Belize

The latest thing that is catching on is questioning Trump about why he hasn't released medical info about his shooting. Not to say that isn't important, but rather I'm pointing out how fast people's attention goes from one thing to another.

Interesting in retrospect: Economist Ray C. Fair has been predicting the popular vote of presidential elections for decades. Back in 2014, he began making predictions for the upcoming 2016 presidential election. From 2014 to election day, he insisted the Republican candidate would win the popular vote. He was wrong. Democrat Clinton won the popular vote. He attributes his wrong prediction to how horrible Trump is. A normal Republican, he insists, should have won 56% of two-party popular vote. Instead Trump got 49%. If you want to get an idea of how poisonous Trump is. If Mitt Romney had been the GOP candidate in 2016, the overall popular vote would probably have been like 53%-47% for Romney.

I agree with everything in this post except for the 2016 comparison. There are two types of elections: incumbent presidents running for reelection (2024) and open seats (2016), and the dynamics are so different I consider them distinct. Whatever screwups the Democrats had in 2016 are not the same kinds of screwups they are or will be doing in 2024. Beyond that, I agree maximizing the chance of defeating Trump is an incumbent president running that we can use as a vessel for the anti-Trump vote.

I respect the academic politics people for no other reason than they make predictions based on their research and stick with it in the face of contradictory news. Political scientist Helmut Norpath predicted in March that Biden would win, and he's sticking to it no matter what happens because it's based on a very specific system that he's used for decades. (Specifically, it predicts presidential elections based on what happens in presidential primaries.)

Lichtman is an interesting person. He's quickly gaining a reputation as "the guy who Biden supporters are turning to for copium" but he represents a group of academics who are much more positive on Biden's chances than everyone else. In fact, they look down on punditry and pollsters as people with goldfish brains. That is, pundits and polls move quickly from one thing to the next. You can tell that in that quote from Lichtman. "Anyone who thinks they know the implications" of this particular event.

Part of the answer: Kamala has sent strong signals of "no, stop that".

Yes, but I also have criticism of Silver going back to 2016 when he got that election wrong. I don't think that takes away the merits of my criticism of Silver though: it's not particularly impressive he was correct on 49 out of 50 states in 2008. And he's been milking that ever since.

Why did we ever take Nate Silver seriously? His own self-promotion that he uses to boost his credibility is that he correctly guessed 49 out of 50 states in the 2008 election. 49 out of 50. So, he told us how Wyoming and California would vote. And then coincidentally guessed right which way the few swing states would turn, but he still got one of those wrong. For 2008, an election where it was obvious the Great Recession was going to cause the Republicans to lose. This is the case Silver makes for why he deserves to have a job with a media outlet so that he can get a cushy salary.

I'm not watching that crap.

Also, look to the future. At some point, Vance will displease Trump and Trump will turn on him like the Joker killing one of his henchmen. Trump might even send a mob to murder him.

I refuse to believe this is real.

Me too. I was thinking about billboards and banner ads from unofficial anti-Trump groups with this quote from Vance.

"You previously called Trump America's Hitler. Now you are running with him. Can you explain that?" Vance: "......"

Breaking news: Trump picks Vance, gives Biden a boost. I'm only half joking.

Judge Cannon has just brought Trump's crimes back to our attention.

By Cannon's logic, Special Counsel Durham or Special Counsel Hur could *not* have indicted Joe Biden or Hunter Biden. Because doing so would be unconstitutional.

Cannon has taken a position contrary to what every court except Clarence Thomas has ruled, in the action of dismissing a case against the man who appointed her to her seat. She has invited intense ethical scrutiny upon herself.

Cannon's ruling is absurd and unjust on its face. A politician in a robe trying to let off the hook the politician who appointed her. Getting her off the case would be the only thing to do here.

I maintain incumbency is a major factor in determining the outcome of presidential elections, and the effect of this is to limit past elections that you can compare 2024 to. I instinctively downplay comparisons to 2016, 2008 and 2000, for example. Instead, I focus on 2020, 2012 and 2004 as analogous.

A new rule: Anybody who confidently predicted Biden would drop out of the race: perhaps these guys don't know what they are talking about in regards to the election. They're clearly engaged in groupthink and just believe whatever the popular thing is on any given day. I assume any media pundit or journalist who said Biden would drop out to be full of sh*t now.

No further comment on all of this. But I suppose I can get this back on topic with a harmless joke. What do you call a lawyer who is bad at lawyering? A senator.

Yes yes. I know you don't like it when you realize I'm actually correct.