TropicalDingdong 13h ago • 71%
let's keep that going
TropicalDingdong 14h ago • 37%
At least she's not still campaigning with fucking neocons. Early voting records might give us some possible ways she might be able to upset the apple cart. But we have to acknowledge how poorly her campaign strategy has been to give up all momentum and move backwards throughout the swing states.
Specifically, Georgia ain't shit if you've lost Michigan. Still some time on the clock but she really needed to pivot last week.
TropicalDingdong 1d ago • 88%
TropicalDingdong 1d ago • 0%
And we were getting down voted for pointing it out then too.
Kamala should be the president right now and Biden should have been removed by the 25th amendment ages ago.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 0%
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 50%
I'm just gonna throw this out there, but at a ground level, the right isn't remotely as organized as they were in 2020. There had been a lead up to J6 in the form of other rightwing events and marches inDC that set the framework for J6. There had been right wing counter protests of BLM for all of 2020.
Obv we shouldn't dismiss anything but the level of motivation for people to show up is far lower. If there was a legitimate Palestine peace movement right now that gave some things for rwingers to organize against, maybe.
But there is just not the numbers of people in the streets to pull a J6 rn.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 66%
I think every thing you said is very fair and generally accurate.
I disagree specifically with what I consider a major moderation decision.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 25%
I don’t participate in bullshit predictions by people who have zero credentials to accurately make predictions.
Yeah I got it from previous comment. No need to repeat yourself. You live in a world of personal fantasy disconnected from any kind of objective reality where we would have to just "agree" on some verifiable facts, like the results of a poll.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 16%
Pols aren’t facts.
I mean for you, it seems like facts aren't facts. You are literally refusing to participate in a shared reality.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 14%
Unless the polls are wildly wrong this year, then what I am saying is the objective truth. Kamala is losing this election. The polls could be wrong; but they are probably not. That being unsettling to you doesn't make it false.
And what we do know is that just about the time that Kamala started to shift to the right, this coincides with her loss in momentum and subsequent stalling out, and then backsliding in the polls.
And I've got to keep repeating it because a cult-like mentality of denying reality has gripped many people. Its sad and uncomfortable that she isn't doing better. But we have to live in a fact based world, even if we don't want to hear it.
Reality: Kamala's polling numbers have gone to shit.
Reality: She was doing really well up until the convention. On the final day of the convention, she refused to platform a Gazan and instead platformed several Republicans.
Reality: She then accepted Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney's endorsements, both neoconservatives, and started pitching herself as a "bi-partisian" good for business candidate, going so far as to hit the campaign trail with Liz Cheney.
Reality: These shifts in policy, rhetoric, and how she was campaigning correlate almost exactly with when she stalled out and began to slide in polling.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 6%
It needs to be repeated because it is true, and its causing Harris to lose this election.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 100%
Does seem weird. I really hope this is an indication that young women have been massively under sampled in the previous 4 months of polling.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 42%
Another interpretation of the situation is that through the suppression of a point of view, that while unpopular, was objectively true; ultimately does have an editorial impact on what conversations do or do not happen. So when it comes to "the hive mind, mass downvotes and reports", you quite literally made an editorial decision to suppress a particular point of view. Nothing Ozma was posting was out of line, but you took editorial issue with his posts and banned him.
That editorial moderation literally curated a culture of "the hive mind, mass downvotes and reports", that poisons this forum to today, and has furthered a discussion culture which is dismissive/ in-denial of objective reality when it disagrees with their personal sentiment.
For better or for worse, you are the leader of this space. And I do see your logic in why you thought what you were doing was appropriate. However, a leader is ultimately responsible for outcomes.
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 60%
This you fam?
TropicalDingdong 2d ago • 75%
Rachel Maddow and edging, name a more iconic duo.
TropicalDingdong 3d ago • 100%
I hope he's seeing some internal polling that gives him panic attacks at night.
TropicalDingdong 3d ago • 30%
People decrying genocide aren’t being honest. They know who the real warmongers are.
I'm sure calling people who oppose genocide dishonest is gathering heaps of voters for Kamala.
TropicalDingdong 3d ago • 57%
I agree thats prob the best proxy. I don't know that we'll get any exit polling data from GA or NC yet, but the turnout numbers hopefully look good good for Harris. She needs wide margins to keep this out of the SC.
Posting this because its happening live. 300k viewers. Currently a tornado outbreak in the evacuation zones for Milton.
