Octopus Overlords

Alefroth wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:47 amif you question someone's motives, you'll probably understand their judgement.

I think that if you question someone's motives, you're likely to find yourself so disgusted by them that you can't keep trying to work with them.

When I worked at the jail as a corrections officer, I deliberately refused to read inmate files so my dealings with them would remain as impartial as possible. Biden sounds like he's doing the same thing.

A second poll showing Biden’s lead widening:

https://twitter.com/allisonlhedges/stat ... 75555?s=21

By the time the election takes place, Biden should be 64 to Trump's 33... which has always been the number of hardcore Trumpers, I think. The unshakable, unbreakable death cult. 33% of the US population.

Grifman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:03 am A second poll showing Biden’s lead widening:

https://twitter.com/allisonlhedges/stat ... 75555?s=21

They scares me because desperate times will call for desperate measures.

I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

Paingod wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:05 am By the time the election takes place, Biden should be 64 to Trump's 33... which has always been the number of hardcore Trumpers, I think. The unshakable, unbreakable death cult. 33% of the US population.

...US voting population.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:40 am

Defiant wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:40 am If this is really how he feels (as opposed to trying to say something meant to appeal to the voters), after years of being in the Obama administration and after years of the Trump administration, then I suspect we may just get a repeat of the Obama years.

Right now, I would give my pinkie toe for a repeat of the Obama administration.

Sure. But you won't be able to fix the damage of the current administration (let alone address the other problems) if you fall into the same trap Obama did.

Paingod wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:05 am By the time the election takes place, Biden should be 64 to Trump's 33... which has always been the number of hardcore Trumpers, I think. The unshakable, unbreakable death cult. 33% of the US population.

I would have thought the hardcore Trumpers were the ~45% of the Republican party that supported/voted for Trump in the 2016 primary, which I would estimate at about 20% of the US population. But there's probably another 15-20% that are hardcore Republicans. They may be disgusted with Trump, but they'll vote for anyone over a Democrat.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am They scares me because desperate times will call for desperate measures.

I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

There's nothing Trump will do now that he wouldn't also do if the race were a toss-up.

He has no restraint.

Holman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:38 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am They scares me because desperate times will call for desperate measures.

I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

There's nothing Trump will do now that he wouldn't also do if the race were a toss-up.

He has no restraint.

Not worried about Trump. Or more or precisely, not worried about him getting desperate as he's already there. More worried about the rest of the GOP "leadership" and the base. And his handlers loosening the leash.



I mean imagine if you're a hardcore Trumper and the poll numbers are that grim. And he told you to go to the polls and "watch". Well the numbers are motivation enough to get you off your ass, put on your red hat, strap on a rifle and stand 200 feet from a polling place.

Defiant wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:40 am Biden gave another town hall (video here if you want to watch it]). He did fine, but one answer annoyed me. When asked about unifying the country (in the last ~10 minutes of the debate), when referring to Republicans he said "it's always appropriate to question someone else's judgment, it's never appropriate to question their motive"

If this is really how he feels (as opposed to trying to say something meant to appeal to the voters), after years of being in the Obama administration and after years of the Trump administration, then I suspect we may just get a repeat of the Obama years.

I believe, in its original context, 'question' meant 'publicly call out'. The implication was that if you're going to call someone out in public you call out their actions rather that attacking their character. Boss to employee: "You made a mistake, John." vs "You are a screw-up, John." Sort of a gentleman's agreement, a philosophy of respect. It does not mean not to consider their motives in private, nor does it mean not to call out bad actors.

Personally I liked his answer. Keep to disagreements about the issues and not the individuals making the argument. It keeps personal issues out of the discussion. Of course both sides have to play the game for it to work.

But that’s how it is supposed to work.

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:46 am
I believe, in its original context, 'question' meant 'publicly call out'. The implication was that if you're going to call someone out in public you call out their actions rather that attacking their character. Boss to employee: "You made a mistake, John." vs "You are a screw-up, John." Sort of a gentleman's agreement, a philosophy of respect. It does not mean not to consider their motives in private, nor does it mean not to call out bad actors.

I hope you're right.

Defiant wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:55 am

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:46 am
I believe, in its original context, 'question' meant 'publicly call out'. The implication was that if you're going to call someone out in public you call out their actions rather that attacking their character. Boss to employee: "You made a mistake, John." vs "You are a screw-up, John." Sort of a gentleman's agreement, a philosophy of respect. It does not mean not to consider their motives in private, nor does it mean not to call out bad actors.

