I'm aware of those numbers. And swing voters exist. The question is whether throwing some constituency under the bus would pay off. And you're handwaving about Joe Rogan and LatinX. (I checked out the Dem platform. Nothing about LatinX, didn't even use it. Used "latino." And I don't recall Harris using it, let alone taking a position on it.) So what do you do, specifically, to whom, and what reason is there to think it would pay off big, not the non-zero dodge, but big.
So you're making up numbers and not identifying any definable and significant groups of voters who might actually swing or explaining why they would. Imaginary math. Thanks for confirming.
So let's try to flesh this out, as if there were a real hypothesis on the table. (No hypothesis can be tested if it lacks content.) Democrats throw, say, the queers under the bus. (Let's leave aside what this would actually involve.) This will lose them a bunch of votes, say half a million. Will three times that number then either switch from Trump or vote for Harris rather than stay home? Who might these people be, and where would they come from? And why would this happen? Unless you have answers to these questions based on some kind of evidence or some other theory, then all you're saying is that three is bigger than one. Imaginary math.
It seems they have, which falsifies your original idea about "we" having moved. It was just a different bunch of folks talking about different things all the time. Now another bunch has shown up to talk about something else.
My position is that made-up numbers (1% and 3%) of unspecified potential constituencies to be dumped or courted are made-up numbers of, basically, undefined pools of voters and don't mean squat. That doesn't make Trump the "null set." Indeed, I'm pretty sure that's not what a "null set" is.
As for the current election, world-wide trends suggest that Harris was always likely to lose, though it wasn't inevitable, and ultimately she did. Though not as badly as initial numbers suggested. Probably for reasons more consequential than not going on Joe Rogan's podcast when and where he wanted it done.
You didn't answer the question, you just restated your original point.
To recap: Who is "we" and did whoever this we is or are previously talk about A and have now "moved" to B, or is it just a different bunch of people talking about a different bunch of stuff?
Who is this "we" who have actually "moved?" A bunch of different people are saying a bunch of different stuff, but I don't see many people moving from A to B, just a lot of people who have decided to talk about B without ever having talked about A.
Edward Bennett Williams, probably the greatest trial lawyer of the generation before mine, said that, assuming minimal competence on both sides (not a trivial assumption, sadly), 40% of all cases that go to trial can't be won, 40% of them can't be lost, and in only 20% of them does the comparative skill of the lawyer make a difference
This is somewhat over-simplified. A manslaughter conviction usually counts as a prosecution win and a defense loss, but if the odds of a murder conviction were strong enough, it could be the opposite. A $500,000 verdict for a plaintiff usually counts as a win for the plaintiff and a loss for the defendant, but if the last settlement demand was for $2,000,000, it could be the opposite. And the comparative skill of the lawyers might have made the difference.
That quibble aside, however, the general point holds.
There isn't any indication that Trump negotiated with anybody. Unless you think floating a self-evidently bad and extremely vulnerable choice out there that he didn't have to make and letting nature take its course counts as negotiating. Even that assumes he had some idea of the likely outcome of the move, wanted it, and had some end in mind that that outcome would serve -- and there's no indication of that either.
This. if we want to go back to situations other than those we found ourselves in, we can stipulate that Biden would not seek renomination and an open primary process might have given us a candidate who could have won. Maybe it would have been Harris with more time to get herself out in front of the voters, but maybe not. Then you can name any pale-skinned penis owner you think might have done better, and you might be right. Not that there would be any way to tell, but it would be a sensible alternative history to pursue. That's a very different question, though, from how well Harris played the hand actually dealt.
A charming faith in the power of speechifying. Aristotle had a few things to say about what it takes to put a point across, and it takes a lot more than that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
So it seems. What about now?
"
I'm aware of those numbers. And swing voters exist. The question is whether throwing some constituency under the bus would pay off. And you're handwaving about Joe Rogan and LatinX. (I checked out the Dem platform. Nothing about LatinX, didn't even use it. Used "latino." And I don't recall Harris using it, let alone taking a position on it.) So what do you do, specifically, to whom, and what reason is there to think it would pay off big, not the non-zero dodge, but big.
"
Only if the numbers work.
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
Anything covered by the pardon.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
So you're making up numbers and not identifying any definable and significant groups of voters who might actually swing or explaining why they would. Imaginary math. Thanks for confirming.
