The stars seem slowly to be aligning for Harris, as election day approaches.
A week to 10 days ago it looked like Trump had it won to me. But he's been tired, low wattage, even more incoherent to the point of almost incomprehensible and Harris has finished incredibly strongly. Now I really don't know. Has it tipped back enough? I hope so.
I thought he'd done it after he nearly got shot. Then he seemed to chuck it all away with his three hour rally speeches, which, whilst impressive in a sheer endurance way, I can't imagine wanting to sit through. His debate performance was fairly shit also. But I'd say he's finished strong. Garbage truck, Rogan, hi viz, Macdonalds, all quite good. If he'd gone from being shot straight to the Macdonalds stunt they'd have practically had to hand him the White House keys there and then.
yes the Macdonalds stunt was clever
I think it was a good campaign tactic.
If there’s one thing the Harris campaign should have done, it was a few more of these unscripted campaign stunts (for want of a better term). Maybe not McDonalds, but something a bit more spontaneous from Harris.
I think they were too spooked that she might stumble or gaffe. In actuality, I think Harris has shown a very warm, engaging vibe throughout the campaign and it’s a pity they didn’t try and work with that more and relied on her scripts.
The concept of "high-information voters" is typically defined as people with a relatively high level of political knowledge, which suggests that unlike "low-information voters" they vote based on thinking for themselves about the issues and weighting the pros and cons of each position on the merits, but I think the main effect of their greater political knowledge is that it allows them to more reliably pick cues about the partisan implications of political ideas to make sure they have a combination of views that is aligned with whatever their side is, if only because the bar for counting as a "high-information voter" is still quite low and in particular the level of knowledge that most "high-information voters" have is still insufficient to think seriously about complex policy issues. https://nitter.poast.org/phl43/status/1853472722166165756#m
"Low-information voter" is an odious, pompous phrase beloved of low-social-skill voters.
It’s an infelicitous phrase, certainly - but it describes those who simply don’t follow politics at all. Nothing really wrong with that, but it does have real implications for those trying to get their votes, and it would be absurd to pretend that it’s not a thing.
The concept of "high-information voters" is typically defined as people with a relatively high level of political knowledge, which suggests that unlike "low-information voters" they vote based on thinking for themselves about the issues and weighting the pros and cons of each position on the merits, but I think the main effect of their greater political knowledge is that it allows them to more reliably pick cues about the partisan implications of political ideas to make sure they have a combination of views that is aligned with whatever their side is, if only because the bar for counting as a "high-information voter" is still quite low and in particular the level of knowledge that most "high-information voters" have is still insufficient to think seriously about complex policy issues. https://nitter.poast.org/phl43/status/1853472722166165756#m
"Low-information voter" is an odious, pompous phrase beloved of low-social-skill voters.
Thats democracy, everyones vote counts equally and only once, even Musks.
That said, some people vote the way they do for really quite odd reasons. Anyone who has done some canvassing for any party will tell you that.
Google's automatic AI information is making mistakes.
I typed "Maryland 2016 population". It answered: "The population of Maryland in 2016 was 616,958 in the city of Baltimore."
That figure certainly isn't the population of Maryland in 2016, and looks more like the figure for Baltimore itself.
The difference with you and the AI true believers is that you are capable of using your own judgement as a check and balance on the drivel it chucks out daily.
I used Google's AI and similar competitors like Perplexity to run a search on myself. It was startlingly inaccurate about almost everything. Full gell-mann amnesia in effect for those who still trust it.
I have otherwise rational and wisely sceptical friends who seem to treat LLM output as fact. As you say, it’s riddled with errors. The reason why is simple: it’s source material, the internet, is also riddled with errors.
I asked both perplexity and 'search gpt' for "A list of todays top news stories from the UK, prioritise by politics, then technology, then general news."
Perplexity's newest story was two days old, most were 3-5. GPT-search was sometimes more recent, but it also just hallucinated about 20% of the stories and links it gave me.
Both are better at general 'research' questions where it's saving me a bit of digging into wikipedia. For for 'right here, right now' - I've written them both off for now.
The stars seem slowly to be aligning for Harris, as election day approaches.
A week to 10 days ago it looked like Trump had it won to me. But he's been tired, low wattage, even more incoherent to the point of almost incomprehensible and Harris has finished incredibly strongly. Now I really don't know. Has it tipped back enough? I hope so.
Yes, I would certainly have been with you there David. But - as you say - the sheer difference in body language from the two candidates is quite startling. And body language is hard to fake. Harris is glowing. Does she think she’s won?
Hmm.
Her appearance on SNL was one of the highlights of the campaign. It beamed confidence.
Trump is NOT happy about that
And Vance is calling her trash tonight
They look like sore losers at this point
They’ve been doing that, and worse, all campaign. The misogyny runs deep with these guys.
Sage of Mar-a-Lardo and the Recovering Hillbilly working different sides of Misogyny Boulevard:
Vance wants women to be Madonas . . . while Trump wants 'em to be whores.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
My view is that she's got it broadly right. I think Stride is a reasonable choice, and I think she answered the question of what to do about Jenrick correctly. I do worry she has a very thin pool to choose from.
The stars seem slowly to be aligning for Harris, as election day approaches.
