VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 12:58 pm

featureless wrote: Wed Nov 06, 2024 12:31 pm Apparently, people will vote for what they perceive as the least bad option. Dems needed a better alternative. They've become too enamoured of the donor class and forgotten the kitchen table.

That's what this election was all about as we have discussed here a million times - vote for the lesser of two evils because both candidates *SuCk!*. Apparently an awful lot of people perceived Trump as a lesser evil. How bad of a candidate would one have to be to get beat by Trump?

Pretty dang bad. I'm amazed at how big the spread was/is - the polls missed that completely. Trump support was completely under polled.

VooDoo

Nearly a month ago, Kamala Harris appeared on ABC's The View in what was expected to be a friendly interview aimed at pitching herself to Americans who wanted to know more about her. But the sit-down was quickly overshadowed by her response to a question on what she would have done differently from incumbent president, Joe Biden: "Not a thing comes to mind." Harris's answer - which became a Republican attack ad on loop - underscored the political headwinds that her jumpstart campaign failed to overcome in her decisive loss to Donald Trump on Tuesday.

Bisbee wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:09 pm Economic violence and Assault (threat of physical violence) cannot be compared unfortunately. Assault causes an immediate fight or flight feeling in us whereas economic violence may not even be understood for months and years, like water progressively boiling a frog. It takes a tremendous investment of time and mental effort to even begin to understand being a victim of economic violence even though everyone gets pissed off for being robbed. Half of American voters seriously doesn’t understand at all how tax-cuts for the wealthy actually harms their own family’s futures and their bottom line.
Americans are increasingly being treated as fat pigs ready for the slaughter. And it’s because they are dull eyed and easily led by their passions.

CowboyT wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:23 pm

Bisbee wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 1:09 pm Economic violence and Assault (threat of physical violence) cannot be compared unfortunately. Assault causes an immediate fight or flight feeling in us whereas economic violence may not even be understood for months and years, like water progressively boiling a frog. It takes a tremendous investment of time and mental effort to even begin to understand being a victim of economic violence even though everyone gets pissed off for being robbed. Half of American voters seriously doesn’t understand at all how tax-cuts for the wealthy actually harms their own family’s futures and their bottom line.
Americans are increasingly being treated as fat pigs ready for the slaughter. And it’s because they are dull eyed and easily led by their passions.

Oh, so just dismiss the threat of physical violence against me. Both you and CDFingers want to just dismiss that. Had it been Republican supporters who did this, you'd be all, "they're terrible to do that to you!" But it's "your tribe", so you want to excuse it or try to pivot, explain it away, all that. Even tacit approval of violence is still approval. Shame on you, both of you, for that.

Bisbee wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 4:34 am Ain’t anyone’s personal stories I am pointing to in my post. I am making the point that everyone instinctively recoils at assault but few people even know how or why they are being hurt by economic violence. (But everyone could, if they put 2 & two together.) No one here is dismissing violence in any form whatsoever. It is clearly the misinformed reaction to economic violence by so many Americans that served us 45 as 47 (trusting the promises of a con-artist to make life better for them) and that sort of ignorance can get one . But having someone threaten to knock your lights out… Obviously I don’t condone that sort of behavior either.

So were the polls wrong about it being a tight contest? At the national level, they certainly appeared to underestimate Trump for the third election in a row. But in the battleground states such as Pennsylvania, where most of the polling was focused, Trump's margin of victory was typically within striking distance of his performance in the polls, even if the forecasts were slightly lower than the final outcome. The average polling error seen in these swing states was not actually that big. Still, in tight campaigns, small changes can make a big difference. Ahead of the results, media outlets including the BBC warned that despite the close race in the polls, it could end up looking like a landslide for either candidate, given the margin of error. In some less closely-watched parts of the US, polls underestimated Trump's support more significantly - a sign of some blind spots, said Michael Bailey, a professor at Georgetown University and author of the book Polling at a Crossroads.
"At a glance, in the battleground states, polls ran a little hot for Harris but really not so bad, but when you dig deeper, it's all a little less impressive," he said.

In Florida, for example, polls tracked by RealClearPolitics in the final weeks of the election put Trump ahead by about five points. He won by a greater margin of 13. In New Jersey, Harris was expected to win by nearly 20 percentage points, based on the two most recent polls tracked by the site. Her margin was more slender, closer to 10. "Just imagine if we knew that or had a better sense of that a month ago. I don't know that it would change the election but it would certainly change our expectations," Prof Bailey said. He said pollsters this year may have leaned too heavily on bets that people would behave roughly as they did in 2020 - failing to anticipate the depth of the swing among Latino and young voters toward Trump. "These models that assume so heavily that we're going to get a repeat... they're a disaster when there's a big change," he said. But pollster Nate Silver, founder of the 538 polling analysis site, said there were signs of peril for those who were looking.


Writing about the election results, he noted a poll from New York City last month, which indicated Trump making major inroads in the traditional Democratic stronghold. "This is a problem the party should have been prepared for, because there was plenty of evidence for it in polls and election data," he wrote. Debate about the polls is sure to continue in the months ahead. That is particularly true in a year in which figures like Trump and billionaire supporter Elon Musk have promoted betting markets - many of which did forecast a decisive Trump victory - as a more accurate alternative. Experts said the polling profession does face challenges. Response rates to surveys have plunged, as it becomes easier for people to screen calls from unknown numbers. The fall has also coincided with rising distrust of media and institutions - a feature particularly pronounced among Trump supporters that some argue has led to their under-representation. Prof Bailey said the big miss in the much-discussed poll of Iowa by Ann Selzer - that was released days ahead of the election and indicated a three-point lead for Harris in the state - showed the risks of the traditional approach.


