Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Kamala Harris' time is up

If Dick Cheney wants to help Kamala Harris he should just shut the fuck up unless the octogenarian war criminal demographic is one that she desperately needs on her side, I think his endorsement more likely to push away antiwar Democratic voters than it is to attract wavering independents or anti-Trump Republicans
 
Thought this from the new LRB was pretty good (apologies if already posted):
www.lrb.co.uk

Christian Lorentzen · Not a Tough Crowd: Among the Democrats

The Democratic Party is now the party of labour and of capital; the party of debtors and of bankers; the party of anti-...
www.lrb.co.uk www.lrb.co.uk

Trump’s ideological destruction of the bond between the conservative movement and the Republican Party – previously united under the tripartite imperatives of free enterprise, Christianity and a strong military – and his transformation of the GOP into a personality cult with an atmosphere of white grievance and nativism have allowed the Democrats to open their tent to all-comers, from neocons to the self-proclaimed socialist left. It is now the party of labour and of capital; the party of debtors and of bankers; the party that mocks the Ivy League but is largely run by Ivy Leaguers; the party of anti-monopolists and of Silicon Valley; the party for immigrants and for border security; the party of insiders and of the marginalised; the party of the football team and of the sorority; the party of family and of freedom; the party of ceasefires and of the war machine; the party that opposes fascism but abets a genocide...

That Ocasio-Cortez was granted a primetime slot signalled the alliance forged under Joe Biden between the party’s centrist establishment and its formerly insurgent left wing.

The uneasiness of that alliance became clear the next night when Bernie Sanders asserted that ‘billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.’ It was a reference to his thwarted 2016 challenge to Hillary Clinton, but also to the recent defeat of two left-leaning congressional incumbents, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, who had spoken out against Israel’s war in Gaza, to candidates funded by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Sanders was followed by J.B. Pritzker, governor of Illinois and son of the president of Hyatt Hotels. ‘Donald Trump thinks that we should trust him on the economy,’ Pritzker said, ‘because he claims to be very rich. But take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only one thing: stupidity!’ The applause from the hometown audience was overwhelming – it wasn’t a tough crowd – and the woman to my right, who had spent Sanders’s speech discussing Taylor Swift with the woman on her other side, gushed: ‘He’s such a badass!’ The juxtaposition showed that the Democratic tent is big enough for firebrands who denounce billionaires as well as the right sort of billionaire...

I will be surprised if Trump and Vance defeat Harris and Walz in November. The Democratic Party is the most powerful force in American society. It has won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections, and the nation’s organised money and institutions are behind it. A real sea-change will occur when it faces significant resistance from someone other than a gang of rich scumbags and the folks they manage to con.
Click to expand...
 
fortune.com

Harris is leading Trump, and it may be a landslide says top data scientist

The election has "gone from a drastic landslide in Trump's direction to a drastic landslide for Harris," marvels Northwestern's Thomas Miller.
fortune.com fortune.com

Could there be a Kamala Harris landslide in November? The data scientist who correctly called the last election is betting yes

In all three 2020 contests, Miller [data scientist] beat virtually every pollster, and modeler parsing multiple voter surveys. He missed the size of Biden’s win in the electoral college by just 12 votes, tagging every state for the correct column save Georgia. For the two senate runoffs, Miller refined his approach to sorting data on the Peach State, and scored again. A week before Election Day on December 6, 2020, the polls gave Republican David Perdue a wide lead over Democrat Jon Ossoff, and showed the GOP’s Kelly Loeffler in a dead heat versus opponent Raphael Warnock. By contrast, Miller’s numbers had Loeffler heading for a big loss, and Ossoff en route to a modest victory. Once again, the contrarian academic nailed it: Miller was just 0.2% short on Warnock’s 2.0% margin, and precisely on target in forecasting Ossoff’s 1.0% final bulge at the ballot box.Harris vs. Trump in the polls and prediction marketsMiller’s approach vastly differs from the most of political prognostications by relying not on polls, but the prices established by Americans wagering their own dollars on the candidates they reckon are most likely to prevail. “Political betting sites are the best at predicting the wisdom of the crowd,” he told Fortune. He states that while polls tell you about the past, the odds on the betting sites map the future. “Polls are as snapshot of the recent past,” he adds. “They typically canvas small samples of 500 to 1,500 people. And the pollsters are asking respondents whom they’re planning to vote for at that moment, which may have changed a few days later when the results are posted. Most polls are around four or five days behind.”

...

Miller notes that at least in recent history, America’s never witnessed a reversal of fortune remotely as dramatic as this one. “It’s gone from a drastic landslide in Trump’s direction to a drastic landslide for Harris,” he marvels. The distance is now so great that only another epic swing would bring Trump back into contention, and Miller predicts that right now, it looks like Harris will win big on November 5. As a coda, he recalls a slogan the Johnson campaign used to bash Goldwater: “In your gut you know he’s nuts.” Miller’s markets-based analysis posits that the people betting their own money are right in predicting that by the time the candidates left the stage on September 10, millions of voters likely to back Donald Trump abandoned the ex-President, starting the shock waves that could cause an avalanche for Harris that as of now, few see building.
Click to expand...
we shall see :)
 
The problem with using markets as predictors is that they don’t actually show what people think they show. They are a kind of metarepresentation of reality rather than a representation of it — they show what “he thinks that you think that they think” will happen. Often that lines up with what “they think” but it doesn’t always, and the recursive nature of the metarepresentation means that the prediction can become catastrophically wrong quite quickly, particularly under circumstances whereby what “he thinks that you think that they think” is chaotic or opaque. So you can do all the backtesting you like and all is really doing is overspecifying the model, not really validating it.
 