A week to 10 days ago it looked like Trump had it won to me. But he's been tired, low wattage, even more incoherent to the point of almost incomprehensible and Harris has finished incredibly strongly. Now I really don't know. Has it tipped back enough? I hope so.
I thought he'd done it after he nearly got shot. Then he seemed to chuck it all away with his three hour rally speeches, which, whilst impressive in a sheer endurance way, I can't imagine wanting to sit through. His debate performance was fairly shit also. But I'd say he's finished strong. Garbage truck, Rogan, hi viz, Macdonalds, all quite good. If he'd gone from being shot straight to the Macdonalds stunt they'd have practically had to hand him the White House keys there and then.
I thought the garbage truck thing was, well, rubbish. It was aimed at Biden who is (a) gaga and (b) not running. The Macdonalds thing was better. But 2024 Trump is a pale shadow of 2016 Trump who was sharp and funny, if obnoxious. I think although he by and large fought his way to a draw those court cases took a lot out of him.
The McDonalds thing also coincided with an unfortunate and widespread E.Coli outbreak in the chain. Which wasn't a great post-visit story.
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
My view is that she's got it broadly right. I think Stride is a reasonable choice, and I think she answered the question of what to do about Jenrick correctly. I do worry she has a very thin pool to choose from.
Well CON only have 121 MP's so the pool is going to be very thin. Looks like she's made the best of what she has to work with?
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
It's really not. The o1 model is better than 4o was (not sure if the great unwashed get to use it), but I'd in no way trust it for anything like that. Google have a quite strong mathematics model now and Nvidia have some quite good physics models, but I'm not sure if they're available to the great unwashed.
CNN is reporting that RFK Jr has said Trump will remove fluoride from their drinking water.
Am I missing something? Can any of our US correspondents explain whether fluoride is the issue of the hour in the U.S….
The issues are: (1) RFK knows nothing about health except his anti-science; (2) Trump would probably put him in charge of health, resulting in a whole slew of anti-science policies, such as removing liability protections from vaccine producers, letting the courts not CDC decide which drugs should be on the market (including the morning after pill) and, yes, fluoride in water supplies (not a big issue, but more indicative of his damn the evidence approach, the scientists recommend it, so it must be bad/wrong/evil)
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
My view is that she's got it broadly right. I think Stride is a reasonable choice, and I think she answered the question of what to do about Jenrick correctly. I do worry she has a very thin pool to choose from.
Well CON only have 121 MP's so the pool is going to be very thin. Looks like she's made the best of what she has to work with?
Please tell me that Victoria Derbyshire is on Newsnight today because they're resting the serious journalists for tomorrow and Wednesday. They even managed to engender sympathy for John Bolton by making him sit through clips of Trump slagging him off then VD talked over him when he was trying to make a dignified response.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
CNN is reporting that RFK Jr has said Trump will remove fluoride from their drinking water.
Am I missing something? Can any of our US correspondents explain whether fluoride is the issue of the hour in the U.S….
The issues are: (1) RFK knows nothing about health except his anti-science; (2) Trump would probably put him in charge of health, resulting in a whole slew of anti-science policies, such as removing liability protections from vaccine producers, letting the courts not CDC decide which drugs should be on the market (including the morning after pill) and, yes, fluoride in water supplies (not a big issue, but more indicative of his damn the evidence approach, the scientists recommend it, so it must be bad/wrong/evil)
Sounds like he will fit right in with the rest of Trump's cabinet.
If the American public wants all this, then they'll be given it, good and hard.
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
My view is that she's got it broadly right. I think Stride is a reasonable choice, and I think she answered the question of what to do about Jenrick correctly. I do worry she has a very thin pool to choose from.
Well CON only have 121 MP's so the pool is going to be very thin. Looks like she's made the best of what she has to work with?
Are you saying she has taken it in her Stride?
Nobody's gonna break Mel Stride Nobody's gonna hold me down, oh no I gotta keep on moving!
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
My view is that she's got it broadly right. I think Stride is a reasonable choice, and I think she answered the question of what to do about Jenrick correctly. I do worry she has a very thin pool to choose from.
Well CON only have 121 MP's so the pool is going to be very thin. Looks like she's made the best of what she has to work with?
Please tell me that Victoria Derbyshire is on Newsnight today because they're resting the serious journalists for tomorrow and Wednesday. They even managed to engender sympathy for John Bolton by making him sit through clips of Trump slagging him off then VD talked over him when he was trying to make a dignified response.
It continues to amaze me that Trump is so bad he has managed to make John Bolton and Dick Cheney look like statesmen.
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
Nobody gives a fly f - especially the eve before the US election to end all elections.
Whatever genius gave the tory party their leadership timetable needs to consider another career.
Well yeah, but, but, but the US election is over tomorrow.
And then we're get back to Kier and Rachel presiding over little old grannies freezing to death this winter... And people will start to give an "F" about the Tories...
Even though I'm rabidly pro-Harris, I trust his prediction less than ever. There is a lot of motivated reasoning in his prediction.
If I were betting on Nevada (I'm not) I'd say Trump.