I hope you're right.

My example of someone with this philosophy calling out a bad actor might be, "You made a mistake, Don" vs "You're a clown, Don."

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am
I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

Well, it's not like Biden can prevent a third party poll from being released

Scoop20906 wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:53 am Personally I liked his answer. Keep to disagreements about the issues and not the individuals making the argument. It keeps personal issues out of the discussion. Of course both sides have to play the game for it to work.

But that’s how it is supposed to work.

It's not working. And this is the area that concerns me about Biden the most. Obama played this game already as noted above. Biden needs to learn from that experience. Saying things like this is fine for the election season but he needs to transition into a heavy reform political war chief. If he doesn't, we are just kicking the can down the road on the eventual big meltdown.

That said, you don't even have to question their motives. They *told us* their motives years ago and they've been ruthlessly implementing them within the system wherever they can and are bending the system where they can. Hoping that the GOP's fevers breaks and they snap into comity is *beyond absurd* at the moment. Trump will potentially be agitating from the sidelines. The tea party has transformed into a Trumpist organ and they might drift away from that but it still will have a core white nationalist identity that will plague the system.

In that context, we desperately need reform. Now what I hope he is doing is saying these things to get the *huge* majority he needs to start on reform. Reform that will be fought tooth and nail by the GOP. They might need to get the states to sign onto the popular vote compact, he might need to pack the courts, they might need to abolish the filibuster if it turns into a liberum veto for his whole agenda. He might need to do somewhat drastic things to restore order in our government. That Biden keeps dodging the 'court packing' question seems to indicate he knows he might need freedom to move that way if absolutely necessary. In other words, he may be operating under the assumption that no threat, weapon, or bargaining chip needs to be played now. That's a good sign but if he actually means what he is saying we might be looking at a nation blowing apart as we become increasingly ungovernable.

Grifman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:14 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am
I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

Well, it's not like Biden can prevent a third party poll from being released

Right, I'm just saying that having them out there gives the Trump team information that helps their cause. So it's less reassuring to me than the numbers might indicate, especially if it's accurate since it's accurate actionable info.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:21 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:14 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am
I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

Well, it's not like Biden can prevent a third party poll from being released

Right, I'm just saying that having them out there gives the Trump team information that helps their cause. So it's less reassuring to me than the numbers might indicate, especially if it's accurate since it's accurate actionable info.

I don't think it help's Trump's team, because Trump is going to Trump.

It may help other Republicans in the party, if they act on this information.

(To be fair, I think the poll is an outlier, but it would still be smart for politicians to distance themselves from Trump)

On the other hand, why Penn may yet go for Trump again, despite home son Biden:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/opinions ... index.html

Grifman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:19 pm On the other hand, why Penn may yet go for Trump again, despite home son Biden:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/opinions ... index.html

What a terrible piece. I know it's opinion, but it's not even coherent.

"I would say that Joe Biden would come out victorious. But I would also likely be wrong." is one line and then the end "They are the same reasons [Trump] might [win] it again in 2020."

"And while Biden maintains a lead in most Pennsylvania polls, it's worth remembering Hillary Clinton did, too -- and Trump still came out victorious." Biden's lead has been consistent and is widening where Clinton's was marginal on multiple occasions and narrowing.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 3466528768

Biden's average lead is now back up to close to 9, up from around +7ish a week or two ago. Pretty significant movement, though it remains to be seen whether there will be reversion or not.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:03 am A second poll showing Biden’s lead widening:

https://twitter.com/allisonlhedges/stat ... 75555?s=21

They scares me because desperate times will call for desperate measures.

I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

Overall a large lead makes me less nervous about election shenanigans. To have a decent chance of staying in office, Trump has to be able to point to a plausible claim that he won 270 electoral college votes, even if it means ignoring various shenigans engaged in to get to that point. The larger the lead, the harder it is to get to a vote count that's sufficient to justify claiming victory.

Also, the more doomed Trump seems the less likely that state and local officials will be willing to stick their necks out to try to save him.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:57 pm Overall a large lead makes me less nervous about election shenanigans. To have a decent chance of staying in office, Trump has to be able to point to a plausible claim that he won 270 electoral college votes, even if it means ignoring various shenigans engaged in to get to that point. The larger the lead, the harder it is to get to a vote count that's sufficient to justify claiming victory.

