Actually, It's Not

by wj

There’s an old aphorism:

Prediction is hard; especially about the future.

I’ve seen it attributed to various sages, including Yogi Berra and Albert Einstein.  The thing is, it’s not true. Prediction is very, very easy.  What’s hard is accurate prediction.  So, since it’s easy, I’m going to venture a prediction.  (Aided by the fact that being wrong costs me little or nothing.)

Prediction: this year’s American election is going to be a landslide.  As in, Harris not only wins big on the popular vote (pretty much a no-brainer, given how the popular vote has gone this century), she wins big in the Electoral College vote, too.  As in, she wins all of the states that Biden won, plus North Carolina, Florida, and maybe Montana, Texas and Nebraska, too.  Also, Democrats not only keep all of the Senate seats they currently hold (bar West Virginia), but also pick up seats in Florida and Texas.  And get a substantial majority in the House as well. 

Why would I believe such obvious nonsense?  Multiple reasons. 

• First, Harris is turning out to be a far better campaigner than she was in the 2020 primaries. Both in how she does herself and in how her campaign staff handles messaging.  The latter has been effective in making her case to big chunks of the population which normally aren’t expected to show up and vote.  It has also been quite effective in trolling her opponent, leading to a bunch of unforced errors on his part.
• Second, her VP pick is also proving to be a really good campaigner. In particular, he relates well to the blue collar and rural voters that Democrats have often struggled with.  Something that is highlighted by the contrast to just how terrible JD Vance is at human interactions.  Put Walz on local radio, talking football in places where high school football is a religion, and some amazing things might happen.
• Third, Trump is visibly deteriorating, more every day. To the point that we are even seeing headlines in the MSM about how he is ranting, making no sense, etc.  ("Both sides" may be losing its charm for them.)  Even in front of ostensibly friendly crowds, people who once were supporters seem to be rethinking their vote.  They may not vote for Harris, but they may just decide that they have better things to do with their time than vote at all.  (Which helps down ballot Democrats.)
• Fourth, the Dobbs decision isn’t going away. Having Trump flipping back and forth on Florida’s abortion initiative only helps keep the issue front and center.  As do the various draconian laws passed in various red states.  Note that, whenever abortion rights have been on the ballot, even in deep red places like Kansas, they have won big.  Those abortion rights voters might not have bothered to vote at all otherwise.  But once they show up, they aren’t likely to be voting for the people who made the initiative necessary in the first place.
• Fifth, part of winning an election these days is turning out supporters to vote. That takes a big infrastructure spread across the country.  The Democrats have that.  But what little the Republicans did have is withering, as the money which might have paid for it gets siphoned off to Trump’s personal pockets.  (Some of that is going for his legal bills.  But part of it is also going for super-inflated charges by Trump-owned properties and companies to Republican campaign organizations.) 
• Sixth, at the state and local level, Republican organizations have widely been taken over by Trump fanatics who have no clue how to do the actual job of those organizations; all performance and no work. On top of which, there seem to be increasing numbers of internal fights over who is more Trumpy than whom.
• Seventh, in addition to his other campaign skills, Walz’ “Mind your own damn business” message will play really well in Montana. Folks there aren’t nut-job libertarians like so many in Idaho, but they do dislike outsiders telling them what to do.  I can see at least the possibility of this swinging the state to Harris.  At minimum, it should get Tester over the line in the Senate race.  (Aided by his opponent’s newly surfaced recording of remarks about Native Americans – who are around 10% of the vote is they are motivated to turn out.)
• Eighth, the anti-Trump Republican effort is going strong. The Lincoln Project ads are clearly getting to Trump, leading to him doing all manner of unfortunate (for his prospects) things.  And there is the fact that prominent Republicans, from the Mayor of Mesa Arizona to not just Liz but Dick Cheney are coming out to say not only that they oppose Trump but they are actually going to vote for Harris.  By themselves, those are a handful of votes.  But there are a lot of people** who dislike Trump, but have trouble with the idea of voting for a Democrat; this effectively gives them permission to do so.  (No, I don't understand the mindset.  But I can recognize that it exists.)
• Ninth, to focus just on the Senate, Cruz is enormously unpopular in Texas.  His opponent looks to have a plan to capitalize on that, and the state Republican party leaders don't seem inclined to make any special effort for Cruz (they don't like him either).  They'll still do all their usual shenanigans, just no extra effort.  In Florida, Scott is similarly unpopular.  While the Florida Republican voter suppression effort is far more advanced than Texas', they also have an abortion issue on the ballot to turn out non-RWNJ voters.  