Windows彡96 – Vibes (FULL ALBUM) Track 03 RED SKYS
At one point in this weird nonsensical abortion they call life, I had a 64 Ford Econoline. It was the model that had 360 windows (the 8 door model). It was the most fun touring vehicle I've ever been in. Granted it only did 55 with the pedal to the metal (quite literally floored). The best vehicle I've ever owned. So great for doing back roads in. You could see EVERYTHING. So the Canoo is going to have a 360 view *and* a full roof moon roof? Consider me sold for island driving. Come out and see me bruh you gonna get a tour of the island. So has anyone bought a like.. gen 0 vehicle before? I've never owned a new car. And never from ab untested manufacturer. I'm just lucky to have this chanc. Like, I expect deliveries to start in the next few months and I'm trying to set expectations for myself. Has any one here preordered an EV? Is this a mistake? Should I just get another leaf?
Are you making pizza this weekend?? If so what is your plan? What kind of dough or prep? What style? How are you going to bake it? Any changes from last time you made pizza?
www.dropsitenews.com
On Monday, flights at Beirut’s airport were canceled as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to carry out a “harsh” military attack on Lebanon, following Saturday’s deadly strike on a Syrian Druze community in the Israeli-occupied Golan town of Majdal Shams. The horrifying incident killed 12 children on a soccer field. Israel and the U.S. immediately accused Hezbollah of hitting the town with a Falaq-1 rocket launched from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has denied it was behind the attack and both it and the Lebanese government have called on the United Nations to undertake an independent investigation. The way that blame for this incident unfolded publicly lends itself to competing theories of responsibility. Earlier Saturday, Hezbollah had announced it had launched a series of attacks on nearby Israeli military installations in retaliation for the killing of four Hezbollah fighters in an Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon. When news of the deaths at the soccer field began to emerge, Hezbollah swiftly issued a statement saying that it had “no connection to the [Majdal Shams] incident at all, and categorically denies all false allegations.” Hezbollah charged that an Israeli Iron Dome interceptor missile had missed its target and hit the town. Israel has claimed it identified the Hezbollah commander of the strike. [[continue...](https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-war)]
www.natesilver.net
 One of the most important decisions you face as a forecaster is simply when to publish a statistical model for public consumption. If you’re just running a model for your personal edification — or to make bets with — the threshold may actually be lower. If you’re evaluating the impact of a player injury on an NFL or NBA game that you’re considering betting on, for instance, then you might only get a couple of minutes before some reasonably rational assessment of the impact has already been priced into prevailing betting lines. Under these circumstances, a good first-pass estimate can go a long way. By the time you dot all the ‘i’s and cross all the ‘t’s to incorporate the impact of the injury into a formal model, it may be too late. When you issue a statistical forecast publicly, though, I think the responsibility is slightly greater. In some cases, probabilistic forecasts can be confusing to people. And in other circumstances, people can take statistical models too seriously and treat them as oracular when in fact all models rely on the researcher’s assumptions. Let’s not get too carried away with this — some assumptions are better than others, which is why some models are better than others. (And putting a model behind a paywall is a pretty useful trick for self-selecting a more knowledgeable reader base.) But there are times when a subjective estimate may be better, especially in unforeseen circumstances that your model wasn’t really designed to handle. For instance, when Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race last Sunday, I suppose we could have just done a hot swap and immediately replaced him with Kamala Harris — pollsters have periodically tested the Harris vs. Trump matchup, especially since Biden’s disastrous debate on June 27. But I think this would have misinformed even our smart, self-selected group of Silver Bulletin readers more than it informed them. The polls were already in flux, given Biden’s mounting crisis on top of the assassination attempt against Trump on top of the Republican convention, which is typically a period when polls can produce short-lived bounces. And Harris’s candidacy was still hypothetical, although she was clearly prepared, working behind the scenes to become the Democrats’ presumptive nominee within 24-48 hours.
I bought a cheap Chinese manufactured CO2 sensor (RS485) with basically no documentation. It took a while, but I've finally got it reading. 0 to about 1700 was me continuing to work, then I left the room and did some gardening. I came back into the room at about 3400.
Olive oil, garlic, nutmeg, Parmesan, mottz and basil. I think I went half a cycle too long in the oven. I'm not sure the frequency of rotation but I want to get a timer in the pizza kitchen.
Hey all, I modified my Qstove to take a pizza steel instead of engineered stone and am sharing the results here.
