Early thoughts on the election - Simon Rosenberg, Hopium Chronicles

[pat_k]

It's long but there are many messages I think are essential to hear. I'll probably transcribe the segments that stood out to me at some point, but don't have time now.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/early-thoughts-on-the-election-video

[msongs]

1. from hopium to flopium? hmmm nt

[Self Esteem]

2. Simon, like Allan Lichtman, has no credibly.

They're peddlers of false-hope.

It's funny he named his blog Hopium because hopium is generally a negative term used for people who has irrational optimism.

[pat_k]

4. Sorry you feel that way.

I disagree. It is not false hope. It is hope grounded in action. It is a mobilizing force.

I for one never paid Lichtman any attention -- his silly "keys" have so much subjectivity baked in, they are meaningless. He made a judgement call and justified with his keys.

And as far as the judgment calls Simon Rosenberg and others made based on on available public polling, we all made judgment calls, knowing that they were just that -- a reasoned judgment that could be wrong.

I have faith in the millions of my fellow citizens who believe in the power of citizen engagement and are finding ways to make a difference both within, and outside of, election cycles.

And if you need a little inspiration, I recommend "Lobbying for Change: Find your voice to create a better society" by Alberto Alemmano

Many democratic societies are experiencing a crisis of faith. Citizens are making clear their frustration with their supposedly representative governments, which instead seem driven by the interests of big business, powerful individuals and wealthy lobby groups.

What can we do about it? How do we fix democracy and get our voices heard?

From successfully challenging Facebook’s use of private data to abolishing EU mobile phone roaming charges, Alberto Alemanno highlights the stories of those who have lobbied for change, and shows how you can follow in their footsteps, whether you want to influence immigration policy, put pressure on big business or protect your local community.

[Self Esteem]

5. For weeks they told us the polls were wrong...

... that Harris was really leading and would win. Not a question about it. And anyone who believed the polls were wrong.

Well...

[pat_k]

7. No. They stayed with independent polls and discounted partisan polling.

And that was absolutely the right thing to do.

The results were in fact within the margins of error of the polls given more weight.

There was speculation based on smaller samples about things breaking toward Harris at the end, but that was never presented as some data analysis fact. It was largely impression and anecdote. And I think they were picking up on a real phenomenon.

What no one seems to have accounted for was the absurd wait times in some democratic strongholds in swing states that suppressed turnout in those areas by as much as 5 or 10%. Idiotically, as in 2016 and 2020, people on this board were cheering long lines as a sign of high turnout when in fact they are consistently associated with suppressed turnout.

I took in what Rosenberg had to say along with other sources and frankly was quite disturbed by the level of confidence expressed on this board. It was WAY out of proportion to what we were being presented as input for making our own judgments. And I cautioned against overconfidence because overconfidence coupled with long lines is a turnout killer (oh she's winning, I don't have to wait 3 hours).

You and others made your own judgments and developed expectations based on inputs. Those inputs were ALWAYS presented with the caveat that this could go either way. Do not blame the input for your choices to ignore that piece of the puzzle.





.

.

[Self Esteem]

8. The partisan polls were more accurate than the supposed-media polls.

They were wrong. They peddled false-hope when the evidence was there that this was going to be a toss-up race.

There were plenty of polls dismissed by those two that either had Harris barely up, tied or down.

They miss-analyzed the data and made assumptions that went against what most every poll was saying.

His assumption that the red-wave polls were a sign Trump was losing since they were flooding the averages to prop him up were wrong.

He assumed Trump going to Virginia and New Mexico meant that he was desperate.

He was wrong.

Trump's campaign obviously saw something, both in the popular vote numbers and the swing states, where they felt they had more to gain going to California and New York and New Mexico and Virginia.

What happened?

In California, Trump did six points better than he did in 2020.

In New York, he did nearly seven points better.

In New Mexico, he did two points better.

In Virginia, he did two points better.

And he's going to win the popular vote because of it.

Everything he said was a miss.

BTW, I didn't make any judgment. I never bought his take anyway. I said since June that this race was a toss-up and that Harris was maybe even the underdog. But so many people dismissed me and popped up his misreading of the data.

Well...

[pat_k]

9. I disagree and don't understand why you are so upset.

The red wave polls had him up 5 or more at times in various battlegrounds. No results came near that.

Results were all within the 2 or 3 point margin the independent polls highlighted had.

No real surprise. Just shocking because it is DT and the reality that he was always within reach of the win he ended up with was rejected by our minds in various ways.

The DT win is beyond a gut punch, but why the anger at Rosenberg? I don't understand.

[Self Esteem]

10. I'm not upset. I just don't trust their takes.

They never once entertained the reality that Harris might be the underdog, and she clearly was for most this race.

[Deminpenn]

14. Bonier and Rosenberg work for Dems

You think they didn't have the same information as you? Rosenberg, when I saw him on MSNBC, always hedged his bets. He never said Harris would win, just that he'd rather be us than them with regard to potential for winning.

[Deminpenn]

13. Trump has been uniquely able to pull sporadic and new voters out

It's amazing to me that he's been able to increase his vote totals each of his 3 campaigns although he won't get as many votes overall as in 2020. This ability is what has flummoxed pollsters in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Polls when Trump is not on the ballot, I think, have been pretty accurate.

Yet, his rhetoric and ideas when used by others attempting to imitate him falls flat and doesn't translate into wins.

The early vote optimism wasn't out of thin air. It was based on the late polls reaching respondents who had already voted saying how they actually voted, not how they were planning to vote.

I understand you personally had access to information that most of the users here didn't, but there's no need to keep beating that drum.

[Cha]

12. Mahalo, pat.. I'm not mad at him or

Allan Lichtman. I didn't count on any poll. When people were "celebrating" on here about Kamala "winning" before the Election. I posted that I don't do that until all the votes are counted.

And, I said.. Call me superstitious But I don't want to Jinx it.

No wonder some are so upset.. they really thought there was no doubt she was going to win.

I don't understand how so many Dems didn't vote and how "the young people went for TSF". All of them except Billionaires are Voting Against their best interests.

So I like people who got knocked down, made Mistakes but Get right back up and Try Again.

Like Kamala said in her speech to her supporters at Howard U.. Never Give UP!

[pat_k]

3. deleted

[Prairie Gates]

6. Do these people ever shut the fuck up?

[Skittles]

11. THANK YOU

yes INDEED

[Deminpenn]

15. FTR, in Pennsylania, Harris won the early/mail in vote

by over 600k, about 65%.