There are more reasons, of course.  But I think that gives a flavor of what I think I'm seeing.  What I'm not seeing is any reason for Republicans to do better than expected.  Yes, Harris is female and non-white.  But the voters who really, really care about that are established Trump voters anyway.  Not a pool of potential new votes. 

I admit that the polls appear to be very close.  At the moment.  But consider: before Labor Day, polls only use is entertainment, or to motivate fundraising.  And polls use sub-microscopic samples of the population, which they extrapolate to the entire electorate.  Those extrapolations assume that the people who answer their (typically landline) phones are typical of whichever demographic they fall into.  And, worse, that the demographics of who will vote this time are like those of previous elections.  But a particular candidate, or a particular issue appearing on the ballot, can pull in a completely different set of voters.  Consider that, before the vote, all the polls in Kansas said that their abortion issue was going to be extremely close; it won 60-40, which in our polarized political environment is beyond huge. And there are nearly a dozen states with abortion measures on the ballot this fall.

So, that’s why I’m thinking landslide.  Of course, if the Democrats get overconfident (see 2016) they could slack off – although they appear to have learned that lesson.  Also, there is always the possibility of an “October surprise”.  However, those can go either way.  The best candidate I’m seeing (but why would it be a surprise if I know about it?) is the recent case involving massive Russian financing of right-wing social media operations.  For the moment, it might turn out to be just another 5 day wonder.  But from the number of Republican political operatives who appear to be suddenly twitchy, there may be a lot more shoes left to drop.

Anyway, here is a long overdue Open Thread.

 ** Political junkies find it almost inexplicable that there are people who are actually still undecided.  But the reality is, most people pay more attention to how things are going at work, or in their main social group (whether church, pickleball club, book club, or whatever), or how their favorite sports team is doing.  You know, important-to-them stuff.  Politics only impinges on their consciousness in the last month or two before a (general) election.

Comments

[wj]

Wow, that was even more long winded than I thought. Ah, well....

[David]

Polls are the worst predictors of election results, except for all the others. Multiple outcomes are possible including a landslide, but I won't bet on anything other than a statistical poll model like Nate Silver's being the best information we have.

[wj]

Silver's original poll aggregation model was a step forward. But these days he is visibly folding in garbage "polls" to shift his results. Garbage in, in pursuit of garbage out.

538, without him, is doing rather better. But they are still at the mercy of the systemic flaws in their input polls. Once we get well into October, their results may achieve vaguely indicative.

[Girl from the North Country]

wj: FYLTGE.

But as regards your fifth point, I'm sure I read something not long ago (which I admit I can't find now) about various super PACs, funded by various tech bros (including Elon Musk??) to which the GOP is outsourcing their GOTV game (as well as targeted online ads etc). Does any of that ring any bells with anyone?

Plus I know from an informant that the GOP, or the Trump campaign, is recruiting sympathisers to go to polling places in swing states on November 5th to "challenge voters and check their rights to vote" - I could not tell what this would entail and didn't want to ask too many questions. I know you are a regular at the polling places, wj, how credible/feasible do you think this is?

[nous]

Yes, GftNC, the RNC outsourced their GOtV to Elon and TPUSA and a couple others, but last I heard the Musk effort had stalled out at least once while they tried to reinvent the wheel on how to do a fairly straightforward task, and they were going back to square one. Not sure how any of the others are doing at all. What does seem to be happening, however, is next to no infrastructure and next to no ground game. They are trying to handle it all on the cheap through tech, and not hiring anyone to actually get out and try to knock on any doors.

