a lot.
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
so, what directions are key swing demographics likely to move in this election?
i'm going to create a collection of partial orderings. if obama > clinton, that means obama did better with that demographic than clinton. an equal means they should be about the same.
blacks, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. so, expect biden to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, the bleed of blacks out of the party. they probably won't vote republican, they'll probably stay home, thereby skewing the numbers to make it look like they shifted right.
latinos, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. likewise, biden should accelerate the movement of latinos out of the party that started with clinton (with obama, really; why does everybody ignore the deporter-in-chief thing?). some of them might swing republican, on social issues. sadly.
northern white liberals:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden appears to be likely to regain much of the ground with northern white liberals that clinton lost. this doesn't appear to be rational, but it's happening, nonetheless. and, he needs to be careful he doesn't fuck it up.
southern white conservatives:
(obama = biden) < clinton. biden appears likely to lose the increase in support amongst southern white voters that clinton generated and that made states like texas a little closer than they had been in some time. biden wouldn't be expected to outperform clinton in this region, given her history there. clinton should have won missouri.
white moderates, north & south:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden, however, appears likely to regain obama's stronger support amongst white moderates.
why is my analysis so drastically different?
because i'm looking at the actual data, not projecting my feelings about race on to it, as appears to be common in "progressive" circles that want the democrats to be the "black party", and overthrow republican white supremacy, or some silly thing such as that. as facile as that narrative is on it's face, the numbers just don't exist to support it...
clinton probably would have been more likely to win in the south than in the north, and i may be the person that suggested that, but it would have been on the back of white conservatives, who would have repelled young liberals. that makes that strategy very hard for the democrats - if you're trying to win the south by running on the right, like clinton & biden have been, you have to throw away the young voters that were supposed to be the reason you're targeting the region in the first place. and, then you're outrepublicaning the republicans, which is exactly what's happening.
if they were to run a liberal in the south, they'd have to rely entirely on young people, who vote in lower numbers - a strategy we saw bernie fail at (but that may work better in like 20 years, if the often more market-oriented asians don't walk in and blow the whole thing up). but, if they just ran a damned liberal, they'd sweep the north, and wouldn't need to worry about winning in the south.
i hope i'm clarifying this a little.
but, my main point is this: please, people....call a statistician. don't wing it. polls are tricky.
at 14:54
when ms. tam points out that the recommendations around mask use are evolving with the science, it's important that you realize that what she's really saying is "hey, i read the papers just like you do.".
and, what do you want? a crystal ball?
she didn't take covid-501 at med school; she doesn't have a base of knowledge to draw on, and she's not even out there working in the field. she really is just reading the papers and following along, even if she has access to better data than you do.
if you really want an expert opinion, go to a field hospital, or interview somebody that is uploading papers to medrxiv. those are the people doing experimental work on the ground, that are really trying to figure this out and adjusting to things as they see it happen.
ms. tam is just a bureaucrat, and she doesn't have the answers you're expecting her to. nor is she ever going to get them...
the studies on mask use are clear enough: they don't work, except incidentally and as an absolute last line of defense. so, if you want to take every possible precaution because you're just like that then it makes sense to wear one. but, unless your mask use is accompanied by very specific behaviour, it will not substantively reduce your chances of infection - and if that very specific behaviour is adhered to, the extra protection provided by the mask is truly at best marginal.
the suggestion to utilize a filter is long overdue, but it's still hardly going to save you, if you're at risk. the bottom line is that humans need to exchange air particles with the atmosphere in order to undergo cellular respiration or they will overdose on carbon dioxide, and there's not a way to do that that eliminates the risk of viral transmission short of avoiding contact with other people altogether.
all solutions are false.
and, on the eve of a likely trump loss, let's stop for a moment and reflect on why this happened: because the elite could not allow a hillary presidency.
and, it wasn't because of her gender - it was because they knew she was for sale, in a way that even the deep state found threatening.
with all of the phony distractions about russian intrigue from cia talking heads like rachel maddow, we may never really know why they couldn't let her win. who were her benefactors that were so threatening that we had to endure four years of donald trump?
but, it is almost done.
so, meet the old boss. er, i mean. yeah...
i've been saying this for years.
on a right-left scale, trudeau is decidedly right of centre, and has been the whole time. we're seeing it come out in the pandemic response, too, where the most left-wing leader in the country is probably, bafflingly, jason kenney - and doug ford seems to be the only one pulling his head out of his ass about it, however slowly (it's a great, big ass, after all, give him space to get it out of there). meanwhile, the most conservative responses are coming from ndp governments.
the dauphin seems to have picked up his concept of liberalism more from bill clinton than from his father, in truth.
there's a reason he got passed over, and if it wasn't clear then, it should be now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)