"
So let's try to flesh this out, as if there were a real hypothesis on the table. (No hypothesis can be tested if it lacks content.) Democrats throw, say, the queers under the bus. (Let's leave aside what this would actually involve.) This will lose them a bunch of votes, say half a million. Will three times that number then either switch from Trump or vote for Harris rather than stay home? Who might these people be, and where would they come from? And why would this happen? Unless you have answers to these questions based on some kind of evidence or some other theory, then all you're saying is that three is bigger than one. Imaginary math.
On “I Told You So”
It seems they have, which falsifies your original idea about "we" having moved. It was just a different bunch of folks talking about different things all the time. Now another bunch has shown up to talk about something else.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
You're right. Substitute "null hypothesis" and see if it makes a difference. But for that you'd need an actual hypothesis.
"
My position is that made-up numbers (1% and 3%) of unspecified potential constituencies to be dumped or courted are made-up numbers of, basically, undefined pools of voters and don't mean squat. That doesn't make Trump the "null set." Indeed, I'm pretty sure that's not what a "null set" is.
As for the current election, world-wide trends suggest that Harris was always likely to lose, though it wasn't inevitable, and ultimately she did. Though not as badly as initial numbers suggested. Probably for reasons more consequential than not going on Joe Rogan's podcast when and where he wanted it done.
"
Says who?
"
"Trump" as the conclusion of imaginary math is, well, imaginary.
On “Huffpo reports that Harris internals *NEVER* had her ahead.”
If they won't believe their own eyes. why would they believe it from someone they would be predisposed to disbelieve?
"
That would make sense if low-information voters weren't low-information voters, who, by definition, don't know what's true and largely don't care.
On “I Told You So”
You must be new here.
"
You didn't answer the question, you just restated your original point.
To recap: Who is "we" and did whoever this we is or are previously talk about A and have now "moved" to B, or is it just a different bunch of people talking about a different bunch of stuff?
"
Who is this "we" who have actually "moved?" A bunch of different people are saying a bunch of different stuff, but I don't see many people moving from A to B, just a lot of people who have decided to talk about B without ever having talked about A.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
You can do imaginary math all day, especially if you compare sure losses to conjectural gains.
"
Don't let the door....................
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
Edward Bennett Williams, probably the greatest trial lawyer of the generation before mine, said that, assuming minimal competence on both sides (not a trivial assumption, sadly), 40% of all cases that go to trial can't be won, 40% of them can't be lost, and in only 20% of them does the comparative skill of the lawyer make a difference
This is somewhat over-simplified. A manslaughter conviction usually counts as a prosecution win and a defense loss, but if the odds of a murder conviction were strong enough, it could be the opposite. A $500,000 verdict for a plaintiff usually counts as a win for the plaintiff and a loss for the defendant, but if the last settlement demand was for $2,000,000, it could be the opposite. And the comparative skill of the lawyers might have made the difference.
That quibble aside, however, the general point holds.
"
When you set the terms of both sides of the argument, you're guaranteed to win.
On “The Mandate That Wasn’t”
There isn't any indication that Trump negotiated with anybody. Unless you think floating a self-evidently bad and extremely vulnerable choice out there that he didn't have to make and letting nature take its course counts as negotiating. Even that assumes he had some idea of the likely outcome of the move, wanted it, and had some end in mind that that outcome would serve -- and there's no indication of that either.
"
Doesn't seem plausible. Trump doesn't play 11th-dimensional chess and Gaetz apparently pulled out on his own, so there was no Trump "concession."
"
This. if we want to go back to situations other than those we found ourselves in, we can stipulate that Biden would not seek renomination and an open primary process might have given us a candidate who could have won. Maybe it would have been Harris with more time to get herself out in front of the voters, but maybe not. Then you can name any pale-skinned penis owner you think might have done better, and you might be right. Not that there would be any way to tell, but it would be a sensible alternative history to pursue. That's a very different question, though, from how well Harris played the hand actually dealt.
On “All the President’s Nominees: The Legion of Groom”
https://criticalread.substack.com/p/searching-for-the-right-words-to?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-restack-comment&r=4rsnl&triedRedirect=true
On “Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election”
A charming faith in the power of speechifying. Aristotle had a few things to say about what it takes to put a point across, and it takes a lot more than that.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.