So they will have to rely upon gumming up the works to cancel out the Dems' GOtV efforts, which is where the second part comes in.

The Dems are aware of this, and are working hard to try to recruit enough new voters to overcome that friction.

I think the real contest is going to come down to two things that the polls are not going to capture well - new D voters who don't respond to all the polling calls/emails, and R voters who are claiming they will vote, but who may sit this one out if Old 'n' Odd keep wrong-footing themselves with every public appearance.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

#1: Bring your passport with you to the polls when you vote.

#2: if challenged by a MAGAt, show your passport: "this PROVES I'm a citizen, where's yours? None? Get that non-citizen out of here. Probably a Russian agent."

[wj]

the GOP is outsourcing their GOTV game

I saw that. However, the article I read (which I also can't lay hands on immediately) noted that the groups that were being outsourced to had no experience (or onboard expertise). And weren't showing any visible signs of doing anything useful. In short, they looked more like a grift (who'd a thunk it?) than an actual GOTV effort.

As for polling place actions, every state does things differently. I can only speak for California. Here, the voter registration lists are public documents, and challenges to those have to be done prior. At the polls, the voter gives their name, which is checked for two things.** First, to be sure they are registered -- if not, they can register and vote provisionally. Second, to be sure that they have not voted already (by mail, early voting, etc.).

However, important note: it is illegal under California law for anybody, poll worker or observer, to ask to see ID. Which basically makes it impossible to "challenge voters and check their rights to vote".

Someone who wishes to can stand around and observe at the polling place. But they cannot hassle the voters. They cannot observe anyone filling out their ballot. And they cannot campaign, hand out literature, etc. either at the polls or within 100 yards of the entrance. So mostly nobody bothers. I've seen a couple of poll watchers over the years. Usually they figure out, after a couple of hours, that there's nothing to see or do. I like to think it's at least educational for them. :-)

** Well, technically three. We also verify (verbally) their address, to be sure we have the right voter (due to occasional duplicate names) so we can give them the right ballot. These days, we often have a dozen different ones. The differences being in which local races they are supposed to vote. Between town council districts, various utilities and school districts, etc. (all drawn differently), on top of legislature districts, it's a bit complex.

[Girl from the North Country]

nous: thanks for reminder. Also, for the indication that it is not necessarily working. And for credible and hope-inducing theory in your last paragraph.

Snarki: excellent advice.

wj: sounds good for California. I hope (but wouldn't bet) that the same rules apply in the swing states.

[wj]

Other rules absolutely apply elsewhere. I'm just not as familiar with them. For example, I seem to recall that there's one state, which requires ID to vote, that will accept an NRA membership card, but not a college student ID. Others doubtless have equally crazy (perhaps more accurately, crazy like a fox) rules, mostly designed to handicap voters for one party rather than to address any real problem with the voting process itself..

Personally, I have no philosophical objection to expecting voters to show a photo ID. IF there is first put in place a statewide system for people to get IDs for free. Although, given the massive move to mail in voting, it seems a bit silly to bother.

[wj]

Just to be clear how seriously California takes the "Cannot ask for ID" position.

We frequently have to ask voters to spell their name when trying to look them up on the registered voter rolls. Routinely, someone will whip out a drivers license, so we can read it off. We are told, in training, NOT to look at the ID. Of course, we do look, because it's convenient. But we are careful to say "You don't have to show ID" as we do so.

[liberal japonicus]

A nice summary. About the increasing attempts to affect the election by foreign actors, this article is cool because it allow you to search for terms
https://www.wired.com/story/influencers-tenet-benny-johnson-tim-pool-russia-propaganda-videos/

but also thru attempts to challenge voters. I wouldn't be surprised that organizations like True the Vote
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/16/voter-registration-challenges-texas/
are getting foreign financing. wj argues that California is safe, but I don't think the same is true for many of the 49 other states.