Tomorrow I will be betting on Nevada. I will wait for his final drop but his preds literally made up an invisible band of Kamala voters that will apparate on the Final Day. That's not analysis, it's a bloody "Downfall" speech. Right now I am thinking of two things: I) curling into a ball and trying not to cry and ii) Trump will win Nevada.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
That is shockingly dangerous. Like others here my day job involves not quite bleeding edge but sector leading AI (in a pretty boring sector tbh, I think very related to @eek ) and there is no way on god's green earth is any version of ChatGPT suitable for that.
It may however when prompted correctly be useful for developing a model so long as the user has expert understanding.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
Nobody gives a fly f - especially the eve before the US election to end all elections.
Whatever genius gave the tory party their leadership timetable needs to consider another career.
Well yeah, but, but, but the US election is over tomorrow.
And we're get back to Kier and Rachel presiding over little old grannies freezing to death this winter... And people will start to give an "F" about the Tories...
You know it to be true RB
"the US election is over tomorrow."
Clearly you're a "glass half full" kind of guy!
Especially as the ACTUAL election isn't until December . . .
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
Treating is as gospel surely is good news*.
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
You need some heroic assumptions for the election NOT to come down to Pennslyvania. Even a leftshift of Georgia and a rightward shift of Nevada still leave it likely as the tipping point state.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
There are Proper Applications for that kind of thing. Finite Element analysis etc.
I don't understand what you would even ask ChatGPT that would make any kind of sense.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
Treating is as gospel surely is good news*.
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
And TimT (brought up CoE despite being a confirmed atheist)
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
Dont believe that`s correct. if she lost the 7 swing states, you would lose the bet.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
You can back either of New Mexico and Virginia for Trump at around 1.12 to hedge this if you like too.
Edit: No I think Smukesh is right.
Trump with all the swing states hits 312 ECVs, Harris is on 241.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
Treating is as gospel surely is good news*.
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
Are you saying there are multiple incompatible versions that contradict each other?
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
Treating is as gospel surely is good news*.
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
Are you saying there are multiple incompatible versions that contradict each other?
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
Dont believe that`s correct. if she lost the 7 swing states, you would lose the bet.
No this is Harris +64.5 ECV market
So if Harris wins 205 ECV then add the 64.5 ECV then she reaches 269.5 ECV which would count as the bet winning.
If she loses the 7 swing states she is on 226, Losing MN, NH, MA and NB 2nd leaves her on 209 ECV, 209 + 64.5 is 273.5.
Edit - I have since been corrected - to say that Trump would be 330 or so ECV, please ignore
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
There are Proper Applications for that kind of thing. Finite Element analysis etc.
I don't understand what you would even ask ChatGPT that would make any kind of sense.
Apparently he gives Chatgpt the pdfs for the building in question and asks it for the calculations. I didn't know enough about Chatgpt or structural engineering to question this too deeply, but it didn't fillme with confidence.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
You can back either of New Mexico and Virginia for Trump at around 1.12 to hedge this if you like too.
Edit: No I think Smukesh is right.
Trump with all the swing states hits 312 ECVs, Harris is on 241.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
Dont believe that`s correct. if she lost the 7 swing states, you would lose the bet.
No this is Harris +64.5 ECV market
So if Harris wins 205 ECV then add the 64.5 ECV then she reaches 269.5 ECV which would count as the bet winning.
If she loses the 7 swing states she is on 226, Losing MN, NH, MA and NB 2nd leaves her on 209 ECV, 209 + 64.5 is 273.5.
Are you sure?
Because if she loses those, Trump will be on 330 or so, and she will be on 273.5.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
Dont believe that`s correct. if she lost the 7 swing states, you would lose the bet.
No this is Harris +64.5 ECV market
So if Harris wins 205 ECV then add the 64.5 ECV then she reaches 269.5 ECV which would count as the bet winning.
If she loses the 7 swing states she is on 226, Losing MN, NH, MA and NB 2nd leaves her on 209 ECV, 209 + 64.5 is 273.5.
Are you sure?
Because if she loses those, Trump will be on 330 or so, and she will be on 273.5.
No, i stand corrected, by another poster, please accept my apologies, i didn;t account for Trump then being over 270.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
Dont believe that`s correct. if she lost the 7 swing states, you would lose the bet.
No this is Harris +64.5 ECV market
So if Harris wins 205 ECV then add the 64.5 ECV then she reaches 269.5 ECV which would count as the bet winning.
If she loses the 7 swing states she is on 226, Losing MN, NH, MA and NB 2nd leaves her on 209 ECV, 209 + 64.5 is 273.5.
If Harris was on 226 + 64=280, Trump would still be on 305. He wouldn`t drop to less than 270.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
You can back either of New Mexico and Virginia for Trump at around 1.12 to hedge this if you like too.
Edit: No I think Smukesh is right.
Trump with all the swing states hits 312 ECVs, Harris is on 241.
Without sounding hyperbolic, tomorrow feels like the most consequential election in my lifetime..and I say this as someone who had to make life changing decisions following the Brexit vote...
if Trump wins, I'm done with politics. If Harris wins, then the world will feel that much more a better place...and hopefully, the Republicans can choose someone next time who doesn't scare the living shit out of me...
I'm sure whatever happens life will go on and the world will still turn.