The bit in that reasoning for polls that I don't follow is why a price of 52 cents should translate into 52% of the vote. In, say, California, the Dems are likely to win about 60% of the vote. There is zero chance of Trump winning there and everyone knows it, so surely the price on the Dems winning California would be 90 cents plus. Nobody is going to back Trump to win California at 40 cents. That's a terrible bet.

fwiw I think it's good to look at both the betting and the polls and it is interesting when they diverge from one another. If anything the betting was slow to change to odds-on Harris after polling started to show her in the lead. The polls show a marked change after the televised debate, with Trump dipping pretty much everywhere. Yes, you have to wait a few days to get the results so they're not a 'live' forecast, but the other thing to factor in is that among other things, betting is going to be a reaction to polling, whether that is opinion polls conducted after an event or snap polls of panels conducted on the day. So the change in the betting odds after the debate will mostly have been a reaction to the snap polls indicating 2-1 that Harris had 'won' the debate. That's the best information about other people's voting intentions betters are going to have.
 
Last edited:
PR1Berske said:
How can they change the rules so close to the election?
Click to expand...
Because they are lying, cheating, fucking scumbags, who think they can do what the fuck they want, having the SC in their pocket, and the threat of civil war at their fingertips. They think rules don't apply to them, and they have got away with so much for so long, so they are probably right. Every fucking last one of his enablers needs to be behind bars, along with the commander-in-cheat himself. Garland has a lot to answer for allowing this pos to remain free and still be a contender for the presidency. It just beggars belief that he is still free and spouting his lying bs instead of being behind bars, or executed as a traitor. I think his preferred method was firing squads for treason, so step up and be the first to have your wishes enacted you bastard.

Apologies for the swearing, but I hate this crook so fudging much, and it's so frustrating that he is still there vying for power again.
 
breadandcircuse said:
Because they are lying, cheating, fucking scumbags, who think they can do what the fuck they want, having the SC in their pocket, and the threat of civil war at their fingertips. They think rules don't apply to them, and they have got away with so much for so long, so they are probably right. Every fucking last one of his enablers needs to be behind bars, along with the commander-in-cheat himself. Garland has a lot to answer for allowing this pos to remain free and still be a contender for the presidency. It just beggars belief that he is still free and spouting his lying bs instead of being behind bars, or executed as a traitor. I think his preferred method was firing squads for treason, so step up and be the first to have your wishes enacted you bastard.

Apologies for the swearing, but I hate this crook so fudging much, and it's so frustrating that he is still there vying for power again.
Click to expand...
Felt good to get that off your chest right?
 
MickiQ said:
Felt good to get that off your chest right?
Click to expand...
Yes :) . It's nice to have a space to vent, where you can actually swear, and don't have to filter yourself.

Seriously though, he is extremely dangerous, and it is so frustrating to see him actually contesting the election, instead of being in an orange jumpsuit in a maximum security prison. How on earth can the US claim to have the best democracy in the world, when this is allowed? The world is looking on in horror at the freakshow.
 
breadandcircuse said:
Yes :) . It's nice to have a space to vent, where you can actually swear, and don't have to filter yourself.

Seriously though, he is extremely dangerous, and it is so frustrating to see him actually contesting the election, instead of being in an orange jumpsuit in a maximum security prison. How on earth can the US claim to have the best democracy in the world, when this is allowed? The world is looking on in horror at the freakshow.
Click to expand...
It's the best democracy money can buy
 
i've posted about these people before, they're still at it

newrepublic.com

Local Libertarian Party Doubles Down After Violent Harris Threat

The New Hampshire Libertarian Party threatened Kamala Harris, and then somehow made things worse in a follow-up tweet.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com

“Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero,” the party wrote on X, before receiving swift backlash and deleting the post. Later that day, the party published a follow-up, announcing that it “deleted a tweet because we don’t want to break the terms of this website we agreed to” and claiming that libertarians are “the most oppressed minority.”

On Tuesday, the account released a lengthier additional follow-up, insisting that the original tweet did not call for Harris’s assassination but “merely acknowledg[ed] how some members would react to one.”

But the newest post somehow made things worse, referring to historical instances of violence that were supposedly “necessary to advance or protect freedom,” including the assassination of “past tyrants like Abraham Lincoln.” Further, it stated that “it’s good when authoritarians” (that is, “progressives, socialists, and democrats”) are made to “feel unsafe or uncomfortable,” which the account’s provocative posts “are frequently explicitly intended” to do.
 
Jeff Robinson said:
Just found out her dad is called 'Donald J Harris'!

en.wikipedia.org

Donald J. Harris - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
He is a leftist economics professor.
Click to expand...

belboid said:
DJT was actually telling the truth when he said her dad was a Marxist lecturer. His book is very good.
Click to expand...

"... Trump’s chiding that Harris is preparing to turn over the means of production to working people is just more of his blathering buffoonery However, Trump did manage to get one fact right during the debate when he asserted, “Her father is a Marxist professor in economics . . .” - but then he had to spoil it with a lie: “. . . and he taught her well.” It’s true that Kamala Harris’s father, Donald J. Harris, studied Marxism and has been described as a Marxist economist. Unfortunately, he obviously didn’t teach her well enough."
Click to expand...

Calling Kamala Harris a ‘Marxist’ Insults the Legacy of Black Women Radicals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
466
frogwoman
frogwoman
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Kevbad the Bad
K
tim
Lula's time is up.
Replies
3
Views
478
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
krtek a houby
JD Vance's time is up
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
166
Views
8K
two sheds
two sheds
Sweet FA
Hopefully Sean 'Diddy' Combs' time is up
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
ID47
I
Back
Top Bottom