Yes, it may all backfire, but it may also add so much uncertainty to the mix that irregardless of the vote, you have massive civil unrest.

While I don't think they are getting paid from overseas, the ability of the mainstream media to try and make this a horserace is also going to play in this. CNN seems to have gotten the race down to one district in Nebraska.

So, the question may not be if it is a landslide or not, it may simply be to inject enough doubt that it actually is a landslide.

[CaseyL]

Getting Florida and Texas into the Harris column will be a real heavy lift, as both states are mounting serious voter intimidation campaigns against Democratic organizations and voters.

Paxton in Texas has sent law enforcement to raid Democratic organizations: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-raids-latino-democrats-lulac-homes/

DeSantis is sending state cops to "investigate" people who signed the abortion rights petitions: https://www.commondreams.org/news/florida-amendment-4

I doubt Harris will get Florida or Texas unless enough REPUBLICANS vote for her. Her campaign is doing great ads to attract Republican voters, and the Two Cheneys' endorsement might help.

GOP-led states aren't harassing or intimidating Republican voters, of course.

[wj]

An optimist could look at just how much effort is getting put into voter intimidation/suppression. And from that estimate how close the folks in state government think things will be.

Notice we don't hear about this sort of thing in Idaho or West Virginia. Not that folks there are any better. Just that they know they don't need to bother. It appears that, in Florida and Texas (not to mention Georgia), the level of confidence is a bit lower. Just possibly, they've got their fingers on the pulse of their voters.

[Hartmut]

#1: Bring your passport with you to the polls when you vote.

But make sure that the state accepts that as a valid voter ID. I think I remember attempts in at least one red state to reject US passports as valid since they are federal not state documents and thus were not on the list. You know, 'proper' (common) USians have no passports since they have no desire to get out of country* even temporarily. It's something for rootless cosmopolitans (vulgo liberals).

*or state or hometown for that matter

[Michael Cain]

I think I remember attempts in at least one red state to reject US passports as valid...

States that have attempted to deny use of a passport to prove citizenship have been knocked down quickly. OTOH, they have won on the issue of residency.

As much of the world points out regularly, US ballots contain a ridiculous number of contests, most of them keyed off of address. My address determines which US House district I live in, which state legislative districts I live in, which city and county I live in, which special districts I live in.

Possibly worth noting that many of the papers that have historically been used to prove residency -- bank statements, credit card bills, utility bills -- are no longer done on paper by mail. Or at least the service providers work hard, including significant discounts, to get customers to go paper-free.

[JanieM]

lj: While I don't think they are getting paid from overseas, the ability of the mainstream media to try and make this a horserace is also going to play in this. CNN seems to have gotten the race down to one district in Nebraska.

I didn't see the CNN article, or at least nothing beyond a headline that mentioned Nebraska. And I think I've said this before, but it may be relevant.

Nebraska and Maine, unlike the other states, split their electoral votes. Two votes (representing the senators if you want to look at it that way) go to the statewide winner. The other votes go according to who wins each congressional district. It's a really stupid way to do it unless everyone does it, but that's the way it is at the moment.

One of Maine's districts will go D, there is no doubt about that. The other went heavily for Clickbait in 2016 and 2020 but has a (barely) D congressman now. I see a lot of Clickbait signs in that district, though, so I suspect it is being assumed that it will vote that way again.

So maybe one of Nebraska's districts is a toss-up and that's why the horserace people are looking hard at it?