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
Dont believe that`s correct. if she lost the 7 swing states, you would lose the bet.
No this is Harris +64.5 ECV market
So if Harris wins 205 ECV then add the 64.5 ECV then she reaches 269.5 ECV which would count as the bet winning.
If she loses the 7 swing states she is on 226, Losing MN, NH, MA and NB 2nd leaves her on 209 ECV, 209 + 64.5 is 273.5.
If Harris was on 226 + 64=280, Trump would still be on 305. He wouldn`t drop to less than 270.
This is why i shouldn't post after 2 glasses of wine....you are correct, thank you. Nearly ended up losing money on this one!
You need some heroic assumptions for the election NOT to come down to Pennslyvania. Even a leftshift of Georgia and a rightward shift of Nevada still leave it likely as the tipping point state.
Over the past couple of weeks,I have frequently felt that a lot of the 'analysis' from the Dem side - abortion rights will bring over lots of R women, Trump's turning people off with his weirdness, young people are feeling energised - has smacked a lot of the 'poll unskewing' that we saw from the Rep side in 2012: a bif of a desperate hunt to find something to give them hope. While the US economy is improving, there has been a perception that it's bad, and it did feel like a 'change' election. I was still holding on to hope, but it was hard. However...
There are four people I've learned to really trust on their areas of expertise, in detailed aspects of US elections: Dave Wasserman for on-the-night race calls Michael Macdonald for early voting Ann Selzer for Iowa Jon Ralston for Nevada.
I've been following Ralston since 2012 at least, and Selzer since 2004. Iowa never seemed in contention this year, but if Selzer says it is, then I take her over a whole legion of pollsters and analysts saying otherwise. I thought that the wonky economy in Nevada, plus the demographics, meant that Nevada was a likely loss for the Dems, but if Ralston says otherwise, albeit by a tiny margin, then I have to trust him.
If Iowa goes Dem, then Trump has no chance in Wisconsin or Michigan. And maybe Walz will help there too. If Nevada, the flakiest bit of the southwest, stays Dem, then Arizona stays Dem far more easily. The mechanisms for the a Dem win cited by Selzer apply elsewhere too - women (including R women) going heavily Dem, undecideds moving D, lots of new voters (the other day, 1 in 8 early voters in Detroit were on-the-day registrants!). And while I thought initially the garbage island 'joke' was trivial, it turns out it's not been seen that way
So, I think Harris wins IA (Selzer); MI and WI (because of IA); NV (Ralston); AZ (Ralston and Latino), PA (Puerto Rican and massive GOTV from Dems - they canvassed in four hours on Saturday the total Rep target for the whole campaign); NC (women, undecideds, hurricane effects), NE-02, and FL. Yes I think the Dems win Florida. Trump gains GA. It was insanely narrow last time, the reported gains for Trump among young black men are apparently real, and the Abrams GOTV machine has by all accounts fallen apart.
Final EC score: 341-197. (edited, I forgot to switch NC on the 270towin map!)
In the Senate, the Dems lose WV and MT. I'd love to see Tester hold on, but I can't quite stretch that far. They hold everywhere else including OH. They gain FL (it's those Latinos again, plus Rick Scott is a crap campaigner, and widely hated. Oh, and hurricanes). Osborn beats Fischer in NE, but keeps his word and doesn't caucus with either side. Senate finishes 50 (D+I)-49 (R) -1 (I).
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
Treating is as gospel surely is good news*.
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
And TimT (brought up CoE despite being a confirmed atheist)
Gospel means good news, is the answer as simple as that, or am I missing something clever?
Another £2.5 million+ is looking to back Trump at 1.7 acting as a bulwark against his price drifting. If someone is so sure he is going to win, why not hoover up the £150k+ available to back him at 1.66-1.68?
Another £2.5 million+ is looking to back Trump at 1.7 acting as a bulwark against his price drifting. If someone is so sure he is going to win, why not hoover up the £150k+ available to back him at 1.66-1.68?
Dodgy as fuck.
I hope BF will be looking into all this after the election.
Over the past couple of weeks,I have frequently felt that a lot of the 'analysis' from the Dem side - abortion rights will bring over lots of R women, Trump's turning people off with his weirdness, young people are feeling energised - has smacked a lot of the 'poll unskewing' that we saw from the Rep side in 2012: a bif of a desperate hunt to find something to give them hope. While the US economy is improving, there has been a perception that it's bad, and it did feel like a 'change' election. I was still holding on to hope, but it was hard. However...
There are four people I've learned to really trust on their areas of expertise, in detailed aspects of US elections: Dave Wasserman for on-the-night race calls Michael Macdonald for early voting Ann Selzer for Iowa Jon Ralston for Nevada.
I've been following Ralston since 2012 at least, and Selzer since 2004. Iowa never seemed in contention this year, but if Selzer says it is, then I take her over a whole legion of pollsters and analysts saying otherwise. I thought that the wonky economy in Nevada, plus the demographics, meant that Nevada was a likely loss for the Dems, but if Ralston says otherwise, albeit by a tiny margin, then I have to trust him.