Also, the more doomed Trump seems the less likely that state and local officials will be willing to stick their necks out to try to save him.

Yeah, a Biden landslide is the only sure way to overcome trump's strategy, which is (1) prevent Democrats from voting, and (2) invalidate as many ballots as possible. In close races, that will work to "win" outright or at least throw the verdict to their friendly courts.

I also predict (3) a last-minute influx of fake mail-in ballots from our Russian friends -- enough to make a credible appearance of voter fraud. They don't even need to actually fool anyone, just generate headlines and gum up the works.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:57 pmAlso, the more doomed Trump seems the less likely that state and local officials will be willing to stick their necks out to try to save him.

Hearing that the Republicans are mailing clerks and other involved personnel anywhere they can to tell them to ignore some guidelines on voting doesn't inspire confidence. I worry about the "Well, if everyone else does it, I should too" mentality it might create.

While the 16-point lead is a bit of an outlier, even a 9-10% national lead is generally seen as an almost sure bet electoral college win. No matter how you slice it, it's good news for Biden.

I'd also point out that due to the stability in the polls we've had since June, the fact that Biden is picking up, on average, a point in each state means undecideds are breaking his way.

Kraken wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:04 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:57 pm Overall a large lead makes me less nervous about election shenanigans. To have a decent chance of staying in office, Trump has to be able to point to a plausible claim that he won 270 electoral college votes, even if it means ignoring various shenigans engaged in to get to that point. The larger the lead, the harder it is to get to a vote count that's sufficient to justify claiming victory.

Also, the more doomed Trump seems the less likely that state and local officials will be willing to stick their necks out to try to save him.

Yeah, a Biden landslide is the only sure way to overcome trump's strategy, which is (1) prevent Democrats from voting, and (2) invalidate as many ballots as possible. In close races, that will work to "win" outright or at least throw the verdict to their friendly courts.

I also predict (3) a last-minute influx of fake mail-in ballots from our Russian friends -- enough to make a credible appearance of voter fraud. They don't even need to actually fool anyone, just generate headlines and gum up the works.

All the "insurmountable" lead does is shift the tactic from electioneering to something else. Like I said, desperate measures. The scary stuff, not more mundane things like mailing letters and intimidating voters, as bad as they are.

I’ve seen some discussion that the big Biden numbers recently might reflect what’s called “partisan non-response,” as demoralized Republicans are refusing to go through the effort of responding to polls. Apparently this is a known pattern.

This would mean that Biden is still ahead, but not by what those polls show. Trumpers who hang up on pollsters will still vote in November.

The Biden campaign needs to link a vote pile on to establishing the mandate to repudiate Trump and the GOP agenda. Even just to keep the momentum up. We don't have much experience with apparent leads this big in this country -- since 1984 at least. What's crazy is Reagan won 49 states with a slightly bigger popular vote count. And Joe...will get maybe 30. Probably.

malchior wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:04 pm We don't have much experience with apparent leads this big in this country -- since 1984 at least.

Clinton did have a few polls in this range in 1996. (He went on to win by 8.5% and won 31 states)

Holman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:41 pm I’ve seen some discussion that the big Biden numbers recently might reflect what’s called “partisan non-response,” as demoralized Republicans are refusing to go through the effort of responding to polls. Apparently this is a known pattern.

This would mean that Biden is still ahead, but not by what those polls show. Trumpers who hang up on pollsters will still vote in November.

Wouldn't that be easy to correct for?

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:58 am

Holman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:38 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am They scares me because desperate times will call for desperate measures.

I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

There's nothing Trump will do now that he wouldn't also do if the race were a toss-up.

He has no restraint.

Not worried about Trump. Or more or precisely, not worried about him getting desperate as he's already there. More worried about the rest of the GOP "leadership" and the base. And his handlers loosening the leash.



I mean imagine if you're a hardcore Trumper and the poll numbers are that grim. And he told you to go to the polls and "watch". Well the numbers are motivation enough to get you off your ass, put on your red hat, strap on a rifle and stand 200 feet from a polling place.

I am not sure what that even accomplishes. Unless they start demanding to see ID or forcibly preventing brown people from entering the polling places, what does it matter?

Jaymann wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:03 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:58 am

Holman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:38 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:06 am They scares me because desperate times will call for desperate measures.