[Girl from the North Country]

I know lots of you now read the Guardian/Observer, but for anyone who doesn't, I thought this was interesting. My only caveat is I think these people ignore the fact that a major factor in the Labour victory was the fact that a sizeable proportion of the electorate was desperate to get the Tories out because of sleaze, corruption and incompetence. And this does not, of course, apply exactly, or even much at all, to the US electorate's experience of the Biden administration, except in the fever dreams of RWNJs. In any case, here it is:

How the lessons of the UK election could help Kamala Harris defeat Donald Trump

Deborah Mattinson and Claire Ainsley

Two ex-senior Labour advisers reveal strategy Keir Starmer used to turn its fortunes around by targeting disillusioned ‘hero voters’ – and how it could benefit the Democrats

On 4 July, against all odds, Labour overturned the most shattering defeat in decades to win a stunning landslide. A talented and energetic party team deserves huge credit for this victory: effective communications, innovative digital output, creative policy culminating in the five missions, organisationally brilliant events and a super-efficient ground force – all under the leadership of campaign director Morgan McSweeney and political leads Pat McFadden and Ellie Reeves.

It was a cohesive campaign united by its sharp, disciplined focus on our very tightly defined “hero voters”. Could a similar single-mindedness help Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump on 5 November?

Just three years before, Labour had suffered the devastating setback of the Hartlepool byelection. While Keir Starmer had made significant strides towards returning Labour to the service of working people in his first year as leader, the party still struggled to embrace a disparate coalition of voters stretching from its base to a wider group of progressive voters and including the “red wall” that had so dramatically abandoned Labour in 2019.

It was an impossible task. As the party picked itself up, Starmer’s brief was to really understand the voters who were crucial to that Tory win. He redoubled his resolve to take the party to them. These voters – often past Labour voters – had rejected the party because they believed that it had rejected them. Often Tory voters in 2019, they made up nearly 20% of the electorate. Labour’s focus on economic concerns, from affordable housing to job security, won them back.

For Harris, addressing core issues such as housing, prices and job creation could also win over undecided US middle-class voters, many of whom face similar economic pressures. Labour set about finding out as much as possible about these voters and applying that knowledge to all aspects of campaigning. They were patriotic, they were family oriented, they were struggling with the cost of living: squeezed working-class voters who wanted change.

Starmer was the personification of this segment of the UK electorate. As someone who had grown up in a pebbledash semi, with hard-working parents who were so strapped for cash that at one point the family’s phone was cut off, he identified with these voters and understood them. This became our focus over the next three years. The discipline paid off, enabling the electoral efficiency that won 411 seats, even on a vote share of less than 35%.

Before November’s US presidential election, Harris has turned on its head a contest that looked like a foregone conclusion in Trump’s favour. However, as the data shows, it is still too close to call. We believe that adopting a similar hero-voter approach could make a vital difference, just as it did here in the UK.

The start point is to identify and understand Harris’s hero voters – undecided voters who have considered Trump and live in the handful of most crucial battleground states.

Working with Democratic thinktank the Progressive Policy Institute, we have attempted to do just that, applying lessons from the UK election, conducting polling and focus groups to really understand the voters that matter most.

The context is very different but the parallels are almost uncanny. This group – who in the US self-define as middle class rather than working class as the same group might in the UK – is struggling. Its members believe that the middle class is in jeopardy, denied the dream of homeownership that previous generations took for granted, unable to cover the essentials, and hyper-aware of the cost of groceries, utilities and other bills. Many work multiple jobs just to keep afloat.

As one Michigan swing voter told us last week: “There’s less of a ‘legit’ middle class these days. People are just working, working, working – and I think that’s really unfair.” Another voter in Pennsylvania said: “The middle class is being eroded. You used to be able to work one job and buy a house, but those things are out of reach for people like us nowadays.”

Unsurprisingly, these voters want change – change that redresses the balance. But they are also deeply insecure and want that change within a framework of stability.

Harris can use this balancing act to her advantage, offering a combination of stability and the change voters crave. By addressing concerns such as inflation and homeownership while promising steady progress, she can present a vision that contrasts with Trump’s record, appealing directly to the middle class’s desire for practical, lasting change.