If Iowa goes Dem, then Trump has no chance in Wisconsin or Michigan. And maybe Walz will help there too. If Nevada, the flakiest bit of the southwest, stays Dem, then Arizona stays Dem far more easily. The mechanisms for the a Dem win cited by Selzer apply elsewhere too - women (including R women) going heavily Dem, undecideds moving D, lots of new voters (the other day, 1 in 8 early voters in Detroit were on-the-day registrants!). And while I thought initially the garbage island 'joke' was trivial, it turns out it's not been seen that way
So, I think Harris wins IA (Selzer); MI and WI (because of IA); NV (Ralston); AZ (Ralston and Latino), PA (Puerto Rican and massive GOTV from Dems - they canvassed in four hours on Saturday the total Rep target for the whole campaign); NC (women, undecideds, hurricane effects), NE-02, and FL. Yes I think the Dems win Florida. Trump gains GA. It was insanely narrow last time, the reported gains for Trump among young black men are apparently real, and the Abrams GOTV machine has by all accounts fallen apart.
Final EC score: 341-197. (edited, I forgot to switch NC on the 270towin map!)
In the Senate, the Dems lose WV and MT. I'd love to see Tester hold on, but I can't quite stretch that far. They hold everywhere else including OH. They gain FL (it's those Latinos again, plus Rick Scott is a crap campaigner, and widely hated. Oh, and hurricanes). Osborn beats Fischer in NE, but keeps his word and doesn't caucus with either side. Senate finishes 50 (D+I)-49 (R) -1 (I).
Another £2.5 million+ is looking to back Trump at 1.7 acting as a bulwark against his price drifting. If someone is so sure he is going to win, why not hoover up the £150k+ available to back him at 1.66-1.68?
Dodgy as fuck.
I hope BF will be looking into all this after the election.
You can't really stop super-rich people from betting, even if they are acting as whales.
Over the past couple of weeks,I have frequently felt that a lot of the 'analysis' from the Dem side - abortion rights will bring over lots of R women, Trump's turning people off with his weirdness, young people are feeling energised - has smacked a lot of the 'poll unskewing' that we saw from the Rep side in 2012: a bif of a desperate hunt to find something to give them hope. While the US economy is improving, there has been a perception that it's bad, and it did feel like a 'change' election. I was still holding on to hope, but it was hard. However...
There are four people I've learned to really trust on their areas of expertise, in detailed aspects of US elections: Dave Wasserman for on-the-night race calls Michael Macdonald for early voting Ann Selzer for Iowa Jon Ralston for Nevada.
I've been following Ralston since 2012 at least, and Selzer since 2004. Iowa never seemed in contention this year, but if Selzer says it is, then I take her over a whole legion of pollsters and analysts saying otherwise. I thought that the wonky economy in Nevada, plus the demographics, meant that Nevada was a likely loss for the Dems, but if Ralston says otherwise, albeit by a tiny margin, then I have to trust him.
If Iowa goes Dem, then Trump has no chance in Wisconsin or Michigan. And maybe Walz will help there too. If Nevada, the flakiest bit of the southwest, stays Dem, then Arizona stays Dem far more easily. The mechanisms for the a Dem win cited by Selzer apply elsewhere too - women (including R women) going heavily Dem, undecideds moving D, lots of new voters (the other day, 1 in 8 early voters in Detroit were on-the-day registrants!). And while I thought initially the garbage island 'joke' was trivial, it turns out it's not been seen that way
So, I think Harris wins IA (Selzer); MI and WI (because of IA); NV (Ralston); AZ (Ralston and Latino), PA (Puerto Rican and massive GOTV from Dems - they canvassed in four hours on Saturday the total Rep target for the whole campaign); NC (women, undecideds, hurricane effects), NE-02, and FL. Yes I think the Dems win Florida. Trump gains GA. It was insanely narrow last time, the reported gains for Trump among young black men are apparently real, and the Abrams GOTV machine has by all accounts fallen apart.
Final EC score: 341-197. (edited, I forgot to switch NC on the 270towin map!)
In the Senate, the Dems lose WV and MT. I'd love to see Tester hold on, but I can't quite stretch that far. They hold everywhere else including OH. They gain FL (it's those Latinos again, plus Rick Scott is a crap campaigner, and widely hated. Oh, and hurricanes). Osborn beats Fischer in NE, but keeps his word and doesn't caucus with either side. Senate finishes 50 (D+I)-49 (R) -1 (I).
Dems retake the House.
I was reading this with great interest....until you said Dems would take Florida
Over the past couple of weeks,I have frequently felt that a lot of the 'analysis' from the Dem side - abortion rights will bring over lots of R women, Trump's turning people off with his weirdness, young people are feeling energised - has smacked a lot of the 'poll unskewing' that we saw from the Rep side in 2012: a bif of a desperate hunt to find something to give them hope. While the US economy is improving, there has been a perception that it's bad, and it did feel like a 'change' election. I was still holding on to hope, but it was hard. However...
There are four people I've learned to really trust on their areas of expertise, in detailed aspects of US elections: Dave Wasserman for on-the-night race calls Michael Macdonald for early voting Ann Selzer for Iowa Jon Ralston for Nevada.
