving you (Trump vs Biden is within single digits) is completely useless for picking a winner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Anyone who won two terms before FDR. Hayes served only one term as well, and didn't seek reelection, having pledged not to do so and more realistically realizing his popularity had never recovered within the GOP base due to the Second Corrupt Bargain and abandonment of the freedmen. Speaking of 19th century presidents, Grant attempted a third term run in 1880, albeit after not directly on the heels of his second term which ended in 1877. He'd done a glittering world tour in the intervening time which had washed off some of the tarnish from his scandal-plagued time in office (though I and many other historians now recognize his wasn't meaningfully more corrupt an administration than any of the early gilded age presidencies and Grant himself wasn't personally corrupt or in cahoots with men who were) and he claimed he'd be able to lead a Republican wave election, but after coming close on the first two ballots (304 out of a needed 379) his popularity at the GOP convention peaked and after backrooms shenanigans support coalesced around dark horse candidate Garfield, who won instead. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, that 75 number is being dragged down by all the lower-class victims of the US healthcare system. Sotomayor has at least another decade in her and probably more Hell of a gamble. Hell of a huge gamble, considering what’s been lost on this exact gamble before. I don’t get the focus on needing to retain any given specific justice over the allure of a forty year old reliable Dem
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:Not if they're telling you obviously wrong things like Trump is going to outperform fivefold every Republican candidate in history among black voters . Yeah. its good that they didnt do that well. my guess is alot of them eat poo poo next election too unless culture 180s hard in their favor, the smart ones might drop the bullshit to survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Ok, fair play. Thank you for sharing the article. No, they are bullshit. They start to become slightly predictive at the 200-day mark: https://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/its_way_too_early_for_2016_polls_to_be_predictive.php In other words, flipping a coin and calling it has as much predictive value as these polls. And while commentators have been saying that special elections are not predictive, they most certainly are: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...six-years-later Edit: anecdotally, do you remember the +5 Romney polls over a year from the election, and the +10 Clinton polls also a year from the election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
selec posted:Hell of a gamble. Hell of a huge gamble, considering what’s been lost on this exact gamble before. This exact gamble, you say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Yeah. its good that they didnt do that well. my guess is alot of them eat poo poo next election too unless culture 180s hard in their favor, the smart ones might drop the bullshit to survive. Honestly, it seems less an aspect of the culture war, more an aspect of them all being incompetent assholes. If they just stuck it to the transgender kids they'd have a lot more staying power than their current model of loving over all the kids and trying to blow up the very concept of public education. People's willingness to help you hurt some, to them, vague boogeyman goes down drastically when their totally normal and good kid's life and prospects are affected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jdcmedlock/status/1722724245774782848 Probably the cornerstone of all discussions for Manchin's legacy: he made a lot of democratic achievements possible by just existing, but then consistently made choices that weakened the impact of those policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
8 days until shutdown again. Keeps me super motivated as a federal employee when we get to deal with this poo poo every couple of months now. Fun times, what a loving embarrassment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
selec posted:Hell of a gamble. Hell of a huge gamble, considering what’s been lost on this exact gamble before. I don’t get the focus on needing to retain any given specific justice over the allure of a forty year old reliable Dem Agreed, we're already in a serious enough situation with the SCOTUS that we really can't be taking chances. I think Sotomayor is in good enough shape to hold out for and couple of terms pretty safely, but given the costs if that calculus is wrong, is even the small chance worth taking? On the other hand I guess you have arguments of seniority and experience to consider, if we start having our justices retire at like the 70-75 range we may be losing out on some institutional knowledge or control that is not explicit or formal in nature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
Some folks remain very sharp well into their nineties. Cognitive decline is really fuzzy and variable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
It's also entirely a hypothetical philosophical exercise about balancing the greater good vs the rights of an individual because nobody has the authority to make her retire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
If Sotomayor retired soon, wouldn't she have one of the shortest stints in Supreme Court history?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Some folks remain very sharp well into their nineties. Cognitive decline is really fuzzy and variable. I think the point is that it's silly to risk it when recent past events show that it's a really bad loving idea, and due to the massive geographic advantage that the GOP has in the Senate, it's probably a loving great idea to ensure that liberal justices retire in a timely fashion to allow a nice fresh 45 y/o replacement whenever it's possible. e: Lance Reddick dropped dead this year and he was in his 50s and in great shape, money is no guarantee you'll hit 80. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
small butter posted:If Sotomayor retired soon, wouldn't she have one of the shortest stints in Supreme Court history? She's been on the bench for almost 15 years and had 5 other justices put on the bench after her, it's not even close to the shortest (138 days).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
Is this supposed to be an attack? I’d love to see those kind of results out of DSA
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
Morrow posted:https://twitter.com/jdcmedlock/status/1722724245774782848 He's better than a literal Republican in that seat at least. He's basically what people who idealize about bipartisanship think a Republican is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:Is this supposed to be an attack? I’d love to see those kind of results out of DSA I immediately went to "this seems like wobbly statistics" - like, yes, the worse they perform the better, but any "run someone for every open position" sort of strategy is going to give worse success percentages than a more targeted, less optimistic plan. so same for endorsement shotgunning