Like Starmer, Harris has an edge: she comes from the same background as these voters. Her middle-class upbringing and understanding of economic struggle give her a unique connection to working-class Americans. She can own this narrative – something that Trump’s rhetoric, despite his populist appeal, can’t match.

There are takeaways for the new Labour government from our research too. US voters want tangible evidence of policies from the Democrats that have helped them and their country. In these early days of the new Labour government, the party will want to plan now what those markers of success will be to their hero voters, well before the next general election.

In our project, we have explored how the lessons from Labour’s successful campaign may translate across, reflecting the mood of hero voters, creating clear dividing lines on party brand, and leader reputation and, ultimately, developing a compelling offer.

From the point where we defined our hero voter focus, we had three years to mainline the thinking through party activity. Team Harris has less than three months. But, looking at what they have achieved in the past few weeks, success now looks within reach. Hero voters may just help to close that gap.

Deborah Mattinson and Claire Ainsley will spend this week in Washington DC with the Progressive Policy Institute, briefing leading Democrats on their project

[nous]

As a matter of political strategy, I think the "hero voters" approach is good. My only worry is that the media, through their endless fascination with horserace analysis, put too much emphasis on the strategy to the point where it becomes a mere stratagem, when what it really needs to be is a message about the Harris administrations values and priorities.

It's not just about winning over the "hero voters," it's about making sure that the good economy that the Democrats have helped to create gets put within reach of ordinary working people, and not just be a set of conditions that benefits executives and finance capitalists.

Workers deserve a larger share of the fruits of their labors, and the Harris campaign needs to put this out as the main plank of their policy agenda. It needs to be presented as a core value, and not just as a means by which to reach a small set of "hero voters" that can help secure a victory.

Dems need to play for a narrative win, not an electoral win. They can't defeat the GOP until they change the ideological grounds on which the election is contested.

A recommitment to labor and to ordinary workers is the way to do that.

[Girl from the North Country]

Workers deserve a larger share of the fruits of their labors, and the Harris campaign needs to put this out as the main plank of their policy agenda. It needs to be presented as a core value, and not just as a means by which to reach a small set of "hero voters" that can help secure a victory.

Agreed.

[skeptonomist]

Most of these things are no different from how they were in previous elections. Trump doesn't really know how to organize election efforts and many MAGAs don't either, but Trump won in 2016 with essentially no organization of his own.

The election will depend on a substantial number of swing voters coming to their senses and realizing what electing Trump will mean. The media have been doing a terrible job of getting this message across. Will they change their tune, or will direct advertising do the trick? Nobody knows.

[wj]

Dems need to play for a narrative win, not just an electoral win.

Fixed that for you.

[nous]

wj - not fixed. Yes, they need to *achieve* the electoral win, but we've seen too many Democratic campaigns that have shaped their approach around hoping to triangulate the electoral side, only to have one of the sides of that triangle slide away. That is what I mean by 'playing for' an electoral win.

What I am saying - what I have been saying since Obama's second term campaign, is that the Dems need to redefine the issues and win on message. It's not about capturing segments, it's about redefining a new narrative of what the center actually is.

The GOP is so far off the center with all the culture war crap that they are set to take themselves out if the Dems can plant one foot solidly on the ground of the solid labor Democrats and push hard from there once again.

[liberal japonicus]

So maybe one of Nebraska's districts is a toss-up and that's why the horserace people are looking hard at it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnmdwuyanj8&t=239s

ad nauseum.

About the 'hero voters', nous' point is mine, it reveals a really problematic framing about elections. It assumes that they are 'hero voters' because they are going to save the country, which then implies that it's a one and done sort of thing. Clark Kent takes off his glasses, saves the day, and then steps back from the messy affairs of non-Kryptonians. We can see how well that is working for Starmer now, he got the prize, but doesn't really have any momentum to deal with the massive problems the Tories left behind.