I've been following Ralston since 2012 at least, and Selzer since 2004. Iowa never seemed in contention this year, but if Selzer says it is, then I take her over a whole legion of pollsters and analysts saying otherwise. I thought that the wonky economy in Nevada, plus the demographics, meant that Nevada was a likely loss for the Dems, but if Ralston says otherwise, albeit by a tiny margin, then I have to trust him.
If Iowa goes Dem, then Trump has no chance in Wisconsin or Michigan. And maybe Walz will help there too. If Nevada, the flakiest bit of the southwest, stays Dem, then Arizona stays Dem far more easily. The mechanisms for the a Dem win cited by Selzer apply elsewhere too - women (including R women) going heavily Dem, undecideds moving D, lots of new voters (the other day, 1 in 8 early voters in Detroit were on-the-day registrants!). And while I thought initially the garbage island 'joke' was trivial, it turns out it's not been seen that way
So, I think Harris wins IA (Selzer); MI and WI (because of IA); NV (Ralston); AZ (Ralston and Latino), PA (Puerto Rican and massive GOTV from Dems - they canvassed in four hours on Saturday the total Rep target for the whole campaign); NC (women, undecideds, hurricane effects), NE-02, and FL. Yes I think the Dems win Florida. Trump gains GA. It was insanely narrow last time, the reported gains for Trump among young black men are apparently real, and the Abrams GOTV machine has by all accounts fallen apart.
Final EC score: 341-197. (edited, I forgot to switch NC on the 270towin map!)
In the Senate, the Dems lose WV and MT. I'd love to see Tester hold on, but I can't quite stretch that far. They hold everywhere else including OH. They gain FL (it's those Latinos again, plus Rick Scott is a crap campaigner, and widely hated. Oh, and hurricanes). Osborn beats Fischer in NE, but keeps his word and doesn't caucus with either side. Senate finishes 50 (D+I)-49 (R) -1 (I).
Dems retake the House.
I fervently hope you are right and, Senate aside, your prognostications are well within the range of my own.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
Treating is as gospel surely is good news*.
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
And TimT (brought up CoE despite being a confirmed atheist)
Gospel means good news, is the answer as simple as that, or am I missing something clever?
That was my take, although, given Foxy’s answer and like, perhaps I am missing something too
Another £2.5 million+ is looking to back Trump at 1.7 acting as a bulwark against his price drifting. If someone is so sure he is going to win, why not hoover up the £150k+ available to back him at 1.66-1.68?
Dodgy as fuck.
I hope BF will be looking into all this after the election.
I don’t see how it actually helps a win - surely keeping your nose in front is the carrot that guarantees your opponent gets the vote out? Even worse if your own voters believe the hype, meet their mates to shoot a few hoops instead of voting for you. Unless I’m missing something?
The only thing it would help is the “we were robbed” agenda after a loss. But no, it doesn’t even help that, after a sizeable PV and EC loss, pointing at an old betting market means zilch to everyone.
This MAGA campaign is just very very stupid. Like the football team that would have outplayed the opponent if concentrated playing football, but chose to focus on the players not the ball, chose to live in the grey area’s, when winning would have been easier just playing it straight.
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
Nobody gives a fly f - especially the eve before the US election to end all elections.
Whatever genius gave the tory party their leadership timetable needs to consider another career.
Well yeah, but, but, but the US election is over tomorrow.
And we're get back to Kier and Rachel presiding over little old grannies freezing to death this winter... And people will start to give an "F" about the Tories...
You know it to be true RB
"the US election is over tomorrow."
Clearly you're a "glass half full" kind of guy!
Especially as the ACTUAL election isn't until December . . .
And something happens in January, too, doesn’t it?
I don’t think the Dems take Florida. That feels a step too far. What I would say is that I think they’ll get much closer there than the polls suggest, and that will come as a surprise.
I was mildly alarmed today to learn that a structural engineer friend uses chatgpt to do his structural engineering calculations. Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
Sorry, what??
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
You’d be amazed how many otherwise intelligent professional people have come to treat LLM output as gospel. It really is rather worrying.
Treating is as gospel surely is good news*.
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
And TimT (brought up CoE despite being a confirmed atheist)
Gospel means good news, is the answer as simple as that, or am I missing something clever?
That was my take, although, given Foxy’s answer and like, perhaps I am missing something too
If that was the test, it’s even cheesier than “Speak friend, and enter.”
Another £2.5 million+ is looking to back Trump at 1.7 acting as a bulwark against his price drifting. If someone is so sure he is going to win, why not hoover up the £150k+ available to back him at 1.66-1.68?
Dodgy as fuck.
I hope BF will be looking into all this after the election.
You can't really stop super-rich people from betting, even if they are acting as whales.
Plus what's even the problem? No one's trading on margin here. If the odds are manipulated it's an opportunity.
What is the PB consensus on Kemi's shadow cabinet and particularly Mel Stride as shadow chancellor?
Nobody gives a fly f - especially the eve before the US election to end all elections.
Whatever genius gave the tory party their leadership timetable needs to consider another career.
Well yeah, but, but, but the US election is over tomorrow.
And we're get back to Kier and Rachel presiding over little old grannies freezing to death this winter... And people will start to give an "F" about the Tories...
You know it to be true RB
"the US election is over tomorrow."
Clearly you're a "glass half full" kind of guy!