This is an approach I've been using since last November to put Biden's polling in a historical context. I'm using the Gallup approval rating dataset because its the longest, deepest single source dataset where the same question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [current president's name] is handling his job as president?". Its been going on since the 40's, but has remained extremly predictive of the next president. Previously, I presented some results (March) in the c/Politics community where using this approach, I said that Biden had between a 5-15% of winning the election. At that time, Biden was polling higher and there was more time between now (then) and election day. I've re-run the simulation with updated numbers and am presenting them here. First, get the mean and standard deviation of how approval ratings for past presidents have typically changed leading up to an election based a 30 day window around the current date. I then compare them to a 30 day window at election day, and get back a distribution of shifts: the typical range over which a presidents approval might change between now and the election  Next, I calculate a mean and standard deviation of approval ratings for incumbent Presidents who win their second term. We kind-of have to stick with incumbent presidents, based on the nature of the data. There really is no way to ask the Gallup pole question of non-sitting presidents or candidates.  Using these two distributions, I take a sample from the 'shift' distribution, and add it to Biden's current polling.  I then calculate the probability this new polling value would have come from the "Incumbent presidents who won election" distribution, effectively giving us the probablity, that based on extant polling, Biden can get into an approval range not-disimilar to Presidents who won re-election. Based on this approach, I'm getting an average probability of Biden winning the election at around half a percent. This is down substantially from March, where I had him at at between 5-15% probability of winning. At that time, he was both polling better, and there was more time between March and the election for him to improve.  Using this approach, a Biden victory is currently standing at between a 5 and 6 sigma event. To put it into context, [last years historic rate of ice-melting in the arctic was also a five sigma event.](https://marine.rutgers.edu/announcements/what-is-a-5-sigma-event-why-the-sea-ice-in-antartica-is-alarming-scientists/) Bonus figure: The distribution of Presidential polling for sitting presidents who did not win re-election: 
So I'm going to try and stay true to Nate's blog-post, but I see his predictions as too important to be pay-walled (especially consider how 538 basically isn't 538 any more since they don't use Nate's model). All of the figures in this post are my own and made using Nate's data and were made in R using ggplot. Just simple reproductions for the purposes of discussion. I didn't do all of them, just the big headline figures. If you are in Dark Mode (as you should be) you may have to right click the figures and look at them in a separate tab. Figure 1: Who is ahead in the polls.  Figure 2: Who is ahead in the polls (inset to recent weeks).  Table 1: State and national polling.  Table 2: Who is favored to win the Presidency?  Figure 3: How each candidate's chance of wining has changed.  Figure 4: Probability of Winning Presidential Election.  Keeping everything editorial out of the post. These are basic reproductions of Nate Silvers recent post using data he provided, to support having a discussion.
www.pewresearch.org
Key figure: 
www.dropsitenews.com
> The federally appointed monitor tasked with overseeing the United Auto Workers, Neil Barofsky, is ratcheting up his conflict with UAW President Shawn Fain, announcing another investigation into the union leader who rose to national prominence amid the successful “Stand Up Strike” against the Big Three automakers. > > Yet newly unveiled documents suggest Barofsky’s pursuit of Fain has less to do with concerns over union self-dealing and more to do with the politics of Israel-Palestine. > > Barofsky was appointed in 2021 as the result of the Department of Justice-led consent decree put in place in lieu of prosecution of the union itself for rampant corruption, following prison sentences for two consecutive UAW presidents.
www.nytimes.com
> Some major Democratic donors have told the largest pro-Biden super PAC, Future Forward, that pledges worth roughly $90 million are now on hold if President Biden remains atop the ticket, according to two people who have been briefed on the conversations. > > The frozen contributions include multiple eight-figure commitments, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the situation. The decision to withhold such enormous sums of money is one of the most concrete examples of the fallout from Mr. Biden’s poor debate performance at the end of June. > > Future Forward declined to comment on any conversations with donors or the amounts of any pledged money being withheld. A Future Forward adviser would say only that the group expected contributors who had paused donations to return once the current uncertainty about the ticket was resolved.
Key quotes: > House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) met with President Biden Thursday night to relay the sentiments of the House Democratic Caucus regarding his reelection bid, as concerns grow within the ranks about the incumbent’s ability to beat former President Trump in November. > > The meeting — revealed in a letter to colleagues Friday morning — came after Jeffries spoke with a large swath of House Democrats in the two weeks since last month’s debate, which prompted concerns about Biden’s viability at the top of the presidential ticket. . The meeting took place after Biden’s high-stakes press conference that evening, a source familiar told The Hill. > > Jeffries said he passed along the “full breadth” of thoughts he heard within his caucus.
Not sure if this violates rules, but this is breaking news and the primary source. Local news video. 17th house Democrat calls for Biden to step down. Post NATO-news conference, 6:30 Pacific Time