I suspect that the hero voters frame is one pushed by campaign advisers, who are more interested in getting paid for their role in elections rather than deal with the problems that their myopic focus on elections and winning them brings. You then have campaigners, largely Republicans, trying to shave votes anyway they can, from kicking people off the voting rolls,

https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/floridas-statewide-prosecution-of-voting-with-a-past-conviction-is-unlawful

to disenfranchising large swathes of people
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-voter-suppression-laws-target-native-americans

and creating the conditions to harass voters
https://www.kjzz.org/2024-09-04/how-a-letter-from-conservative-activists-put-az-voting-drop-boxes-back-in-the-spotlight

Which gets you to a point of having the orange turd calling to find out why Georgia can't just 'find' 11,780 votes.

This might seem to be a lot to balance on the shoulders of a 'hero voters' narrative, but it's a lot easier to try and change that narrative so in order to make all those things downstream change.

[Girl from the North Country]

About the 'hero voters', nous' point is mine, it reveals a really problematic framing about elections. It assumes that they are 'hero voters' because they are going to save the country, which then implies that it's a one and done sort of thing. Clark Kent takes off his glasses, saves the day, and then steps back from the messy affairs of non-Kryptonians.

Oh, I assumed it was "hero" in the sense that lots of foodwriters talk about the "hero ingredient", i.e. the ingredient that should be foregrounded. And that by extension therefore, those voters' concerns are the ones which should be emphasised to win over the type and number of e.g. undecideds, who have been determined to be vitally necessary electorally.

[liberal japonicus]

That's really interesting. A quick google for 'hero ingredient' has this

https://www.savannah.co.za/3-ways-to-define-hero-ingredients/

A hero ingredient offers multiple benefits backed by scientific studies, can be used across categories and applications, and is always available. Heroes respond to consumer demand for streamlined, skinimalist routines by helping formulators pare down INCI lists without sacrificing on performance – one hero ingredient can be used instead of many “sidekick” ingredients with fewer benefits

And this guardian article has this

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/mar/21/the-12-ultimate-hero-foods-how-to-improve-your-meals-in-seconds-without-really-trying

They are the familiar ingredients that can add punch, zing and umami to even a five-minute recipe.

There's an interesting tension between the idea of a hero as someone who comes in to save the day and hero as an ingredient that is somehow elevates what had been an ordinary dish into something extraordinary.

This old guardian article lays out the pitfalls and is quite interesting in hindsight. Some things are correct, but other things, not so sure of.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/29/red-wall-brexiters-hero-voters-election-partisan

[Girl from the North Country]

I was thinking of some of the cooking shows I watch,where, for example, cont3stants are told to make a dish where eg tomatoes are the "hero ingredient", and when they make say a minestrone the judges say things like "it's not tomato-forward enough, the tomatoes are just lost in among a lot of other ingredients". Maybe this is more a UK usage?

(sorry for any typos, in bed on phone!)

[Girl from the North Country]

PS I guess "hero" like main character of a story. We have target groups in elections kind of like your "soccer moms", I assumed that was the sort of thing they meant

[liberal japonicus]

Here's the google n-gram, hero voter doesn't appear, hero ingredient only starts with the late 90's

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hero+voter%2C+hero+ingredient&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0

[Cheez Whiz]

This post neglects the mystic chords binding Trump to his base. His deterioration will not penetrate the devotion they have for him, and they are 45-odd percent of the vote. Thus once again, the future of the country will fall to a handful of disinterested voters in a handful of states. The love-in for Harris/Walz will not penetrate either group. The basic instability in this country will not be solved by this election.

[wj]

You're right about Trump's hold over his cult members. But that hard core is seriously less than half of the numbers who voted for him. Either time. So, not 45% of the vote, but something more like 20%.

Now there are also those who are not Trump fans, but who will vote Republican no matter what. However, their numbers are rather lower than one might assume. I'd guess an additional 5-10% max -- and I increasingly incline towards the low end. Which leaves quite a few who, from exhaustion, disillusionment, or for other reasons, are likely to walk away. Or, at least, are persuadable.

[hairshirthedonist]

We have reached the era of The Shallot Ballot.