Especially as the ACTUAL election isn't until December . . .
And something happens in January, too, doesn’t it?
You need some heroic assumptions for the election NOT to come down to Pennslyvania. Even a leftshift of Georgia and a rightward shift of Nevada still leave it likely as the tipping point state.
The main way that happens is if Harris wins North Carolina.
Another £2.5 million+ is looking to back Trump at 1.7 acting as a bulwark against his price drifting. If someone is so sure he is going to win, why not hoover up the £150k+ available to back him at 1.66-1.68?
It's crazy odds for a tossup.
I have my stakes pretty much done now, green on anything up from 240 Harris EV, very green on a Harris landslide. I have some stake money put aside for on the night opportunism and trimming.
Interesting analysis of the Selzer poll by an Iowan from abortion, tariffs, Tim Walz, and child labour laws perspectives. And the fact that many GOP voters in IA died during COVID due to the Governor refusing to mandate mask-wearing. The first time I have heard that argument deployed recently:
The way to play POTUS this time was to bet the swings. Harris was too hot when first taking the nomination when the personal economy for a lot of Americans didnt feel in great shape. In turn when Trump went back to a pretty decisive favoritism, this overestimated his chances.
The Trump campaign's attempt to create inevitability is an interesting tactic with all kinds of possible motivations and purposes. A lot of people bought it but it was never inevitable and certainly there is some suggestion of last days swing towards Harris.
Only after will we truly find that one campaign really did know they were in trouble in the last few days. Right now rest of us don't know.
Interesting analysis of the Selzer poll by an Iowan from abortion, tariffs, Tim Walz, and child labour laws perspectives. And the fact that many GOP voters in IA died during COVID due to the Governor refusing to mandate mask-wearing. The first time I have heard that argument deployed recently:
Interesting analysis of the Selzer poll by an Iowan from abortion, tariffs, Tim Walz, and child labour laws perspectives. And the fact that many GOP voters in IA died during COVID due to the Governor refusing to mandate mask-wearing. The first time I have heard that argument deployed recently:
A five second google gives a death total in Iowa of 10K
2million voters.
I wouldn't dismiss it - if the average person has say 5 close relatives and 5 close friends that's 10 people heavily affected by each death which would be 100k people or 5% of the vote.
And that's before you factor in a far greater number of less close friends, work colleagues etc.
You are probably right and Trump wins, but these polls are garbage. Yesterday was their final and last poll before the election, and now this one drops. Atlasintel have been dropping polls every five minutes.
Interesting analysis of the Selzer poll by an Iowan from abortion, tariffs, Tim Walz, and child labour laws perspectives. And the fact that many GOP voters in IA died during COVID due to the Governor refusing to mandate mask-wearing. The first time I have heard that argument deployed recently:
A five second google gives a death total in Iowa of 10K
2million voters.
I wouldn't dismiss it - if the average person has say 5 close relatives and 5 close friends that's 10 people heavily affected by each death which would be 100k people or 5% of the vote.
And that's before you factor in a far greater number of less close friends, work colleagues etc.
Ok. I thought he meant the GOP voters had actually died. But maybe he was saying loads of people know people who died because of the covid situation and lack of mask mandate and other issues.
Comments
RFK Jr is perfect surrogate for banging this drum for Trump.
Nothing really wrong with that, but it does have real implications for those trying to get their votes, and it would be absurd to pretend that it’s not a thing.
That said, some people vote the way they do for really quite odd reasons. Anyone who has done some canvassing for any party will tell you that.
Perplexity's newest story was two days old, most were 3-5. GPT-search was sometimes more recent, but it also just hallucinated about 20% of the stories and links it gave me.
Both are better at general 'research' questions where it's saving me a bit of digging into wikipedia. For for 'right here, right now' - I've written them both off for now.
Vance wants women to be Madonas . . . while Trump wants 'em to be whores.
Harris 51% Trump 48%
https://www.survation.com/harris-narrowly-ahead-in-pennsylvania/
Apparently the paid for version is better than the free version. But still.
I do worry she has a very thin pool to choose from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_McDonald's_E._coli_outbreak
He's going for Harris, just. (48.5 to 48.2).
Even though I'm rabidly pro-Harris, I trust his prediction less than ever. There is a lot of motivated reasoning in his prediction.
If I were betting on Nevada (I'm not) I'd say Trump.
Whatever genius gave the tory party their leadership timetable needs to consider another career.
I hope it isn't for anything more than a shed. And even then...
If the American public wants all this, then they'll be given it, good and hard.
Nobody's gonna hold me down, oh no
I gotta keep on moving!
And then we're get back to Kier and Rachel presiding over little old grannies freezing to death this winter... And people will start to give an "F" about the Tories...
You know it to be true RB
It may however when prompted correctly be useful for developing a model so long as the user has expert understanding.
Clearly you're a "glass half full" kind of guy!
Especially as the ACTUAL election isn't until December . . .
* I hope that least some people get this. My money is on @ydoethur and @StillWaters.
Betfair - Kamala Harris +64.5 ECV
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.233645194
Odds are 1.35
Even is Harris lost every single swing stare AND Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine and Nebraska 2nd District where she is comfortably ahead in all 4, this bet would still come in. She would need to lose Virginia or New Mexico as well for this to fail.