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
"out of three thousand local races in suburban Texas, communists only won three hundred, what a crummy performance" is clearly a ridiculous hypothetical take
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/kasie/status/1722672384019144713 I think it's less they're expecting/hoping Trump will quietly go into the night and more they're expecting/hoping that if Trump gets arrested he'll be sealed away like some SCP artifact. Just thrown into some hole with no internet access.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
i am a moron posted:So I’m asking because this: The parties don't actually ban challenging incumbents, but it's traditionally looked down upon unless things are going very, very badly for the sitting president. When I say "very badly", I mean like 1968 when the Dems were basically fraying at the seams over Vietnam and civil rights, and the New Deal Coalition was in shambles. Even then, only one relative nobody was initially willing to challenge LBJ; all the rest only jumped into the race after that relative nobody got 42% of the vote in New Hampshire and swept the state's delegates, demonstrating just how deeply vulnerable LBJ was. Honestly, rather than arguing over what Biden's approval rating means for his election chances, I'd be more interested in discussing just why his approval rating is so bad in the first place. It'd actually be nice if it's because voters disapprove of him not getting enough done, because one worrying possibility is that it's part of a larger trend that political analysts are increasingly concerned about - that public opinion is becoming increasingly disconnected from reality as the media environment (especially social media) gets more and more bizarre and unhinged at the hands of clickbait and viral propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Some folks remain very sharp well into their nineties. Cognitive decline is really fuzzy and variable. Now that you need 50 senators and the White House to appoint a justice it's more a matter of when will Democrats next be able to appoint a justice. Makes way more sense to swap out anyone over the age 60 for some spry 40-50 year olds that will survive until the planets align and Democrats control both again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
Given that the typical Republican is utterly indistinguishable from the common 4chan troll, I'm gonna go with "public opinion is increasingly disconnected from reality." I mean, there are barely any right-wingers on SA anymore. They keep getting banned. If only they could be banned in real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:It's becoming pretty clear that the GOP rallying behind Trump has turned into a lot of people being enthusiastic to vote for Trump who don't give two shits about voting for anyone else in the Republican party. Once Trump shuffles off this lovely Earth they're gonna have a real rough couple years. It’s because they lust for a third party, not Republicans, and Trump is the closest thing to one. All the wishful thinking about Democrats taking over is ignoring that many right leaning folks make clear distinctions between local government and federal government. Folks will happily enshrine right to abortion statewide under whatever Democrat plan and then vote for republicans in the fed who put in states right judges because the last thing they want is Californians telling them how to live. Doesn’t mean Trump doesn’t have momentum. He always has been a Democrat in disguise anyway.. any right leaning actions has always been just a strategic ploy to him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:41
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:does anyone have a bead on andy beshear and his politics? based on his constituency i'm guessing right-of-center, but still to the left of where the republicans have been running for the last decade? i've only been peripherally aware of him, but i suspect a solid reelection in a deep red state is going to put him on the map for a future run at the presidency or similar. i'm assuming that he's a bit hobbled by the difficulty building an internal party power base in such a deep red state, but no matter what he has the story. and a complete melt of a candidate and campaigner seems unlikely to be the single elected official bucking the state's strong voting preference Kentucky has had a Democrat governor for most of the last century. Unions, etc. a long history. Beshear is a corruption baby, his dad was governor for quite some time and was so corrupt he managed to set up his successor for total failure. Lost it to someone who was so unlikeable it made Trump look like Jesus. Beshear then used his connections to get back into power. There’s nothing grassroots or particularly likable about him, Democrats always ran the state locally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Kentucky has had a Democrat governor for most of the last century. Unions, etc. a long history. Beshear is a corruption baby, his dad was governor for quite some time and was so corrupt he managed to set up his successor for total failure. Lost it to someone who was so unlikeable it made Trump look like Jesus. Beshear then used his connections to get back into power. There’s nothing grassroots or particularly likable about him, Democrats always ran the state locally. thanks, i have literally no knowledge of kentucky state politics, so good to know
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:It’s because they lust for a third party, not Republicans, and Trump is the closest thing to one. quote:Doesn’t mean Trump doesn’t have momentum. He always has been a Democrat in disguise anyway.. Well, I laughed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
The Top G posted:To be clear, you think each one of these polls is to be disregarded and that their findings bear no prognostic value, whatsoever? Actually I think the polls are right and if anything maybe underestimating Trump. It's gonna be bad. Had a hard time believing such a huge contingent of minority voters would peel off like that but I got some street intel recently on this and yeah... I think it's real. I think we're pretty hosed actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:It’s because they lust for a third party, not Republicans, and Trump is the closest thing to one. Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/kasie/status/1722672384019144713 The Republicans are pro-Plan B?! poo poo, blast the airwaves with that message, that will tank their support for next year!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Bodyholes posted:Actually I think the polls are right and if anything maybe underestimating Trump. It's gonna be bad. Biden just wants to take our Newports away! - man on the street coincidentally named Al Sharpton
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 02:36
|
|