[Michael Cain]

Now there are also those who are not Trump fans, but who will vote Republican no matter what. However, their numbers are rather lower than one might assume. I'd guess an additional 5-10% max -- and I increasingly incline towards the low end.

Higher than that in the Great Plains part of the country. Trump himself is not particularly popular, but the Republicans have done a good job of convincing people "All Dems are bad, never vote for one."

In fairness, I could be described as believing, "All Republicans are bad, or at least enablers of bad Republicans, never vote for one."

[hairshirthedonist]

In fairness, I could be described as believing, "All Republicans are bad, or at least enablers of bad Republicans, never vote for one."

Sure, but you're right! ;^)

[nous]

So the Harris campaign has launched their policy page:

https://kamalaharris.com/issues/

...and many of the media headlines are framing it in terms of "after being accused of vagueness..."

Have they heard The Papaya of Rage? His policy discussion is either "Yeah, we'll take care of that and it will be beautiful," or "Yeah, that is horrible, but no one will dare to do it if I'm in charge."

Why is the media acting like they are an MRA operator trying to neg a hot woman in the hopes of wearing down her resistance so she'll date them? Why is the media not slamming the complete lack of substantive policy and the constant contradictions on the Papaya Front?

[hairshirthedonist]

"MRA operator trying to neg"

A lot of us are old, you know, nous.

[Michael Cain]

A lot of us are old, you know, nous.

I may be old, but I have three granddaughters, aged two to 11. I have to at least make an effort if I'm going to be able to talk to them in a few more years.

[nous]

I'm old-ish too...

Men's rights pick up artist criticizing a woman to wear down her self-confidence and resistance so that she will become defensive and let him badger her into sex.

[Girl from the North Country]

Have they heard The Papaya of Rage?

Apparently they're desperate for derisive nicknames. Thank God you're not working for them....

[nous]

Apricotastrophe. TanGent. Degenerative AI.

[russell]

I'm sorry to say it, but I generally agree with Cheez Whiz at 9/9/24 1:15 AM.

The cockeyed way we elect presidents in this country really does mean that a really small number of marginally informed voters in a handful of states decide who wins. And a bias in favor of smaller population / rural states is baked into it.

And no matter who wins, the real and deep divisions we live with will persist.

Harris may win this, but I'm not seeing either an electoral or popular landslide.

I'd be more than happy to be wrong.

[hairshirthedonist]

Current aggregated polling at 538 has tRump with 43% of respondents in the overall population viewing him favorably. Looking at self-described Republicans, the number is 80%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

[Snarki, child of Loki]

For-profit pollsters have a strong motivation to give their customers the result that the customer wants. There's plenty of "secret sauce" and statistical shenanigans that can give whatever result is desired, given the motivation.

The exception is the "last poll before the voting", where the established pollsters are motivated to "get it right", because that's what will make their reputation.

So: pollsters "you've never heard of before"? Ignore, or assume that they're dishonest. For-profit pollsters before late October? Take with a metric ton of salt.

Cynical? Perhaps. But cynical *enough* is the question.

[Hartmut]

Darth Vader's voice has fallen silent. RIP JEJ

I wonder what JEJ thought of being mainly remembered for that.

[Michael Cain]

I wonder what JEJ thought of being mainly remembered for that.

I recall seeing an interview with him where he explained that his entire involvement with the original movie was in post-production. He went in one morning and did all the voice takes in a couple of hours. I got the impression he was trying hard to signal the host "Don't ask me for Star Wars stories, I was never more than barely involved."

[Michael Cain]

For-profit pollsters before late October? Take with a metric ton of salt.

I've found it entertaining during the last several cycles that by the time those polls are released, I've already filled out and returned my ballot.

[wj]

I've found it entertaining during the last several cycles that by the time those polls are released, I've already filled out and returned my ballot.

Why am I having trouble believing that what a poll, any poll, reports has ever had the slightest impact on how you voted? On anything.