I don't understand what you would even ask ChatGPT that would make any kind of sense.
Edit: No I think Smukesh is right.
Trump with all the swing states hits 312 ECVs, Harris is on 241.
So Harris +64.5 = 305.5.
@MilesPartridge You're describing a Harris +129 ECVs bet.
So if Harris wins 205 ECV then add the 64.5 ECV then she reaches 269.5 ECV which would count as the bet winning.
If she loses the 7 swing states she is on 226, Losing MN, NH, MA and NB 2nd leaves her on 209 ECV, 209 + 64.5 is 273.5.
Edit - I have since been corrected - to say that Trump would be 330 or so ECV, please ignore
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1853558745298538503
I thought it was too good to be true, thank you for pointing out my error.
Because if she loses those, Trump will be on 330 or so, and she will be on 273.5.
Have a good night PB 👍
There are four people I've learned to really trust on their areas of expertise, in detailed aspects of US elections:
Dave Wasserman for on-the-night race calls
Michael Macdonald for early voting
Ann Selzer for Iowa
Jon Ralston for Nevada.
I've been following Ralston since 2012 at least, and Selzer since 2004. Iowa never seemed in contention this year, but if Selzer says it is, then I take her over a whole legion of pollsters and analysts saying otherwise. I thought that the wonky economy in Nevada, plus the demographics, meant that Nevada was a likely loss for the Dems, but if Ralston says otherwise, albeit by a tiny margin, then I have to trust him.
If Iowa goes Dem, then Trump has no chance in Wisconsin or Michigan. And maybe Walz will help there too.
If Nevada, the flakiest bit of the southwest, stays Dem, then Arizona stays Dem far more easily.
The mechanisms for the a Dem win cited by Selzer apply elsewhere too - women (including R women) going heavily Dem, undecideds moving D, lots of new voters (the other day, 1 in 8 early voters in Detroit were on-the-day registrants!).
And while I thought initially the garbage island 'joke' was trivial, it turns out it's not been seen that way
So, I think Harris wins IA (Selzer); MI and WI (because of IA); NV (Ralston); AZ (Ralston and Latino), PA (Puerto Rican and massive GOTV from Dems - they canvassed in four hours on Saturday the total Rep target for the whole campaign); NC (women, undecideds, hurricane effects), NE-02, and FL. Yes I think the Dems win Florida.
Trump gains GA. It was insanely narrow last time, the reported gains for Trump among young black men are apparently real, and the Abrams GOTV machine has by all accounts fallen apart.
Final EC score: 341-197. (edited, I forgot to switch NC on the 270towin map!)
In the Senate, the Dems lose WV and MT. I'd love to see Tester hold on, but I can't quite stretch that far. They hold everywhere else including OH. They gain FL (it's those Latinos again, plus Rick Scott is a crap campaigner, and widely hated. Oh, and hurricanes). Osborn beats Fischer in NE, but keeps his word and doesn't caucus with either side.
Senate finishes 50 (D+I)-49 (R) -1 (I).
Dems retake the House.
And then his term… happened.
It was obvious to anyone who wasn't a fool, it would always end up like this. Always.
I hope BF will be looking into all this after the election.
Florida ain’t going Dem.
By the way, I am sure PB shrewdies told us that Trump had dropped Farage like a hot potato and was all about Sir Tosspot these days??
The only thing it would help is the “we were robbed” agenda after a loss. But no, it doesn’t even help that, after a sizeable PV and EC loss, pointing at an old betting market means zilch to everyone.
This MAGA campaign is just very very stupid. Like the football team that would have outplayed the opponent if concentrated playing football, but chose to focus on the players not the ball, chose to live in the grey area’s, when winning would have been easier just playing it straight.
https://x.com/7Veritas4/status/1853266550242877868
I have my stakes pretty much done now, green on anything up from 240 Harris EV, very green on a Harris landslide. I have some stake money put aside for on the night opportunism and trimming.
There's nothing like election night on PB.
https://x.com/ndkirschmann/status/1853321833266761924
The Trump campaign's attempt to create inevitability is an interesting tactic with all kinds of possible motivations and purposes. A lot of people bought it but it was never inevitable and certainly there is some suggestion of last days swing towards Harris.
Only after will we truly find that one campaign really did know they were in trouble in the last few days. Right now rest of us don't know.
Kamala Harris will win.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media/GbkjUJFXUAAPzl-.png
You do not also deduct one goal from the other team's score.
This ECV market will work the same way.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brits-want-donald-trump-to-lose-kamala-harris-victory-poll-finds/
A five second google gives a death total in Iowa of 10K
2million voters.
#Final Atlasintel General Election Poll
🔴 Arizona - Trump +5
🔴 Nevada - Trump +3
🔴 North Carolina - Trump +2
🔴 Georgia - Trump +2
🔴 Michigan - Trump +2
🔴Pennsylvania - Trump +1
🔴 Wisconsin - Trump +1
🔵Minnesota - Harris +2
🔵Virginia - Harris +5
#A - LV - 11/3-11/4
And that's before you factor in a far greater number of less close friends, work colleagues etc.