I also assume Sun Tzu warned against letting the enemy see your true strength of numbers prior to the battle.

There's nothing Trump will do now that he wouldn't also do if the race were a toss-up.

He has no restraint.

Not worried about Trump. Or more or precisely, not worried about him getting desperate as he's already there. More worried about the rest of the GOP "leadership" and the base. And his handlers loosening the leash.



I mean imagine if you're a hardcore Trumper and the poll numbers are that grim. And he told you to go to the polls and "watch". Well the numbers are motivation enough to get you off your ass, put on your red hat, strap on a rifle and stand 200 feet from a polling place.

I am not sure what that even accomplishes. Unless they start demanding to see ID or forcibly preventing brown people from entering the polling places, what does it matter?

Intimidation.

I think there’s lots of folks who would turn around out of an abundance of caution if some MAGA nut was standing out front of their polling place with a gun.

National Conference of State Legislatures

Eleven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas—the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico explicitly prohibit guns and other weapons in polling places.

In many other states, concealed and open carry laws may restrict or allow the presence of firearms in certain locations that happen to be polling places, but not by virtue of their being polling places alone. For example, states may prohibit firearms in public schools, which are often designated as polling places thereby prohibiting firearms at those specific polling sites.

Alefroth wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:55 pm

Holman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:41 pm I’ve seen some discussion that the big Biden numbers recently might reflect what’s called “partisan non-response,” as demoralized Republicans are refusing to go through the effort of responding to polls. Apparently this is a known pattern.

This would mean that Biden is still ahead, but not by what those polls show. Trumpers who hang up on pollsters will still vote in November.

Wouldn't that be easy to correct for?

I would think it depends on who it was. If it was Republicans, who are pretty solidly behind Trump, then it would be easy. If it was independents, then it might not be.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:20 pm National Conference of State Legislatures

Eleven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas—the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico explicitly prohibit guns and other weapons in polling places.

In many other states, concealed and open carry laws may restrict or allow the presence of firearms in certain locations that happen to be polling places, but not by virtue of their being polling places alone. For example, states may prohibit firearms in public schools, which are often designated as polling places thereby prohibiting firearms at those specific polling sites.

That's why I specified a probable safe distance like 200 feet. Similar to standing out there with prohibited signage, etc. In many cases just standing across the street is OK.

Alefroth wrote:Wouldn't that be easy to correct for?

Right, like this isn’t the first time pollsters have encountered this, how would it not be part of their modeling?

It’s like when climate deniers start yelling about solar forcings, like climatologists never thought about that before.

Alefroth wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:55 pm

Holman wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:41 pm I’ve seen some discussion that the big Biden numbers recently might reflect what’s called “partisan non-response,” as demoralized Republicans are refusing to go through the effort of responding to polls. Apparently this is a known pattern.

This would mean that Biden is still ahead, but not by what those polls show. Trumpers who hang up on pollsters will still vote in November.

Wouldn't that be easy to correct for?

I wouldn't call it 'easy' - more routine. There are some trade offs involved that make this somewhat complicated for the pollsters. Still, this a pretty standard missing data issue. Statisticians deal with it all the time. I learned how to deal during my Master's Degree coursework. That said, it should be pretty obvious to the pollsters if this is happening. Assuming they detect it, they should be able to figure out who is talking to them and who isn't based on past surveys to get an idea how distorted the population is. Then they would need to impute values for that missing population. That'll mess with the uncertainty values - maybe significantly. That said, reputable pollsters would be disclosing this in their methodology.

Surprise! Scalzi endorses Joe Biden.

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:56 pm Surprise! Scalzi endorses Joe Biden.

No one expects greatness from Joe Biden. They expect adequate competence. He’ll probably be fine is the mantra here.

And he will, again, probably do fine! He’ll be just fine. His administration will be just fine, full of smart, competent people who will also do just fine, not a revolution but maybe some decent, solid steps forward to where we as a nation need to be. His fuckups will keep the Sunday talk show people employed but normal people won’t have to care much. A Biden administration will probably not consume every waking moment of your day with an existential dread about what awful racist shit it’s up to now, and how it might undermine the basic fucking fabric of American society.

Honestly, despite the disclaimer at the top, this reads like a pretty ringing endorsement to me.

I kind of think Biden should have gone with "He'll Do Fine" as his campaign slogan. Better than "Build Back Better", for sure.

Make politics boring again.