To make up for such issues, many of the most high-profile polls now function more like models, with firms weighting responses from different groups and making other assumptions about factors such as turnout. Many pollsters have also shifted to using online surveys, but experts said those were known for being unreliable. This year, voters who were inclined to fill out online polls were more likely to be Democrats, James Johnson of London-based polling firm JL Partners told the Times of London newspaper. They were "more likely to be young, they’re more likely to be highly-engaged, they’re more likely to be working from home," he said. Prof Bailey said pollsters had to "move on" from random samples and get comfortable with modelling, while doing a better job testing and explaining their assumptions. But Prof Jon Krosnick of Stanford University said without truly random samples, surveys would remain vulnerable to error. Pollsters are "trying hard but they keep trying to be too clever," he said. "What we need to do is go back to basics and spend the time and money that it takes to do polls accurately."

CDFingers wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 8:00 am

Bisbee wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 4:34 am Ain’t anyone’s personal stories I am pointing to in my post. I am making the point that everyone instinctively recoils at assault but few people even know how or why they are being hurt by economic violence. (But everyone could, if they put 2 & two together.) No one here is dismissing violence in any form whatsoever. It is clearly the misinformed reaction to economic violence by so many Americans that served us 45 as 47 (trusting the promises of a con-artist to make life better for them) and that sort of ignorance can get one . But having someone threaten to knock your lights out… Obviously I don’t condone that sort of behavior either.

Yeah, there's something to be seen here. Physical violence is bad and of short duration. Economic violence is also bad and is of much longer duration. I think safely we can condemn both types of violence as being tools of the authoritarian.

My latest mantra says he is a better con man than he was a president.

CDF

Homebuyers in the U.S. are older than they ever have been, and younger buyers are increasingly being crowded out of the market. The median U.S. homebuyer is now 56, up seven years from 49 last year, according to a Monday survey from the National Association of Realtors. In the 2010’s, the typical homebuyer was in their low to mid-40s. These older buyers are also slightly wealthier, with a median household income of $108,800, up from 107,000 in 2022.

First-time buyers, who in the 1980’s were still in their late 20’s, are now around 38 years old, up from 35 last year. And older first-time buyers who can afford homes also had a higher median household income of $97,000, compared to $95,900 a year ago, according to the survey. The median age for repeat buyers also jumped to 61, up from 58 last year. Their income also increased, coming in at $114,300, compared to $111,700 a year ago. The ages of the median typical homebuyer, the median first-time buyer, and the median repeat buyer were all at all-time-highs.

Bisbee wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 4:34 am Ain’t anyone’s personal stories I am pointing to in my post. I am making the point that everyone instinctively recoils at assault but few people even know how or why they are being hurt by economic violence. (But everyone could, if they put 2 & two together.) No one here is dismissing violence in any form whatsoever. It is clearly the misinformed reaction to economic violence by so many Americans that served us 45 as 47 (trusting the promises of a con-artist to make life better for them) and that sort of ignorance can get one . But having someone threaten to knock your lights out… Obviously I don’t condone that sort of behavior either.

highdesert wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 10:06 am Agreed economic violence is something we see in third world countries where people suffer from starvation, but physical violence isn't justified here. People don't have to be starving to be feeling the effects of economic stress, it's when they can't pay bills and provide for their families, they're stressed and they make it known at the ballot box. And I totally understand that people have different spending priorities than I do, but we're not here to run other peoples lives.

Even if everyone here drank the Democratic Kool Aid and voted for Harris it wouldn't have changed the result of this election by one iota. Biden exited too late, Harris wasn't popular as vice president, Harris inherited the nomination without voters having a choice, Democratic issues didn't align with voter concerns, Harris was too far to the left for most voters and tried to change but it was too late...

Post pandemic, people understood supply chain problems, but once solved prices didn't got down and Biden didn't use his bully pulpit to go after manufacturers and businesses. All people heard from the White House was how great the economy was and that unemployment was low. Voters looked back at the Trump years and didn't see the chaos, all they saw was they had more money than they have now. And rents as featureless pointed out, are at unbelievable levels.

Homebuyers in the U.S. are older than they ever have been, and younger buyers are increasingly being crowded out of the market. The median U.S. homebuyer is now 56, up seven years from 49 last year, according to a Monday survey from the National Association of Realtors. In the 2010’s, the typical homebuyer was in their low to mid-40s. These older buyers are also slightly wealthier, with a median household income of $108,800, up from 107,000 in 2022.

First-time buyers, who in the 1980’s were still in their late 20’s, are now around 38 years old, up from 35 last year. And older first-time buyers who can afford homes also had a higher median household income of $97,000, compared to $95,900 a year ago, according to the survey. The median age for repeat buyers also jumped to 61, up from 58 last year. Their income also increased, coming in at $114,300, compared to $111,700 a year ago. The ages of the median typical homebuyer, the median first-time buyer, and the median repeat buyer were all at all-time-highs.

https://fortune.com/2024/11/05/typical- ... llennials/

My parents were in their 30s when they bought their first house post WWII. It's those white and non-white working class voters who made their concerns felt. Building more housing should have been a priority over the last 4 years, Harris mentioned it but too late.